Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
What???

I don't care how the $85, as long as it gets spent. Because the alternative is the money sitting still in a savings account somewhere.

What part of "That $85 will get spent" confused you?

We've agreed that our govt wastes money.   Do you think the govt "saves" money somewhere?

They can spend it well and benefit several or they can overspend on one item and benefit one.    And, to you, it makes no difference because the money was spent.  That's stupid.

Are you dense?

How many times do I have to say that I'd prefer that they spent it better?

Maybe if I type it slower?

IF    THE    ALTERNATIVE    IS     THAT    THE  MONEY    DOESN'T     GET    SPENT     (CUTTING    THE    DEFICIT),     IT'S     BETTER    TO     SPEND    IT    WHEN    DEMAND    IS    DEPRESSED,     EVEN     IF      IT'S      WASTEFUL.

And here we go, right back to "stupid" again.  

"Wasteful spending can be good."

It's only good for the company selling the $85 wrench.

Why do you want to reward those businesses that are ripping off the U.S. government?

Why not cut taxes and let me keep that extra $80 and let me spend it on ****** HBD teams?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
What???

I don't care how the $85, as long as it gets spent. Because the alternative is the money sitting still in a savings account somewhere.

What part of "That $85 will get spent" confused you?

We've agreed that our govt wastes money.   Do you think the govt "saves" money somewhere?

They can spend it well and benefit several or they can overspend on one item and benefit one.    And, to you, it makes no difference because the money was spent.  That's stupid.

Are you dense?

How many times do I have to say that I'd prefer that they spent it better?

Maybe if I type it slower?

IF    THE    ALTERNATIVE    IS     THAT    THE  MONEY    DOESN'T     GET    SPENT     (CUTTING    THE    DEFICIT),     IT'S     BETTER    TO     SPEND    IT    WHEN    DEMAND    IS    DEPRESSED,     EVEN     IF      IT'S      WASTEFUL.

Shouldn't we expect better from our leaders?    Should we just say "Oh well, it's money into the economy so that's good enough!"? 

Expect little, get little.   That's why we are where we are. 

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 5:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
What???

I don't care how the $85, as long as it gets spent. Because the alternative is the money sitting still in a savings account somewhere.

What part of "That $85 will get spent" confused you?

We've agreed that our govt wastes money.   Do you think the govt "saves" money somewhere?

They can spend it well and benefit several or they can overspend on one item and benefit one.    And, to you, it makes no difference because the money was spent.  That's stupid.

Are you dense?

How many times do I have to say that I'd prefer that they spent it better?

Maybe if I type it slower?

IF    THE    ALTERNATIVE    IS     THAT    THE  MONEY    DOESN'T     GET    SPENT     (CUTTING    THE    DEFICIT),     IT'S     BETTER    TO     SPEND    IT    WHEN    DEMAND    IS    DEPRESSED,     EVEN     IF      IT'S      WASTEFUL.

And here we go, right back to "stupid" again.  

"Wasteful spending can be good."

It's only good for the company selling the $85 wrench.

Why do you want to reward those businesses that are ripping off the U.S. government?

What's the alternative?

Spending the money in a smart way? I agree, that's better.
Giving it back to us in tax cuts? I agree, that's better.
Not spending it in order to reduce the deficit while the economy is suffering from a lack of demand? Not better.

Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 5:36:00 PM (view original):
Why not cut taxes and let me keep that extra $80 and let me spend it on ****** HBD teams?

That's fine with me.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):
Well, it kind of does matter.  Because what you say you believe goes to your credibility.  And if you're going to claim that (effect --> cause), then you reached a new personal low in credibility.

What???

Demand collapsed because of the mortgage crisis.

How would you suggest we deal with the economy, other than addressing the lack of demand?

Here's a simple way.  Doesn't cost the government a dime.

Define a qualified mortgage as stipulated in Dodd Frank.  The last time I saw the numbers, the average credit score for someone getting a mortgage was 762.  The average credit score on a declined mortgage application was 729.  One would assume they would set the bar somewhere below that (say 700, maybe 710 or 720), allowing for more mortgages, which allows for more homebuyers (more spending), which raises property values, which creates equity, which these newly-qualified borrowers can leverage into cash, creating (again) more spending.

It would also create construction jobs, mortgage lending jobs, appraising jobs, etc., which creates wages, which results in more spending.

Then, guess what?  That additional spending creates the need to hire in other service sectors (where that money is being spent).  Which creates more jobs, which creates wages, which creates more spending.

All that by adding a footnote to an existing law.

Fix the self-inflicted broken leg (the housing market) and that fixes the symptom that appears as pain (the lack of spending).

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 5:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
What???

I don't care how the $85, as long as it gets spent. Because the alternative is the money sitting still in a savings account somewhere.

What part of "That $85 will get spent" confused you?

We've agreed that our govt wastes money.   Do you think the govt "saves" money somewhere?

They can spend it well and benefit several or they can overspend on one item and benefit one.    And, to you, it makes no difference because the money was spent.  That's stupid.

Are you dense?

How many times do I have to say that I'd prefer that they spent it better?

Maybe if I type it slower?

IF    THE    ALTERNATIVE    IS     THAT    THE  MONEY    DOESN'T     GET    SPENT     (CUTTING    THE    DEFICIT),     IT'S     BETTER    TO     SPEND    IT    WHEN    DEMAND    IS    DEPRESSED,     EVEN     IF      IT'S      WASTEFUL.

And here we go, right back to "stupid" again.  

"Wasteful spending can be good."

It's only good for the company selling the $85 wrench.

Why do you want to reward those businesses that are ripping off the U.S. government?

What's the alternative?

Spending the money in a smart way? I agree, that's better.
Giving it back to us in tax cuts? I agree, that's better.
Not spending it in order to reduce the deficit while the economy is suffering from a lack of demand? Not better.

Consumer confidence.

The government does a pretty ****** job of inspiring it right now.  Do you trust our current legislators and chief executive to make good financial decisions for the country, based on their track record over the past couple of years?

Perhaps cutting wasteful spending might be a sign that somehow, FINALLY, somebody in power "get's it".

Which could be a positive step towards inspiring consumer confidence.

Posted by examinerebb on 3/4/2013 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):
Well, it kind of does matter.  Because what you say you believe goes to your credibility.  And if you're going to claim that (effect --> cause), then you reached a new personal low in credibility.

What???

Demand collapsed because of the mortgage crisis.

How would you suggest we deal with the economy, other than addressing the lack of demand?

Here's a simple way.  Doesn't cost the government a dime.

Define a qualified mortgage as stipulated in Dodd Frank.  The last time I saw the numbers, the average credit score for someone getting a mortgage was 762.  The average credit score on a declined mortgage application was 729.  One would assume they would set the bar somewhere below that (say 700, maybe 710 or 720), allowing for more mortgages, which allows for more homebuyers (more spending), which raises property values, which creates equity, which these newly-qualified borrowers can leverage into cash, creating (again) more spending.

It would also create construction jobs, mortgage lending jobs, appraising jobs, etc., which creates wages, which results in more spending.

Then, guess what?  That additional spending creates the need to hire in other service sectors (where that money is being spent).  Which creates more jobs, which creates wages, which creates more spending.

All that by adding a footnote to an existing law.

Fix the self-inflicted broken leg (the housing market) and that fixes the symptom that appears as pain (the lack of spending).

I agree with everything but the last line. The housing market is the symptom, the real problem with the economy is the lack of demand.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 5:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
What???

I don't care how the $85, as long as it gets spent. Because the alternative is the money sitting still in a savings account somewhere.

What part of "That $85 will get spent" confused you?

We've agreed that our govt wastes money.   Do you think the govt "saves" money somewhere?

They can spend it well and benefit several or they can overspend on one item and benefit one.    And, to you, it makes no difference because the money was spent.  That's stupid.

Are you dense?

How many times do I have to say that I'd prefer that they spent it better?

Maybe if I type it slower?

IF    THE    ALTERNATIVE    IS     THAT    THE  MONEY    DOESN'T     GET    SPENT     (CUTTING    THE    DEFICIT),     IT'S     BETTER    TO     SPEND    IT    WHEN    DEMAND    IS    DEPRESSED,     EVEN     IF      IT'S      WASTEFUL.

And here we go, right back to "stupid" again.  

"Wasteful spending can be good."

It's only good for the company selling the $85 wrench.

Why do you want to reward those businesses that are ripping off the U.S. government?

What's the alternative?

Spending the money in a smart way? I agree, that's better.
Giving it back to us in tax cuts? I agree, that's better.
Not spending it in order to reduce the deficit while the economy is suffering from a lack of demand? Not better.

Consumer confidence.

The government does a pretty ****** job of inspiring it right now.  Do you trust our current legislators and chief executive to make good financial decisions for the country, based on their track record over the past couple of years?

Perhaps cutting wasteful spending might be a sign that somehow, FINALLY, somebody in power "get's it".

Which could be a positive step towards inspiring consumer confidence.

Disagree. Not only do spending cuts actually inflict real harm on the economy, there is no magic level of deficit reduction that will change individual behavior.

You don't buy things because the deficit is lower. Businesses don't hire employees because the deficit is lower.

The government can inspire confidence by not acting like a bunch of retarded fuckheads, but that has more to do with their brinkmanship (both sides of the aisle), not actually policy.

You don't think that the government spending $85 for a wrench "for the good of the economy" makes them look like a bunch of retarded fuckheads?

Of course they do, but not enough to change individual behavior.

The government has been doing retarded **** like that forever. The economy doesn't shrink because people think the government is wasteful and inefficient.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/4/2013 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):
Well, it kind of does matter.  Because what you say you believe goes to your credibility.  And if you're going to claim that (effect --> cause), then you reached a new personal low in credibility.

What???

Demand collapsed because of the mortgage crisis.

How would you suggest we deal with the economy, other than addressing the lack of demand?

Here's a simple way.  Doesn't cost the government a dime.

Define a qualified mortgage as stipulated in Dodd Frank.  The last time I saw the numbers, the average credit score for someone getting a mortgage was 762.  The average credit score on a declined mortgage application was 729.  One would assume they would set the bar somewhere below that (say 700, maybe 710 or 720), allowing for more mortgages, which allows for more homebuyers (more spending), which raises property values, which creates equity, which these newly-qualified borrowers can leverage into cash, creating (again) more spending.

It would also create construction jobs, mortgage lending jobs, appraising jobs, etc., which creates wages, which results in more spending.

Then, guess what?  That additional spending creates the need to hire in other service sectors (where that money is being spent).  Which creates more jobs, which creates wages, which creates more spending.

All that by adding a footnote to an existing law.

Fix the self-inflicted broken leg (the housing market) and that fixes the symptom that appears as pain (the lack of spending).

I agree with everything but the last line. The housing market is the symptom, the real problem with the economy is the lack of demand.

What created the lack of demand?

The burst housing bubble. But we can't re-inflate that. That was driven by mortgage backed securities. We can fix demand.

Going back to your broken leg analogy. It's like you were riding a horse, the horse had a heart attack and collapsed, breaking your leg in the fall. Giving that horse CPR isn't going to fix your broken leg.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 6:28:00 PM (view original):
The burst housing bubble. But we can't re-inflate that. That was driven by mortgage backed securities. We can fix demand.

Going back to your broken leg analogy. It's like you were riding a horse, the horse had a heart attack and collapsed, breaking your leg in the fall. Giving that horse CPR isn't going to fix your broken leg.

Neither is finding another horse.  In your first line you say that we can't reinflate that bubble, yet advocating increased (or "sustained," since I believe we're still spending what we spent when we were involved in two foreign wars) government spending to prop up the economy, while ramping up the national deficit and debt, is every bit as unsustainable as pinning your economy on the hope that bad loans won't go into default.

It's really not, though. If the economy gets back to full employment (around 5% unemployment) not only is there a huge influx of tax revenue just from more people having a job, but there is less demand on social services and wages will go up due to competition among employers, creating even more tax revenue. That would take care of the majority of the deficit.

At that point the economy is self sustaining and additional cuts to eliminate the deficit are a good idea.