President Obama. Model for good spending. GM bail out. Do it again Please.

[Stone]

In economics a year is forever.

Tell me, if bail outs and subsidies, are such a poor investment, why do almost all governments use them?

Regards
DL

To get re-elected is probably the politicians biggest concern.

 

[Accountable]

Fools let economics be decided for political party preferences.

Hey look! Something we can agree on! :yahoo:

 

[Stone]

Re:

.........................
Fools let economics be decided for political party preferences.

That's an interesting comment from someone recommending further massive debt generation on top of existing debt commitments

President Obama. Model for good spending. GM bail out. Do it again Please. (emphasis mine)

against concerns and past projections of the CBO that lead to a failure of our economic system if massive debt generation isn't curbed.

But I am interested in your political philosophy.
You argue to legalize drug abuse and use libertarian sources to define the logic of that support..........but use socialism as the tool for economic correction.
Even as an independent, the conflict must be eating away at your mind.
Why?....because the two concepts are diametrically opposed.

Fools let economics be decided for political party preferences.

President Obama. Model for good spending. GM bail out. Do it again Please.

Do you argue out of convenience or have a plan?

 

[Stone]

Hey look! Something we can agree on! :yahoo:

I found his comment rather ironic in this thread

 

[Accountable]

I found his comment rather ironic in this thread

Yeh. hehehehe

 

[Stone]

In economics a year is forever....................

I find this thread incredibly conflicting.
You have been promoting and melding elements of Reaganomics ( trickle down ) with leftist socialism.
Now you comment on the timeliness of economics.
Do you mean a lot can happen in a year or that economics is a short term process?


In general, short term models have been getting us into economic trouble.
Get rich quick on a large scale a negative concept to a successful and stable society/economy.

......GM bail out. Do it again Please.

I doubt the US has the resources to withstand another round of corporate bailouts and survive the economic fall out from the debt load.
It's not a political issue.....just economics and common sense.


http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42636

The United States is facing significant and fundamental budgetary challenges. The federal government's budget deficit for fiscal year 2011 was $1.3 trillion; at 8.7% of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit was the third-largest shortfall in the past 40 years. (GDP is the sum of all income earned in the domestic production of goods and services. In 2011, it totaled $15.0 trillion.)

That concerns the deficit......the total Federal debt now surpasses the GDP.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Overwhelmed yet?
Try this link....it includes 'other' debt obligations
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Back to the CBO:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21999

The United States faces daunting economic and budgetary challenges. The economy has struggled to recover from the recent recession, which was triggered by a large decline in house prices and a financial crisis—events unlike anything this country has seen since the Great Depression. During the recovery, the pace of growth in the nation's output has been anemic compared with that during most other recoveries since World War II, and the unemployment rate has remained quite high.

During the recovery, the pace of growth in the nation's output has been anemic compared with that during most other recoveries since World War II, and the unemployment rate has remained quite high.

And here you are in this thread bragging on the above as success and debating for more of the same by significantly increasing the debt load.
IMO....irrational.

For the federal government, the sharply lower revenues and elevated spending deriving from the financial turmoil and severe drop in economic activity—combined with the costs of various policies implemented in response to those conditions and an imbalance between revenues and spending that predated the recession—have caused budget deficits to surge in the past two years. The deficits of $1.4 trillion in 2009 and $1.3 trillion in 2010 are, when measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP), the largest since 1945—representing 10.0 percent and 8.9 percent of the nation's output, respectively.
For 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws remain unchanged, the federal budget will show a deficit of close to $1.5 trillion, or 9.8 percent of GDP. The deficits in CBO's baseline projections drop markedly over the next few years as a share of output and average 3.1 percent of GDP from 2014 to 2021. Those projections, however, are based on the assumption that tax and spending policies unfold as specified in current law. Consequently, they understate the budget deficits that would occur if many policies currently in place were continued, rather than allowed to expire as scheduled under current law.

The CBO, during an Obama Presidency, does not agree with your argument to significantly increase the Federal debt.

Although recent actions by U.S. policymakers should help support further gains in real (inflation-adjusted) GDP in 2011, production and employment are likely to stay well below the economy's potential for a number of years.

Those actions and your argument are in conflict.

For the period beyond 2016, CBO's economic projections are based on trends in the factors that underlie potential output, including the labor force, capital accumulation, and productivity. The projections therefore do not explicitly incorporate fluctuations resulting from the business cycle.

Translated.....if everything goes well.
And that certainly relates to global politics and energy as we are realizing a recent rise in petroleum products from our current involvement in the Middle East.
Not only are citizens negatively affected by rising fuel costs, so are business models and profits.
Thus the 'if' becomes a very large factor in the economic outlook.


So it's quite easy to see what are viewed only as short term considerations can have long term negative effects, especially when the long term contains unknown events.

As the short term results of the bailouts haven't been the projected results initially claimed and the CBO outlook is already negative to massive increases in Federal debt.......your argument for future bailouts of the same or similar magnitude make no sense.

President Obama. Model for good spending. GM bail out. Do itagain Please.

If I need say more, the U S population is not veryintelligent.

Regards
DL

Sincerely, perhaps you should say less?

 

[Greatest I am]

To get re-elected is probably the politicians biggest concern.

It is for sure. That is why they stick to the tried and true and profited way.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Re:

That's an interesting comment from someone recommending further massive debt generation on top of existing debt commitments

against concerns and past projections of the CBO that lead to a failure of our economic system if massive debt generation isn't curbed.

But I am interested in your political philosophy.
You argue to legalize drug abuse and use libertarian sources to define the logic of that support..........but use socialism as the tool for economic correction.
Even as an independent, the conflict must be eating away at your mind.
Why?....because the two concepts are diametrically opposed.

I am not socialist as that word is usually meant.

More of a liberal that knows that no bird can fly on one wing and am thus conservative on old policies that have value.

Regards

DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I find this thread incredibly conflicting.
You have been promoting and melding elements of Reaganomics ( trickle down ) with leftist socialism.
Now you comment on the timeliness of economics.
Do you mean a lot can happen in a year or that economics is a short term process?

I am not conflicted at all thanks.
I've had my shots.

I meant that a lot can happen in a year.

I doubt the US has the resources to withstand another round of corporate bailouts and survive the economic fall out from the debt load.
It's not a political issue.....just economics and common sense.

Let me know when your doubts turn definitive.

And here you are in this thread bragging on the above as success and debating for more of the same by significantly increasing the debt load.
IMO....irrational.

Again. If so, why do most governments use it along with subsidies?
Try for a non B S answer this time.

Who is irrational? You or the rest of the world?

The CBO, during an Obama Presidency, does not agree with your argument to significantly increase the Federal debt.



Those actions and your argument are in conflict.

Yes. They are wrong.

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

I am not conflicted at all thanks.
I've had my shots.

I meant that a lot can happen in a year.



Let me know when your doubts turn definitive.



Again. If so, why do most governments use it along with subsidies?
Try for a non B S answer this time.

Who is irrational? You or the rest of the world?



Yes. They are wrong.

Regards
DL

I am not conflicted at all thanks.
I've had my shots.

You ought to complain. Maybe you can get your money back.

I meant that a lot can happen in a year.

Indeed it can.
The concept of risk.

Let me know when your doubts turn definitive.

Already done. Obviously you selectively ignore the links to the reasons for that doubt.

Me:
And here you are in this thread bragging on the above as success and debating for more of the same by significantly increasing the debt load.
IMO....irrational.

Again. If so, why do most governments use it along with subsidies?

Non responsive.
Why are you claiming success is a rational reason for continuing massive debt generation when the extension of massive debt generation has been determined a negative to economic growth?
As posted before, your position is irrational.
And sophistry isn't going to save your position :cool

Try for a non B S answer this time.

( See above reply LOL! )

Who is irrational?

You are

You or the rest of the world?

Do I really need to point out that this, like most of your posts, is a fallacious argument?

Yes. They are wrong.

This is for you to prove.

 

[Accountable]

It is for sure. That is why they stick to the tried and true and profited way.

Oh. You're serious?



.................

 

[Stone]

Oh. You're serious?



.................

Funny how comments can be misinterpreted......I originally interpreted his comment

That is why they stick to the tried and true and profited way.

to refer to how the politician was profiteering from wasting the taxpayers money.

 

[Stone]

Re:

I am not socialist as that word is usually meant.

More of a liberal that knows that no bird can fly on one wing and am thus conservative on old policies that have value.

Regards

DL

In other words, you are a fiscal conservative with a liberal tax and spend philosophy????
I don't see how that can 'fly' at all........
Could you please clarify that?