Reply With Quote
More included rule hanky-panky. It sucks.
Last I checked the cons ution specifically says we can't spend without a budget.
I believe we are in day 18 of having no budget whatsoever.
Does this please anyone? Are there some apathetic to this?
I'm pretty pissed off myself.
More included rule hanky-panky. It sucks.
Not "having a budget" is not a problem, unless it also restricts spending the money to keep the federal gears turning, shutting down operations. That would be a great way for Congress to shutdown Iraq and Afghanistan wars wasting $Ts (and right into the pockets of the MIC corporate war machine).
Anybody heard of money not being spent and govt being shutdown (as Gingrich/Repugs did against Clinton and shot their asshole selves in foot) ?
Below federal (we-can-print-all-the-money-we-want) level (like the Fed lending money to financial sector a 0% interest) is where the deficit in tax revenues to fund budget is really shutting down govt.
eg, Illinois is bankrupt, $Bs very late in paying suppliers, some of whom will undoubtedly kill jobs and perhaps go bankrupt. CA was paying bills with IOUs last year.
This is the perfect situation to put Repugs back in control to up the country even more than they did in 2000-2008.
Boutons you can't blame this one on the Republicans.
We don't have a budget because Democrats are afraid to sign their name to the 1.3 trillion dollars they are about to spend before the November election.
Thus, they just added a few phrases to another bill "deeming" the budget they didn't write passed.
Now they can spend the money without voting to spend the money.
They think we are stupid and won't notice.
That's why they are gonna get their as kicked in November.
Maybe the (real) Blue Dogs, Tea Party, Conservatives and Libertarians can make a third party.
"Deficits don't matter"
The lying, hypocritical Repug "message" is that (Repug-enflamed) deficit is now the MAJOR problem facing the country so the chicken Dems cave into the to fake paranoia.
The deficit will take care of itself when the tax revenues, at all levels, go up again when/if economy returns to steady growth and full employment of 5% unemployment.
Right now, the economy sucks and looks like it's getting worse and staying bad for a long time, which is exactly what the Repugs want. They don't want Dems spending more counter-cyclical money to ease the pain and ease the Banksters' Great Depression. That would not help the Repugs in Nov.
When will that happen? When the economy corrects itself? If that is the case, why all the govt. intervention? How will the tax rev increase? Historically what increases tax rev?
No point in making a third party unless we require 50%+1 for a win rather than the most. Look what happened in '92. Clinton became president with only 43%. Most people voting for Perot I think would have voted for Bush in a run-off election.
Maybe the Repubs will purge the fair-weather conservatives. Im ok with Rhinos if they are set in the parts they are moderate in, instead of worrying about getting reelected.
> When will that happen?
With the govt stimulus being too small and nearly spent, probably 10+ years of near 10% unemployment.
> When the economy corrects itself? If that is the case, why all the govt. intervention?
"all"? There hasn't been enough govt stimulus to offset the drop in consumer spending.
> How will the tax rev increase? Historically what increases tax rev?
Property, sales, income taxes all increase as the economy advances, but it must advance at all levels, not just corporate level, as the Repugs programmed in the 2000s.
btw, this horrible Repug-inflamed federal deficit is to be compared with the nearly $2T in CASH that corps are hoarding, and the 10M+ homes to be foreclosed on by 2015.
This is all ridiculous.
keynesian policies and not free market policies have caused this whole disaster.
And don't bring me that crock because the govt was lax on certain regulations that this proves anything on free markets when we still have a mixed economy with a Fed reserve that artificially sets the value of money and interest rates.
Passing stimulus wont do , but lower everyones standard of living and set us up for massive inflation in the future. It's not any money or wealth that was generated but money that was created and printed by a federal reserve.
Obama is not spreading the wealth even if he were to give the maj of the stimulus to the common man, he's inflating the supply of money and lowering the power of purchasing. You can't spread wealth that hasn't been created.
How did Keynesian policies cause this disaster?
The conservatives' wet dream of numerous, secret, unregulated, aka free market, financial casinos caused this depression.
Greenspan pumping up the money supply and dubya's $1T in tax cuts for the super-wealthy, inflated the credit/commodities/real-estate bubble, with effectively 0% interest rates is Friedmanesque monetary policy, not Keynesian policy.
(B) The Money Growth Rule
Milton Friedman reversed his policy stance later, particularly in his famous Program for Monetary Stability (1959), where he dropped the countercyclical monetary policy rules of the Chicago Plan and opted in favor of a "constant money growth rule". Such a rule had been earlier advocated by James W. Angell (1933, 1936) and Clark Warburton (1952). Specifically, Friedman (1959, 1962) proposed that instead of trying to smooth out the cycle, the Federal Reserve should just follow a strict rule of expanding the money supply at a steady rate.
Friedman's logic can be expressed in terms of the Quan y Theory. In dynamic form, the equation of exchange implies that gM + gV = gP + gY. Assuming gV = 0 (or nearly so) and given that output has grown at a historical average of 3% per year, then in order to avoid inflation (i.e. keep gP = 0), the Federal Reserve should expand the money supply yearly by 3% (he actually recommended 3 to 5 percent per year). Friedman's suggestion was taken up by most Monetarists. Indeed, since 1973, Karl Brunner and Allan H. Meltzer have set up a "Shadow Open Market Committee" to regularly evaluate and recommend monetary policy along these lines.
Friedman's policy reversal was derived in good part from one important realization that emerged from his research: namely, his findings that discretionary countercyclical monetary policy could do more damage. He was first inspired in this direction by his analysis of the lag it takes for monetary policy decisions to affect the real economy. The analysis of lags was begun by Clark Warburton in the 1940s (see Warburton, 1966) and followed up by Friedman (1948, 1958, 1961) and Friedman and Schwartz (1963). He found the lags to be not only quite long, sometimes up to eighteen months, but also highly variable. The length and variability of the policy lag arises because, from a given output shock, it takes time for data to be collected and delivered, it takes some more time for the policymaker to be sure that there is actually a problem that needs to be remedied (to be sure there are no data errors, etc.), it then takes time to discuss and obtain agreement among the various relevant Central Bank governors on what the appropriate policy response is and, then, a little more time in getting that policy out to the trading desks to be implemented. Finally, there is the most complicated lag of all: the time it takes for the new Federal Funds interest rate to bring other interest rates into line and, more importantly, the time it takes to affect borrowing, investment and production decisions so that output is finally affected.
http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/es...tm#moneygrowth
With Fed interest rates at 0%, monetary policy is worthless as a stimulus.
"in theory", zero 0% Fed interest rates, and historically low mortgage rates, "should" be stimulating economic activity, growth.
But the Fed has blown its wad, and has NO TRACTION in the current crisis. The monetary theory is proven to be pure bull .
what was keynesian was the desire to jump the economy by having the govt spur growth in the housing market instead of letting the free market decided it.
We don't even have a free market to begin with. So it's stupid to blame things on something that has yet to exist.
The govt/CRA didn't/couldn't force regulated banks to write bad mortgages (just like the govt can't force banks now to lend to small businesses, nor force them rewrite at-risk mortgages to keep people in their homes).
The "free market" non-bank, non-regulated private mortgage companies financed by 100s of $Bs from wealthy people's estate/tax cuts looking for big returns, plus the non-regulated subsidiaries of regulated banks created specifically to write ty mortgages, were huge players in the ty mortgage market.
The GSEs bought the ty toxic mortgages, and are now trying to get the sellers to take them back as being in violation of bona fide contracting. ie, the sellers knew they were crap when the wrote mortgages, and when they sold them on to GSOs and Wall St.
As ALWAYS happens, give the financial sector enough unregulated rope, and it will and has ALWAYS hung us all.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-11-2010 at 07:54 AM.
And the reason they can do that is because the govt prints out money of thin air and doesn't let the market set the price of interest rates. Anyway you look at it, the govt has their hands in every mess.
Corporations that are well established are always set to gain from regulation.
I think the healthcare debacle revealed there are no "Real" blue dogs.
the reason everything the democrats have tried to do hasn't worked is because they are trying to jump start a broken engine. Even if everything they tried "worked" it would only give us at most 5 to 6 more years of "prosperity" until it broke down again, only this time worse than before.
the American economy as it is currently composed is unsustainable. service economy my ass.
plain. and. simple. We have to have more foreign currency coming in than we have US dollars going out.
Err.....the stimulus worked but the stimulus package passed by the Obama administration wasn't big enough....it was only supposed to keep the economy from descending into catastrophe not solve the nations unemployment problem...had the stimulus packaged not worked we would have a much higher unemployment rate and the costs would have been much, much worse...
ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so which one of you people are mad
I asked a question
who is mad who is not mad that this country is operating on day 19 of no budget.
Apparantly boutons______________________________________ is more or less not mad.....who else has an opinion instead of re-hashed facts?
This is so stupid.
We've just had a market and bubble crash because everything is overvalued.
Why should we then pump money into an overrated market to over inflate the worth of our production. Why should we throw fiat money, fictional wealth we didn't produce to inflate the economy and keep the market from actually giving all the financial sectors their true value.
If we pass a bigger stimulus we only worsen the problem and cause even greater inflation.
It's like a eating a whole wedding cake to raise your blood sugar only to come down and crash hardcore.
Idiotic.
Oh CbF, add a poll next time, jeebuss!
btw, i'm mad.
Inflation is not a problem..for now..but deflation is..If we pass a bigger stimulus we only worsen the problem and cause even greater inflation.
It's like a eating a whole wedding cake to raise your blood sugar only to come down and crash hardcore.
Idiotic.
Ignignokt
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
