| Author |
|
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 3:02pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
During Clinton the government, was able to spend less then they brought in and that's a good thing right? Please provide link to the GDP info.
How does spending 1 billion a week in Iraq strike you?
Edited by Jodi Moisan on 14 September 2008 at 3:03pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 3:14pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Jodi wrote:
| During Clinton the government, was able to spend less then they
brought in and that's a good thing right? |
|
|
For the second time, Jodi: Now, to make a point, were you as concerned about our debt when it was
at far higher levels as a percentage of our GDP in, say, 1996 or 1997,
under President Clinton? I was, and commended President Clinton and a
Republican controlled congress for their attempts to reduce growth.
QUOTE:
| Please provide link to the
GDP info. |
|
|
Laughing, sure. But first, just say..."Source?"
QUOTE:
| "How does spending 1 billion a week in Iraq strike you? |
|
|
You mean, while we're involved in a war and occupation of one fledgling republic; while militarily supporting the never before seen fledgling republic of another? It strikes me as a necessary and, ultimately, noble endeavor...though I would prefer a FAR better accounting of all costs and overruns. As it is, the bulk of these expenditures exist as supplements and are not listed as "Mandatory Expenditures" by our government. It is, make no mistake, those "Mandatory Welfare Expenditures" which are the root cause of our national debt.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 3:18pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Laughing, sure. But first, just say..."Source?"
Laughing too, But first.......What is the "source", for you being such a condesending blowhard? LOL
You mean, while we're involved in a war and occupation of one fledgling republic; while militarily supporting the never before seen fledgling republic of another? It strikes me as a necessary and, ultimately, noble endeavor...though I would prefer a FAR better accounting of all costs and overruns. As it is, the bulk of these expenditures exist as supplements and are not listed as "Mandatory Expenditures" by our government. It is, make no mistake, those "Mandatory Welfare Expenditures" which are the root cause of our national debt.
As my Mom would have said , "Your eyes must be brown because you are full of it." Just an FYI Michael using lots of words doesn't make it true. :0) LOL
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?ex =1379044800&en=c3c37388fe4618aa&ei=5124&partner= digg&exprod=digg
Edited by Jodi Moisan on 14 September 2008 at 3:37pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Michael Retour
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 932
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 3:40pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
JP did not step in alone. The Fed & JP stepped in to save one Bear Stearns (their derivatives tally was something like $14 trillion vs. what they claimed as "assets"). 100 of those blowing out wouldn't take out the economy? 100 x $14 trillion? What about all the asses hanging out ? The counterparty risk? The Fed isn't going to prop up Lehman but that doesn't mean the Fed won't bail out others as they've done with Freddie and Fannie (where there was systemic risk). I don't believe the Fed's bailout of Freddie and Fannie will work but that's my opinion. Time will tell.
I am curious just how the creation of a speculative housing bubble, in several nations, "saved" the US economy in the early part of this century? It seems to me we went from a stock market bubble to a housing bubble and that housing bubble gave the appearance of prosperity. Now that housing bubble is bursting and with it some institutions are going out of business. So what exactly the creation of that speculative bubble do but buy a few years time and make things worse? I believe I stated my own home, purchased in 2000 for 170k, is now "worth" 280k to the city but no one in their right mind would pay that amount. It is a fantasy, a fiction, fake. The value of my home is very much like the books Bear Stearns kept.
Does the government have a plan to salvage the effect on the economy? What do they call it? The Mother of All Bail Outs?
Joe you're correct. The institutions of Wall St. aren't being honest with us as Mr. Myers pointed out so kindly with the case of Bear Stearns.
Bush could have done nothing as he does nothing. Bush allowed it in the sense he is the president but also a fool.
"Overvaluation was a world wide phenomenon" is an opinion. To me, it was a worldwide policy to prop up a bubble. My opinion makes much more sense. Say you are a central banker someplace watching your financial house of cards come down (the tech bubble, the derivatives, etc etc etc) and you go "heck, let's speculate on real estate" and go ahead and create yet another bubble. Bubbles, bubbles everywhere. No one knows who has what because it is all off the books. Capt. Greenspan decides to give money away to prop up his bubble and then later claims to not understand what was happening.
I'd like to know what sector of our economy is the strong one? Pick five for me. Something we produce that we sell to pay off what we consume. Industries not casino operations.
I am dizzy.
We've had quite of few dizzying events: Russian GKOs, the yen carry trade, the so-called Asian crisis, etc.
We've seen institutions that survived the Great Depression go under.
Did I ever mention that the word "depression" will never be used again to describe economic times? It is too scary.
I am getting ever more dizzy.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Retour
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 932
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 3:43pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Oh come now, you could end all welfare programs today and that would not solve the economic crises Michael. That was really a knee-slapper there Mike.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 3:46pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Jodi wrote:
| Laughing too, But first.......What is the "source", for you being such a condesending blowhard? LOL |
|
|
Well gosh, Jodi, is there something in the content of any of my actual posts with which you'd like to argue further?
This what cracks me up about you guys. You're all fire and brimstone,
until someone challenges your outlandish conception of reality. Oh,
but you all think you like to play...
Here's the officially accepted rundown of your stats, Jodi:
The Office of Management and Budget
Or, Table 1.2 Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surplases or Deficits
as Percentages of GDP. They are also available, in one form or
another, from at least a dozen other government sites and offices.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 3:49pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
This what cracks me up about you guys. You're all fire and brimstone, until someone challenges your outlandish conception of reality. Oh, but you all think you like to play...
Michael I think the same way about you guys, I guess we have a draw.
and to be honest, posts like this
You mean, while we're involved in a war and occupation of one fledgling republic; while militarily supporting the never before seen fledgling republic of another? It strikes me as a necessary and, ultimately, noble endeavor...though I would prefer a FAR better accounting of all costs and overruns. As it is, the bulk of these expenditures exist as supplements and are not listed as "Mandatory Expenditures" by our government. It is, make no mistake, those "Mandatory Welfare Expenditures" which are the root cause of our national debt.
if over 4000 brave men and woman hadn't died, and countless Iraqi men , women and children, I would think this was really funny.
Edited by Jodi Moisan on 14 September 2008 at 3:55pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 4:01pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Michael Retour wrote:
| JP did not step in alone. The Fed & JP stepped in to save one
Bear Stearns (their derivatives tally was something like $14 trillion
vs. what they claimed as "assets"). |
|
|
It was a Fed brokered deal, Michael.
QUOTE:
| 100 of those blowing out wouldn't
take out the economy? 100 x $14 trillion? What about all the asses
hanging out ? The counterparty risk? |
|
|
And exactly how did the deal go down in the real world, Michael? Uh-huh.
QUOTE:
| The Fed isn't going to prop up
Lehman but that doesn't mean the Fed won't bail out others as they've
done with Freddie and Fannie (where there was systemic risk). |
|
|
They may well, for instance AIG, etc. It still doesn't come ANYWHERE close to level either you or Joe were touting as extant in today's market...nor even a conceivable forecast for the future. The big deal here, however, is the huge demarcation of encouraging moral hazard which the present Fed stance concerning Lehman Brothers offers. You can't disagree with me on this.
QUOTE:
| Does the government have a plan to salvage the effect on the economy? What do they call it? The Mother of All Bail Outs? |
|
|
If the Fed maintains its stated stance on Lehman Brothers, this would hardly be the case, now would it? Have you looked at the GSE restructuring? It ultimately serves to shrink its market share. That's a good thing.
QUOTE:
| "Overvaluation was a world wide phenomenon" is an opinion. To me, it
was a worldwide policy to prop up a bubble. My opinion makes much more
sense. Say you are a central banker someplace watching your financial
house of cards come down (the tech bubble, the derivatives, etc etc
etc) and you go "heck, let's speculate on real estate" and go ahead and
create yet another bubble. Bubbles, bubbles everywhere. No one knows
who has what because it is all off the books. Capt. Greenspan decides
to give money away to prop up his bubble and then later claims to not
understand what was happening. |
|
|
No, it is NOT an opinion. It is fact. Joe based his critique on a misunderstanding of the situation, and then blamed our Fed and President Bush for "engineering" the sub-prime crisis. He was plainly mistaken. Just as you previously made the SAME mistake...and just as in that instance, I challenged those mistaken assumptions.
Argue otherwise--that Greenspan and President Bush engineered the sup-prime crisis--if you think you can support it any better, now, than you did before.
QUOTE:
| Oh come now, you could end all welfare programs today and that would
not solve the economic crises Michael. That was really a knee-slapper
there Mike. |
|
|
No. Welfare expenditures are the single largest expenditures in our federal budget, and most are mandatory expenditures. These sums not only grow every year; but they see additions and growth in program count and expenditure every year. These debts are not owned by some foreign power or even public debts to foreign individuals. These are intra-governmental debts to fund mandatory welfare expenditures, and the interest alone is formidable.
Edited by Michael Myers on 14 September 2008 at 4:11pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 4:04pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Jodi wrote:
| During Clinton the government, was able to spend less then they
brought in and that's a good thing right? Please provide link to the
GDP info.
How does spending 1 billion a week in Iraq strike you |
|
|
That's the context of your question to me, Jodi. Now, weren't you the one who reduced our overseas involvement to a mere question of 'spending', Jodi?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Pruitt
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6184
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 4:26pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
The economy is not destroyed and the international influence of the US is not destroyed either. I stand by what I said. I didn't say everything was rosy, and those things haven't taken some hits, they have, but it's not as bad as some of you want to pretend. Bush has made many mistakes, was a poor leader, especially during his second term and is not my favorite President by a long shot, but I'm not part of this choir that wants to say he's the WORST PRESIDENT EVER. Heap all the blame for all your gripes on him if you want, and I'll just shut up and let you, because there's no point in defending him. He deserves some shots. He was the boss, so he can carry the albatross. I just get sick of all the hyperbole. Knock yourselves out. I'll be back in a couple months to see who wins, and what you have to say about it then.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Michael Retour
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 932
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 5:01pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Let's have a moment of silence for Lehman.
Okay.
It was a Fed brokered deal, Michael.
Yes, I know.
And exactly how did the deal go down in the real world, Michael? Uh-huh.
Mike, you said "We could lose a hundred Bear Stearns and our economy would still be stronger than any other nations'." up above. I responded to that. You posed a hypothetical question and I responded. How come you're asking me about that? It is your opinion not the real world. Show me your crystal ball and I will show you mine.
They may well, for instance AIG, etc. It still doesn't come ANYWHERE
close to level either you or Joe were touting as extant in today's
market...nor even a conceivable forecast for the future.
Again Mike, that is your opinion. Why did the Fed step in to broke a deal for Stearns? LTCM? Someone's knees shaking? Was there a systemic risk? Or did the Fed just feel it that day? I assert the economic crisis (and I lump them together) poses a systemic risk. That's my opinion. I don't say the sky is falling or it isn't solvable. I believe it is solvable but nothing I've seen from the Fed, the Congress or the Bush team will work in my opinion. I am not making predictions. I've looked at the derivatives vs. so-called assets and believe the derivatives are a systemic risk. You might believe they are a valuable tool to manage risk. I don't know. We've never discussed it.
If the Fed maintains its stated stance on Lehman Brothers, this would
hardly be the case, now would it? Have you looked at the GSE
restructuring? It ultimately serves to shrink its market share.
That's a good thing.
No I haven't looked at the restructuring. I am of the opinion the horse has left the barn. Correct me if I am mistaken but hasn't the government given Fannie and Freddie a blank check? Isn't it really a bit different than explained in certain press? Isn't the Treasury really not so much stepping in to help Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac but it is using them to get through a huge taxpayer bailout to international banks holding Fannie and Freddie and other mortgage securities? That is what I believe. Paulson hasn't named a figure I have heard. Is there one? I suppose the U.S. Federal debt ceiling is it huh?
No, it is NOT an opinion. It is fact. Joe based his critique on a
misunderstanding of the situation, and then blamed our Fed and
President Bush for "engineering" the sub-prime crisis. He was plainly
mistaken. Just as you previously made the SAME mistake...and just as in that instance, I corrected those mistaken assumption.
I don't believe Bush engineered the economic crisis. Where did I say that? I may have said he is the president and therefore has certain responsibilities. I don't think Bush understands much so would not give him credit for creating a housing bubble. It is your opinion Mike. A worldwide phenomena? This just sort of sprung up like a new flower does in Spring? No, you have institutions that made very foolish decisions and then the Fed started the printing presses rolling and off we went. This speculative bubble didn't start with housing did it? You see the various bubbles as different? Or do you see them as just one floating crap game? I see them as one giant casino and there are a lot of drunks that are playing.
No. Welfare expenditures are the single largest expenditures in our
federal budget, and most are mandatory expenditures. These sums not
only grow every year; but they see additions and growth in expenditure
every year. These debts are not owned by some foreign power or even
puublic debts to foreign individuals. These are intra-governmental
debts to fund mandatory welfare expenditures, and the interest alone is
formidable.
You could end all of these programs Monday and what would it solve? You're saying these programs are the root of our economic ills and if they were gone we'd all be swimming in mud like pigs? Just a metaphor Mike so don't get all bent out of shape.
We no longer have an economic base to support the programs you mention do we? So much for your strong economy talk.
Why is welfare growing Mike?
I am still waiting for you, and only you, to name me those strong sectors in our economy.
Now I am really dizzy.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Retour
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 932
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 5:15pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
The economy is not destroyed and the international influence of the US is not destroyed either.
Dave been on a cross-country train ride lately? How about the airlines? Either mode would give you time to think about your nation, plenty of time.
The international influence of the US is low, very low. Have you been around the world? Talked to people from around the world? People used to admire the US. They don't anymore. They might fear it (if they are a small nation like Iraq but the larger powers like Russia and China aren't so impressed). Our "might" and "influence" couldn't suppress a Third World nation like Iraq. We could not muster Europe to line up against Russia recently (Italy even suggested Britain prodded Georgia to attack South Ossetia). It will take some period of time for the US to regain the influence it once held.
Who is getting the contracts to build Chinese rail? Those are very lucrative contracts and guess who isn't getting them? How about development of Africa? Who is in on that? Energy? Water management systems? Myers and I had a brush up over the laughable unemployment numbers from the BLS but we both agree that some Americans (maybe one) needs a job and projects to build things would give that one person a job.
My neighbor is from Malaysia and he is in the business of industry. He looked at plant and equipment here (in the Midwest) and it is too antiquated to even be used so his nation is building new factories in other places.
I could go on but get the feeling you're a die-hard Bush fan but won't just say so. You fear Iran and think it was policy to surround it so we can attack them too. That would go a long way toward restoring American influence in the world.
Take that train ride (Amtrak cars are roughly 24-26 years old I believe, on average) or take a jet. I can't promise which will get you there faster but you will have time to think about America and see America.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
