A Couple of Questions for 1Nemesis

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Laz

I would suggest you use simple logic or common sense but that is clearly not your strong suit.

Large deficits will lead to higher taxes because debt has to be paid back. The only way to do that is cut spending, so that the current tax revenue is redirected to paying debt instead of providing services, or raise taxes. The politicians have proven to be incapable of having the guts to tell people we are broke and act responsibly so that only leaves one alternative. We could inflate our way out of the debt but that is the same as a tax since it reduces the value of everyones savings.

As for companies not hiring you need to ask yourself what would you do in this economic environment. Would you take the risk of hiring someone without knowing what the impact of Obamacare is going to be, will your demand justify having the employee for a long term. New hires are not inexpensive when you consider training and the time it takes for them to become productive. It is a smarter decision to make do with the employees you have or possibly hire temp employees so that you are not on the hook long term. There are surveys that demonstrate this but it is simple logic.

If this does not satisfy you, to bad because I really don't care. I do not have a strong desire to prove myself correct. If you think my statement is wrong then prove it or ignore it.

Laz, I know what you mean about the common sense approach to budgetary concerns but, the kitchen table accounting that we do everyday to balance our checkbooks does not translate to the worlds largest and most wealthy economy that has worldwide implications. You can't tackle the debt for 340 million people whose livelihood depends on even the slightest change in policy like austerity measures for instance, like you do at home.

Keynesian economic theory is what President Obama has used successfully to start the economic recovery, the most recognizable of which was the Stimulus package, and here is how it works in a simplistic way:

In a downturned economy, we all stop spending. When we stop spending we cut back visits to the hot women here on ECCIE right? Well, she then cuts back on buying lingerie, then the lingerie company is not making money and they start laying off employees and then those employees don't have money and they cut back and so on and so on. Well this snow ball effect devastates the economy and when you put this downturn into perspective nationwide you can see what happens.
So, Keyensian theory says in the SHORT TERM, the only entity that has the power to turn the economy around and pump life back into it is the Government. So then you extend unemployment, spend money on infrastructure, make sure that no catastrophic losses occur like GM and Chrysler which would tip the scale and basically increase government spending.

This injection of cash jump starts the economy back into forward motion and then once the economy is on a solid path of recovery you begin to address long term debt but not until the economy is going strong. Drastic austerity measures slows recovery or completely stops it as demonstrated by the Greeks and the EU.

Keynesian theory is proven and it works but it could've worked much quicker had the republicans not filibustered every attempt to implement it because they know the president would get credit and win another election.

So far it looks like the worst nightmare has occurred for the republican party because Wall Street broke 13,0000 and that shows massive growth and really excites investors and all at a time right before the election which makes it fresh in the minds of the voters.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

Laz, I know what you mean about the common sense approach to budgetary concerns but, the kitchen table accounting that we do everyday to balance our checkbooks does not translate to the worlds largest and most wealthy economy that has worldwide implications. You can't tackle the debt for 340 million people whose livelihood depends on even the slightest change in policy like austerity measures for instance, like you do at home.

Keynesian economic theory is what President Obama has used successfully to start the economic recovery, the most recognizable of which was the Stimulus package, and here is how it works in a simplistic way:

In a downturn economy, we all stop spending. When we stop spending we cut back visits to the hot women here on ECCIE right? Well, she then cuts back on buying lingerie, then the lingerie company is not making money and they start laying off employees and then those employees don't have money and they cut back and so on and so on. Well this snow ball effect devastates the economy and when you put this downturn into perspective nationwide you can see what happens.
So, Keynesian theory says in the SHORT TERM, the only entity that has the power to turn the economy around and pump life back into it is the Government. So then you extend unemployment, spend money on infrastructure, make sure that no catastrophic losses occur like GM and Chrysler which would tip the scale and basically increase government spending.

This injection of cash jump starts the economy back into forward motion and then once the economy is on a solid path of recovery you begin to address long term debt but not until the economy is going strong. Drastic austerity measures slows recovery or completely stops it as demonstrated by the Greeks and the EU.

Keynesian theory is proven and it works but it could've worked much quicker had the republicans not filibustered every attempt to implement it because they know the president would get credit and win another election.

So far it looks like the worst nightmare has occurred for the republican party because Wall Street broke 13,0000 and that shows massive growth and really excites investors and all at a time right before the election which makes it fresh in the minds of the voters.

While I agree that the government budget is far more complex than a household budget due to the size and functioning of the federal government, I do not agree that the concepts are any different than a household budget. Borrowing money creates an obligation on your future income. As long as you have surplus income that is not an issue. However, when your fixed obligation and debt service are equal to your income you no longer have the ability to continue increasing your debt and you also no longer have the financial ability to deal with unplanned financial obligations. Nice to do things like going out to dinner, going to the movies or having a nicer car or in government terms feeding the hungry, supporting the arts, or upgrading the military are no longer options. The governments solution has always been to give itself a raise by stealing money in the form of taxes. Households do not have that luxury and the government will reach a point where the taxes become such a burden on the economy that raising the rates can actually reduce the tax revenue received by the government. What will they do then. Check Greece for an answer.

I am familiar with Keynesian economic theories and do not agree that they are being used effectively. If deficit spending kept the economy going then we should not have experienced a recession since we have been deficit spending for decades. Keynes's theory was to smooth economic cycles. Reduce spending and pay of debt in growth periods to slow the growth and deficit spending and borrowing in slow periods to minimize the economic contraction. Since this has never been done no one can state that it is proven theory.

Government spending on things like cash for clunkers just shifts the demand temporarily, the housing kickbacks simply shifted demand or temporarily reduced the rate housing values were decreasing. You say this is proven theory but when was it proven? The stimulus package Obama passed did not prove anything other than government can waste money faster than any other organization. I would also point out that in the Keynesian concept the government pays off the debt as soon as the economy improves. The federal government has not run a surplus in decades. Even in the boom years of the 90's the government spent all tax revenue plus most of the social security surplus.

Greece's problem is not that they are not spending enough. It is that they are spending more than their economy can support and the debt they created to support that is now greater than they can service. They have run out of options and since they are on the Euro they can't simply print money and inflate there way out from under the debt.

As for the Republicans stopping Obama that did not hinder his massive spending in the first two years and much of that spending was made permanent so that it has continued. I suggest that you compare the results of this recovery to what happened after the Bush tax cuts that were implemented after the tech bubble burst and the 9-11 attacks. I will grant you that the current recession is probably a little worse but even taking into account the scale the recovery under Bush was much better. The only thing that Bush failed at was controlling spending growth and controlling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If he had been able to moderate the housing bubble we would not be dealing with this problem now.

The Stock market is very tempermental. Do not count on it to bail Obama out because it can and has gone down as quickly as it has gone up. You also might want to consider that people may be optimistic because they think Obama will lose. While I can't see how he will get reelected considering his terrible record I am not yet willing to place bets on his loss. What will be interesting to see is what the market reaction is if the Supreme Court throws out Obamacare.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Laz

While I agree that the government budget is far more complex than a household budget due to the size and functioning of the federal government, I do not agree that the concepts are any different than a household budget. Borrowing money creates an obligation on your future income. As long as you have surplus income that is not an issue. However, when your fixed obligation and debt service are equal to your income you no longer have the ability to continue increasing your debt and you also no longer have the financial ability to deal with unplanned financial obligations. Nice to do things like going out to dinner, going to the movies or having a nicer car or in government terms feeding the hungry, supporting the arts, or upgrading the military are no longer options. The governments solution has always been to give itself a raise by stealing money in the form of taxes. Households do not have that luxury and the government will reach a point where the taxes become such a burden on the economy that raising the rates can actually reduce the tax revenue received by the government. What will they do then. Check Greece for an answer.

I am familiar with Keynesian economic theories and do not agree that they are being used effectively. If deficit spending kept the economy going then we should not have experienced a recession since we have been deficit spending for decades. Keynes's theory was to smooth economic cycles. Reduce spending and pay of debt in growth periods to slow the growth and deficit spending and borrowing in slow periods to minimize the economic contraction. Since this has never been done no one can state that it is proven theory.

Government spending on things like cash for clunkers just shifts the demand temporarily, the housing kickbacks simply shifted demand or temporarily reduced the rate housing values were decreasing. You say this is proven theory but when was it proven? The stimulus package Obama passed did not prove anything other than government can waste money faster than any other organization. I would also point out that in the Keynesian concept the government pays off the debt as soon as the economy improves. The federal government has not run a surplus in decades. Even in the boom years of the 90's the government spent all tax revenue plus most of the social security surplus.

Greece's problem is not that they are not spending enough. It is that they are spending more than their economy can support and the debt they created to support that is now greater than they can service. They have run out of options and since they are on the Euro they can't simply print money and inflate there way out from under the debt.

As for the Republicans stopping Obama that did not hinder his massive spending in the first two years and much of that spending was made permanent so that it has continued. I suggest that you compare the results of this recovery to what happened after the Bush tax cuts that were implemented after the tech bubble burst and the 9-11 attacks. I will grant you that the current recession is probably a little worse but even taking into account the scale the recovery under Bush was much better. The only thing that Bush failed at was controlling spending growth and controlling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If he had been able to moderate the housing bubble we would not be dealing with this problem now.

The Stock market is very tempermental. Do not count on it to bail Obama out because it can and has gone down as quickly as it has gone up. You also might want to consider that people may be optimistic because they think Obama will lose. While I can't see how he will get reelected considering his terrible record I am not yet willing to place bets on his loss. What will be interesting to see is what the market reaction is if the Supreme Court throws out Obamacare.

"The stimulus package Obama passed did not prove anything other than government can waste money faster than any other organization."

Tell me Laz, on what basis do you make this claim? What were the job numbers before and after the Stimulus package?

[Pepper_Springfield]

The unemployment rate in the private sector did not increase significantly and even now is not keeping up with natural growth in the labor force. As for the government being the best organization at wasting money just look at the idiotic programs being funded. Cash for clunkers, Solyndra, etc. Where else can you go to see billions of dollars squandered?

[Laz]

Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

"The stimulus package Obama passed did not prove anything other than government can waste money faster than any other organization."

Tell me Laz, on what basis do you make this claim? What were the job numbers before and after the Stimulus package?

What Pepper said.

P.S. That is all you got out of my comments? You keep trying to give me homework. I am not interested. Prove me wrong if you can.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Laz

What Pepper said.

P.S. That is all you got out of my comments? You keep trying to give me homework. I am not interested. Prove me wrong if you can.

Of course your not interested, I'm not trying to give you homework, I'm asking you to prove your point and you can't. I'm done with you Laz your a waste of time.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

Of course your not interested, I'm not trying to give you homework, I'm asking you to prove your point and you can't. I'm done with you Laz your a waste of time.

It is not my requirement to prove my point. It is up to you to either accept it or explain why you disagree. You are good at throwing up a lot of BS as if it is fact but clearly not at defending your opinions. No great loss if you are not up to defending your statements.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Pepper_Springfield

The unemployment rate in the private sector did not increase significantly and even now is not keeping up with natural growth in the labor force. As for the government being the best organization at wasting money just look at the idiotic programs being funded. Cash for clunkers, Solyndra, etc. Where else can you go to see billions of dollars squandered?

First let me tell you that I'm not interested in proving you wrong because your a woman, I'm asking you to defend your claims and that means I respect you as an individual and nothing else.
Now that I'm done with the sunshine, I have a question for you:

"The unemployment rate in the private sector did not increase significantly and even now is not keeping up with natural growth in the labor force."

So what is the natural growth rate ? What is the private sector job percentages month to month from the time that Obama entered office until now? I'd like to know...

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Laz

It is not my requirement to prove my point. It is up to you to either accept it or explain why you disagree. You are good at throwing up a lot of BS as if it is fact but clearly not at defending your opinions. No great loss if you are not up to defending your statements.

"It is not my requirement to prove my point" - LOL!!

Of course not Laz, of course not….

[Pepper_Springfield]

Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

First let me tell you that I'm not interested in proving you wrong because your a woman, I'm asking you to defend your claims and that means I respect you as an individual and nothing else.
Now that I'm done with the sunshine, I have a question for you:

"The unemployment rate in the private sector did not increase significantly and even now is not keeping up with natural growth in the labor force."

So what is the natural growth rate ? What is the private sector job percentages month to month from the time that Obama entered office until now? I'd like to know...

Look it up, sunshine.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Pepper_Springfield

Look it up, sunshine.

LOl! Ok, you know it's not going to be what you wanna see right?

[Mokoa]

He will not be able answer any questions now.

[Precious_b]

Yeah Laz,
I usually tell people to quote their source when they tell me something.

If I say something that *I* believe is true and someone says to the otherwise, I want them to do the explaining. For myself, I like to listen to the other persons POV to educate me. Not exactly like a court case where the Plantiff side has to lay it out first.

So, I agree with Pepper on the former of my above and you Laz on the latter.

[Jed Clampett]

Thanks Mokoa!

[Laz]

Our village idiot is gone!