Where is the US economy headed?

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Yes, and we have that big-business Democrat Clinton to thank for signing it. You won't find me defending his record on issues such as this.

Yeah--well--when Mr Bush took office it was repealed.

So what? That didn't remove the gov'ts responsibility of overseeing our financial markets - something which the Bush SEC specifically decided not to do, and something which could have prevented much of the pain in 2008.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Dow is off something like 370 points right now.

Tea Party downgrade, indeed. This is what they wanted and called for, remember, as you watch things unfold this week.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense. Based on the statements and analysis of the raters themselves, had the House Budget been approved by the Senate and the President, there would have been no downgrade at all. The current issue with S&P is the inadequacy of the approved spending cuts and the apparent inability of our government to come to grips with crisis of our growing deficit.

The problem at hand is that we have current (i.e. this year) budgets deficits north of 6% of GDP and current projections, based largely on entitlement costs, of continued annual deficits of even greater relative magnitude - all combined with a low expectation of growth in our GDP. This situation would be viewed as a serious problem even if our accumulaterd government debt was 60% of GDP instead of the current approximately 75% value.

There is no doubt that the war and other spending under the Bush Administration contributed to the current problem - as well as their fairly lame but ineffective attempts to reforme entitlement spending. However, the current crisis is very clearly the result of the effects of the failed economic recovery policies of this administration, and the social welfare/redistributionist & environmental measures it has pursued in a way that have been seriously harmful to our economic performance and recovery. In the midst of a boom in worldwide oil and commodity prices we have curtailed domestic petroleum production; resisted efforts to develop domestic mines for scarce materials; added enormous costs to businesses large and small in compliance costs for new financial and health care regulations; punished corporations for investing in right-to-work states, and created enormous uncertainty about the future actions of a Federal government that evidently believes it alone knows what is best for all of us.

Had the Budgett passed by House Republicans been passed by the Senate and signed by the President, there would have been no downgrade. The Democrat controlled Senate rejected it and hasn't passed a budget in two years. However, in its defense, it voted 97 - 0 to reject the ridiculous spending increases proposed by our hapless President in his last, ill-fated budget.

Obama has been in office for 30 months now. Time enough to become responsible for current conditions. The fact is he and his party have pursued the wrong poilicies for the circumstances they inherityed, and he has very obviously failed utterly in the leadership role he sought. He is playing a juvenile blame game and making campaign speeches in the midst of a crisis largely of his own making.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Dow is off something like 370 points right now.

Tea Party downgrade, indeed. This is what they wanted and called for, remember, as you watch things unfold this week.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense. Based on the statements and analysis of the raters themselves, had the House Budget been approved by the Senate and the President, there would have been no downgrade at all. The current issue with S&P is the inadequacy of the approved spending cuts and the apparent inability of our government to come to grips with crisis of our growing deficit.

The S&P specifically and by name mentioned Republican intransigence on new revenues as a prime reason for the downgrade, George. At more than one point in their document. So, what you write here is totally false.

Quote:

However, the current crisis is very clearly the result of the effects of the failed economic recovery policies of this administration and the social welfare/redistributionist & environmental measures it has pursued in a way that have been seriously harmful to our economic performance and recovery.

This is an evidence-less assertion, and one that you never intend to back up, ever, because the truth is that you have no real facts to support it. You just repeat it ad nauseum. It doesn't work for your party and it doesn't work for you, either.

The best response I can give to your repeated screed (which I'll just refer to as George Argument A) is that polling clearly shows that the American people do not agree with you in the slightest. Do you have any explanation for why that is?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Perhaps you could provide your Poll data to S&P and major players in the Bond markets. Perhaps that will persuade them that our government is really on the right course and they have nothing to worry about.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Some might argue Cyclo that what the American people agree with is never the right policy to pursue.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I don't think Cyclo speaks for the American people nearly as accurately as he so frequently claims.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps you could provide your Poll data to S&P and major players in the Bond markets. Perhaps that will persuade them that our government is really on the right course and they have nothing to worry about.

Now you're just Appealing to Extremes. Nobody said our government was on the right course, or we had nothing to worry about... in fact, the intransigence of Republicans on the revenue issues does indeed provide great cause for concern.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't think Cyclo speaks for the American people nearly as accurately as he so frequently claims.

You don't have to take my word for it - read the various polls on the topic yourself. But, you don't even need to do that to know that I'm right, do you?

The truth is that the American people for the most part realize that what you and other Conservatives recommend are the same policies which have showed themselves to be spectacularly ineffective over the last decade; lower taxes, less regulation. We tried that for 8 straight years under Bush and got nothing for it. Oh, I'm sure some of us - and here I'm looking your direction - got something. But the majority of the country got nothing at all for those tax cuts and wars.

Why SHOULD they support doing more of the same thing that lead to that?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Market ends up down more than 600 points.

There's no possible way to look at this situation without discussing the fact that this is EXACTLY the situation that the Tea Party Republicans called for over the last two months. Exactly what they wanted.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I assume Cyclo that opposition to raising the debt ceiling was thought to be responsible or to express concern that a Republican president might have to deal with an extra $2.4 trillion on the current deficit within 18 months.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I assume Cyclo that opposition to raising the debt ceiling was thought to be responsible or to express concern that a Republican president might have to deal with an extra $2.4 trillion on the current deficit within 18 months.

Spendius - the debt cap raise was to pay for spending approved for FY11 - not for FY12. It's not new spending, it authorizes the treasury to pay for the plans that the Republicans and Dems just agreed to a few months ago. It's not an 'extra' 2.4 trillion dollars.

So, in short, you're totally wrong on the basics of what we're discussing here. Read up a bit on stuff before you post and you'll avoid making basic mistakes such as this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Market ends up down more than 600 points.

and the DOW actually did relatively good losing only 5.5%, the S&P 500 is down over 6.5% and the NASDAQ almost 7%.....

Nobody who has been listening to me over the last few years should be surprised.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Obama tried to help, but his sniveling only served to re-enforce the conventional wisdom that Washington politicians have not yet woken up and smelled the coffee.

Quote:

President Obama sought to reassure jittery investors Monday following a credit rating downgrade, declaring that the United States “always will be a triple-A country” regardless of an agency’s grade and affirming that the government maintains the ability to pay its debts.

Obama spoke after markets worldwide plunged Monday, as intensifying fears about the global economy drove panicked selling in the United States, Europe and Asia.
.
.
.
Obama added:
“No matter what some agency may say, we’ve always been and always will be a triple-A country."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/markets-plunge-worldwide-as-economic-fears-rise/2011/08/08/gIQA58Gh2I_story.html?hpid=z1

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Market ends up down more than 600 points.

There's no possible way to look at this situation without discussing the fact that this is EXACTLY the situation that the Tea Party Republicans called for over the last two months. Exactly what they wanted.

Cycloptichorn

On the contrary, what the Tea Party wanted, as expressed in the Budget passed by the Republican controlled House would - by S&Ps own stated criteria - have prevented the downgrade of our bonds. The downgrade was the result of the Administration's refusal to recognize and act on the budget crisis it created. M eanwhile the Bond market has been fairly stable.

What is going on in the stock market reflects investors collective lack of confidence in our future economic performance, and in the ability of our government to help it in any way. That lack of conficdence is in major part associated with the policy decisions of the current Administration to curtail petroleum production; prevent more widespread economic development of our natural resources; limit energy production; and add costly regulations and nonproductive interference with the economic activities of people throughout the country - all in pursuit of its imagined -perfectly regulated social welfare state. Unfortunately for us it will cost us both our freedom and our prosperity.

Perhaps Cyclo reads too many Progressive blogs. He recites their mantras frequently enough. Unfortunately as things collapse around them they sound ever more hollow and fatuous.

2 Replies

We May Be An Ugly Dog But We Look Better Then The Others In The Kennel. -pundit
Today was brutal for investors in the market but, surprising perhaps, the dollar rose as did treasuries - in some cases hitting record low yields. If this holds, interest rates on loans will decline.
Oil fell by $6 to $81, or 7%. Some analyst predicts that the next level of support is at $75. That would be down some 30% from earlier in the year and could lower the price of gas to around $3 a gallon.
Obama - rightly or wrongly - might get a bounce in his approval ratings.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

What is going on in the stock market reflects investors collective lack of confidence in our future economic performance

No, what is going on is that the holders of capital are demanding QE3, ie the next wave of market welfare, and they will burn the markets down if they dont get it.

I expect a Fed announcement of the QE3 plan is imminent.

In other news the France rates on credit default swaps are way up, there is no saving Europe, so QE3 will be a complete waste of money and it will drive up commodity prices which will hammer the US citizen. The likely cause of the France debt problem is that German has come out with a statement that they are wanting to draw the line on bailouts of EU countries. Those who have been paying attention will recall that I have long asserted that as some point the Germans would decide enough is enough re being the welfare provider for the rest of Europe. At some point the German citizens were going to wake up and ask "what do we get out of sending all of our savings to other nations, who likely will never pay it back?" France was till now a partner, but since France is now tapped out it is all on the German's back. I think the response will be NEIN!

We are locked in for the crash now.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

That lack of conficdence is in major part associated with the policy decisions of the current Administration to curtail petroleum production; prevent more widespread economic development of our natural resources; limit energy production; and add costly regulations and nonproductive interference with the economic activities of people throughout the country -

100%, evidence-free bullshit. I'd challenge you to provide evidence that ANY of this is true, but you don't even try.

Specifically - what costly regulations on economic activity are you referring to? There has been no massive expansion of regulations in anything but the HC sector, and those don't kick in for another 2 or 3 years for the most part. So what exactly are you referring to?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Do you deny that the EPA has indicated its intent to issue regulations seriously curtailing the use of coal to provide electrical power? This affects 51% of our electrical power production, and as the "renewable alternatives" favored by the administration cost more than 3 x the price of coal power, the caluclations of energy cost associated with planned new production of anything will go up significantly, but in an as yet undetermined way?

Do you deny that the Administration has effectively shut down petroleum exploration in the Gulf and prohibited new development on the Atlantic & Pacific coasts as well as in Alaska - and done so at a time when petroleum prices are near all-time highs?

Do you deny the Administration is working to prevent needed construction of a petroleum pipeline from Canada at a time when our dependence on Middle East and Venezuelan oil is rising ?

Do you really believe that figuring out what is in the 2000 health care bill and figurting out how to comply with its Byzantine and sometimes contradictory requirements is not a matter of current concern, activity, and cost calculation among American business, large and small ?

Do you believe the complex requirements of the Dodd Frank financial legislation can be complied with without cost or effort to corporations? Do you believe these complex new regulations have made it less difficult to launch a new economic enterprise?

Do you believe the Administration's current effort to punish the Boeing company for daring to build a manufacturing plant in a right to work state where its workers can join labor unions if they like, but cannot be forced by law to do so, and doing so at a moment of great importance in its competitive struggle with foreign competitors was an encouragement for businessmen and investors to launch new competitive economic activity?

Do you believe that sitting on four new trade treaties with key trading partners for almost three years was a benefit to U.S. business activity? The Administration has finally, and shamefacedly, agreed in principle to proceed if some wasteful and useless "training" payoffs to labor unions are attached - something that won't help anything, but will add to our deficits at a time when we don't need that at all. Still the treaties have not yet been picked up by the Senate. Did all this help raise our GDP?

Do you believe the constant threat of higher taxes on both C and S corporations, coming from this Administration, together with its anti-business and redistributionist rhetoric are an encouragement to entrepreneurs to risk their own capital in new ventures?.

Have you been paying attention at all for the past three years?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you deny that the EPA has indicated its intent to issue regulations seriously curtailing the use of cvoal to provide electrical power? This affectsd 51% of our electrical power production, and as the "renewable alternatives" favored by the administration cost more than 3 x the prioce of coal power, the caluclations of energy cost associated with planned new production of anything will go up significantly, but in an as yet undetermined way?

As I've said before, you need to take that up with the Supreme Court, who specifically ruled in 2007 that the EPA had a right and a responsibility to do so. They re-affirmed this after a challenge last year.

I suggest you read up some more on this issue before simply assigning blame to Obama. Here's a somewhat light article that you might enjoy:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/06/supreme-court-backs-obama-epa-states-climate-change/1

Quote:

Do you deny that the Administration has effectively shut down petroleum exploration in the Gulf and prohibited development Atlantic & Pacific coasts as well as Alaska?

The admin quite sensibly shut down drilling in deep areas in the gulf. This is a feature, not a bug; a smart thing to do, not a problem, as it was revealed that nobody could effectively contain a problem in that area in time to prevent a huge disaster. I know you don't give a **** about the environment, but hey; some of us do. You're 0 for 2.

Quote:

Do you really believe that figuring out what is in the 2000 health care bill and figurting out how to comply with its Byzantine and sometimes contradictory requirements is not a matter of current concern, activity, and cost calculation among American business, large and small ?

Do you really believe that this is a substitute for pointing out specific regulations? This is nebulous pap. WHICH regulations are costing so much money to figure out? I am betting you have no clue.

Quote:

Do you believe the complex requirements of the Dodd Frank financial legislation can be complied with without cost or effort to corporations? Do you believe they have made it less difficult to launch a new economic enterprise?

Which complex requirements? You have no idea. You can't just repeat the name of a bill, and say 'ooh, it's expensive!' and expect that to substitute for actual knowledge of the subject. It's clear that you know next to nothing about what these bills actually call for or do. You just see 'new regulations' and jump straight from there into 'expensive to comply with.'

That doesn't fly with anyone but a fool, George.

Quote:

Do you believe the Administration's current effort to punish the Boeing company for daring to build a manufacturing plant in a right to work state where its workers can join labor unions if they like, but cannot be forced by law to do so, and doing so at a moment of great importance in its competitive struggle with foreign competitors was an encouragement for businessmen and investors to launch new competitive economic activity?

I hardly think this has anything at all to do with our economic downturn, and I'm not interested in more union-bashing from you.

Quote:

Do you believe the constant threat of higher taxes on both C and S corporations, coming from this Administration, together with its anti-business and redistributionist rhetoric are an encouragement to entrepreneurs to risk their own capital in new ventures?.

Sorry, but this is the biggest bullshit of everything you wrote. 'Constant threat' my ass Laughing

Corporations are ALWAYS under 'threat' of changing business conditions and higher taxes. Always. There has never been a single period in the last 80 years in which they were not. And yet, you would have us believe that these pansies are just sitting there quivering, afraid to do business because someone might change the rules or raise taxes later. It is a nonsensical argument, and one with zero - and I do mean zero - evidence to back it up.

Quote:

Have you been paying attention at all for the past three years?

Better than you have, apparently. You don't even know what the regulations ARE, that you claim are strangling our economy. How can you expect to be taken seriously by anyone? I'll tell ya one thing: I see you complaining a lot about people like Parados, but he makes you look like a midget, as he actually does research and has a clue about what he's talking about before writing something. You continually substitute that for opinion and bombast. It's not convincing to anyone.

I challenge you - once again - what are the SPECIFIC parts of Dodd-Frank and the HCR bill which are so expensive to comply with? You can't say, because you simply don't know. I'm just going to keep asking until you admit that's true.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, et.al.,
This is exactly my original point. We can all spend endless cycles debating how we got into this mess we're in. And I'm confident both sides of the argument can pull out reams of data to support their particular position of why they're right and the other guy is wrong.

But what good does it to do so? So you convince me and I become a keynesian democrat. After all that bluster and debate, have we got even one inch closer to fixing our S&P credit rating?

It is now time to get serious about this whole debate. Repubs have got the Ryan plan (or the Cut & Balance bill)..... Now the Dems need to put their own plan on the table. It will probably be only an opening gambit with few (if any) cuts to entitlements, but that's OK. At least folks can begin to identify trade space and where they can agree or disagree.

This is what the public expects to see from Congress...not the spectacle of one side tossing out plans that the other simply ridicules or refuses to bring up for debate, while simultaneously failing to provide an alternative. If Dems (or Repubs) play such games they deserve to be unemployed next Nov.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know