Would another Great Depression Be Better?

I closed my political blog last year, so sorry but this is my only outlet any more:

Ok, so who is next?

Since his most holiness Obama has decided that to take government money (which shouldn't even be offered, if Obama is such a 'free market' person) you have to let them have authority over who runs the show... wow... funny how government isn't supposed to be running businesses but that sure sounds like it... and it isn't more sweeping... if you are going to do it, replace the management at every organization taking bailout money... all of the local goverments, farm co-ops taking grain subsidies, insurance and financial institutions... the list could be endless...

Thank goodness Ford decided to turn down the bailout money.

I swear, I think letting the country suffer through the closing of all of these businesses that suck at being in business might not be a bad thing. Who's for another great depression? Teach our kids some humility? Get back to basics?

Can't imagine a great depression being anywhere near better.

sure, why not?

my favorite thing by obama is the idea of dumping $500 million into the detroit public school system when they're already in a $200 million deficit, and $55m is unaccounted for, i.e. stolen. on top of that, i think like 30% of kids in detroit actually graduate from hs, and 5% of them are "ready for college", whatever that means.

so the choice is obama or great depression?

i'll take obama

Obama's policies are leading us somewhere that isn't going to be good, even if it's not another full out great depression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

my favorite thing by obama is the idea of dumping $500 million into the detroit public school system when they're already in a $200 million deficit, and $55m is unaccounted for, i.e. stolen. on top of that, i think like 30% of kids in detroit actually graduate from hs, and 5% of them are "ready for college", whatever that means.

---

So wait, are you using sarcasm to suggest that we shouldn't put money into a system to increase the possible success rate of our education?

I'd be willing to argue, rather vociferously, that the detroit schools not having proper funding is top 2 in reasons kids aren't getting the education they deserve.

I mean I guess we could just not care about detroit and let them fend for themselves... to hell with a level playing field.

I'm depressed. It's not fucking great at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragnar4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

my favorite thing by obama is the idea of dumping $500 million into the detroit public school system when they're already in a $200 million deficit, and $55m is unaccounted for, i.e. stolen. on top of that, i think like 30% of kids in detroit actually graduate from hs, and 5% of them are "ready for college", whatever that means.

---

So wait, are you using sarcasm to suggest that we shouldn't put money into a system to increase the possible success rate of our education?

I'd be willing to argue, rather vociferously, that the detroit schools not having proper funding is top 2 in reasons kids aren't getting the education they deserve.

I mean I guess we could just not care about detroit and let them fend for themselves... to hell with a level playing field.

---

oh yes, dumping money is the answer to everything! you should be in congress. you seem to have the idea down pretty well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragnar4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

my favorite thing by obama is the idea of dumping $500 million into the detroit public school system when they're already in a $200 million deficit, and $55m is unaccounted for, i.e. stolen. on top of that, i think like 30% of kids in detroit actually graduate from hs, and 5% of them are "ready for college", whatever that means.

---

So wait, are you using sarcasm to suggest that we shouldn't put money into a system to increase the possible success rate of our education?

I'd be willing to argue, rather vociferously, that the detroit schools not having proper funding is top 2 in reasons kids aren't getting the education they deserve.

I mean I guess we could just not care about detroit and let them fend for themselves... to hell with a level playing field.

---

oh yes, dumping money is the answer to everything! you should be in congress. you seem to have the idea down pretty well.

---

So we should punish the kids for the teachers/faculties missappropriation of money?

Let's instead chase down the teachers who stole the 200m, and beat them without mercy, but still give those children a chance to succeed.

Unless you support the idea that children should grow up to aspire to nothing more than pimping, prostitution, and drugs with occaisional success story that involves a kid somehow getting into middle management at a grocery store somewhere. Woo hoo.

Where would you rather we spent that 500m? A few machines of war? That's definitely superior to teaching our own children how to read, write, and arming them for our future. Perhaps you'd rather just not spend the money at all? What about the kids in Detroit that are getting a terrible education?

What's your proposal for helping these kids to graduate?

Because I'm only hearing you bitch about the expenditure of money, not producing an innovative solvency.

To be honest, I'm tired of people bitching and not doing anything about it.

won't somebody please think of the children?

how can you possibly think that by dumping an ass ton of money to a city, and quite possibly the least deserving city in the country, will somehow make them learn? and i like what you did there...put all the blame on the teachers and none on their worthless parents. that way if all the blames on the teachers money seems like a much easier solution. not to mention the kids. just because they are adolescents does not make them totally absolved from responsibility. do you honestly think that the tons of fuck up kids in that school system will somehow be inspired to learn when you dump money into their system? lol if you do.

as far as a solution, i think a better one would be bringing the federal government into detroit and so they can personally give allowances out. otherwise you're just giving it to the corrupt politicians and what not.

Ok. Federalizing the school system seems like a good idea, the idea certainly infringes on states rights, but one could argue that the state lost its rights when they lost control of the education system.

Parents are part of the problem too, but the parents have nothing to do with the mis-allocation of money. Parents are too busy being single, and working 3 jobs to keep money on the table/put their kids through school to actually be at home and be good parents.

You are right though, a government that did misappropriate money will buy hookers with it again. But you're missing the finer points here. There's no way in the world they could blow all 500m on hookers, and get away with it. The students have to benefit from the new books, and improved facilities that this money will go to. They would probably benefit with 100million in mis-appropriated money.

Another point not covered is how the 500m amount was arrived at. I'm pretty sure a structured case was built with an eye towards the bare minimum amount needed to get Detroit back on its feet, with plans for where the money needs to go established before the grant was considered.

Finally, why is Detroit not deserving of the funds? Because they have such an abyssmal graduation/college ready rate?

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3108/bhsheepfight.jpg

Getting back to OP's question, should we just let everything fall into depression or try to help the current situation from going down the tube, even if it means possibly helping industries that would die anyway? I favor doing what you can rather than a depression, let the markets down slowly, and the bad businesses will not survive anyway. In the meantime though, the dying companies will put food on people's table until the system adjusts.

From your post you imply that you would rather just let it all go and have a massive depression until the system adjusts, almost like a giant worldwide death match where only the strong survive. Ok, I will grant you that some social darwinism is good to bring about change for the long term greater good, but in your scenario, when the hungry desperate mob shows up on your doorstep with nothing to lose and ready to kill and steal from you to survive, are you ready?

Yeah after hearing some of my grandparents stories about the great depression and the dustbowl, followed by the stuff I've seen on the history channel..

I'm pretty sure I'd take cyanide before go through that.

Thanks to Obama pursuing sound financial and economic policies we will not even remember this moderate recession in a few years time. What frustrates me is that so many people will benefit immensely from these policies, but they will still lament them due to uneducated ideology.

And no, a GD would not be best. The GD was one of the prime movers that put Hitler into power, but on the flip side the GD was by far the prime mover that made the US realize sound economic policy which created the greatest middle class in history and greatest economy in history for decades until the wealthy people got their hold on the Republican Party and tricked the majority of Americans into voting for anti-middle class policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

I'm depressed. It's not fucking great at all.

---

Thanks for making me not hate myself for clicking on this thread.

/hijack
//gogo flame wars

[x] accidentally the economy
[ ] ?
[ ] profit

Is that bad?

At some point someone is going to have to pay the bill. We cannot keep spending spending spending and think good things will happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrhappy333

At some point someone is going to have to pay the bill. We cannot keep spending spending spending and think good things will happen.

---

For just about every other country in the world, I would agree. The problem is that America has circumnavigated the worth of the dollar by simply printing more. They've also prevented hyperinflation somehow.

Simple fact of the matter: There really doesn't seem to be any negative repercussion to declaring the national debt null and void (that the gov't wouldn't just pass an immediate law to stymie), and the Gov't has been acting like it for the last 16 years with no end in sight.

I've always thought of bailouts as a wall extension for a river dam. The water continues to rise and rise but the people don't care, they just keep adding new heights to their wall. It does not fix the problem, it only prolongs the inevitable. The problem gets worse and worse.

The economy can only get worse before it gets better. We need to take the hit we delivered to ourselves and we will survive it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiggidy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

I'm depressed. It's not fucking great at all.

---

Thanks for making me not hate myself for clicking on this thread.

/hijack
//gogo flame wars

---

Seriously. Bail me the fuck out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

The economy can only get worse before it gets better. We need to take the hit we delivered to ourselves and we will survive it.

---

Aye, but we'll all know the taste of dog meat before we're through.

At least the nights will be quiet.

Yes, wufwugy, I stole that from Rome.

Here is the money that I owe you
yeah so you can pay the bills.
I will give you more when I get paid again.

I hate those people that love to tell you
money is the root of all that kills.
They have never been poor
they have never had a joy of a welfare christmas.

I will buy you a garden
where your flowers can bloom
I will buy you a new car
perfect shiny and new
I will buy you that big house
way up in the west hills
I will buy you a new life
yes I will

I'm seriously biting my tongue because I know nobody likes my lengthy posts and everybody thinks they're a genius on topics which they have no education, yet it turns out those uninformed opinions are the same opinions wielded by the Hoover administration and many members of the Congress of the early 30s which actually caused the Great Depression.

This isn't some unknown crazy situation. Financiers and economists who have stuided the Depression, Lost Decade, Keynesianism, and have no conflicts of interest, etc have not been running around with their heads off, and have actually been implementing excellent policy.

The best example of this, even though there are many, is the bailouts. They certainly could have been done better, but their effectiveness thus far has still been very high. We forget (or don't even learn in the first place) that allowing the financial system to collapse was by far the biggest mover in turning a mild recession into the Great Depression.

Excluding uninformed lasseiz-faire libertarian/conservative ideology which science has shown to be disastrous economically, the main contention to the bailouts is that it'll cause hyperinflation. That also is hogwash for many non-abstract reasons. The economy is contracting, this means that we're in fear of deflation, not inflation, so there goes a bunch of the lamentations against inflation. But not only that, hyperinflation would take an astronomically epic amount of fiat currency creation/borrowing due to how many trillions upon trillions of USD exists in the world today. Even if we went the entirely ludicrous and implausible scenario of creating thousands of trillions of USD and collapse the USD the rest of the world would also collapse due to their extreme dependence upon US economy and currency.

This is not doomsday, economists and financiers have learned soooooooo much since the Depression, and we should thank our lucky stars that the man in charge actually listens to facts and logic instead of espousing rigid uneducated ideology like his opposition currently does and like the morons who created the GD did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

Yes, wufwugy, I stole that from Rome.

---

what was the name of that idol goddess that lucius vorenus was gonna FUCK IN THE ASS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

Yes, wufwugy, I stole that from Rome.

---

what was the name of that idol goddess that lucius vorenus was gonna FUCK IN THE ASS?

---

Pshaw. Concord.

Man that was easily the best scene in the whole fucking show

lucius is such a fucking badass. omar who? josey wales who?

Here's how I see both politics and economics. It's all bullshit.

Let's focus on what's important. Exploring and understanding ourselves and the universe. Everything else is just the flavor of the day. SSDD.

o yea second best scene was when lucius threatened to kill cleopatra

i so need to watch that again, but im putting it off longer and longer so it's more fresh next time around

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Here's how I see both politics and economics. It's all bullshit.

Let's focus on what's important. Exploring and understanding ourselves and the universe. Everything else is just the flavor of the day.

---

It's sometimes a struggle to tell when you're joking (kudos cuz that's a sweet quality l.do) but you know better than to, not only contradict yourself, but to claim that science, even if they're social sciences, is bullshit.

politics and economics are bullshit.

http://www.epicallyfunnypictures.com....thumbnail.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

We forget (or don't even learn in the first place) that allowing the financial system to collapse was by far the biggest mover in turning a mild recession into the Great Depression.

---

Your entire post is spot on, but this I agree most with.



The actual problem is, though, that this problem is actually inherent to the financial systems as we have these today.

Every few years this is gonna happen, all the while inflation continues on its course. The phenomenon that very few people can call themselves debt-free and/or do not rely on credit cards really does not help the cause.

Solving the problem with more inflation is not solving the problem. But proponents of any other solutions are called crackpots and generally given the salem-witch-trials treatment. Its sad, really.

hang on, you edited your post after I qouted it and was engulfed in thought. I do not agree with most of it anymore.

But I will not argue, so gg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

politics and economics are bullshit.

---

lol

scientific method ftw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

politics and economics are bullshit.

---

I'm pretty sure they're not real, still working on my theory.

Rilla have you ever heard of the Zeitgeist Movement? Google that and the Venus Project, you might like some of the stuff there.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...87043163636261


Okay carry on everyone, nothing to see here.

great depression=cheap whores being cheaper and whorrier

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flomo

great depression=cheap whores being cheaper and whorrier

---

holy shit sign me up!

HAHA, this is sooo true. They have been lowering their rates on Craigslist lately. used to be 200 now they mostly charge 180. Its strange how the recession affects everybody!

haha craigslist personals crack me up

It's not like there are other options. The bailouts are needed now or the economy collapses. The government is the only body capable of stimulating the economy when the businesses and consumers have lost their faith in it. This means more government spending and increasing foreign debt, which in itself is getting out of hand and is going to bankrupt the whole country if something isn't done fast. Fixing the first immediate problem makes the second one worse. In the long run massive spending cuts and tax raises will be required, as well as reforming the health care system, which by 2050 will eat over 20% of the GDP annually and will keep rising.

Quite amazing how it got like this in 8 years from the big budget surplus the previous years. Well not amazing really, all it took was 2 huge tax cuts for the rich, 2 wars and a medicare bill to boost drug company profits.

I think I accidently this Obama guy.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u...SH/obama-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucothefish

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u...SH/obama-1.jpg

---

Haha, love it!


Has anyone here actually studied economics?

i hate it! its making fun of my choice! swap in bush plz for a good hearty laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

i hate it! its making fun of my choice! swap in bush plz for a good hearty laugh.

---

I almost went with Bush saying "I accidentally the economy, is that bad?" Maybe someone else can do one (there's a few snaps of him in the FTR gallery).

FWIW I Like Obama, but well the opportunity arose here so \m/

And futurama avatars are sexy.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/....trillions.jpg

so a trillion is like a thousand billions! If only math could have prepared me for this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cr4zybe4utifu1

Has anyone here actually studied economics?

---

Yes and no. If you mean have I studied in the same way I would if it were to make a profession out of it, then no; but if you mean have I studied it like I would any hobby I enjoy and want to understand, then yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucothefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

i hate it! its making fun of my choice! swap in bush plz for a good hearty laugh.

---

I almost went with Bush saying "I accidentally the economy, is that bad?" Maybe someone else can do one (there's a few snaps of him in the FTR gallery).

FWIW I Like Obama, but well the opportunity arose here so \m/

And futurama avatars are sexy.

---

If you were serious about making it accurate the best faces you could use would be Alan Greenspan, Phil Gramm, or Jim Leach

And be super glad that McCain didn't win because Gramm was his favorite for Treasury Secretary, yet if it wasn't for him then the deregulation that overturned FDR era legislation and thus allowed the financial system to create this mess would have never happened.

Or you could use faces of bank lobbyists or the legislators who allow lobbyists to be so powerful or most of the voters in the country who have no business voting because they don't investigate the issues and thus are easily misled into voting for policies that hurt them.

I would also like to mention that all the talk about the debt is not what it seems. US debt/GDP ratio is a bit less than that of some other major nations, our creditor nations still consider US Treasuries as the most secure investment on the planet, it is well understood that US economy is so fucking strong that paying down just about any debt is easy. The major nations of today were not born yesterday, they known all about what happened during the post WWII decades until the wealthy got tired of the middle class sharing their wealth and decided to hijack the Republican Party around approximately the late sixties/early seventies.

Our debt could be double or triple what it is now and it still wouldn't be a problem. Our potential to pay it down in short order is amazing, and our creditors know that Obama's policies are similar to the policies of Presidents like FDR and Eisenhower and that those policies generate tons of revenue and prosperity instead of just transferring 90% of the wealth to the top 1% and the other 10% of wealth to the top 10%.

The problem isn't really where it's at now, but how fast it's increasing. The projected budget deficit for 2009 alone is $1.752 trillion, with another $9 trillion deficit in the next 10 years. These numbers are the optimistic ones, assuming that all of the stimulus plans work.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...ry_Tables2.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

The problem isn't really where it's at now, but how fast it's increasing. The projected budget deficit for 2009 alone is $1.752 trillion, with another $9 trillion deficit in the next 10 years. These numbers are the optimistic ones, assuming that all of the stimulus plans work.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...ry_Tables2.pdf

---

how is this a problem? Since our money is backed by nothing, lets just print the requisite trillions and call it a day on this silly debt hodge-podge.

can't we just transfer the balance to a low intrest card?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flomo

can't we just transfer the balance to a low intrest card?

---

Credit cards are evil. Consider a Home Equity Line of Credit, United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

The problem isn't really where it's at now, but how fast it's increasing. The projected budget deficit for 2009 alone is $1.752 trillion, with another $9 trillion deficit in the next 10 years. These numbers are the optimistic ones, assuming that all of the stimulus plans work.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...ry_Tables2.pdf

---

This is a concern if the deficit is high enough. I really, really doubt it is. US is by far the most economically powerful nation on the planet, this makes demand for US prosperity paramount, and the nature of investment is that it enhances surplus capacity.

Also, one interesting thing to note is that we ran up a huge deficit with Bush, and his policies were horrible investments, yet we were still able to run up a huge deficit. Now we have a policy maker in office who actually is trying to invest. I would not in the slightest be surprised if US creditors are more thrilled with crediting the US now than they were when Bush was in charge

Being the most powerful economy in the world is the only thing that has made the current $3 trillion foreign debt possible, if that increases to 15 trillion in the next 10 years, how long do you think China is gonna count on getting it's money back at some point? What happens if China, Japan and/or the Saudis decide ok that's it, no more bonds for us? I don't think it's pessimistic to say the situation is slightly risky.

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

The problem isn't really where it's at now, but how fast it's increasing. The projected budget deficit for 2009 alone is $1.752 trillion, with another $9 trillion deficit in the next 10 years. These numbers are the optimistic ones, assuming that all of the stimulus plans work.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...ry_Tables2.pdf

---

This is a concern if the deficit is high enough. I really, really doubt it is. US is by far the most economically powerful nation on the planet, this makes demand for US prosperity paramount, and the nature of investment is that it enhances surplus capacity.

Also, one interesting thing to note is that we ran up a huge deficit with Bush, and his policies were horrible investments, yet we were still able to run up a huge deficit. Now we have a policy maker in office who actually is trying to invest. I would not in the slightest be surprised if US creditors are more thrilled with crediting the US now than they were when Bush was in charge

---

Regardless of the Bush situation, taxing the crap out of business and the consumer to make work programs and taking over businesses is not the way to reduce the deficit... trying to reduce something by making it larger is a bad plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Regardless of the Bush situation, taxing the crap out of business and the consumer to make work programs and taking over businesses is not the way to reduce the deficit... trying to reduce something by making it larger is a bad plan.

---

I don't get it, how does increasing taxes increase the deficit? What is the way to reduce the deficit then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Regardless of the Bush situation, taxing the crap out of business and the consumer to make work programs and taking over businesses is not the way to reduce the deficit... trying to reduce something by making it larger is a bad plan.

---

I don't get it, how does increasing taxes increase the deficit? What is the way to reduce the deficit then?

---

Good question.

Increasing taxes reduces incentive to keep your business here or to make money here. That in turn reduces the income here, which reduces tax revenue.

Reducing taxes encourages spending and investment in the country, thus increasing overall revenue by increasing the tax base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Good question.

Increasing taxes reduces incentive to keep your business here or to make money here. That in turn reduces the income here, which reduces tax revenue.

Reducing taxes encourages spending and investment in the country, thus increasing overall revenue by increasing the tax base.

---

I've heard about that. I'd be interested to see some math or statistics to see whether that's true.

Here's one I found quickly...

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm

Let me see what I can find with some graphs... and easy to understand details...

all of the sudden this convo has taken the form of one I want to pay attention to. My ears are perked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Being the most powerful economy in the world is the only thing that has made the current $3 trillion foreign debt possible, if that increases to 15 trillion in the next 10 years, how long do you think China is gonna count on getting it's money back at some point? What happens if China, Japan and/or the Saudis decide ok that's it, no more bonds for us? I don't think it's pessimistic to say the situation is slightly risky.

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

---

15 trillion foreign debt would actually be a problem, as to how much and how it would be combated is debatable. We're not gonna get even close to that though, since most accrued debt is like 3/4 domestic, we'd hafta be rolling like 40 trillion debt plus tons of extra inflation from fiat currency creation in order to be around 15 trillion foreign. And yes, that would be a problem

However, not only would that be a problem for US, but for our creditors as well, and it's debatable as to who gets the worst of it. Both US and our biggest creditor, China, know that the solution is and would be a moderate, gradual process of reducing US and Chinese dependency on each other. That's what it is, a mutual dependency, not the deluded idea that many uninformed have that it's all US dependence upon China. Creditor nations having to stop crediting would largely destroy the investments they already made, and we just simply wont see that.

We would not see a drastic shift in policy unless it was virtually the end of the world. Doing so would just be too terrible of policy for both US and China when compared to a gradual process. We are working on this gradual process right now, and I'm betting that both our governments confidence is high given that those in power actually know what they're doing.

Also, it seems the debate is not about whether or not Obama's budget will get the deficit lower, but that some think that the process of doing so will be too high a cost due to inflation or foreign creditors backing out. Well, the facts just do not support that the percentage of increase over the first couple years of the budget is large enough to cause the kind of catastrophic reactions of major countries. It's an ideological debate among arm-chairs, not a numbers debate among professionals. Besides, if Obama's budget were the big problem that some speculate it is, we would be seeing pressure from US creditors, even if behind the scenes, and this pressure would be very powerful and it would in effect play a role in modifying the budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Good question.

Increasing taxes reduces incentive to keep your business here or to make money here. That in turn reduces the income here, which reduces tax revenue.

Reducing taxes encourages spending and investment in the country, thus increasing overall revenue by increasing the tax base.

---

Except that historical facts disagree. The biggest booming economy with the highest purchasing power from the middle class in history was during a time when taxes on the wealthy were much, much higher than now, and were possibly too high.

Even if you were right, you're neglecting all the huge negative impacts of reducing taxes too low. More importantly, too low on the rich. Correct tax policy has nothing to do with how it affects investment, but how it affects middle-class purchasing power. After all, investments are worthless without a middle class, and the stronger the middle class the better the investments.

The reign of Reaganomics in US has been what you say the solution is, yet it is doing absolutely nothing to benefit us now (as it never did). We're not lacking supply, but demand. This is the same as not lacking investment, but purchasing ability, and the same as not lacking wealthy people, but lacking middle class. We're not lacking in a small percentage of people with gigantic wealth, but in high enough wealth of the median income bracket to drive the economy.

Also, you don't seem to be cognizant of the actual situation here because taxes are not going up for anybody but the wealthy, and they're only going up 3% while that's still drastically low, and this isn't happening till like 2011.

You know, we got out of the Depression largely due to huge increases in taxes on the rich, and that's still not the best way to do it. All the tax revenue was necessary to create a strong middle class, but if FDR could have borrowed or printed enough then it was possibly the suboptimal approach, yet it still worked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Here's one I found quickly...

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm

Let me see what I can find with some graphs... and easy to understand details...

---

I'm in no way an expert, and only a wee bit learned on what it takes to understand this, but it looks very ugly. The author is neglecting many factors and leaping to conclusions, and much of this flies in the face of economic consensus

I really don't wanna get into it because, well, I simply am not knowledgeable enough, but one example is that he's not accounting at all for real median income changes and wealth distribution alterations.

I could be wrong about this specifically, which is why I would defer to others I know who are qualified to give an analysis if I cared enough.

Besides, the conclusion of the article doesn't support your sentiments anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

15 trillion foreign debt would actually be a problem, as to how much and how it would be combated is debatable. We're not gonna get even close to that though, since most accrued debt is like 3/4 domestic, we'd hafta be rolling like 40 trillion debt plus tons of extra inflation from fiat currency creation in order to be around 15 trillion foreign. And yes, that would be a problem

---

Those numbers are from the Obama administration, the 2010 budget. They are the projected deficits, not the foreign debt. The health reform, tax cuts and other changes aim to bring the total deficit of 2010-2019 down from 9 trillion to 7 trillion.