http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/22/q3-gdp-revised-sharply-downward-again/ Brutal news. I can't see how anyone can defend the Obama economic policies at this point. The whole point of pouring a ton of money you don't have into the economy is akin to injecting adreneline into the bloodstream of a body. Instead, this reckless spending has been akin to shortsheeting the bed. You got into it, it was nice and warm and now you can't get out.
Obama's economic policies are sound and spot-on. It's clear and obvious that he just hasn't had the opportunity to spend enough, and the "stimulus" wasn't big enough. If only he could get more money for another "stimulus" package, he would be able to fix everything.
Recovery likely strengthening after weaker 3Q November home sales soar 7.4 percent Stock strategists expect bull to keep running in 2010 As for the revised GDP, it is a disappointment. Here is an article on it from Fox Business (there was an AP one somewhere -- this is Reuters). Interesting part...
when I saw the "things arent so rosy" and that the last post was from Jayremmie.. I assumed this was something bad like James or Masoli were academically inelegible or something I almost panicked. Carry on men.
So home sales going up BECAUSE the home prices are falling is a good thing to you? This is like in the last year when housing sales had increases, but most of the sales were of foreclosed homes, selling at > 20% discounts. Sounds like a great recovery to me!
From the first link: From your second link: From your third link: So, the best of those articles was a "maybe, if we're really lucky, something good may happen." Usually, when recessions end, there is good news popping up everywhere. This "recovery" is about as tepid as I've seen, and IMO is being smothered by our profligate spending and the Government's desire to control more of the economy.
You can argue that this is a timid recovery, but it is hard to argue that this isn't a recovery at all because technically the recession is over with the GDP growth of our economy. As for the gov't spending, personally I'm for certain spending. I'm for limited stimulus, and for spending on things such as infrastructure, roads, schools, etc... Obviously in the fiscal situation we are in, I wouldn't advocate spending.
The definition of a recession is pretty useless. If you remember, things were pretty bad and getting worse before we were "technically" in a recession. If you want to hitch your wagon to the technical definition of a recession, feel free. So you're "for limited stimulus" but with the fiscal situation we are in, you "wouldn't advocate spending"? Would you prefer that the government use "stimulus" packages when our fiscal situation is good?
If a stimulus is neccessary. For example, in a recession, if we can afford it, i'm all for a stimulus when the consumer cuts down on spending. Yeah, who defines a recession by its definition. How dumb.
So you propose the government should run with a surplus? Otherwise, running at a balanced budget, if we hit a recession, tax revenues WILL go down. Then we can no longer "afford" a stimulus. So, it looks like you support "stimulus" packages when times are good. Nobody is asking for the definition. You were trying to use the definition as evidence that things are rosy and looking good. Like I said, the definition doesn't mean much in this case.
Never said anything about a surplus, though of course that would be nice. I said i'd argue against stimulus spending in the current fiscal disaster we are in. I also said that in times of stimulus need, that i'd be for it if we were not in fiscal hell like we are currently due to the last 9 years. LOL, no I didn't. Read this.... I said technically the recession is over. I didn't state that things were "rosy" or not, I just mentioned our GDP growth recently. I believe we are in a timid, fragile, slow recovery, but a recovery none the less. I do not think things will be getting worse from here on out, rather that they will slowly improve. My argument was more trying to say that one can argue that the economy is in bad shape because so many are struggling, but, like I said, technically, the recession (which is a meaningless word here, as it is more about the state of the economy) is over and we are in a slow, painful recovery phase now. I used the definition of recession as proof that it is technically over (which it is).
Damn dude. This is just gibberish. Yeah, the government taking more money from the people than it needs in order to run would be awesome, wouldn't it? And you call yourself a Ron Paul supporter? You support a stimulus when it is needed, but not when we are in a bad fiscal situation? What does that even mean? If we aren't in a "fiscal disaster" then why in the world would we need a "stimulus"?
Are you saying the only way to get a balanced budget would be for the "government to take more money from the people"? Why can't it cut down on unnecessary spending and waste? There are a lot of things I believe should be changed. It's what all the cool kids are saying, didn't you know? I don't support everything about his domestic policy, but overall I think he is the best candidate right now. You seem to have a problem with this. Why? For example, if another financial disaster comes upon us, which it will because the "fat cats" (lol) are going back to doing the exact same things as before, i'd be in favor of a stimulus if by that time we got our budget and debt (and spending) under control and we aren't in a situation that we currently find ourselves in. A good example, I believe, is that China launched a pretty large, 600 billion $ (I believe) stimulus over the past year, and I think that was absolutely the right move. That government can definitely afford it, and it seemed to have worked pretty well. I'm just talking about this from a purely budget/debt perspective in a time of need, not a communist vs capitalist perspective.
If the government has a surplus, then, by definition, they are taking in more money in tax revenue than they need to run their programs. Thus, in a surplus situation, the government is taxing the citizens more than it needs to. Interesting that you support that behavior from the government, but claim to be a big Ron Paul supporter.
I think that there should be a good balance. For instance, i'm totally against lowering taxes right now, as less revenue for the gov't at this point should be avoided. I'm for tax breaks when things are going well for the country though. As for the surplus, I don't mind having a decent amount of taxes, along with lots of spending cuts (especially on foreign policy and military) to try and balance out the budget. I think that is best for the country, but we may have a difference of opinion there. I'm not sure. Again, like i've said plenty, I don't fully agree with Ron Paul on his hardcore Libertarian domestic policy, but overall I think he would be the best candidate to chose from from what we currently have offered.
