alstry (35.69)

23 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 15, 2009 at 11:18 AM, alstry (35.69) wrote:

A CollegeGrad.com survey found that 86% of seniors in the class of 2009 expected to graduate without a job offer.

 

Could you imagine how bad things would be if our President was not spending Trillions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this comment

#2) On July 15, 2009 at 11:30 AM, JTShideler (87.28) wrote:

Three cheers for Komrade Obama!  Hope Hope Hurray!

Report this comment

#3) On July 15, 2009 at 11:36 AM, alstry (35.69) wrote:

Right now Obama's excessive spending is the only thing between a 25% unemployment rate and a 20% contraction in GDP and the current figures.

As the private economy keeps contracting, most Americans will be dependent on government for their monthly check in one way or another.

Why do you think the media is cheering quarterly reports with collapsing revenues?  

 

Report this comment

#4) On July 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM, TMFGreenwave (51.28) wrote:

Listen I hate excess government spending as much or more than the next guy.  But at this time it is the only way to keep us afloat until the private sector gears back up.

We narrowly avoided a catastrophic deflationary deperssion by pumping trillions into the economy.  I'm under 30, so I know I and my (imaginary) children will be paying this down for a long time; but ultimately it was worth it.  Imagine how dangerous the world would be if we were not just fumbling through the Great Recession but so troubled domestically as to limit our ability to excert any influence internationally.  A diminished America is a dangerous world, and the current administration is doing whatever it can to keep us going domestically.

Report this comment

#5) On July 15, 2009 at 12:02 PM, alstry (35.69) wrote:

TMF,

I hate to break this to you, but absent a radical change in current Zombulation policies, it is mathematically certain that our private economy will continue to evaporate.

Revenues at transporation companies are DOWN 20%.  If we are shipping 20% less goods, we are making 20% less goods.  We are importing 20% less and we are exporting 20% less.  Technology sales are down 20%.  Airline revenues are down 20%.  Auto sales are down 50%.  New Home sales are down 80%.

In sum, our private economy is dying and the only thing holding it up right now is government spending.

As the government must borrow more and more to compensate for less and less private spending, deficits will explode and interest rates will skyrocket.

As interest rates skyrocket, servicing debt will consume a greater and greater percentage of income until practically every dime of income goes to paying debt and NOTHING ELSE!!!!!!!

Report this comment

#6) On July 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM, JTShideler (87.28) wrote:

Seriously?  I totally thought you guys were kidding.  If I took a trillion dollars and flushed it down the toilet would that help growth?  None of these dollars went to create anything other then more government jobs and to prop up bloated State Government budgets.  Dig around the Recovery.gov website to see what your money is being used for.  Government jobs do not help the economy.  They leech money from the private sector and provide little real value added.   

Recovery Website

While it is impossible to prove a negative, (What happened if we did nothing,) I believe that we would have been better off if we had done nothing or you just took the Trillion dollars and gave it back to the people that actually pay taxes.  At least then people could buy what they wanted rather then funding all the crappy earmarks for crap that nobody wants and nobody needs.

Report this comment

#7) On July 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM, alstry (35.69) wrote:

JT,

What you fail to realize is there is nothing to give back.....the money never existed in the first place, it was BORROWED.

Much of Obama's spending is not coming from taxpayers, it is coming from borrowing money....if he didn't borrow, our economy would collapse.

The math is not hard and does not lie.

Report this comment

#8) On July 15, 2009 at 12:25 PM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

JT -

I am with you.  Previously, I had thought that we needed to save these banks and get money flowing again.  I was wrong.  Our best course of action back then and now is to do nothing except to cut gov't spending and  reach the bottom faster.  Our current method only extends the pain and when inflation hits another pain, far larger, is heaped upon the poor. 

Report this comment

#9) On July 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM, farmnut1985 (< 20) wrote:

Are you going to start quoting Joe Biden next?  Cause if you are this is going to get even funnier.  Where did the stimulus package save jobs other than bailing out failing companies that should be left to fail.  I'm with JT, the money is being squandered at our futures cost.  Expanding the national deficit to "save" the economy is like going to a loan shark to pay off your credit card.  Infrastructure improvements through stimulus could be good if the stimulus bill didn't stink like rotten pork.

Report this comment

#10) On July 15, 2009 at 12:35 PM, mikecart1 (99.39) wrote:

The worst is yet to come and I'm ready to cash in bigtime.  I got my army (money) waiting to buy up stocks when they fall and money in stocks that hedge against the market.  I love this economy!  A steady economy is so boring! :D

Report this comment

#11) On July 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM, JTShideler (87.28) wrote:

Alstry,

Think of it this way.  Lets say that instead of spending 1 trillion dollars president Obama said, "Lets freeze spending this year to the same level of 2008."

So from the Whitehouse Budget Office 2008 outlays were 2.98 Trillion.  And instead of spending money on new projects, Obama said, "Lets collect 1 trillion less dollars in revenue this year"

So instead of receiving 2.157 Trillion through business and personal income taxes the government only collects 1.157 Trillion.

The net effect is still a defecit that we need to borrow for but instead of just flushing that money down the toilet there is an extra trillion dollars in the hands of businesses and consumers to purchase stuff (consumption helps those retailers), pay down personal debt (improves future consumer cash flow), purchase stocks (investments in business) or for businesses to expand (create new jobs).

Sure we still have a trillion dollars in debt, that you said we needed to save the economy, but that money was used to create new jobs which fights unemployment which saves money in outlays to unemployment insurance while increasing government revenue (you get 0 taxes from someone who doesn't work).

We still borrowed a trillion dollars except one goes directly into the economy and the other takes years going through the bureacracy and supports stupid congressional ear marks and useless crap.

While both plans would create a trillion dollars in debt, I would be willing to bet that my plan would "create or save" more jobs faster then the government. 

 

Report this comment

#12) On July 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM, alstry (35.69) wrote:

You guys just don't get it......

 

IF THINGS ARE THIS BAD WITH A STIMULOUS PACKAGE.....IMAGINE HOW BAD THINGS WOULD BE WITHOUT A STIMULOUS PACKAGE!!!

Report this comment

#13) On July 15, 2009 at 1:03 PM, JTShideler (87.28) wrote:

You don't get it.  The Stimulus Package didn't help so we would be just as bad as we are now in the short term and better off then we would be in the Long Term.  I don't buy Obama's argument that he is saving jobs.  Its impossible to measure anyways.  Its a shell game anyways, most of the jobs that are created are taking Government Contractors and making them Government Employees, the Republicans do the opposite hire more Contractors and Let Employees go.  No jobs were created or saved you just moved a job from the private sector to the public sector.

Real stimulus comes through Private not Public investment! Take this example from Mark Steyn

In 2003, a state highway inspector rode through and condemned one of the town’s bridges, on a dirt road that serves maybe a dozen houses.

That’s the bad news. The good news was the 80/20 state/town funding plan, under which, if you applied to Concord for a new bridge, the state would pay 80 percent of the cost, the town 20. So they did. The state estimated the cost at $320,000, so the town’s share would be $64,000. Great. So the town threw up a temporary bridge just down river from the condemned one, and waited for the state to get going. Six years later, the temporary bridge has worn out, and the latest revised estimate is $655,000, such that the town’s share would be $131,000.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that, under the “stimulus” bill, they can put in for the 60/40 federal/state bridge funding plan, under which the feds pay 60 percent, and the state pays 40, and thus the town would be on the hook for 20 percent of the 40 percent, if you follow. If they applied for the program now, the bridge might be built by, oh, 2015, 2020, and it’ll only be $1.2 million, or $4 million, or $12 million, or whatever the estimate’ll be by then.

But who knows? By 2015, there might be some 70/30 UN/federal bridge plan, under which the UN pays 70 percent, and the feds pay 30, and thus the town would only be liable for 20 percent of the state’s 40 percent of the feds’ 30 percent. And the estimate for the bridge will be a mere $2.7 billion.

While the Select Board was pondering this, another bridge was condemned. The state’s estimate was $415,000, and, given that the previous bridge had been on the to-do list for six years, they weren’t ready to pencil this second one in on the schedule just yet. So instead the town put in a new bridge from a local contractor. Cost: $30,000. Don’t worry; it’s all up to code—and a lot safer than the worn-out temporary bridge still waiting for the 80/20/60/40/70/30 deal to kick in. As my friend said at the meet- ing: “Screw the state. Let’s do it ourselves.”

Report this comment

#14) On July 15, 2009 at 3:01 PM, alstry (35.69) wrote:

jt,

You are missing the point completely.

There is very little revenues coming into government right now.

The reason is that the private sector is generating very little in revenues and profits. Most of the revenues and profits of the private sector are primarily being driven by government spending.

What do you think WalMart's revenues would be without unemployment checks, welfare checks, food stamps, and medicaid and medicare checks????

The people who receive this aid pay very little in taxes to the Federal Government.  If you rebated money to the private sector, much of it would go to paying down debt encumbered by crashing asset values.

Further, by cutting taxes the Trillion you suggest, it would increase the deficit by a Trillion bringing likely causing interest rates to skyrocket.

The problem is a mess and gettting messier.

We are screwed if we cut taxes because the deficit will explode, and we are screwed if we cut spending  because it will drive our economy into a depression.

Report this comment

#15) On July 15, 2009 at 3:29 PM, AvianFlu (48.95) wrote:

What? Leaving so soon? I wouldn't hear of it...why, our little party is just beginning! When inflation hits due to the irresponsible massive increase in the money supply coupled with low output then we will see some real discomfort. I refer you to currency/inflation historical charts covering many major countries' experiences that can be found in the Milton Friedman classic texts "Free to Choose" and "Money Mischief"

Report this comment

#16) On July 15, 2009 at 3:57 PM, mikecart1 (99.39) wrote:

"You guys just don't get it......

 

IF THINGS ARE THIS BAD WITH A STIMULOUS PACKAGE.....IMAGINE HOW BAD THINGS WOULD BE WITHOUT A STIMULOUS PACKAGE!!! "

 

You gotta think outside the box.  What is to say that the stimulus package was beneficial at all?  Could it be that the package actually hurt the economy?  Could it be that helping these failing companies is helping anyone at all?  Could it be that all these programs are helping?

Who is to say that doing something was better than doing nothing?

Now that is a something to think about! :D

Report this comment

#17) On July 15, 2009 at 4:07 PM, truthisntstupid (95.80) wrote:

Inflation?  The poor?  Do you all think "the poor"  are being hurt by this economy?  Uh..."the poor"  are all laughing.  With all the higher-paying and union jobs disappearing, and jobs like mine ($8.75 an hour)  more secure than they ever were, "the poor"  are watching the creation of "the NEW poor"  with amusement.  It doesn't matter whether you believe me.  For some of us, this unhinged economy and low market prices (and high dividend yield)  is a real opportunity. 

Report this comment

#18) On July 15, 2009 at 4:18 PM, LegalizeMe (54.09) wrote:

The greatest financial catastrophy in US history is the Obama administration. 

Obama cries "We needed a stimulus package yesterday!"

Liberals appease and pass the biggest spending bills ever WITHOUT reading the damn thing.  He even threatened opposers of the bill (typical Chicago politics).

Obama cries "We need healthcare reform BEFORE August!"

Why the huge hurry Obama?  Oh that's right, it's an election year and you want a second stimulus to buy votes for your fellow dems.  Guess what it's not going to work.  Democrats will lose control of Congress next year.  The American people were dumb enough to let him have his way for one year but not for another 3.

Report this comment

#19) On July 15, 2009 at 4:44 PM, JTShideler (87.28) wrote:

Alstry,  Generally I think your analysis is good but your contradicting yourself and making assumptions based on nothing but what you think rather then the facts.

There is very little revenues coming into government right now.  The reason is that the private sector is generating very little in revenues and profits. Most of the revenues and profits of the private sector are primarily being driven by government spending.

-Revenues are down because people are unemployed.  No job no income tax and because business profits are down, no income no income tax.  I agree with you there but the idea that most of the revenues and profits in the private sector is being driven by government spending is ludricous.  According to the NYT less then 90 billion in stimulus spending has gone out the door. With only 25 million a month being unfurled each month.

What do you think WalMart's revenues would be without unemployment checks, welfare checks, food stamps, and medicaid and medicare checks????

Walmart would be doing about as well as it does now as these people would get their unemployment checks regardless of government spending.  Yes the stimulus extended benefits but it is small potatoes to the trillion dollars that was spent. But how would Walmarts revenues be doing if every American had an additional 20% in take home pay because of less tax with holding?

The people who receive this aid pay very little in taxes to the Federal Government.  If you rebated money to the private sector, much of it would go to paying down debt encumbered by crashing asset values.

If you are giving tax breaks then generally the idea is to give the money to people who pay the tax.  Obviously I cannot speak to the behaviors of over 180 million taxpayers and neither can you.  I listed a number of options for what people could do in my post above any one of which is better then the 16.1 million dollars spent to save the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Washington Times

Further, by cutting taxes the Trillion you suggest, it would increase the deficit by a Trillion bringing likely causing interest rates to skyrocket.

Whether we increase spending by a trillion dollars or decrease tax revenue by a trillion we are still running a trillion dollar defecit.  When I argued that we were wasting a trillion dollars you said

 "Much of Obama's spending is not coming from taxpayers, it is coming from borrowing money....if he didn't borrow, our economy would collapse." 

I said that whether we borrowed a trillion for spending or borrowed a trillion by cutting tax revenue it still would create debt.  You weren't concerned with debt when it was a trillion in spending from the government so why should you worry about a trillion being funneled through the private sector.  Giving the money to any business that pays taxes to invest would be better then the government spending it. 

The problem is a mess and gettting messier.

I agree completely and government interference is hurting more then helping.

We are screwed if we cut taxes because the deficit will explode, and we are screwed if we cut spending  because it will drive our economy into a depression.

Cutting taxes or increasing spending has the same net effect on the defecit.  However, cutting taxes gives the money for families and businesses to use as they see fit.  Despite the fact that 52.9% of Americans voted for Obama, I'd still place my money on American Families spending that money better then the Federal Government. 

Report this comment

#20) On July 15, 2009 at 5:40 PM, ReadEmAnWeep (32.34) wrote:

"Much of Obama's spending is not coming from taxpayers, it is coming from borrowing money....if he didn't borrow, our economy would collapse."

Okay, so even though I did just post that "rec if you're tired of alstry" post - He is absolutely right on this point.

Its not like there was money and it was wasted. The government took on more debt to try and stir the economy.

 

You can think of it like parents that take on debt to keep a spoiled child spoiled. Or took on the debt to keep giving him a huge allowance or w/e.

Report this comment

#21) On July 15, 2009 at 7:16 PM, alstry (35.69) wrote:

jt,

you are still missing the point.

Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment checks come from government spending.  If the government didn't issue these checks, hundreds of billions of dollars of revenues and profits to S&P 500 companies would evaporate instantly.

Same with defense spending....if the government didn't spend on defense, hundreds of billions of dollars of revenues to defense contractors would go away.

Over half of our economy simply exists because the government spends....the "stimulous" package is only additional spend.

Report this comment

#22) On July 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM, BlueBoomerHD (< 20) wrote:

"You can think of it like parents that take on debt to keep a spoiled child spoiled. Or..."

You could think of it as a parent taking on debt to get the kid a college education; long term investing.

"Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment checks come from government spending.  If the government didn't issue these checks, hundreds of billions of dollars of revenues and profits to S&P 500 companies would evaporate instantly."

NASA invests $500 million in private space ventures; new, commercial, language learning technique based on what the military has been doing for decades;  Internet based on expanded ARPAnet; WWW based on UK scientist's work at CERN (international gov't research coop);  MCC created by gov't to stimulate tech research; SemaTech created by US military and gov't to keep tech manufaturing from moving overseas; etc...

Gettin' a picture here?

You don't save your way out of a recession.  So, if individuals and private industry have bad debt/assets to deal with: Who spends?

The answer, in the USA, has always been Uncle Sam! 

BTW - if we get a public health care option it could soon replace: Medicare, Medicaid and the Veteran's Health System.  Put that in your debt calculator!

Report this comment

#23) On July 18, 2009 at 6:09 PM, robstuck (< 20) wrote:

JT I agree with you. 

It's basic economics.. Public spending crowds out private spending. 

 

Reademandweep

"Much of Obama's spending is not coming from taxpayers, it is coming from borrowing money....if he didn't borrow, our economy would collapse."

Okay, so even though I did just post that "rec if you're tired of alstry" post - He is absolutely right on this point. 

 

Obama's spending is coming directly from taxpayers. Who do you think is providing the government with money to pay back China?

 

I agree with JT in that capitalism and the private economy (what this country was built on) is much more efficient than the public sector. When has the public sector been able to run anything efficiently?? The public sector is a money pit filled with inefficiencies, crooked politicians (such as Obama.. look at how he payed back those who got him elected - the stimulus), plum jobs (mike brown - FEMA) and an overall lack of accountability. The stimulus package should have never happened. It is money that could have been better spent by the most productive citizens in the economy. Instead, money was taken from the most productive and/or wealthy citizens, and given to the least productive people (losers) which in the end reduces the overall performance of our nation. 

Report this comment

Blog Archive

2013

May (7) March (1) February (1) January (5)

2012

December (1) November (5) October (3) August (5) July (33) June (48) May (51) April (25) March (17) February (11) January (37)

2011

December (42) November (80) October (76) September (62) August (90) July (63) June (49) May (88) April (97) March (83) February (85) January (49)

2010

December (16) November (106) October (104) September (60) August (92) July (68) June (73) May (95) April (63) March (77) February (78) January (78)

2009

December (84) November (97) October (104) September (104) August (91) July (114) June (120) May (107) April (77) March (99) February (44) January (84)

2008

December (72) November (31) October (41) September (83) August (54) July (62) June (70) May (60) April (50) March (77) February (49)