I agree with your first sentence... Ill point out that noone is sugesting that we keep spending at current levels.
Question for Double Dippers....
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I agree with your first sentence... Ill point out that noone is sugesting that we keep spending at current levels.
I disagree.
Serious question, what's the figure for discretionary spending in Obama's proposed 2012 budget as compared to the 2007 total discretionary spending, including the wars? I can't seem to find it.
It doesn't increase the deficit, but it increases debt. By my logic, we should do the hard stuff -- cutting spending -- before we do the easy stuff -- cutting taxes. Doing it the other way around is moronic, unless, of course, you don't really care about deficits and debt and just want to cut taxes.
No we don't. The USA is not akin to the PIIGS.
Again, get me the discretionary spending numbers I asked for (I have seriously looked and cannot find them) and then we can talk about this. I am virtually certain that the vast vast vast vast majority of the spending increases are mandatory spending.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I don't know. Haven't looked into his 2012 budget in any detail. Just looking at the total proposed size of the budget. But I would GUESS and say that it is quite high given it is highly unlikely that mandatory spending jumped 50% in five years.
Despite what the far left masters want you to believe, tax cuts during a recession are stimulus. It puts the money in the hands of the public and the public can spend it far more efficiently than the government. The government can't tailor the money to meet the specific needs of each individual. The individual obviously can.
The nonsense that the other way shows a lack of interest in controlling debt and deficits is moronic.
Bottom line, taxes are going to go up from here. They have to at this point given the insane spending. That does not however equate to the need to continue the spending at these levels.
I didn't say we were currently in the same boat as the WORST in Europe. But we are speeding along the same path as Europe did. It will end the same if we do not alter course.
Go find the numbers yourself.
To think our spending increased at that pace due to mandatory spending is absurd. Mandatory spending would have to have increased at 8.5% plus per year each of the last five years in order to put us where we are today. If it IS that high, then we are fucking morons for allowing 'mandatory' increases to grow at a pace that is so unquestionably unsustainable.
Answer to original question there is no chance of a double dip recession.
GDP would have to have slipped negative again within 1-3 positive quarters after the first recession for it to be considered double dip. We have had i believe 6 positive quarters since the last negative quarter.
If we go back into negative quarters its a brand new recession.
GDP would have to have slipped negative again within 1-3 positive quarters after the first recession for it to be considered double dip. We have had i believe 6 positive quarters since the last negative quarter.
If we go back into negative quarters its a brand new recession.
Topspin
Verified User
LOL, you thought Jarod was interested in economic facts.
id be more concerned with inflation leading to another recession in next couple years. Overall iv been staying recession proof and actually making ground personally but inflation would hurt since wages are lagging right now due to the soft job market.
i think food, clothing, and electricity/gas will move up +15-30% in the next 12 months.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The market to this day has never come back up to the peak in 2007. October 2007 is when it peaked at roughly 14,200. It declined about 1000 points (on the Dow) by May of 2008, then dropped to 11,400 by mid-September. Thus, the market was already down by roughly 20% prior to the subsequent plunge that began in early October.
those days of strong markets are over brother. with boomers starting into retirement we are going to be doomed to a very stagnant inflation driving market only for the next 20+ years. pay of your debt and try to live happy.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I would agree that we are likely to see a continuation of a bear market for the next five to ten years or so. But when the echo boomers start hitting their 30's and 40's and the selfish boomers start dying off in greater numbers, we will come back strong.
Topspin
Verified User
Mr irrelevant or as I like to refer Mr fly shit in the pepper. I never said the market fell from it' s peak you anal retentive mr over correcting.
Nor did I say it ever reach it's former peak. It plunged in late 2008 which is what I said, nothing your saying is disputing that.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Mr irrelevant or as I like to refer Mr fly shit in the pepper. I never said the market fell from it' s peak you anal retentive mr over correcting.
Nor did I say it ever reach it's former peak. It plunged in late 2008 which is what I said, nothing your saying is disputing that.
Sorry, when you stated that it went back up in 2008 after declining in 2007, I thought you were saying it recovered. Your fault.
Topspin
Verified User
No asshole your fault. It did go back up. You can't go a day without being a complete douchenozzle.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No asshole your fault. It did go back up. You can't go a day without being a complete douchenozzle.
So, it did go back up but you didn't say it went back up to the peak in 2007. So in other words, the trend throughout 2008 was down?
Thanks... that is what I said to begin with.
Topspin
Verified User
Markets go up and they go down.
I said it plunged in 2008 which it did, a lot of righties where pumping the socialism fear which I didn't believe. Non that I see it in fact in hindsight a lot of the plunge can justifiably be tagged to Obama.
You look at a 5 yr chart and tell me it's a constant unbroken trend.
I said it plunged in 2008 which it did, a lot of righties where pumping the socialism fear which I didn't believe. Non that I see it in fact in hindsight a lot of the plunge can justifiably be tagged to Obama.
You look at a 5 yr chart and tell me it's a constant unbroken trend.
Well, first, you aren't including off budget expenditures in 2007 that are now on budget expenditures, specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have to add those into the equation. And I don't think it is all that far fetched that mandatory spending has exploded. We're talking about Social Security (early retirees who lost jobs and cannot find employment), Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, supplemental nutrition programs and the like. Basically, things that you would expect to increase substantially during times of economic hardship.
I understand that tax cuts are stimulus. That's why tax cuts were a large part of the original stimulus bill and the payroll tax holiday was part of the compromise on tax cuts. (I disagree that they are more stimulative than other government programs such as LIHEAP). But if the goal is to cut taxes to stimulate the economy, which you are suggesting, it makes no sense to cut spending at the same time. Essentially, you give one form of stimulus -- tax cuts -- while taking another away -- government spending. It makes no sense from a stimulus perspective.
My point was simply that if you care about debt and deficit spending, which you do, you shouldn't cut taxes before cutting spending. Cutting taxes is the easy part. On the other hand, if you care about stimulating the economy, you shouldn't cut taxes while cutting spending as those two things work at cross purposes.
We should all be able to agree that cutting taxes without cutting spending will increase debt. We should all be able to agree that where we currently have deficit spending, leaving taxes constant while not cutting spending will increase debt. We should all be able to agree that cutting taxes is easy and that cutting spending is not. Thus, if you care about deficits and debt, you should focus on cutting spending before you push for tax cuts.
We'll see.
I tried. I thought you might have them handy.
See above. And the beauty of mandatory spending of the type that we have is that they are automatic economic stabilizers in a time of recession. It makes good sense to have it that way.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
