Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Deficit grows to $1.3 trillion

Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 5:02:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://thehill.com...

Bailouts for financial firms and billions in tax revenue lost because of the recession drove the deficit to a record $1.3 trillion in July, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Tax receipts that have fallen due to the poor economy and increased spending to save car companies, banks and mortgage firms were major contributors to the federal deficit, according to CBO, which provides official budget numbers for Congress. The federal deficit grew by another $181 billion in July. …

Spending through July of 2009 has increased by $530 billion, which is 21 percent over the same period in 2008. The bailout money for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae accounted for almost half of the spending increase. Unemployment benefits have more than doubled, Medicaid spending has grown by a quarter and Medicare spending has increased by 11 percent.

Tax revenue for the first three quarters of 2009 has fallen by approximately $350 billion, or 17 percent compared to the same period last year, due mostly to the effects of the recession on payroll, income and corporate taxes. A third of the decline is due to tax breaks in the stimulus, including the middle-class tax cut that President Obama campaigned on during last year's election.

The national debt is currently $11.67 trillion... or $38,012 per citizen.
http://www.usdebtclock.org...

The deficit for fiscal year 2008 reached $455 billion (Bush). The estimates are that spending for fiscal year 2009 will reach $1.8 trillion (Obama).

How is this kind of spending sustainable? It is morally and economically bankrupt to make future generations pay for the present generation's mistakes.

The future of the USA and their superpower role is diminishing, and it is doing so quickly. Inflation is speeding up. And China is only getting more powerful.

It is clear that Obama's policies, especially spending policies, are not looking good, so why continue on this path?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 5:14:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This isn't good, at least not in the long-term. Deficit spending I can understand in the economic situation we are now, but unless Obama's administration can restore fiscal responsibility, you're going to get into some problems.

The best idea, at least from my view, is to start trimming down some of the civil services, or downloading costs to the states. Let the states have more control over some civil services, and keep the costs off of the federal government. Health care reform, while needed, should be introduced in a very limited form. Bring it in over the long-term, as to not stretch the deficit more while trying to trim it down. If the healthcare reform will cost only, lets say, $300B, for every $1B you trim off of spending or by bringing in economic growth, bring in another aspect of the healthcare reform that will cost about the same amount.

Most importantly - return fiscal responsibility to Washington. But, this doesn't necessarily mean bring back the Republicans, who by no means are fiscally responsible.

Lets remember who created this structural deficit in the first place though - Bush. Your American deficit existed long before Obama came around. Obama may or may not pull you out of deficit yet, and I'll keep my opinion reserved on the policies chosen to fix it, but I don't see a return of Republican fiscal ideology being the white knight.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 5:23:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 5:14:55 PM, Volkov wrote:
Lets remember who created this structural deficit in the first place though - Bush. Your American deficit existed long before Obama came around. Obama may or may not pull you out of deficit yet, and I'll keep my opinion reserved on the policies chosen to fix it, but I don't see a return of Republican fiscal ideology being the white knight.

Actually, since Obama took office- He has added to the budget deficit more than every other President in history. The budget deficit has nothing to do with Bush at this point. Sure, the national debt does, but the budget deficit can't be blamed on Bush.

Well, of course a Republican like Bush or McCain wouldn't bring back fiscal conservatism. But, I'm sure someone like Rudy Giuliani (Former Mayor, NYC), Mark Perry (Gov, Texas), or in the future Paul Ryan (Congressman, Wisconsin) could bring back fiscal conservatism. And of course, I have to mention Ron Paul haha.

Over-spending and the lack of fiscal conservatism is by far the biggest problem facing the country right now. The deficits and debts are unsustainable.
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 5:24:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 5:14:55 PM, Volkov wrote:
Lets remember who created this structural deficit in the first place though - Bush. Your American deficit existed long before Obama came around. Obama may or may not pull you out of deficit yet, and I'll keep my opinion reserved on the policies chosen to fix it, but I don't see a return of Republican fiscal ideology being the white knight.

Always with the Bush-bashing when things go bad. Honestly. Republicans aren't the cause of everything wrong in the world. 50% would be a more accurate figure. And you can guess who causes the other fifty percent...

Note: I am not defending Bush or his big spending. I merely get sick when Democrats start pointing the finger at Republicans and vise-versa. Irresponsibility is what it is called.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 5:28:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I would disagree with the defense of Bush, Nags. He clearly created the structural deficit, though I agree Obama probably has spent like a madman, and it hasn't helped.

I don't know about any of the politicians you mentioned, though Guiliani would be an interesting candidate and the little I know, I know he is fairly fiscally responsible.

But I cannot stress it enough - find Paul Martin, kidnap him, and put him in charge of your deficit. He will slaughter it like nothing you've seen.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 5:33:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Keynesians believe that a deficit helps the economy, though more extensive economic study shows that the amount that it contributes to the economy is less than the amount actually invested.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 5:38:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 5:28:26 PM, Volkov wrote:
I would disagree with the defense of Bush, Nags. He clearly created the structural deficit, though I agree Obama probably has spent like a madman, and it hasn't helped.

I am by no means defending Bush. He was a terrible President. Although, he was more fiscally conservative than Obama, although that is not too hard.

I don't know about any of the politicians you mentioned, though Guiliani would be an interesting candidate and the little I know, I know he is fairly fiscally responsible.

Rick Perry has been pretty vocal on national politics. He wrote an op-ed with SC Gov Mark Sanford in the Wall Street Journal that made a lot of noise.

Paul Ryan is basically the policy wonk of the GOP congress. He made the alternatives to the Obama Budget and Obamacare.

But I cannot stress it enough - find Paul Martin, kidnap him, and put him in charge of your deficit. He will slaughter it like nothing you've seen.

I prefer Daniel Hannan, an English MEP.
http://hotair.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 5:44:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 5:38:30 PM, Nags wrote:
Rick Perry has been pretty vocal on national politics. He wrote an op-ed with SC Gov Mark Sanford in the Wall Street Journal that made a lot of noise.

Interesting, do you have a link?

Paul Ryan is basically the policy wonk of the GOP congress. He made the alternatives to the Obama Budget and Obamacare.

Is the Obama Budget the one where the Republicans made the political faux-pas of calling on a government's bluff of creating their own "budget," and it turned out to have few numbers?

I prefer Daniel Hannan, an English MEP.
http://hotair.com...

He has a point - the Democrats are selling the plan horribly, and it just full of blunders.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 5:46:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 5:40:26 PM, wjmelements wrote:


That was genius.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 5:57:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 5:44:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/10/2009 5:38:30 PM, Nags wrote:
Rick Perry has been pretty vocal on national politics. He wrote an op-ed with SC Gov Mark Sanford in the Wall Street Journal that made a lot of noise.

Interesting, do you have a link?

http://online.wsj.com...

Paul Ryan is basically the policy wonk of the GOP congress. He made the alternatives to the Obama Budget and Obamacare.

Is the Obama Budget the one where the Republicans made the political faux-pas of calling on a government's bluff of creating their own "budget," and it turned out to have few numbers?

Paul Ryan wrote about it in the WSJ here:
http://online.wsj.com...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:21:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 5:40:26 PM, wjmelements wrote:


HA HA HA HA XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Your second video isn't as funny. It's more tragic.

I have two little videos of my own....
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:45:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 5:23:58 PM, Nags wrote:

Actually, since Obama took office- He has added to the budget deficit more than every other President in history. The budget deficit has nothing to do with Bush at this point. Sure, the national debt does, but the budget deficit can't be blamed on Bush.

If you take it as a percentage of the GDP, then no he has not. Currently we are around the same as the first half of the 1950's. FDR hold the title for adding to the deficit more than every other President in History. We should also remember that he is generally considered a successful president. (I know some will claim he was otherwise, but they have yet to provide an argument so...)
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:49:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:45:44 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 5:23:58 PM, Nags wrote:

Actually, since Obama took office- He has added to the budget deficit more than every other President in history. The budget deficit has nothing to do with Bush at this point. Sure, the national debt does, but the budget deficit can't be blamed on Bush.


If you take it as a percentage of the GDP, then no he has not. Currently we are around the same as the first half of the 1950's. FDR hold the title for adding to the deficit more than every other President in History. We should also remember that he is generally considered a successful president. (I know some will claim he was otherwise, but they have yet to provide an argument so...)

You mixed up budget deficit and national debt. You are talking about national debt in your post. I was talking about the budget deficit.

Also- FDR is one of the worst Presidents in my opinion.
-Massive deficit and debt spending
-Took 7 years to get us out of a depression.
-Started the road to Democratic Socialism
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:54:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:49:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:45:44 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 5:23:58 PM, Nags wrote:

Actually, since Obama took office- He has added to the budget deficit more than every other President in history. The budget deficit has nothing to do with Bush at this point. Sure, the national debt does, but the budget deficit can't be blamed on Bush.


If you take it as a percentage of the GDP, then no he has not. Currently we are around the same as the first half of the 1950's. FDR hold the title for adding to the deficit more than every other President in History. We should also remember that he is generally considered a successful president. (I know some will claim he was otherwise, but they have yet to provide an argument so...)

You mixed up budget deficit and national debt. You are talking about national debt in your post. I was talking about the budget deficit.

Also- FDR is one of the worst Presidents in my opinion.
-Massive deficit and debt spending
-Took 7 years to get us out of a depression.
-Started the road to Democratic Socialism

Actually, I was talking about both.
- spending I will give you. He did spend a lot, and you are certainly entitled to see that as negative.
- Prove it.
- A difficult claim to prove or disprove. We are far from Democratic Socialism. But I'll grant you that we have increased spending for social programs.
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:59:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 5:33:08 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Keynesians believe that a deficit helps the economy, though more extensive economic study shows that the amount that it contributes to the economy is less than the amount actually invested.

Nice generalization there, but we only believe in deficit spending to alleviate or end a recession. If you've read up on this, it's to maintain full employment. It's much stronger than a policy like cutting taxes in downturns.
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:03:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:49:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:45:44 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 5:23:58 PM, Nags wrote:

Actually, since Obama took office- He has added to the budget deficit more than every other President in history. The budget deficit has nothing to do with Bush at this point. Sure, the national debt does, but the budget deficit can't be blamed on Bush.


If you take it as a percentage of the GDP, then no he has not. Currently we are around the same as the first half of the 1950's. FDR hold the title for adding to the deficit more than every other President in History. We should also remember that he is generally considered a successful president. (I know some will claim he was otherwise, but they have yet to provide an argument so...)

You mixed up budget deficit and national debt. You are talking about national debt in your post. I was talking about the budget deficit.

Also- FDR is one of the worst Presidents in my opinion.
-Massive deficit and debt spending
-Took 7 years to get us out of a depression.
-Started the road to Democratic Socialism

Fortunately, your opinion is total garbage. Do you not realize why there was such high deficit spending? World War II contributed far more to the debt than social programs. And if you look at 1933-1941, you see clear economic growth in each year, except for 1937-1938 when FDR balanced the budget.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:03:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:54:17 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:49:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:45:44 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 5:23:58 PM, Nags wrote:

Actually, since Obama took office- He has added to the budget deficit more than every other President in history. The budget deficit has nothing to do with Bush at this point. Sure, the national debt does, but the budget deficit can't be blamed on Bush.


If you take it as a percentage of the GDP, then no he has not. Currently we are around the same as the first half of the 1950's. FDR hold the title for adding to the deficit more than every other President in History. We should also remember that he is generally considered a successful president. (I know some will claim he was otherwise, but they have yet to provide an argument so...)

You mixed up budget deficit and national debt. You are talking about national debt in your post. I was talking about the budget deficit.

Also- FDR is one of the worst Presidents in my opinion.
-Massive deficit and debt spending
-Took 7 years to get us out of a depression.
-Started the road to Democratic Socialism

Actually, I was talking about both.

Hmm.. ok. I'm not sure about that though.

- Prove it.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
http://newsroom.ucla.edu...
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:08:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:03:25 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:54:17 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:49:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:45:44 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 5:23:58 PM, Nags wrote:

Actually, since Obama took office- He has added to the budget deficit more than every other President in history. The budget deficit has nothing to do with Bush at this point. Sure, the national debt does, but the budget deficit can't be blamed on Bush.


If you take it as a percentage of the GDP, then no he has not. Currently we are around the same as the first half of the 1950's. FDR hold the title for adding to the deficit more than every other President in History. We should also remember that he is generally considered a successful president. (I know some will claim he was otherwise, but they have yet to provide an argument so...)

You mixed up budget deficit and national debt. You are talking about national debt in your post. I was talking about the budget deficit.

Also- FDR is one of the worst Presidents in my opinion.
-Massive deficit and debt spending
-Took 7 years to get us out of a depression.
-Started the road to Democratic Socialism

Actually, I was talking about both.

Hmm.. ok. I'm not sure about that though.

- Prove it.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

I don't see many major economists crediting that study. There was such large growth in the GDP during FDR's first two terms that I think the study is a total joke. I really don't see anything to back up the claim that the Depression would have ended in 1936 had the New Deal not been implemented. That's an entirely unrealistic rate of growth.

And you should read Brad DeLong.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:11:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:08:43 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:03:25 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:54:17 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:49:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:45:44 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 5:23:58 PM, Nags wrote:

Actually, since Obama took office- He has added to the budget deficit more than every other President in history. The budget deficit has nothing to do with Bush at this point. Sure, the national debt does, but the budget deficit can't be blamed on Bush.


If you take it as a percentage of the GDP, then no he has not. Currently we are around the same as the first half of the 1950's. FDR hold the title for adding to the deficit more than every other President in History. We should also remember that he is generally considered a successful president. (I know some will claim he was otherwise, but they have yet to provide an argument so...)

You mixed up budget deficit and national debt. You are talking about national debt in your post. I was talking about the budget deficit.

Also- FDR is one of the worst Presidents in my opinion.
-Massive deficit and debt spending
-Took 7 years to get us out of a depression.
-Started the road to Democratic Socialism

Actually, I was talking about both.

Hmm.. ok. I'm not sure about that though.

- Prove it.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

I don't see many major economists crediting that study. There was such large growth in the GDP during FDR's first two terms that I think the study is a total joke. I really don't see anything to back up the claim that the Depression would have ended in 1936 had the New Deal not been implemented. That's an entirely unrealistic rate of growth.

Wow, great rebuttal. Nahttt.

And you should read Brad DeLong.

And you should read Murray Rothbard.
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:16:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:11:03 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:08:43 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:03:25 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:54:17 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:49:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:45:44 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 5:23:58 PM, Nags wrote:

Actually, since Obama took office- He has added to the budget deficit more than every other President in history. The budget deficit has nothing to do with Bush at this point. Sure, the national debt does, but the budget deficit can't be blamed on Bush.


If you take it as a percentage of the GDP, then no he has not. Currently we are around the same as the first half of the 1950's. FDR hold the title for adding to the deficit more than every other President in History. We should also remember that he is generally considered a successful president. (I know some will claim he was otherwise, but they have yet to provide an argument so...)

You mixed up budget deficit and national debt. You are talking about national debt in your post. I was talking about the budget deficit.

Also- FDR is one of the worst Presidents in my opinion.
-Massive deficit and debt spending
-Took 7 years to get us out of a depression.
-Started the road to Democratic Socialism

Actually, I was talking about both.

Hmm.. ok. I'm not sure about that though.

- Prove it.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

I don't see many major economists crediting that study. There was such large growth in the GDP during FDR's first two terms that I think the study is a total joke. I really don't see anything to back up the claim that the Depression would have ended in 1936 had the New Deal not been implemented. That's an entirely unrealistic rate of growth.

Wow, great rebuttal. Nahttt.

And you should read Brad DeLong.

And you should read Murray Rothbard.

What's to be rebutted? Your appeal to authority? The study concentrates far too much on NIRA, which was eventually declared constitutional. And again, the rate of growth implied by the study is just unrealistic.

Yeah, the Austrian business cycle theory is just brilliant...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:18:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:08:43 PM, tribefan011 wrote:

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

I don't see many major economists crediting that study. There was such large growth in the GDP during FDR's first two terms that I think the study is a total joke. I really don't see anything to back up the claim that the Depression would have ended in 1936 had the New Deal not been implemented. That's an entirely unrealistic rate of growth.

And you should read Brad DeLong.

Also, and very significantly, the UCLA study did not include those being employed by the temporary jobs provided by the government as being employed. They included those among the unemployed. I don't think I need to further explain the problem with this.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:30:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:18:59 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:08:43 PM, tribefan011 wrote:

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

I don't see many major economists crediting that study. There was such large growth in the GDP during FDR's first two terms that I think the study is a total joke. I really don't see anything to back up the claim that the Depression would have ended in 1936 had the New Deal not been implemented. That's an entirely unrealistic rate of growth.

And you should read Brad DeLong.

Also, and very significantly, the UCLA study did not include those being employed by the temporary jobs provided by the government as being employed. They included those among the unemployed. I don't think I need to further explain the problem with this.

Please do.
-If I have a job for 1 year fixing a bridge, is that a job? No. And should not be considered so.

Also- I thought it was consensus that the Great Depression lasted 7 years. Why the controversey?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:37:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:40:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:30:01 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:18:59 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:08:43 PM, tribefan011 wrote:

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

I don't see many major economists crediting that study. There was such large growth in the GDP during FDR's first two terms that I think the study is a total joke. I really don't see anything to back up the claim that the Depression would have ended in 1936 had the New Deal not been implemented. That's an entirely unrealistic rate of growth.

And you should read Brad DeLong.

Also, and very significantly, the UCLA study did not include those being employed by the temporary jobs provided by the government as being employed. They included those among the unemployed. I don't think I need to further explain the problem with this.

Please do.
-If I have a job for 1 year fixing a bridge, is that a job? No. And should not be considered so.

Also- I thought it was consensus that the Great Depression lasted 7 years. Why the controversey?

That fails to recognize the purpose of the job, and it is also a misrepresentation since the jobs weren't just one year jobs. If you read The General Theory of Employment, and Interest, and Money, you will see the ideology behind such employment. Just look at the past few years. We have not changed as people. We're the same people we were three years ago. But aggregate demand has dropped, causing many to lose jobs. Government measures have to be taken to make sure these people have jobs while the economy recovers, so the government measures are supposed to effectively increase aggregate demand to keep the same output. We obviously can't count on the "free market" to maintain full employment.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:42:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:40:09 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:30:01 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:18:59 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:08:43 PM, tribefan011 wrote:

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

I don't see many major economists crediting that study. There was such large growth in the GDP during FDR's first two terms that I think the study is a total joke. I really don't see anything to back up the claim that the Depression would have ended in 1936 had the New Deal not been implemented. That's an entirely unrealistic rate of growth.

And you should read Brad DeLong.

Also, and very significantly, the UCLA study did not include those being employed by the temporary jobs provided by the government as being employed. They included those among the unemployed. I don't think I need to further explain the problem with this.

Please do.
-If I have a job for 1 year fixing a bridge, is that a job? No. And should not be considered so.

Also- I thought it was consensus that the Great Depression lasted 7 years. Why the controversey?

That fails to recognize the purpose of the job, and it is also a misrepresentation since the jobs weren't just one year jobs. If you read The General Theory of Employment, and Interest, and Money, you will see the ideology behind such employment. Just look at the past few years. We have not changed as people. We're the same people we were three years ago. But aggregate demand has dropped, causing many to lose jobs. Government measures have to be taken to make sure these people have jobs while the economy recovers, so the government measures are supposed to effectively increase aggregate demand to keep the same output. We obviously can't count on the "free market" to maintain full employment.

John Maynard Keynes?

*throws up in mouth*
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:50:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:03:23 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:49:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:45:44 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 5:23:58 PM, Nags wrote:

Actually, since Obama took office- He has added to the budget deficit more than every other President in history. The budget deficit has nothing to do with Bush at this point. Sure, the national debt does, but the budget deficit can't be blamed on Bush.


If you take it as a percentage of the GDP, then no he has not. Currently we are around the same as the first half of the 1950's. FDR hold the title for adding to the deficit more than every other President in History. We should also remember that he is generally considered a successful president. (I know some will claim he was otherwise, but they have yet to provide an argument so...)

You mixed up budget deficit and national debt. You are talking about national debt in your post. I was talking about the budget deficit.

Also- FDR is one of the worst Presidents in my opinion.
-Massive deficit and debt spending
-Took 7 years to get us out of a depression.
-Started the road to Democratic Socialism

Fortunately, your opinion is total garbage.

What's with you and low blows?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:51:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:30:01 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:18:59 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:08:43 PM, tribefan011 wrote:

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
http://newsroom.ucla.edu...

I don't see many major economists crediting that study. There was such large growth in the GDP during FDR's first two terms that I think the study is a total joke. I really don't see anything to back up the claim that the Depression would have ended in 1936 had the New Deal not been implemented. That's an entirely unrealistic rate of growth.

And you should read Brad DeLong.

Also, and very significantly, the UCLA study did not include those being employed by the temporary jobs provided by the government as being employed. They included those among the unemployed. I don't think I need to further explain the problem with this.

Please do.
-If I have a job for 1 year fixing a bridge, is that a job? No. And should not be considered so.

Also- I thought it was consensus that the Great Depression lasted 7 years. Why the controversey?

Certainly, no problem:
First let me answer your bullet point. I think any reasonable person would say that if you have a job fixing a bridge for one year, it would qualify as a job. People were unemployed, and thusly in need of a job during these years. The government provided jobs. That means that those who would otherwise have no money coming in were able to pay bills and feed their family. Is that not the very definition of employed?

As for the controversy on length, you brought it up with your study. That study claims that the length would have been shorter had there been no stimulus, and that there was really no benefit for the people (because, as they claim, the employment rate did not decrease among other things). I showed a significant flaw in the latter point because the study did not include temporary government workers as employed, despite the fact that they were getting paid for their labor (by all reasonable definitions, a job).
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:52:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:50:59 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:03:23 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:49:38 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:45:44 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/10/2009 5:23:58 PM, Nags wrote:

Actually, since Obama took office- He has added to the budget deficit more than every other President in history. The budget deficit has nothing to do with Bush at this point. Sure, the national debt does, but the budget deficit can't be blamed on Bush.


If you take it as a percentage of the GDP, then no he has not. Currently we are around the same as the first half of the 1950's. FDR hold the title for adding to the deficit more than every other President in History. We should also remember that he is generally considered a successful president. (I know some will claim he was otherwise, but they have yet to provide an argument so...)

You mixed up budget deficit and national debt. You are talking about national debt in your post. I was talking about the budget deficit.

Also- FDR is one of the worst Presidents in my opinion.
-Massive deficit and debt spending
-Took 7 years to get us out of a depression.
-Started the road to Democratic Socialism

Fortunately, your opinion is total garbage.

What's with you and low blows?

I dislike opposing ideologies when they're not substantive.