Quag
-
Posts
1701 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Everything posted by Quag
-
-EA- MATH - 0 BEAM - 2 COLD - 0 BELL - 1 BRAT - 1 DEAR - 2 HEAD - 2 Hmm tere was a typo in the carry over from previous posts COLD =0 as stated when it was first typed in sorry ill take no points this round Dej +10
-
---- MATH - 0 BEAM - 2 COLD - 1 BELL - 1 BRAT - 1 DEAR - 2
-
if you are stating half the first stimulus was tax cuts and that it worked than what worked the tax cuts or the stimulus? again long term i see no gain if you claim half was tax cuts than how can you be sure the tax cuts were not the actual impetus for the (ahem) increase in jobs (they keep using jobs saved and never use jobs created because you can never actually give a definite number to jobs saved bit so they can claim any BS number they want and i use the BS in maximum sense here they are just jerking you around and you are buying it. Roosevelt and the new deal was a failure the us didnt coem out of the recession untill WW2 and that was due to england and to a limited extent France spending their cash to buy us arms/armamments a situation that continued untill lend lease was created to continue to help england as it was obvious they couldnt contineu to pay for all they needed (they did continue to pay for a lot) so how did the new deal help? it didnt it was total abject failure only money that came from outside that didnt need to be paid back ended the problems in the us also please not e a recession happened at the end of the war as soon as the govt stopped spending money and started having to deal with the incurre ddebt (partially offselt by continued payments from england. as to canadian cuts they started in early 90's i think about 92-93 id have to look uop to be sure but it was one of those 2 years add a bit of time for the effects to happen (ie the actual savings from the cuts you get to 94-95 when things picked up,.
-
---- MATH - 0 BEAM - 2 ouch COLD - 0 BELL - 1 BRAT - 1
-
points 1-2 basically stating what they did after they say why 3rd point: The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics. 4th point politica i giv eya that 5th point is mix politics and ability to meet a compromise. as to the tea party stuff. I disagree that no tax increase is good/possible but going back to my point earlier if you truly believe you are right to compromise on this would lead to ruin in your opinion, then compromise would be wrong, They need to learn that just like Obama needed to learn to compromise, something he only started to do when his political capital ran out, i remember the speech where he told republicans to get on board because he had won the election, he doesn't say crap like that anymore. put in bold as i felt it was important. seemed to imply that tax breaks ending will solve things. but honestly they wont even make them manageable just reduce the speed that your are heading in the wrong direction slightly. but yes there are many things that could be done in fact that is part of it there are many things that HAVE to be done no 1 thing by itself will have a large impact. the growth was almost nonexistant and the Europe thing was a much much larger factor than not reaching a compromise, BTW i dont blame only republicans the dems could easily have said ok well do it your way and if it didnt work pasted them come election time and then done things their way. love douglas adams, yeah i would say most politicians fit category3 and only get it right by accident but still fairtale dreaming me likes to think most are also cat1 sounds like Obama, guy starts with nothing works only in community service or govt and ends up rich, lol liek that is possible without being corrupt! I don't pay much attention to primaries untill later on as who cares about soem guy who may never even get close to running for the office, if perry wins the nomination or looks like he might (later on) ill check him out. actually i never considered Clinton as doing much one way or the other economically but again when you look at it his last term was dominated by republican congress that was much more for less govt and only at the end did he have a surplus so was it clinton or the republican congress that did it? dont knwo dont really care either as liek i said i dont see him as keynsian but more a small intervention. let me put it this way govts do not create good economies they create the environment that good economies can grow in. they can destroy an economy but never make it grow just provide the right conditions ie not too much/little regulation, both hurt the economy. a balanced approach is necessary. reduce spending and increase income to the govt when the finance are under control you can try to play around a bit but now is definitely not the time to be spending like drunken sailors. nope i close my ears and wont listen politicans want to be good they are jsut stupid!!
-
---- MATH - 0 BEAM - 2 ouch COLD - 0 BELL - 1
-
short reply as i don't have time no the stimulus didn't work http://lyingeyes.blogspot.com/2011/02/did-stimulus-worked.html http://economyincrisis.org/content/did-stimulus-create-jobs we can keep going back and forth all day on this but to make it easier historically speaking ie looking back many years with hindsight instead of the recent recession and you will find that stimulus has never had a long term positive effect only long term negative effect. so whether 2 million jobs were saved or not (notice they dont use created, makes ya wonder) doesn't matter if in the longer term the bad economy lasts longer and even more peopel are hurt by it. the Canadian link proves my point. think of the economy as a large ship nothing you do has an immediate effect(well almost nothing, natural disaster wars etc are pretty immediate) in the 90's we started to do something by 1995 Canadian jobs are growing very very nicely untill the recession hits, thank you very much for proving my poiint as to us politics ok maybe your guys are worse than the ones we have here, but ill still live in my fairytale land and pretend the politicians are working for what they believe is the good of the country and not just themselves (yeah im hopeless) you like Keynesian economics? it has been shot down by pretty much every economists and financial expert since it was first tried AND FAILED! just like the current stimulus has failed.
-
---- MATH - 0 BEAM - 2 ouch COLD - 0
-
unemplyment will not go away as long as the outlook for the govt debt is soo soo bad. What I can tell you is that in the 90's we here were in the same basic situation as you guys are now. The govt did cut jobs, froze wages downloaded services to the provinces basically they did everything they could to get their house in order (financially speaking). now we are weathering the economic crisis better than any other developed country. We did some stimulus type stuff. the govt didnt actually want to. They were in a minority and were forced to, which led top the rather hilarious situation of the opposition parties screaming that the govt was spending to much and creating a deficit after they forced them to do so. Now we have a majority govt and they are working to get rid of the deficit again and have completely rejected the possibility of any further stimulus, only 1 of the 3 opposition parties thinks it should be done so they almost have unanimity on this one here. basically the problem is the 2 are interconnected you cant fix they unemployment problem with such an overwhelming debt problem. a stimulus will not help, just like every other stimulus it will create either unproductive govt office jobs that are jsut a drain on the economy or infrastructure projects that result in employment of those building as soon as the project is done which usually coincides with the need for more $ by the govt to pay the debts caused by the projects thus making the situation even worse. I am sorry stimulus has just never ever ever ever worked as a way of getting the economy going. Agree 100%
-
um no it was because of the debt/deficit. http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563 here is the reasons given by S&P themselves. please note the last paragraph it is very explicit you are spending way too much. Both Moody's and Fitch have reaffirmed that the outlook for the US keeping their credit ratings are negative (ie they may be downgraded). So its not a 1 time crazy company thing that happened. YOU HAVE a debt/deficit problem. As to the running to T-bills all the analysis that i have seen said it is because t-bills and gold are where people have traditionally taken refuge and it should not be seen as a sign that people have confidence in them only that they don't know where else to go with their money. umm no simple changes wont fix the problem and the tax rates will not even come close to closing the gap. Please look again at the link gvg gave for the NY Times Yes I agree with you here, only you guys are growing debt at such an incredible rate the ability to pay the debt is being reduced. That is why you got the downgrade and that there is a strong possibility of future downgrades. um sorry to disagree here well kinda disagree. When Bush was in power the dems acted the same there is no difference there. this is political analysis and well i call bs here. There is NO chance the economy will recover by 2012, thus making the analysis complete conjecture and a waste of time. in fact the next president rep/dem will inherit a screwed up economy and will be lucky to get reelected in 4 years unless they make major changes. Obama is going in the wrong direction increasing debt at astronomical rates will just continue the economic malaise. perhaps he will try to get it under control but i doubt it, frankly i doubt a republican will be able to either. Only when you admit you have a serious problem will there be enough political will to tackle it. Again i go back to what i wrote before i believe all (most) politicians want what is best for their country just because you disagree with their ideas on how to get there doesn't mean that they want to do harm for their own personal gain. Ok perhaps i am naive but the alternative as i see it is to believe that all(most) politicians are there for personal gain at the expense of their country yes that is the theory, unfortunately it does not and has not ever worked. the problem is when the govt stops spending the money and starts to deal with the problems causing the debt they created the economy does even worse. It is Keynesian economics at its worst. In fact Keynes would be appalled as he said in times of plenty they govt pays back the money it borrowed. the idea of continuing the deficit spending in times of plenty and then trying the pump/priming when you are in debt up to your eyeballs would have him rolling in his grave. here another opposing idea. You reduce taxes thus leaving more money in the hands of consumers who would either spend or invest that money thus stimulating the economy. No this doesn't work really either it is the same thing from a different point of view. one is democrat one is republican.
-
gvg yeah i don't like sweatshops but i admit i think a lot of that is due to bad connotations associated with the term "sweatshop" I know they lead to better conditions for the people working there and all, Korea is a great example but it is just such a negative term. BTW most minimum wage in Canada and the US would be considered sweatshop wages in Switzerland so everything is relative. When you hear someone making 1$ a day you think that is wrong and evil but if they only spend .10$ a day on food it isn't so bad. We always associate things in our monetary values and our comprehension of costs. I remember last time i was in England (15 yrs ago) all the prices for everything was the same as here in Canada, only they were in pounds not $ which at the time was roughly 2x the price. Made for easy math but dang did England seem expensive. France was different i cant remember the exchange rate but it was enough to make me not bother trying to figure out the cost of most things in Canadian dollars (though wine was cheaper than coca-cola)
-
---- MATH -0 - lol that would have been funny
-
ok got a word
-
Kmart1 I couldnt think of any other 4 letter words but i didnt want to take the chance that there could be
-
MATH
-
BATH if 3 than T is 3rd as BEES =0 and OATH =3 if 2 than O is first as B-O only change
