Sidestepping on the economy?

[flacaltenn]

I think you guys are WAAAAY too sensitive to partisian crap.. That graph was simply to illustrate what happened around the time that BUSH signed the TARP -- after it's initial failure vote in Congress. Had NOTHING to do with OBAMA..

Point was -- the market wasn't very perturbed by the fact that TARP had initially failed and MAY HAVE reacted negatively to the eventual passage..

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I think the GOP is maneuvering to create that next dip with its current antics.

Regards,

D-Ray

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

I think you guys are WAAAAY too sensitive to partisian crap.. That graph was simply to illustrate what happened around the time that BUSH signed the TARP -- after it's initial failure vote in Congress. Had NOTHING to do with OBAMA..

Point was -- the market wasn't very perturbed by the fact that TARP had initially failed and MAY HAVE reacted negatively to the eventual passage..

And you're not?

I think all too many people just have a burning desire to not give the president credit for ANYTHING, no matter how big or small. They want to see him fail so bad they see nothing but failure everywhere they look, even in things that have nothing to do with him. Try to tell me you've never noticed this.

And, I seem to remember GW trying to warn us of the coming crash and saying that we, "...must take steps now...to avoid a total collapse of our economic system." (May be somewhat paraphrased.) So, the thing to ponder then would be; Would what we saw in 2008 represent "total collapse"? In my opinion, the answer would be "no". As terrible as it was, it did not represent "total collapse". So, perhaps GW, Obama and their respective advisers were right?

Which is why I asked; How would doing nothing have been so much better?

Dave

[piece-itpete]

I'm not kneejerk against TARP. It is entirely possible it did avert a collapse, and I keep hearing how it paid for itself?

ARRA on the other hand...

Pete

[flacaltenn]

Dave:

I don't think ANYTHING I wrote in this thread was "partisian". I tried to objectively analyze your OP question.. Pointed out that the content of the "stimulus" itself -- couldn't be considered very stimulating.. And that the initial tinkering by Bush couldn't stem a lose of confidence in the market. And no --- I don't TARP "saved" us from a bigger dip.. As I said -- the banks didn't USE the infusions for anything other than satisfying Fed audit requirements. That could have been avoided by not even writing them a check, but limiting the "mark to market" rules for a period of time. Now GM/Chrys/AIG are other matters.

The scenario that the Fed chief econ advisors were painting prior to the TARP was only slightly worse than what actually transpired.. So LOGICALLY, if they were predicting a disaster only marginally worse than what happened, it failed to produce dramatic results --- or the advisors were FOS...

[BlueStreak]

"Dramatic results"?

A net is only made to break your fall.
You won't be flying to Cancun on it.
You won't be flying anywhere without it.

Dave

[flacaltenn]

I would be simply amazed if the macroeconomic tools that Washington uses could design that accurately.. To get a dead cat bounce versus a quick sand speed decline or a Spiderman safety net...

The TARP and stimulus tools CHOSEN by Bush and Obama admins were nowhere near that sophisticated. Except for the currency manipulations in the background that simply cheapened the dollar when nobody was really looking.. And we're close to maxxing out THOSE tools as well. Since we can't play the interest games anymore than near zero rates and we can't keep buying our own debt with more devaluation..

Nearing the end game here for the Keynesians...

[CarlV]

Our colleagues at PolitiFact New Jersey last week looked at a similar claim, that every president has raised the debt ceiling. They found that was Mostly True. Only President Harry S. Truman did not.

Here, we are looking at Obama's claim that, "President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it seven times."

We'll go straight to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which keeps tabs on when the debt ceiling has been raised.

Among its historical tables is one labeled "Statutory Limits on Federal debt 1940 - Current" (Table 7.3) The table lists 106 increases to the federal debt limit since 1940.

More specifically, it lists 18 increases to the debt ceiling between February 1981 and September 1987. In other words, there were 18 under President Ronald Reagan, as Obama said. And there were seven increases between January 2001 and January 2009 -- during George W. Bush's presidency. We should also note that it has been raised three times already under President Obama, on Feb. 17, 2009, Dec. 28, 2009 and Feb. 12, 2010.

We would be remiss if we failed to note that Obama opposed one of those increases to the debt ceiling under George W. Bush and criticized Bush for a lack of leadership.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills," Obama said before a March 16, 2006, vote on raising the debt limit. The Senate narrowly approved raising the limit along partisan lines, 52-48, with all Democrats opposed.

Yep, I now see how this is such a matter of life and death and life cannot continue unless we drive the stake in the elderly deeper to spare our billionaire's from paying their fair share.

Oh, I forgot to add if you are pushing your agenda.


EDIT:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-18-times-geo/



Carl

[Charles]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

I would be simply amazed if the macroeconomic tools that Washington uses could design that accurately.. To get a dead cat bounce versus a quick sand speed decline or a Spiderman safety net...

The TARP and stimulus tools CHOSEN by Bush and Obama admins were nowhere near that sophisticated. Except for the currency manipulations in the background that simply cheapened the dollar when nobody was really looking.. And we're close to maxxing out THOSE tools as well. Since we can't play the interest games anymore than near zero rates and we can't keep buying our own debt with more devaluation..

Nearing the end game here for the Keynesians...

I don't think I'd give the Keynesians the ten count just yet...they've still got a few cards up their sleeves. Even considering the good folks over at Von Mises make a credible argument that creating this much money out of debt has always ended in runaway inflation and the collapse of the economy.

Which is entirely possible...wouldn't be the first time a country has gone belly up.

It may be that the current crop of Keynesians behind the wheel forgot to read the whole book. While Lord Keynes advocated opening the public coffers during hard times, he also advocated replenishing them when times are good.

Maybe the only part of the book they read was about the Fabian Society.

I tend to side with the Von Mises bunch. When you look at all of the debt which has been created by the Keynes crowd...not to mention the derivative market which potentially increases the amount of debt to astronomical proportions...the Keynes boys start to appear like Dr. Frankenstein whose monster has slipped his bounds and is headed for the village.

Don't know whether so sit back and count on the smart money boys to head this goober off at the pass, or scream "Katy bar the door!!!"

Guess I'll just keep the bow into the wind, the bilge running, and hope like hell the motor doesn't choke.

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by CarlV

Yep, I now see how this is such a matter of life and death and life cannot continue unless we drive the stake in the elderly deeper to spare our billionaire's from paying their fair share.

Oh, I forgot to add if you are pushing your agenda.


EDIT:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-18-times-geo/



Carl

No offense, Carl, but when it comes to pushing an agenda, you've just whipped up a couple of dandy straw men yourself.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Chas