Well, I think that is a little simplistic.

I'm obviously no fan of the situation we find ourselves in, but I'm not sure the people who are calling for the Gov't to get out of the way and refrain from spending money during an economic crisis really understand what the consequences would look like.

What do you think would have happened if Bush/Obama did not attempt to stabilize the system?

I can't even imagine anyone in power choosing to let it all collapse. It may happen anyway, but as a strategy? To do it on purpose?

There is such a thing as the lesser of two evils.

The money they spent on the stimulus didn't work, it stabilized the financial district,not the country, they are back do what they were doing before the bail out. The Car companies are continuing to build cars in other countries because it's more profitable for them to do so.
Instead of fixing the problems we have right now, Obama has chosen to pile on more entitlements, that's fucking stupid.
NAFTA is allowing companies to move out of the country for cheaper labor, even Hillary during her campaign said that, but has anything been done, NO.
Simple works, KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid
The only sector that has grown under Obama for Job growth is the government, who pays for that? I know they want the rich to pay for that, UM, aren't they the ones that employ the rest ?

:helpme If the money spent stabilized the financial district (the system in my words) then it did indeed stabilize the country as the country relies on this system -- whether right or wrong.

You keep harping on Obama. I was clear to use "Bush/Obama", partly because I don't align myself with either but mostly because they both participated in these events -- more specifically monetary and fiscal stimulus during a downturn (a big one mind you).

Now, an all out, global credit collapse could possibly have been better, but I doubt it. I can only conclude that 1) certain people don't have a grasp of the consequences of allowing the system to collapse 2) their political ideology trumps their personal welfare.

My problem is that it was done to bail out the system with no safeguards to use it to bail out the problems it created, no loans to small business

Fair enough and I don't see anything wrong with this complaint. It is really saying they should have gone further.

And I agree that unless the money makes its way into the economy the chances of recovery are slim.

I personally doubt it will, which is why I don't have high hopes for imminent recovery or inflation.

This is what happens when you put lawyers in charge of business, they have NO CONCEPT.

Obama has been pushing his agenda when the country is falling apart.
It's like he has no clue as to what is going on, just be the president that got healthcare, thats all he's seen so far. Never mind that the country can't afford it, thats it the details and he won't be bothered with that.

Right back to the political ideology. :Oh crap

Spending money when it looks like you can't afford it HAS BEEN the economic policy for some time. I'm sure Obama is painfully aware of the situation -- as was Bush. You have the wrong boogieman.

Maybe THEY will all be wrong. :winkwink:

Yes wig and as you might be familiar, the lesser of two evils would have been for us to fail and start over. What the government has done(lol at Obama Administration), is postpone the inevitable and make the inevitable exponentially worse. I follow the school of thought that if something is going to fail, let it fail and start all over again. It would destroy so many lives, but I'd rather have it happen sooner to less people, than later to more people. What Europe is going through is nothing compared to what we're going to go through when it's end game.

Makes you nostalgic for the days of the pure gold standard huh? :)

yeah, we've been sacked for 10 years now of bad management, but Obama has done nothing but make it worse.
When we had a liberal president and conservative house and senate, things went pretty damn good, had a surplus even.
If we're lucky, we'll get a conservative house and senate again and hopfully Obama won't act like an asshole and drag his feet on what need to be done. I think tea party is getting people worked up about the spending and the GOP knows they have to do it differently, just like they did in 94 with the contract with America

See, I just can't agree with this. I don't think it is obvious at all that to let it fail and start over would have been best. And when specifically to have pulled the plug?

On GFY, it's easy to say pull the plug, freeze the global credit markets, hasten in the biggest financial collapse and depression the world has ever seen and probably set off multiple wars.

Not in the least. Were you around when Xpics was raising click prices?

Well wig, I only can tell you from my understanding of economics/world markets/us markets that you're going to see a lot worse when we finally go down, and we can both agree that that's inevitable. Propping up a failed economic system and flawed fundamentals with the same flawed fundamentals and a printing press is only going to make it worse for everybody.

The "when" is not something I can answer specifically, but I think it should have been before Obama initiated the bailouts.

No I was not, but I know that a pure gold standard with a proper gold cover clause would be a hell of a lot better than anything we've been doing with Keynesian/Government spending economics.

I'm absolutely disgusted with Obama, and I'm disgusted at the Republicans for putting out this video which basically says "Remember all the stupid/evil stuff the Republicans did a couple years ago? Well Democrats are doing stuff just as bad now, so nanner nanner boo boo!"

Why? The Democrats would have done the exact same thing? What they're doing is worse. Blaming Bush for all of their and Obama's failures? I can't wait until the November elections when they get their asses handed to them.

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. It goes back to the Great Depression.

Arguably, the problem is not with the economic theory itself, but that one part of it is difficult to adhere to -- this being that politicians should reduce spending in good times.

Well, the economic theory allows ridiculous spending for "economic growth".

As I'm sure you know, I'm pretty bearish. We may have different scenarios in mind to how this plays out and what led up to it, but I don't long to purposely see the plug pulled. At this point in the game, I think the cure is worse than the disease.


And it is conceivable that you would have been left behind. That was the point.

Right, and I did say arguably. :)

It allows for (even recommends) spending, but doesn't mandate it. I'm not saying it's a perfect system. It relies on human nature. It assumes that people will make rational decisions both on spending and cutting spending -- both govts and individuals.

Tell me that in 5 year, when the disease destroys this country. But that's just my opinion, as I follow blogs like DailyReckoning, and Gloom and Doomers like Schiff and Paul.




Explain. I still prefer the Austrian School ideologies. Hell, I even prefer Classical Economics, as flawed as it is, to Keynesian.

Gotcha. And pulling the plug right now.... or in the recent past, by not committing to stabilizing the system, but rather to let it collapse would not destroy the country?

That's your cure. Let the system collapse. Destroy the country anyway, now.

No, I understand what you're trying to get across
Politicians are all about getting more to keep their jobs, not being responsible for what will happen down the road.
The government should be ran on a percentage of what the economy is. In bad times, they have to cut back, just like everyone else.
Bush had his presidency in good times and spent a lot of money on some projects, but then the economy went bad and Obama spent like it was good times and it has failed. The jobless rate is shitty and he wants us to smile, FUCK HIM. He's bad for business, you can't raise the cost of business and hope for better employment from that business.

People will be saying 'in 5 years' 25 years from now, as they were saying it 25 years ago too...

No, I said that it WOULD destroy the country, hence "let it fail". I'm saying that prolonging the inevitable would destroy the country more whenever that inevitable becomes imminent.

I assure you, our current system won't sustain us past the 5 year mark, no matter how much Obama and Bernanke abuse the printing press.

Yes. If you are recognizing it is on all sides.

Maybe. That's not the playbook both sides have been using for quite some time though. I don't know how many times I have to point it out. It's bigger than presidents.


He did the same thing as..... ready?

This guy is doing!

But I have to ask... Is it a possibility that things could have been even worse without the stimulus?

What do you think would have happened if after Lehman they just let the dominoes fall?

Because it's moronic.. This isn't like 9/11 where Bush was warned that bin laden was planning to attack the US and ignored it. This is an accident created by a non US owned company drilling in international waters.

What exactly is Obama's fault?

It's just more morons crying and moaning and trying to blame Obama simply because they have the freedom to do so. Hell I could make a video that blames George Bush and put some quotes in it to try to prove my case but doesn't mean it's really his fault. Even though Dick Cheney has more ties to this mess than Obama could ever have in a million years.

Hell even onwebcam might stop crying his 9/11 truthers shit and jump on the next big new conspiracy theory. OMG.. Obama is the evil Muslim terrorist and caused the oil spill.. !!!!

Explain how Dick Cheney has more ties than Obama? Tell me, when IS it Obama's fault?

Dick Cheney? I think you're reaching

If you want play the blame game Dems versus GOP on Bin Laden, guess you lost
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page..._bin_laden.htm

I don't think Obama caused the oil spill, he just has no leadership to get anything done about it. And yes he is a muslim, born and raised a muslim, then changed to christian beliefs, of course that has nothing to do with the way he treats Israel, he so lost the jewish vote, LOL

I never said one political side over the other, both are fucked, I just prefer a conservative approach to running the country, we just haven't had that in 10 years

Simple answer, we needed to bail them out, but and that's a huge but, it was not done with any conditions, and these big too big to fail companies were not held accountable for their actions.

Dick Cheney is being paid by Halliburton is he not? Halliburton is the company that fucked up on the cementing job that caused this mess in the first place. While I don't think it was Dick Cheney's fault if you are going to pass blame to someone that isn't even involved then why not him?

How is Obama to blame any more than Dick Cheney? Some kid got killed in Boston the other night, is that Obama's fault to because he's the president?

No? Then why the fuck is something that happened in the middle of the fucking ocean, to a British owned company Obama's fault? If you are seriously trying to blame Obama for this oil spill, you are crazy.

BTW I do love how many Republicans are starting to blame this on lack of regulations.. Yet anytime New regulations are pushed they are the first to fight them.. (think EPA for example)

I actually don't remember blaming Obama for this at all, I was wondering where you came from. Then again, if the Democrats are allowed to "reach" and blame Bush for all of their fuckups, I suppose Republicans can make the same stupid assessment and blame Obama for the spill.