jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (92 posts)

Downgraded.....again.

  1. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/egan-j … 2012-09-14

    I am sorry folks.
    All this just ain't working.
    And four more years of the same thing will just mean more downgrades.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's inevitable because of the debt. Obama has reduced spending by 2.6% but really while recovering from a crisis when already in massive debt it's inevitable that there will be downgrades while if you cut spending the economy won't grow. Typical catch 22. Nothing to be done about it really.

      If you don't believe me name a single period of American economic growth in the last 40 years or so that was not accompanied by spending increases.

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not sure where you got the 2.6% number from but here are the acual dollars spent by Obama in his first year and last year. It seems to be a larger number, not a smaller number

        2009        3,518  Trillion Dollars
        2011        3,601  Trillion Dollars

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This is why we need a more educated public.

          Have you heard of inflation? It's this thing we have which reduces the value of money by about 1.5% a year (which is a very moderate inflation rate) that's why a dollar used to be a large amount of money a hundred years ago so while the nominal number is yes rising when inflation is accounted for it's 2.6% less.

          Amazing that.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Don't be condescending toward people when facts aren't on your side... just a tip.

            http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

            Table 1-3, you can look at spending in constant(2005) dollars, which accounts for inflation.

            These are the actual budgets, adjusted for inflation:
            2008 - 2,703.8
            2009 - 3,173.4
            2010 - 3,081.0
            2011 - 3,126.3

            The 2011 budget is 1.5% lower than Bush's last budget. Not adjusted for inflation(the common way of looking at numbers) it is 2.4% higher than Bush's last budget.

            But wait! The 2011 budget had $3.6 trillion in spending, but Obama asked for 3.688 trillion in spending. So if Obama's budget had been passed, he would have increased spending from 2009 - 2011 by 0.3%, adjusted for inflation.

            So, in reality, Obama has increased spending(never mind that comparing 2011 to 2009 doesn't even take into account the huge expenditures that were supposed to be one-time expenditures) 2.4%. The standard is to not adjust for inflation while discussing current figures.

            Also, in reality, even adjusting for inflation, you are wrong.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You too Jaxson? The 2009 Budget is Bush's so recalculate. It's from 2009 and not 2008 The sitting president creates the next years budget as you should know.

              Taking inflation into account or using real dollars is the only way of accurately comparing figures over a time lapse as you know after all that money lost value so to do it an other way is incorrect.

              The budget would have been different if certain things had passed but that's not the question

              I apologize for sounding condescending but it gets exhausting dealing with the same ignorance of the very basic and crucial facts. I can't tell you how often people say Obama has "massively increased spending" when really it's been reduced.

              1. Billy Hicks profile image89
                Billy Hicksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
                A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for
                it. (from Conan O'Brien)

                Just a little humor to lighen the mood. Let's try and keep it civil.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Cheers, we will I'm sure, Jaxson is a very reasonable guy and I try to be.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    We're good smile

                    I disagree with people, but I respect people who respect people.

              2. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I do know that. I was just including a little more context, to show what is meant by the one-time expenditures.

                2008 - 2,703.8
                2009 - 3,173.4
                2010 - 3,081.0
                2011 - 3,126.3

                3,173.4 - 3,126.3 =  47.1

                47.1 / 3,173.4 = 1.48%.

                2009 - 2011 = 1.48% reduction.



                No, it is not the only correct way. People know inflation exists, but the normal way of discussing figures doesn't include adjusting for inflation. You said "Obama has reduced spending by 2.6%", you didn't qualify that as adjusted for inflation. When you want to talk about figures adjusted for inflation, it is proper to qualify your statements as so.

                Interestingly, you didn't even acknowledge that you were wrong when inflation is accounted for.

                Don't criticize others for being ignorant of very basic and crucial facts when your own facts were wrong.

                As to the spending... consider this:

                Your personal budget is $40k. Every year you grow it by 3%. This year though, you had to, in addition to your budget, pay for surgery, so you really spent $90k.

                If the next year you spend $89,000, would you claim that you had reduced your budget? Or, would it be better to go back to the $40k + inflation?

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I see the problem, I am including this years budget as well which has further reduction that's the discrepancy in figures accounted for (this year should be calculated for right? it's already budgeted).
                  So I stand by the original figures I gave.
                  http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05 … ken-sailor

                  If one does not include inflation the figures are misrepresentation the fact of the matter is that in terms of value spent it has fallen quite significantly. I am pretty sure I did state it was taking inflation into account just above that comment and it was part of the same discussion so I did not reiterate... I could be wrong.

                  I would absolutely agree with your analogy. We should increase spending in a crisis and reduce it after the crisis is over. But as every American knows our crisis isn't over yet and our economy still needs careful guidance (people disagree on how but that's not the point) so if the crisis was over and everything was back to normal I would agree our spending should have dropped more but we are still in recovery.

              3. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Josax,

                Do you think we owe less money to China if we adjust for inflation? Do you think they will take less money when we tell them that? In fact I just might start that tactic immediately. I'm going to adjust my mortgage payment for inflation and start sending them less money.

                I'm curious, you and Jaxson are using numbers, from the link provided above, of the "budget". Could you please cite the source or the Bill number where Congress has passed and approved a budget over the last three years. Which of course begs the question since we all know there has been no budgets for the last years, where these numbers Whitehouse.gov coming from?

                This is a prime example of how you can play with numbers to get a fake results. Using numbers from the "on budget" section, when in reality it does not account for the total spending. For example for the year 2011 the "on budget"number being used is $500 billion less than the actual money spent to pay our all our bills. Leaving $500 billion out of the equation will obvious lower the percentage you claim Obama is spending.

                This is why we Have an educated public, to see through the games. What can you expect from somebody who claims to be a numbers man, that agreed with Ralph Deeds that the market closed up 250 points while it is there for the world to see it only closed 53.51 points higher.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, pal, the market did close up 200+ points on the day Bernanke announced the new program and another 50+ the day after which was the day I made my completely accurate comment. Yesterday it went up another 53 points or so bringing the total increase, post-Bernanke to around 300 points. This amounts to a clear sign of approval from Wall Street.

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry Ralph, nice try. The chart in the link below shows the gains of the day. It clearly shows the day was in positive territory and climbed all day. Upon the announcement arround 2 pm, the market dropped, recovered slighltly, the had another small drop before closing. Most if not all the gains were before the announcement.

                    https://www.google.com/finance?client=o … DEXDJX:DJI

                    http://www.latimes.com/business/money/l … 3628.story

                2. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  American view:...

                  Money is only a character on a piece of paper, it just represents an existent value, every year inflation causes the dollar to be worth about 1% to 1.5% less and yes that affects you all the way down to your personal economics, if you work your wages should be adjusted for inflation every few years, most wages are, you will notice that the price of things slowly rises, I don't know how old you are but money was worth a lot more when you were young right? etc. etc.  so when you talk about a loan (like say in the case of China and the US) don't consider it in terms of how many dollars it is because that is just a guide so people can put it in perspective, what is actually being borrowed is value or wealth, while money can simply be printed value cannot so yes inflation has to be taken into account when comparing different figures because it means different amounts of value are being loaned, just the same way as you would make the conversion if the money had been loaned in a different currency.

                  AV it's really sad when you don't check even the most basic of facts, of course budgets have passed every year, if no budget is agreed on the government goes into gridlock emergency which is a big deal and has happened before, I don't know where you get this terrible information from but seriously stop using it as a source. The 2011 Budget for example is called the: Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 and passed on April 15th 2011.

                  Budget spending we are using is the what was actually spent AV.

                  Ralph was right and I believe he already proved that so I won't do it too.

                  I have been really polite and explained everything with patience but seriously AV start reading unbiased sources and try to accumulate all the knowledge you can because a lot of what you believe is hopelessly wrong.

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Josak,

                    Wow, you did not disappoint, I was wondering how long it was going to take before you attacked and try to act superior as you always do when you are clearly wrong.

                    "Budget spending we are using is the what was actually spent AV."

                    So as to not take a lot of time or space I will just take one year. You used numbers under the "budget" that you claim existed and of course didn't since one was not voted on and you refuse to accept that,      2011 - 3,126.3 trillion dollars, when in reality actual numbers spent was 3.603 trillion dollars, a difference of around $600 billion. .

                    I'm so glad you asked, if I checked the basic of facts since it is obvious you do not. Since you say budgets I passed every year, please cite the three bills were Congress has passed the budget. You do know what the budget is? I have to ask this question because you cited the DOD and full year continuing appropriations act of 2011, do you think because of the name of the Bill that it created a total budget? From the Bill:

                    "Making appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes."

                    Also from the bill:

                    "DIVISION B--FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 2011
                    The following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and other organizational units of Government for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes,

                    Notice it said "SEVERAL", not all. It then goes on to break down the agencies it was looking to fund. The Other Purpose mentioned in the bill was the funding of the scholarship fund.

                    If you took the time to read the bill you would have found that it was a massive appropriations bill for the Department of Defense, including salary increases despite the fact this is salary freeze on federal employees. There were several other agencies for the breakdown of funding and how was to apply including the salaries of the legislatures. Yet is no budget but these clowns make sure they could get paid. This bill was not meant to be a fiscal budget, in reality it was no more than a stopgap spending bill.

                    Maybe you should try to accumulate all the knowledge you can because a lot of which you believe is hopelessly wrong.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wall Street liked the latest Fed move--up 250 points. They are too smart to be conned by the advocates of austerity in the middle of a recession.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Precisely.

      2. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am not sure what Dow report you saw, the market closed up 53.51 points.

        http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow/

    3. GNelson profile image83
      GNelsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Tea Party brinkmanship and lack of leadership in the House caused the downgrade.  Along with tax cuts, medicare part D and two (off the books) wars.  That's what we don't need more of.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This ad was approved by the Democrat party.

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Someday, and it may take many years from now, people open their eyes. I just hope I'm alive what happens so to see their reactions

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The idea is if they say the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over then people will think its the truth.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Like Ralph here......

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Just speaking the truth.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You prove my point Ralph.

                2. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Says the man who openly admitted to purposefully quoting Romney out of context to perpetuate a false image...

  2. SimeyC profile image89
    SimeyCposted 4 years ago

    You're blaming the Democrats even though he was appointed by Bush / Rove? Or simply want Bernanke out of there?

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not "he".
      The methods.
      Let's get this straight. If it was a bad idea that was put in place by George Bush why did not Barack Obama remove it?
      Secondly why is any disagreement always supposed to mean support for a president who is out of office and will never serve again?

  3. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Folks...
    The answer is not George Bush. I am sorry.

    1. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed. It's very difficult to get people to defend the economic practices on their own terms rather than in comparison to the previous administration. Everything is Bush V Obama V Romney, instead of principles V principles.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yet you didn't respond to the real answer. Which is the basic laws of economics dictate this is inevitable. We can either have lower spending (Obama has already reduced it somewhat) or economic growth (our GDP growth is up at 2.4% which is pretty darned good now) in the long term economic growth is better but it does result in more debt in the short term which in turn causes downgrades that;s just how it goes.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Let's don't forget you can't print print print print print money.
        Right?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's not about printing money, printing money does nothing because the numerical increase is offset by the increased inflation, the money comes from loans not printing it.

          If your business is struggling you don't fire most of your staff, close down parts of the store and stop advertising because if you do even if you can get by you will be limping and stagnating forever and won't recover. What you do is increase advertising make the store look better and get new products so that you increase your clientele and can become profitable.

          Super simplistic analogy but it sort of covers it.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wrong. Not indefinitely, but for the time being the Fed is the only weapon in our quiver thanks to the Ryans and Cantors and other ideologues and ignoramuses in the HOuse of Representatives. What is really needed is another $500 billion of fiscal stimulus.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            let's see....and after that another trillion....print print print.
            Becoming more and more worthless daily.......

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              *SIGH* not print borrow, printing creates inflation borrowing does not.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The Fed has two duties prescribed by law--controlling inflation and keeping unemployment down to a reasonable level. Inflation isn't an issue for now, but unemployment is too high. Bernanke is doing exactly what he should be doing under the law. All but one of the twelve Fed governors supported the latest move.

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Have you not looked at some of the key signs of inflation? Food prices have sky-rocketed and look like they will continue to do so, especially since Bernanke ordered another round of QE. Inflation definitely looks like a problem, the Fed just doesn't want to admit it.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  See if you let things get better now you won;t be able to blame Bush and equate Romney with him and breed the fear you need to insure re-election and hopefully gain the House back.

                  Then once Barack is re-elected you can get busy trying to repeal that silly amendment about term limits for the President.

      2. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        As long as you're using GDP as a measure of a country's welfare you're going to be consistently at sea. Even Simon Kuznets, the guy who came up with GDP, never recommended using it to establish the welfare of a nation (or how good the economy is in general). Since part of GDP's formula is government spending, of course government spending is going to increase GDP. Building the pyramids probably increased Egypt's GDP by quite a bit, and created hella lotta jobs, but was ultimately useless for the people of the country. In the same vein, government spending for the sake of spending will show a spike in GDP, but not every cent spent by government is good investment, believe it or not.

        Carrying this over to your business analogy - if you've been consistently over-spending and spending incorrectly, putting even more money into it is counter-productive. You might have more turnover for a while, but you're just going to exacerbate the real problem when it bites you in the backside later.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh now you must follow Keynes mustn't you??????

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No I musn't. I'm reading an interesting article about Keynes, incidentally.

            http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard208.html

            I recommend it.

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No argument that not every cent is well spent.

          However let's examine the process you are talking about.

          The government injects money into the economy therefore
          People have more money therefore
          people spend more money therefore
          businesses make more money therefore
          more businesses open therefore
          demand for goods increases therefore
          new factories, mines. industries etc. open to meet that demand therefore
          the economy grows therefore
          consumer and investor confidence rises therefore
          Investors create new businesses therefore
          the economy continues to grow

          Simple.

          Of course it matters who the money is given to or how it is injected, generally it's better to give it to the the poor as they spend the money immediately thus increasing circulation.

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well that's the theory, but you're not mentioning the side-effects, or the unintended consequences. When you're creating money out of thin air, as the Fed does, the value of the money is decreased and naturally prices increase - this is reducing those people's spending power. In fact, it's not only a side-effect, it's doing exactly the opposite of what is supposedly intended. It may give the appearance of an upturn in the economy simply because there is more money moving around, but that's exactly what it is doing, moving around - it is not providing anything for the populace.

            But if you believe that there are no side-effects or downsides, why isn't the Fed perpetually injecting money into the economy? Why wait for more QE?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well it's not really a theory it's a proven fact experimentally as well as in theory.

              The Fed should not be and generally is not "creating money out of thin air" that does indeed cause inflation that money is backed by foreign loans which does have the side effect of having to pay interest but prevents inflation and thus our inflation remains quite low.

              As I explained in the figure I gave you that illusion creates real growth for two reasons. #1 Demand fro products increase so new things open (like mines and industry that do provide real wealth) #2 investor confidence goes up which means people feel more comfortable creating mines and factories etc which again produce wealth. Thus real value is created.

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Then I have to ask you again, if it's so wonderful and has no side effects, why not do it all the time? Why not hand out $10 million to every household and put it on the treasury bill? Spending will increase, but it's fairly obvious that consumption is not what makes a good economy.

                Capital spending, i.e. spending that is backed by real assets rather than debt, is what provides a strong and lasting economy. Once these mines and industry are built, or even being built, investors are going to realise that it has become far too expensive, and there's going to be another contraction - just like when the home owners realised that they couldn't afford the properties they were handed by the Fed. Unfortunately, what you advocate is going to bring about a rather big crash, since the Fed has been doing the wrong thing for nearly 100 years. And what you'll do is probably say "we didn't go far enough!".

                Giving more heroin to the addict might relieve his withdrawal symptoms, but at some point he's going to have an overdose.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The first point is just silly. Lot's of things are good but bad if overdone excessive debt spending creates A) excessive debt B) inflation it's about finding a balance and using spending only when the economy needs boosting (like it does now) it's no coincidence that the greatest economic periods of the US coincide with increased spending.

                  There is no relevance between unsecured loans being packaged and stimulus spending which is recommended by every international body. It does not in anyway create a bubble at all. If you want to claim it does you have to demonstrate how it does in the same way I demonstrated how it grows the economy.

                  Not only is the heroin analogy completely irrelevant even in that case we use methadone to wean people off heroin because withdrawal kills.

  4. Jed Fisher profile image87
    Jed Fisherposted 4 years ago

    The Treasury is selling bonds faster than they can print them and the intense demand is keeping interest rates for these bonds at historic lows. That is the complete opposite of downgraded credit. The analysts and what-not keep downgrading the credit rating by running their big, fat mouths. The people putting big bucks on the line are expressing an entirely different sentiment, with their money.
    Actions speak louder than words.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Correct. Someone who's literate in economics at last.

  5. Wayne Brown profile image86
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    You miss the point Josak,  the private sector is on its butt and Obama and attempting to drive the economy on government spending.  That is the problem with the downgrade.  Get government off the backs of small business, stabilize the five year picture, and see where the revenue flow into the government goes....upward.  That is what the lending markets are looking for....not a choice on whether the government decides to spend money to achieve a dismisal GDP.  Your views of economics assumes that all things are government driven....and they are when the government is as out of control as this one. ~WB

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      As I said provide an example of recent economic growth without an increase in spending.

      It's not just here but all around the world government controls are essential to healthy economies to regulate and encourage them which is why every country which has attempted austerity has had horrible growth results.

      You can't escape the basic facts and results WB the government provides for greater money in flux creating greater growth when it spends and that growth int urn produces confidence which in  turn creates further growth.

      On the other hand if the government doesn't spend then there is less money in flux so confidence remains low so the economy stagnates or shrinks. It's incredibly basic.

      Don't take my word for the IMF (International Monetary Fund) is saying the exact same thing as are pretty much all the experts but of course conservatives know better than the experts.

      1. oz-vitez profile image81
        oz-vitezposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps you should show us some data or source material from the IMF, since you are so good at backing up your arguments. (Remember your GDP estimates on Scandinavian countries? I know I do...what, you overestimated them on average about 2 points, right?)

        And, what happens when a government does not have the money to spend, but borrows it or prints more money. Obama's line about spending money used to fund the Iraq war on domestic items is bogus, since this is borrowed money and would not be spent elsewhere, i.e. it would remain "un-borrowed."

        Of course, we could revisit another of your beloved "controlled" economies, Argentina. Here is a good look at the results of government spending:

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/ … 2G20120810

        Of course, the eggheads at the IMF must have seen this coming, right? I am sure Argentinians are loving the government controls that have led to their healthy economy. I mean, it is incredibly basic, right?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Spending increases inflation rates is also incredibly basic Argentina has grown about 60% in recent years and that in itself will create inflation so a slow down is inevitable the worst economic projection for Argentina is that it will shrink 1% before going back into economic growth which when compared with 60% growth is a massive success simple as that.

          As for the IMF here is one article but I am sure you can find plenty more. I have their economic advisory report in solid form but I am not sure if it's online, I guess it probably is.

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ … turns.html

          1. oz-vitez profile image81
            oz-vitezposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You just can't give up on Keynes, can you? You should provide more sources to back up your comments on Argentina. Also, government spending is never sustainable and has serious detrimental effects on an economy, unless you are okay with 30% inflation. And government spending does not necessarily spur long-lasting growth; it is only an injection to grease the skids of the economy, per Keynes. Of course, as Keynes said brilliantly, "in the long run, we are all dead." So why worry about the future, eh?

            And, you are already off to a terrible start factually. (What a surprise) You:

            "which is why every country which has attempted austerity has had horrible growth results."

            Your source:

            "IMF advises delaying austerity until growth returns"

            So, the IMF believes that once growth returns, it will continue, regardless of the austerity cuts, since the cuts were likely present prior to a slowdown in growth. Which means that growth occurred even with austerity in place, even if you believe it to be "horrible", compared to your precious controlled governments.

            But, keep going with Keynes, your precious economic hero.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Argentina has been growing at around 8 to 9 percent for about 7 to 8 years which is actually well known. The worst economic predictions are small shrink before of 1% before return to growth, most don't think that there will be negative growth period at all just a slow down. Very profitable overall.


              Not actually Keynesian just basic economics.

              Growth without stimulus can definitely occur no one is debating that but it's slower and in a recession and the recovery from it will be slow or non existent if hampered by austerity. I have no problem with cuts in spending in fact I believe they are necessary but not in this economic climate.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      As for small businesses Obama has reduced taxes on 80% of them and increased taxes on just over 3% of them so the government is in no way inordinately restricting them the problem small businesses faces is no money being in flux so the businesses collapse.

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Cite your sources as to how Obama has lowered taxes on80% of small businesses

  6. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Here's a good reason why we don't need de-regulators like Romney and Ryan in the White House:

    "The New York Stock Exchange's parent company agreed to pay $5 million to settle allegations it delivered valuable trading data to some customers ahead of others, submitting to the first fine ever levied against an exchange by the top U.S. securities regulator.

    "The Securities and Exchange Commission said Friday it found that the NYSE had delivered stock-price quotes and other data to subscribers of two so-called proprietary data feeds as much as several seconds before the information was transmitted to the broader market...."

    Also, a good reason why picking stocks is a loser's game for ordinary investors!

    http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 … Collection

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm shocked you can even think that Romney or Ryan are deregulators or spending cutters.

      They want to cut $1 trillion over 40 years AFTER SPENDING $1 TRILLION MORE THAN OBAMA THEIR FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE.

      Obama, Romney. They're the same and you've been fooled.

  7. prettydarkhorse profile image65
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    It is like a family when the household is broke because of divorce etc, the main household head needs still to take care of the family - provide food and shelter. He/she can't tell his/her children to stop eating first until the problem is solved. Social security needs to continue, it is humanitarian and people earned it, just like the children in the household.

  8. Moderndayslave profile image61
    Moderndayslaveposted 4 years ago

    Isn't all of this QE or money printing hurting the majority of America. This practice makes the dollar that the little people who don't have money in the market,,,,  worth-less.     Commodities go up, (you know, those pesky necessities)  the market takes off, great,for investors. Were not still stuck on that trickle Down Fallacy,,,,Are We? The economy is consumer driven not investor driven. If the majority of American's have less disposable income,guess what they're  not buying?
    If they want to help the economy by printing money, rebuild this countries crumbling infrastructure. Pay for it with those funds instead of giving it to the Too Big to Fail banks to sit on. Good paying jobs.(not the 8.50 an hour jobs that corporations tell us they are doing us a favor with),top to bottom with the mandate,,,Only US made materials and equipment. Let the investors invest in factories and equipment and let the banks do their job and lend to the others that want to get in the game.

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh sure it is and to be fir it started in the Bush years and continues now because the Progressive movement has control. As much as the Progressives here hate this Bush is and was one of them.

    2. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Spend, spend, sped, print print print.
      Oh by the way it's the fault of Conservatives who don't want to do that.
      Now how it's their fault when they CAN'T implement their ideas is anyone's guess but all this is their fault.

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Conservatives can't implement their ideas?

        Probably because they don't have any...

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Markets fluctuate based on investors' perceptions of events they deem significant. Wall Street clearly liked the Fed's latest announcement.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The funny thing is, the markets are so inter-mingled that there really is very little information you can get by which way they move. One market can go up, which causes an international market to go down, which drives down the price of some commodities, which changes the balance of import/export profits, which changes international currency, which reflects on national markets...

        When I was a trader, I learned not to try to equate any market with the 'health' of an economy.

  9. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago

    The only reason the United States' ratings aren't lower is because they have a massive army.

    THEY will NOT repay their debts.

    Any individuals still borrowing money from those United States are only doing so out of fear of reprisal.

  10. Moderndayslave profile image61
    Moderndayslaveposted 4 years ago

    Anyone have any better ideas on what is going on.
    http://occupycorporatism.com/bernankes- … us-dollar/

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Austrian Economics explains this all perfectly. I've been talking about it for years.

      If you'd like to learn what's happening, begin your journey here:
      http://mises.org/media/categories/202/Beginners-Guide

 
working