More bad news for Republicans - Recession over!

I'm pretty sure going to war and than slashing taxes played a rather large role

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, the one that conservatives have a lot of trouble accepting is the one regarding tax-cuts. The problem with the Bush tax-cuts was not the fact that he cut taxes at all or even how much he cut them by. Rather, the tax-cuts were highly misplaced. The Bush tax-cuts might have been useful if they had been targeted at the middle-class, even the extreme upper middle-class.

The thing is, tax-cuts only help the economy if they are targeted at the kind of neuvo riche types that are likely to spend their new wealth. As vehemently as I dislike them personally, they are also the only demographic that is likely to spend the proceeds of a large tax-cut on a level that will actually affect anything.

More established wealth tends to be driven by fluctuations in the stock market. In fact, you would probably win more votes with the extreme upper-class by promising economic stability. Most of them would rather have a steady, predictable market than one that is prone to extreme bouts of unsustainable growth. They are highly conservative with their own wealth, and they prefer to spend it on business ventures that have a relatively certain future.

If I were a politician, I would offer a large tax-cut to incomes below the line that separates the "rich" from the "ultra-rich," and I would promise to combat economic bubbles and other kinds of economic uncertainty. The ultra-rich are actually true conservatives because they tend to feel more comfortable in relatively tame markets.

You see, it's actually the newly rich who tend to think of the market in terms of "this is a hot area, so I have to jump on the bandwagon!" and they rush off to try to stake their claim in the Bubble Mountains with a huge boner in their pants over it. They are not conservative per se, but rather they have a lot of money but have no real concept of how to handle it or how to maintain it. I respect someone who is actually conservative, but these kinds of punks don't fit the bill. They may be right-winged, but they are irresponsible children with a mad gleam in their eye, reflecting the ghastly glow of an economic willow-the-wisp. I would just as soon throw money at them, so they can stuff it into the purses of people who actually know what to do with it once they have it.

Essentially, the ultra-rich would probably favor a more regulated financial sector, assuming the regulations made sense. The ones a few notches under them might object to it, but you could appease those fuckers by throwing them a tax-cut. The ultra-rich might not actually like carrying most of the tax-burden, but at least they know what to expect when tax season comes around. That's what I would do if I were in office.

I know that kind of thinking puts me on the political right, but I never made pretensions of being a Marxist-Leninist. I'm just a loud-mouthed fag, I think anti-immigrant policies are actually kind of leftist because they are the domain of white populists (nativism does not a conservative make), and American black people have the excuse of having a tragic history of being socio-economically fucked-over. That's where my "egalitarian" sensibilities end.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did you over look the part of my post where I said the unemployment rate is about twice as high as it should be? Unemployment numbers are lagging indicators for a reason. In a recovery they are the last numbers that show improvement.

When we look at indicators of the economy, indicators are divided into leading, coincident, and lagging indicators. All of the non lagging indicators are up or mixed. So to ignore all of the leading and coincident indicators just to focus on the ones that are lagging is just beyond reason.

The good news is that unemployment numbers have stabilized and started to show some improvement. We are no longer loosing almost a million jobs a month and have added private sector jobs to the economy for several months now.

The survey you referenced does not distinguish between government jobs and private industry job. Much of the job growth under george II were because of government jobs. So while that may be a good thing if you are a government employee. It is not a good thing if you are a private sector tax payer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You've been touting they are going down. That shows they have not, and are indeed higher than originally thought.

 

There are multiple unemployment metrics that are reported weekly and monthly. It is important to understand the metric and what it means. I have been posting improvements in the new jobless claims numbers. That is not the unemployment rate.

Improvement or a reduction in the jobless claims means that fewer and fewer people are getting pink slipped. And in order for the unemployment rate to turn around, businesses need to stop giving people pink slips.

 

The only improvement since 2009 has been caused by the Federal Reserve printing up 1.4 trillion to buy toxic assets...which are still on their books and still toxic.

And more government borrowing and spending.

Its called a 'dead cat bounce'...and has nothing to do with real wealth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ahh, no. First a dead cat bounce is a temporary event. The stockmarket has been in a bull mode since the lows of March 2009. That my friend is not a temporary event. The stock market has been rallying for almost a year and a half...that is not temporary by any definition of the term. In addition the underlying economic metrics are have done a 180 since 2009. Instead of loosing and contracting the economy has been growing for more than a year.

TARP was absoutely important to working the recovery of that there is no doubt. Two the "toxic" assets you mentioned are no longer toxic because they have been identified and appropriately priced. They are no longer hidden time bombs.

Indeed the stimulus along with the bank bailout has kept many people employed and in their homes and kept the streets free of food lines and social chaos.

But you are overlooking why those measures were needed. We needed to keep our banks open to prevent the complete collapse of the global financial system - including our own domestic banking system. And we needed to restore confidence in our government...hence the need for stimulus.

It also took restoring Wall Streets ability to raise cash for corporations. It also took leadership. I am sure you would rather forget these things as they don't fit in with your view of the world.

 

What would you expect when 1.4 trillion dollars appears out of nowhere and buys up all the toxic non-performing debts floating around? Of course youre going to get an economic bounce out of it.

Its the classic economic illusion...the real effects of which are delayed and dispersed.

You believe the toxic assests which caused the crisis are not longer hidden...but what better place to hide them than on the books of the Federal Reserve.

Jim Rogers comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIkG4Qh2jac&feature=sub

 

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/bernanke-tells-truth-united-states-is.html

Bernanke Tells the Truth: The United States is on the Brink of Financial Disaster.

Yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke delivered a speech before the the Annual Meeting of the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council in Providence, Rhode Island. In the speech, he warned about the current state of the government finances. His conclusion, the situation is dire and "unsustainable".

 

I never listen to Jim Rogers. I know he is the darling of the right wing. But that man does not make you money. In fact he will cost you your money if you listen to him.

He was telling folks to by gold and silver right before the crash...not very bright in my book. Because when the stock market collapsed so did gold and silver. Rogers makes his money selling gold and silver and marketing to people on the extreme right of the poltical system.

He is not, in my opinion, a very good investor or investment advisor for the reason previously given...a bad track record. And I honestly don't thin the man has attended an economics class in his entire life time.

 

Well that is not the kind of thing a major central banker says without causing uproars in global financial markets. I searched the internet and the alledged quotes only turn up on right wing whacko web sites that have been know to take liberties with the truth.

Benrnake will tell you and has told Congress the nation faces financial challenges. But he did not forecast the end of the world....nor did he say the United States is on the brink of disaster.

 

Right, he graduated from Oxford in 1966...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rogers doesnt sell anything btw...not gold, silver or anything else.

Darling of the right? He's politically neutral and has been bashing the Bush admin for the last decade.

Oh, and his Quantum Fund founded with George Soros was one of the most successful investment houses in history.

Ah, you really didnt spend even five minutes on research did you Joe?

You're so interested in left vs right that you have chronically ceased to THINK!

 

Alleged quotes???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They are ALL from Bernanke's speech found on the page's first link!

Is this a right wing whacko site?

http://federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20101004a.htm

 

That's very true -- and it can be said of most folks around here.

 

OH, have you heard of the Rogers Commodity Index?
[/QUOTE]
Darling of the right? He's politically neutral and has been bashing the Bush admin for the last decade.[/QUOTE]

I suppose that is why he only shows up on Fox News and Fox Business Channel.

Rogers does not run the Quantum Fund, it is run by George Soros.

Oh yes I did, Jim Rogers, darling of the right wing and his "Austrian School" of nonsense has been around for a long time.

And all of that does not change the fact that if you followed Rogers advice you would have lost a lot of money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rogers

 

Yeah, here is the thing none of the scare words attributed to Bernanke were found in his speech...one of them minor details.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All of the scare words (quotes) attributed to Bernanke in your right wing whack reference were not in Bernanke's speech...fancy that.

As I said before Bernanke said the US faced substancial challenges. But he was no where near the "brink" as your article stated. We were on the "brink" in 2008 when the world was on the edge of a thermo nuclear melt down of our financial systems. Since that time we have moved away from the brink. But that does not mean we are in the clear. And that is whay Bernanke said in his speech.

In fact, let's quote Bernanke instead of putting words into his mouth;

"■67 KB PDF
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
At the Annual Meeting of the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, Providence, Rhode Island
October 4, 2010
Fiscal Sustainability and Fiscal Rules

The recent deep recession and the subsequent slow recovery have created severe budgetary pressures not only for many households and businesses, but for governments as well. Indeed, in the United States, governments at all levels are grappling not only with the near-term effects of economic weakness, but also with the longer-run pressures that will be generated by the need to provide health care and retirement security to an aging population. There is no way around it--meeting these challenges will require policymakers and the public to make some very difficult decisions and to accept some sacrifices. But history makes clear that countries that continually spend beyond their means suffer slower growth in incomes and living standards and are prone to greater economic and financial instability. Conversely, good fiscal management is a cornerstone of sustainable growth and prosperity.

Although state and local governments face significant fiscal challenges, my primary focus today will be the federal budget situation and its economic implications.1 I will describe the factors underlying current and projected budget deficits and explain why it is crucially important that we put U.S. fiscal policy on a sustainable path. I will also offer some thoughts on whether new fiscal rules or institutions might help promote a successful transition to fiscal sustainability in the United States.

Fiscal Challenges
The budgetary position of the federal government has deteriorated substantially during the past two fiscal years, with the budget deficit averaging 9-1/2 percent of national income during that time. For comparison, the deficit averaged 2 percent of national income for the fiscal years 2005 to 2007, prior to the onset of the recession and financial crisis. The recent deterioration was largely the result of a sharp decline in tax revenues brought about by the recession and the subsequent slow recovery, as well as by increases in federal spending needed to alleviate the recession and stabilize the financial system. As a result of these deficits, the accumulated federal debt measured relative to national income has increased to a level not seen since the aftermath of World War II.

For now, the budget deficit has stabilized and, so long as the economy and financial markets continue to recover, it should narrow relative to national income over the next few years."

None of that nor anything else in Bernanke's speech was as represented in your previous post.

 

A wave of government layoffs in September outpaced weak hiring in the private sector, pushing down the nation's payrolls by a net total of 95,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate held at 9.6 percent last month, the Labor Department said Friday. The jobless rate has now topped 9.5 percent for 14 straight months, the longest stretch since the 1930s.

The report is the final one before the November elections, which means members of Congress will face voters next month with an economy that is still struggling to create jobs.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101008/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

 

Ah, Yeah..phrases like "there's noway around it" it being change and "sacrifice" that is "crucially important".

Sounds pretty urgent, and "on the brink" from a guy who's job is largely to instill confidence in others.