BREAKING NEWS: Average rate on 30-year fixed mortgages falls below 4 percent

[Billy the Great Khan]

I think Dung is onto something. The government should just send us all checks for $10k. Its only $3 Trillion to do it.

I'd buy some shit with it.

 

[The Dude]

We already tried spending the most money ever by far, it didn't come close to obamas projected decrease in unemployment. Republicans are fools as well for not putting up serious defense cuts.
Democrats prob have have the economics courses as republicans.

 

[Bonestorm]

Tax cuts during a recession... absolutely support them. But as I have stated to you 1000 times, you MUST have spending cuts to go along with them.

It was 10 years of tax cuts, not tax cuts during a recession. And you don;t want spending cuts during a recession, that just makes the recession worse. And, finally, you supported 10 years of tax cuts with no spending cuts.

sigh... ok, so you are going to ignore my comments regarding inflation and instead focus on the fact that I didn't put it in the actual number?

My comments reflect my reading of what you wrote.

Supply and demand are obviously intertwined. That said, if people are uncertain about the future of the country, they are going to tend to pay down debt, tighten their belts and save as much as they can. Corporations do that as well. It most certainly is the uncertainty coming from DC that is prolonging this mess.

Of course people cut back during recessions. That's why the government should increase spending, to lower the output gap.

Tell us... after 2012, what will personal income tax rates look like? are they going to let them all go back to pre-Bush? Extend some? Permanently this time? Another temp move?
Tell us... WHEN will the idiots in DC raise taxes to cover all of their spending? How much will they go up? On who? Corps? Rich? Payroll? Everyone? Bueller?
Tell us... WHEN WILL the idiots in DC stop outspending revenue by a Trillion dollars per year?

You honestly think the above doesn't effect business and consumer spending?

I don't think the prospect of increased taxes years from now impacts spending now. I think 9% unemployment impacts consumer spending now. The whole point of Keynesian policy is for the government to pursue countercyclical policies. Higher spending and lower taxes when the economy is in recession and lower spending and higher taxes when economy is growing.

LMAO... ah, so its kind of like the mythical jobs saved? That is fucking retarded logic. Given that you got it from your Dem masters, it is not surprising.

You're an idiot. Under current law, unemployment benefits cease. That is the baseline by which any policy should be measured. You seem to have a terribly difficult time understanding proper baselines.

Yet you support it. Even you can see it is a farce. Which is why they shouldn't just pass it because Obama stomped his feet a lot and threatened to pout if they didn't. They need to sit the F down and create a plan that friggin works and has long term benefits.

I wouldn't care if that policy were scrapped altogether. It's just there to try to attract Blue Dog and Republican votes than are not likely to be forthcoming anyway.

But we don't want people paying down debt. We want them buying stuff... remember... and people are stupid, the government needs to make the decision for them and tell them what they can and cannot buy.

Actually, paying down debt wouldn't be too terrible a thing given the decline in home values relative to existing mortgages. While it's not ideal, I think lowering household debt would indeed increase aggregate demand as people would pay more of their money on good and services instead of paying it towards pre-existing debt on a going forward basis.

 

[NOVA]

Money is cheaper to borrow than its ever been... The debt is not the problem, the stagnation of money at the top is the problem.

Thats what I keep telling those asshole bill collectors that are after me.....why can't they be as stupid as you....

 

[Bonestorm]

Thats what I keep telling those asshole bill collectors that are after me.....why can't they be as stupid as you....

Well, to be fair, bravo, you are the safest investment in the world presently. If you were, you too could borrow money extremely cheaply, too.

 

[NOVA]

Well, to be fair, bravo, you are the safest investment in the world presently. If you were, you too could borrow money extremely cheaply, too.

Really ?....Even if I already owe more than I could possibly pay back if I lived 10 lifetimes...??? Why would anyone loan me money ?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It was 10 years of tax cuts, not tax cuts during a recession. And you don;t want spending cuts during a recession, that just makes the recession worse. And, finally, you supported 10 years of tax cuts with no spending cuts.

Quit being such an unbelievable douche. We have had this conversation 1000 times. I did support the tax cuts during the recession. I did not support continuing on with them without corresponding spending cuts. No matter how many times YOU try to tell me what my position is, it still will NOT change. You fucking idiot.

My comments reflect my reading of what you wrote.

No, your comments reflect what you WANTED my position to be.

Of course people cut back during recessions. That's why the government should increase spending, to lower the output gap.

NOT when the reason for consumers and businesses cutting back IS THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

I don't think the prospect of increased taxes years from now impacts spending now.

The only people/companies that it DOESN'T impact are the morons who consistently fail to plan ahead.

I think 9% unemployment impacts consumer spending now.

Yes, it does. Thanks Captain obvious.

The whole point of Keynesian policy is for the government to pursue countercyclical policies. Higher spending and lower taxes when the economy is in recession and lower spending and higher taxes when economy is growing.

That is the point, yet the idiots in DC consistently fail. Why?

1) Because many think spending for spending's sake is good enough. They fail to comprehend that Keynes suggested the spending be taken from the future and pulled forward. ie.... we have to rebuild bridges, roads, dams, other infrastructure, etc... so take the money we would spend in 2014-2019 and move that money forward to today and spend it now ON THOSE PROJECTS. There HAS to be a long term benefit.

2) They fail consistently to EVER cut spending. Dems don't do it. Reps don't do it. Instead they get the idiots to believe that 'cutting deficit spending' is acceptable.

You're an idiot. Under current law, unemployment benefits cease. That is the baseline by which any policy should be measured. You seem to have a terribly difficult time understanding proper baselines.

You have got to be kidding. If person A is getting $1000 a month NOW, that is the baseline for spending you twit. Extending it keeps the status quo. Not extending it MIGHT make things worse. But in neither scenario do jobs get created as a result. It is a stop gap measure and it has to stop. This constant extending of benefits is not helping.

I wouldn't care if that policy were scrapped altogether. It's just there to try to attract Blue Dog and Republican votes than are not likely to be forthcoming anyway.

Tell that to your messiah.

Actually, paying down debt wouldn't be too terrible a thing given the decline in home values relative to existing mortgages. While it's not ideal, I think lowering household debt would indeed increase aggregate demand as people would pay more of their money on good and services instead of paying it towards pre-existing debt on a going forward basis.

In the long run that is correct, but it is you that was bitching about 'if you give money to the middle and upper class, they might not spend it now'. Let me guess, you will change your position again on this?

 

[Bonestorm]

Quit being such an unbelievable douche. We have had this conversation 1000 times. I did support the tax cuts during the recession. I did not support continuing on with them without corresponding spending cuts. No matter how many times YOU try to tell me what my position is, it still will NOT change. You fucking idiot.

The tax cuts were designed to last 10 years. Unless you thought the recession would last 10 years, what you claim is just not true. And the same thing on the spending cuts. There were none, yet you supported the tax cuts anyway.

No, your comments reflect what you WANTED my position to be.

Not really.

NOT when the reason for consumers and businesses cutting back IS THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

But that's not the reason consumers and businesses are cutting back. They're cutting back because they have no customers.

The only people/companies that it DOESN'T impact are the morons who consistently fail to plan ahead.

So you seriously think that people are refusing to make money that they could otherwise absolutely make right now because in the future taxes might increase? That's fucking stupid.

Yes, it does. Thanks Captain obvious.

Please don't break up my paragraphs into sentences.

That is the point, yet the idiots in DC consistently fail. Why?

1) Because many think spending for spending's sake is good enough. They fail to comprehend that Keynes suggested the spending be taken from the future and pulled forward. ie.... we have to rebuild bridges, roads, dams, other infrastructure, etc... so take the money we would spend in 2014-2019 and move that money forward to today and spend it now ON THOSE PROJECTS. There HAS to be a long term benefit.

2) They fail consistently to EVER cut spending. Dems don't do it. Reps don't do it. Instead they get the idiots to believe that 'cutting deficit spending' is acceptable.

Why? Because George Bush wanted to cut taxes and people like you supported it.

You have got to be kidding. If person A is getting $1000 a month NOW, that is the baseline for spending you twit. Extending it keeps the status quo. Not extending it MIGHT make things worse. But in neither scenario do jobs get created as a result. It is a stop gap measure and it has to stop. This constant extending of benefits is not helping.

You're a moron. If person A is scheduled to get $0 next month, that is the baseline, regardless of what person A gets this month.

Tell that to your messiah.

Pastafarians don't converse with the FSM.

In the long run that is correct, but it is you that was bitching about 'if you give money to the middle and upper class, they might not spend it now'. Let me guess, you will change your position again on this?

I wasn't bitching about it, just pointing out a fact. Where you have scarce resources you want them to go to the most useful stimulus and giving money to the poor is more stimulative than giving to the upper class.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The tax cuts were designed to last 10 years. Unless you thought the recession would last 10 years, what you claim is just not true. And the same thing on the spending cuts. There were none, yet you supported the tax cuts anyway.

Seriously, no matter how many times you try to tell me what my position is, it is not going to make it true. Period. If you insist on continuing with this nonsense because you are scared to actually discuss the topic, then we are done. Now, do you want to be a grown up? Or do you want to continue to be like Yurt?

But that's not the reason consumers and businesses are cutting back. They're cutting back because they have no customers.

You do understand they are all tied together? The reason that businesses and consumers are cutting back is due to the uncertainty of the future taxes and regulations. THAT is what causes the lack of customers. It is not because the businesses and consumers lack the ability to go out and buy. They are not buying or investing because they are worried about what is going on in DC.

So you seriously think that people are refusing to make money that they could otherwise absolutely make right now because in the future taxes might increase? That's fucking stupid.

Refusing to make money? You truly are an idiot. You do not SPEND money on new employees, buildings, renovations etc.... if you are uncertain about future ability to pay for those things. That hasn't stopped business from making what they can in this economy. The balance sheets show they are making the money. They just aren't investing anything new on the whole.

You're a moron. If person A is scheduled to get $0 next month, that is the baseline, regardless of what person A gets this month.

No moron, it is not the baseline for spending. The baseline is what he CURRENTLY is spending. You just want to pretend there is another baseline so that it shows an improvement rather than the status quo. The status quo is what is CURRENTLY taking place, not what is expected to take place.

I wasn't bitching about it, just pointing out a fact. Where you have scarce resources you want them to go to the most useful stimulus and giving money to the poor is more stimulative than giving to the upper class.

So, you support scrapping Obama's bill for an increase in food stamps. Got it. Because according to your chart that gives the most economic bang for the buck in the short term (one year)

 

[Bonestorm]

Seriously, no matter how many times you try to tell me what my position is, it is not going to make it true. Period. If you insist on continuing with this nonsense because you are scared to actually discuss the topic, then we are done. Now, do you want to be a grown up? Or do you want to continue to be like Yurt?

And no matter how many times you want to pretend the facts are different, it is not going to make it true.

You do understand they are all tied together? The reason that businesses and consumers are cutting back is due to the uncertainty of the future taxes and regulations. THAT is what causes the lack of customers. It is not because the businesses and consumers lack the ability to go out and buy. They are not buying or investing because they are worried about what is going on in DC.

Businesses aren't cutting back due to "regulatory uncertainty." Regulatory uncertainty didn't cause the recession. Regulatory uncertainty didn't bring about 9% unemployment. Regulatory uncertainty didn't drive home prices down. Regulatory uncertainty didn't cause a precipitous drop in consumer spending. Regulatory uncertainty didn't cause a precipitous drop in aggregate demand. Those current and very real economic conditions, not concerns about potential future regulation, are the problem.

Refusing to make money? You truly are an idiot. You do not SPEND money on new employees, buildings, renovations etc.... if you are uncertain about future ability to pay for those things. That hasn't stopped business from making what they can in this economy. The balance sheets show they are making the money. They just aren't investing anything new on the whole.

You claim that businesses aren't hiring right now because they are concerned about future taxation. This assumes that they would otherwise hire right now if not for regulatory uncertainty. Well, business generally don't hire people just for giggles. Instead, they hire people because they believe that they will make more money by hiring a person to produce goods and services. Your argument thus rests on the assumption that businesses could earn more money now by hiring additional people but are choosing not to because they are concerned about "regulatory uncertainty." It's nonsense on stilts. Businesses aren't hiring right now because there is no market for additional goods and services and thus no need to hire more people.

No moron, it is not the baseline for spending. The baseline is what he CURRENTLY is spending. You just want to pretend there is another baseline so that it shows an improvement rather than the status quo. The status quo is what is CURRENTLY taking place, not what is expected to take place.

This is the stupidest fucking argument I've ever seen an otherwise intelligent person make. I'm not going to bother.

So, you support scrapping Obama's bill for an increase in food stamps. Got it. Because according to your chart that gives the most economic bang for the buck in the short term (one year)

Rough morning at the track or something? You're being particularly douchey today.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And no matter how many times you want to pretend the facts are different, it is not going to make it true.

What facts moron? You are attempting to proclaim what MY position has been. Despite repeatedly railing on Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility, you continue to proclaim that I supported 'his tax cuts with no spending cuts' which is 100% FALSE.

Businesses aren't cutting back due to "regulatory uncertainty."

Yes, they are. Story after story of business owners stating that and potential tax changes are the reason prove that you are wrong.

Regulatory uncertainty didn't cause the recession.

No one stated it did cause it.

Regulatory uncertainty didn't bring about 9% unemployment.

No one stated it did.

Regulatory uncertainty didn't drive home prices down.

No one stated it did.

Regulatory uncertainty didn't cause a precipitous drop in consumer spending.

No one said it did, but it IS (along with tax uncertainty) causing spending to remain stagnant at best.

Regulatory uncertainty didn't cause a precipitous drop in aggregate demand.

You already used that one Mr. Straw man.

Those current and very real economic conditions, not concerns about potential future regulation, are the problem.

Wrong.

You claim that businesses aren't hiring right now because they are concerned about future taxation.

I don't 'claim' it. It is what businesses are stating. Concerns about regulation and taxation are the major reasons for a lack of investment.

 

[tinfoil]

I don't even know what "growing government" means. Increasing government spending will increase economic growth.

growing government confuses you? Here's an example. DHS declares all football games must have TSA agents to frisk the fans. How much does this cost? Bet you have no idea. I know you would if were still the chimp behind the order. Somehow it's a kinder gentler police state when there's a democrat president? Get real.

Government is less efficient than private sector so the way to maximize the effect from a stimulus is to target the cuts in those areas.

For example, I would offer employers a 50% cut on the payroll tax for new employees. And to avoid mass layoffs and rehiring to get the exemptions, I would allow employers to take a 25% cut on payroll taxes for an additional two employees for every new employee hired. this amounts to a cost of 33% per employee in lost tax revenues if the employer has taken the full exemption.

gov still get 2/3 of the pie!