Hey Jarod.....

[The Dude]

turbo-libs you think the tea party was mad before. One of the so called loopholes they want closed is home interest deduction.

 

[NOVA]

Hey bravs - just a reminder: using your logic (to a T), the Dow's drop today is 100% due to the GOP Congress.

If there actually was a GOP congress, I'd have to agree......Democrats own 2/3 of the government....nothing can be done against their will.....

but I'll agree that this deal that was passed is bogus and bs from the start....and everyone knows it....

don't fret....we are resilient ...we will overcome....we will rebound....Obama will be gone in 2012......


I could go for that closing loop holes....ALL OF THEM....think the liberals will endorse a flat tax or progressive flat tax system.......and even include the 50% of the workers that isn't in the game as of now.....

 

[The Dude]

bravo is that dumb, hey bravo you have zero in the market?

 

[Onceler]

and apparently neither do you.

yes, because INCREASING taxes is exactly what the economy needs right now.........


you can't be that economically retarded, can you?

Gee, REALLY strong economic arguments there, STY.

Next?

 

[Bonestorm]

ROFLMAO.... thank you dung... that was truly fucking amusing. First you say that he wanted 'more government spending', then you say he wanted 'extended TAX CUTS'....

Seriously, do you even KNOW the difference between GOVERNMENT spending and TAX CUTS?

I was responding you your suggestion that Obama's fiscal policies are a drag on the economy. That is not the case. In fact, Obama's proposed fiscal policy, extending the payroll tax holiday, is exactly what he called for. I also notice that you ignore the other stimulus measures (hence, "the various stimulus measures . . .") that are set to expire. The payroll tax holiday is just one component and is really the only possible component the commission could re-implement (increasing spending is obviously off the table where Republicans make up 50% of the commission. Some of the other various stimulus programs are government spending policies -- like extending unemployment benefits.

I know you like to pretend that you are an expert economist, but you aren't. In fact, you're far from it.

 

[NOVA]

bravo is that dumb, hey bravo you have zero in the market?

AS of now I do......when I retired ... I moved into conservative investments....and over the years to even more conservative investment....until today....wall can make do without my nestegg....I just won't take the risk at my age......and I am so happy I did it the way I did it.....

but lets not get too personal.....

 

[The Dude]

I didn't need the answer, any tool jumping up n down because the market just lost trillions never had much in it.
And being a GED you might not understand the dollar devaluations killing affect on the so called conservative investments, so I'll save that air.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes, allowing the idiots to outspend revenue by $2.4 TRILLION from now until 2012 is clearly fucking retarded and a bad deal for the economy.

That said, it is equally stupid for the tea party to say closing loopholes should be off the table. Especially given they tout being 'fiscally responsible'

It isn't a bad deal for the economy at all. A bad deal for the economy is cutting spending. That will lower already low aggregate demand and will be a drag on the recovery.

As always, it depends on HOW the stimulus is done. Given Obama's track record, I wouldn't trust him with more stimulus decisions.

That said, one day we are going to have to step up and take some of the pain. The constant attempts to push the problems into the future is only making things worse.

Things were HORRID in 1980. We then saw interest rates rise dramatically and we TOOK THE PAIN required to fix the problems via the recession of 81/82. Then we were able to move forward and experienced the greatest period of prosperity in our history with only a minor recession in 18 years.

When interest rates rise dramatically or at least start rising considerably it makes sense to tighten up. In the early 1098s, the rate on the 10 year as at 10+%. Right now rates are at 2.6% and falling. At present it is cheaper for the government to finance spending through issuing debt than it is for it to print money or probably even to collect taxes. There is no need to TAKE THE PAIN right now. I'd also note that the early 1980s were a period of increased government spending, not government spending cuts. In short, there was no TAKING THE PAIN on the spending side of things.


Edit: And with respect to the efficacy of the stimulus, with the GDP revisions released yesterday by the BEA, it is no wonder the stimulus didn't bring about the predicted results. Things were a whole hell of a lot worse than anyone imagined. The revised GDP numbers show a decline in GDP of more than 8% in the 4th quarter of 2008. Previous estimates had it at just over 3%.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I was responding you your suggestion that Obama's fiscal policies are a drag on the economy. That is not the case. In fact, Obama's proposed fiscal policy, extending the payroll tax holiday, is exactly what he called for. I also notice that you ignore the other stimulus measures (hence, "the various stimulus measures . . .") that are set to expire. The payroll tax holiday is just one component and is really the only possible component the commission could re-implement (increasing spending is obviously off the table where Republicans make up 50% of the commission. Some of the other various stimulus programs are government spending policies -- like extending unemployment benefits.

I know you like to pretend that you are an expert economist, but you aren't. In fact, you're far from it.

You truly are a fucking moron. It was YOUR economist, the one YOU tried to use as an expert that stated Obama's fiscal policy was a drag on the economy. That doesn't mean every single decision by Obama is bad fiscally, he was referring to the policy on the WHOLE. So your pointing to one or two things and sayin 'see, he likes these' doesn't change the FACT that his comment on Obama's fiscal policy overall was a DRAG.

https://mm.jpmorgan.com/stp/t/c.do?i...tml*h_-1ni8eo3

A few quick macro thoughts on the debt deal



As you are no doubt aware, a deal appears imminent to resolve the debt ceiling impasse. Our Washington colleagues believes this will pass in the Senate and, with some arm-twisting by party leadership, in the House as well. The main points of the plan are:

* A $2.1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling, which should tide the Treasury over until sometime after the November 2012 elections

* Around $900 billion of spending cuts over the next 10 years through reductions in discretionary outlays, including what appears to be more defense spending cuts than were in prior proposals

* Creates a bipartisan, bicameral commission tasked with finding another $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions, including through entitlement and tax reform, by November 23, which would receive and up-or-down vote in Congress by December 23.

* Requires Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment. Like most economists, we think this is a terrible idea and would, for example, have made the last downturn much worse. In the event, we don't think this will achieve either the required approval of 2/3rds of the Congress or 3/4ths of state legislatures needed to amend the Constitution.

We see four main economic implications of this deal

1) No default. This had always been a low probability (<1%) very high cost outcome, which now seems off the table.

2) An eventual S&P downgrade is still more likely than not, though we think this would occur after the fiscal commission completes its task later this year. We don't think a downgrade is of first-order importance for economic growth: conditional on fiscal metrics such as debt-to-GDP ratios, we see no major implications for borrowing costs due to the actions of one or more rating agencies.

3) No stabilization in longer-run fiscal outlook. A stable debt-to-GDP ratio, commonly associated with sustainable fiscal policy, is not achieved within the ten -year horizon. Thus, this agreement should be seen more of a first step toward sustainability.

4) Impending fiscal drag for 2012 remains intact. The deal does nothing to extend the various stimulus measure which will expire next year: we continue to believe federal fiscal policy will subtract around 1.5%-points from GDP growth in 2012. Its possible the fiscal commission could do something to extend some measure such as the one-year 2% payroll tax holiday, though we think unlikely, as it would need to be paid for, which would be tough. If anything, the debt deal may add modestly to the fiscal drag we have penciled in for next year.

On points 3) and 4) we will have a better sense of the magnitudes when CBO completes its score of the deal, which should occur sometime today.

Now dung... do TRY to comprehend what is written DIRECTLY BY THE ECONOMIST THAT YOU TOUTED.

NOT some JOURNALISTS 'take' on what the economist was saying.... but WHAT HE ACTUALLY FUCKING SAID.

 

[The Dude]

so fucking what if demand goes down or we go into a recession. Is gov spending supposed to explode everytime the economy sputters.
Can we say Greece?

 

[NOVA]

I didn't need the answer, any tool jumping up n down because the market just lost trillions never had much in it.
And being a GED you might not understand the dollar devaluations killing affect on the so called conservative investments, so I'll save that air.

You mis-characterize my sarcasm...I'm not happy about this economy in the slightest...I'm happy I'm not in the market.....and seeing as how Jughead is the biggest cheerleader of Obama and liberal economic thinking .... he ought to .............................BUY BUY BUY..................I don't advise anyone else to buy unless they can afford to lose.....its a volitable market, not easy pickins for amateurs...

 

[Bonestorm]

You truly are a fucking moron. It was YOUR economist, the one YOU tried to use as an expert that stated Obama's fiscal policy was a drag on the economy. That doesn't mean every single decision by Obama is bad fiscally, he was referring to the policy on the WHOLE. So your pointing to one or two things and sayin 'see, he likes these' doesn't change the FACT that his comment on Obama's fiscal policy overall was a DRAG.

Now dung... do TRY to comprehend what is written DIRECTLY BY THE ECONOMIST THAT YOU TOUTED.

NOT some JOURNALISTS 'take' on what the economist was saying.... but WHAT HE ACTUALLY FUCKING SAID.

Obama doesn't unilaterally set federal fiscal policy, jackass. If he did, then maybe you'd have a point. Maybe you don't recall it, but the House Republicans first threatened to shut down the government if cuts were not made in 2011 and Obama agreed to some of the cuts the Republicans wanted in 2011. Then the Republicans threatened to blow up the global economy if spending cuts were not made in the future and Obama agreed to some of those cuts. That's not "Obama's fiscal policy," that's the fiscal policy of the federal government.

One particular item that the economist mentioned what the payroll tax holiday. Obama proposed extending it. The Republicans opposed it. According to this economist, Obama's fiscal policy -- extending the payroll tax holiday -- would improve GDP figures. And there are other stimulus measures that are expiring, such as unemployment benefit extensions, that Republicans oppose and Obama supports. In short, pretending that "federal fiscal policies" = "Obama's fiscal policies" is horseshit. It is the Republican components of federal fiscal policy -- cutting spending and no more stimulus -- that are a drag on the economy.

 

[Bonestorm]

so fucking what if demand goes down or we go into a recession. Is gov spending supposed to explode everytime the economy sputters.
Can we say Greece?

You can say Greece if you want, but the comparison is asinine. And yes, in an ideal world, government spending would increase during recessions and be cut back during times of economic growth.

 

[The Dude]

ok we are not in recession we are growing, we tried retarded stimulation and it failed miserabley.

Bravo, I'm a bit of an old crank when I lose $40,000 in a day.
Feels like the flash crash, I'd blame market manipulation more than the gov. Nothing happened today to trigger this.
However, did a GS short yestarday and are they buying tomorrow?

 

[Bonestorm]

ok we are not in recession we are growing, we tried retarded stimulation and it failed miserabley.

Bravo, I'm a bit of an old crank when I lose $40,000 in a day.
Feels like the flash crash, I'd blame market manipulation more than the gov. Nothing happened today to trigger this.
However, did a GS short yestarday and are they buying tomorrow?

Europe is imploding. That's why we're seeing this crash coupled with the flight to treasuries. The debt deal isn't helping, but it isn't really hurting all that much either.

On the stimulus, at the time it was enacted 2008 3rd and 4th quarter GDP figures were believed to be -0.5% and -3.8% respectively. In reality, GDP shrank by -3.7% and -8.9%. To put those numbers in perspective, if the errors were in the other direction (towards the positive side), GDP would have grown by 3.2% and 5.1%, respectively, which is strong growth. Under those circumstances, it's no wonder the stimulus didn't bring out the results predicted.

 

[Onceler]

I don't get it when people say "the failed stimulus." The stimulus did what I thought it would - it stopped the bleeding. I think people forget how badly things were spiraling at that time.

The debt plan started the bleeding again, though...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Obama doesn't unilaterally set federal fiscal policy, jackass. If he did, then maybe you'd have a point. Maybe you don't recall it, but the House Republicans first threatened to shut down the government if cuts were not made in 2011 and Obama agreed to some of the cuts the Republicans wanted in 2011. Then the Republicans threatened to blow up the global economy if spending cuts were not made in the future and Obama agreed to some of those cuts. That's not "Obama's fiscal policy," that's the fiscal policy of the federal government.

One particular item that the economist mentioned what the payroll tax holiday. Obama proposed extending it. The Republicans opposed it. According to this economist, Obama's fiscal policy -- extending the payroll tax holiday -- would improve GDP figures. And there are other stimulus measures that are expiring, such as unemployment benefit extensions, that Republicans oppose and Obama supports. In short, pretending that "federal fiscal policies" = "Obama's fiscal policies" is horseshit. It is the Republican components of federal fiscal policy -- cutting spending and no more stimulus -- that are a drag on the economy.

Just so we are clear...

1) Rep is in the White House and economy is bad = Presidents fault
2) Rep is in the White House and economy is good = market cycle (unless Dems control the Congress, then it was because of them)

3) Dem in White House with bad economy = somebody else's fault (past Pres.; Rep Congress; Yo Momma)
4) Dem in White House with good economy = ALL because of Dem in White House

Got ya.

Or are you saying the economic implosion in 2008 was really due to the idiotic leadership of the Dems controlling both houses of Congress?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Europe is imploding. That's why we're seeing this crash coupled with the flight to treasuries. The debt deal isn't helping, but it isn't really hurting all that much either.

On the stimulus, at the time it was enacted 2008 3rd and 4th quarter GDP figures were believed to be -0.5% and -3.8% respectively. In reality, GDP shrank by -3.7% and -8.9%. To put those numbers in perspective, if the errors were in the other direction (towards the positive side), GDP would have grown by 3.2% and 5.1%, respectively, which is strong growth. Under those circumstances, it's no wonder the stimulus didn't bring out the results predicted.

yeah, Europe is collapsing due to the OVER promising of 'benefits' to their citizens. Amazing how over promising and under delivering does that. Who could have known.

 

[Bonestorm]

Just so we are clear...

1) Rep is in the White House and economy is bad = Presidents fault
2) Rep is in the White House and economy is good = market cycle (unless Dems control the Congress, then it was because of them)

3) Dem in White House with bad economy = somebody else's fault (past Pres.; Rep Congress; Yo Momma)
4) Dem in White House with good economy = ALL because of Dem in White House

Got ya.

Or are you saying the economic implosion in 2008 was really due to the idiotic leadership of the Dems controlling both houses of Congress?

My point is actually much simpler than that: "federal fiscal policy" is not "the President's fiscal policy," particularly where "federal fiscal policy" results from high-stakes negotiations between the president and the opposing party where government shutdowns and the global economy are on the line and the negotiated "federal fiscal policy" is very different from the President's expressed preferred policies.

 

[Bonestorm]

yeah, Europe is collapsing due to the OVER promising of 'benefits' to their citizens. Amazing how over promising and under delivering does that. Who could have known.

You have it all figured out, huh? You should write a letter to the ECB chairman. I'm sure he'd appreciate it.