World Economy Thread
- Thread starter Ambit
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Watty
Naturally Cynical
I don't really follow the official news or anything, but I think a VAST majority of our (America in particular) problems would be solved if people didn't think they were so entitled. If you can't afford something, you can't afford it. However, the media tells us it's okay to go into debt for the sake of...well, whatever the fuck it happens to be and we end up shafting ourselves. *HATES being in debt - student loans will be paid in a year's time*
Couple this mentality with the idea that banks who actually loaned the money in the first place sell the "rights" to the loan to bigger financial corporations that in turn do the same to make a second round 'buck and the hole just gets deeper. Greed is definitely the worst of the deadly sins and until people realize that owning that new Escalade will do nothing for them, we'll be stuck in a downward spiral that can only get worse if allowed to continue.
*is only a cynical pessimist sometimes*
Couple this mentality with the idea that banks who actually loaned the money in the first place sell the "rights" to the loan to bigger financial corporations that in turn do the same to make a second round 'buck and the hole just gets deeper. Greed is definitely the worst of the deadly sins and until people realize that owning that new Escalade will do nothing for them, we'll be stuck in a downward spiral that can only get worse if allowed to continue.
*is only a cynical pessimist sometimes*
mr_rainmaker
Resident Cherokee
Watty
Naturally Cynical
Seems there's two ways to interpret this:
a) You're a staunch Republican and dislike Obama and his policies; this one just happened to be pertinent.
b) You're fairly ambivalent about the president and just found this article an interesting take on the fact that spending has gone up during a time when Obama was in office.
Don't really care if it's a or a combination of both, but I think the title of the article is a bit biased. As far as I know, Obama can't just "spend" willy nilly, so claiming he's spent more than anyone else in the history of the world is extreme to say the least. Saying that our country's government has authorized the spending of the largest monetary increase in contemporary history while under the Obama administration would have been more apt.
Though I guess I'd have to admit that nothing is politics is ever apt, if not blatantly biased...
Guitarman700
Well-Known Member
As if anyone could ever take anything on Breitbart.com seriously. That man was insane. That claim has been thoroughly debunked, by the way. Watty
Naturally Cynical
Ah, well here's me being ignorant of political goings on again. With all the big numbers that have been thrown around by folks lately, I figured it might have been possible...
*slaps self for prematurely buying into a propaganda machine*
*watches Obama break down a door and then backflip off podium*
*feels much better about the second misconception than the first*
Awwwwww, that's better.
Guitarman700
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I've seen this passed around in several forums, and it's just blatantly untrue, but it's still a popular talking point. Wall of text, but some interesting numbers in here.
"nothing unites Republicans quite like the unshakable belief that Barack Obama has become the Carrie Bradshaw of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, unable to stop himself from frittering away ridiculous sums of money on frivolous things. But what Republicans never mention when railing against Obamas alleged fiscal recklessness is how much money he has spent, and what exactly hes spent it on.
Obama has slashed one tax dollar for every dollar hes spent on government programs.
To rectify the situation, Newsweek and The Daily Beast have come up with an exclusive estimate of the amount the president has spent on new legislation since taking office in January 2009. This isnt the sum total of all government outlays; that number would include spending on mandatory entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which no president can control, as well as spending on income-support programs such as food stamps and Medicaid, which automatically increases as citizens get poorer (i.e., during a recession). Instead, we focused on the times when Obama decided to spend money that wouldnt have been spent if the government had simply been humming along on autopilot.
What wealong with the economic analyst Loren Adler at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank founded in 2007 by Republicans Howard Baker and Bob Dole and Democrats Tom Daschle and George Mitchellfound may surprise people who see Obama as the Big Spender in Chief. Over the last two years, the president has decided to spend $21 billion more on tax cutsthe GOPs preferred policy response to, well, everythingthan on government programs.
The math isnt particularly complicated. So far, the Obama administration has pushed for six major, immediate spending increases that arent offset elsewhere in the budget: the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (aka the stimulus package), which had a 2009-10 price tag of $340 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office; the GM/Chrysler bailout and other portions of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which have largely been paid back ($25 billion); unemployment-insurance extensions ($67 billion); COBRA extensions ($9 billion); Cash for Clunkers ($3 billion); and loans to automakers for energy-efficiency improvements ($8 billion). Thats $452 billion. Factor in $296 billion in stimulus funds that have yet to be spent and $136 billion in refundable tax credits that passed in December as part of Congress bipartisan tax compromise, and you wind up with $884 billion on the spending side of the equation.
Thats a hefty sum of money. But heres the interesting thing: Obamas tax cuts have been even bigger. The first of them, $238 billion in cuts for taxpayers and businesses, came as part of the stimulus package. The second portion, $721 billion worth, arrived in December, again as part of Congress bipartisan tax compromise. Subtract $54 billion in forthcoming stimulus-related tax hikes, and youve got a grand total of $905 billion in tax cuts. In other words, Obama has slashed one tax dollar for every dollar hes spent on government programs.
(One yet-to-be-implemented program worth considering: Obamas new health-reform law. In March 2010, the CBO estimated that Obamacare would produce a 10-year spendin
g increase of approximately $250 billion and a tax increase of slightly more than $400 billion, totals that will tilt the equilibrium between Obamas spending and tax cutting toward the former in future years. The CBO also estimated that the new law will reduce the deficit by $118 billion over the same period.)"
Watty
Naturally Cynical
I won't pretend that I read that without falling asleep...
In other news, I find it hilarious that Mitt Romney's campaign has the gall to send mailings to "supporters" asking for money. My dad's a (R) and we've received no less than 3 letters asking for money so far from him and not a one from Obama (though I'm unsure of what's allowed of the incumbent's campaign...)
In other news, I find it hilarious that Mitt Romney's campaign has the gall to send mailings to "supporters" asking for money. My dad's a (R) and we've received no less than 3 letters asking for money so far from him and not a one from Obama (though I'm unsure of what's allowed of the incumbent's campaign...)
Guitarman700
Well-Known Member
We've gotten a couple of calls from the DNC, but we're regular contributors, so it's only to be expected. The really strange thing going around is the robocalls with really dramatic music claiming Obama was born in Kenya. Gets me every time.
mr_rainmaker
Resident Cherokee
B......
I really think the dollar is going to hell,no matter which party is driving....
Moody`s downgrade
News Headlines
I really think the dollar is going to hell,no matter which party is driving....
Moody`s downgrade
News Headlines
Ckackley
Well-Known Member
I'm a pretty normal guy from the hills of West Virginia and I think I've got the problem figured out.. I'm probably totally wrong but, that doesn't stop anyone else.. lol
The problem is two fold.
1. Growth- Nothing can continually grow. The world economy is based on growth as a measure of success. If things aren't growing they're not doing well. That's BS. As long as we base everything on growth we are constantly going to have "bubbles" that are bound to pop and destroy the economy for a time. We are caught in a cycle of prosperity followed by despair. Over and over..
2. Population growth + technology = not enough shit for people to do... Unemployment isn't going to get markedly better. Ever.. Our population keeps growing while we continually have less jobs due to tech advancement. Besides, wasn't that the point ? Robots are SUPPOSED to be building everything , right ? I guess no one bothered to ask what was going to happen when the average worker becomes outdated...
So that's about it.. In my opinion the best way to fix the economy is to first off, limit population. That has the added bonus of cutting down on human waste and pollution. Less population= more jobs. Also, we need to move away from the model of endless growth. Success needs to be based off of SOMETHING different. I have no idea what. Maybe resources available or quality of life ? I don't know, I'm just some hillbilly that plays ERG guitars.. lol
The problem is two fold.
1. Growth- Nothing can continually grow. The world economy is based on growth as a measure of success. If things aren't growing they're not doing well. That's BS. As long as we base everything on growth we are constantly going to have "bubbles" that are bound to pop and destroy the economy for a time. We are caught in a cycle of prosperity followed by despair. Over and over..
2. Population growth + technology = not enough shit for people to do... Unemployment isn't going to get markedly better. Ever.. Our population keeps growing while we continually have less jobs due to tech advancement. Besides, wasn't that the point ? Robots are SUPPOSED to be building everything , right ? I guess no one bothered to ask what was going to happen when the average worker becomes outdated...
So that's about it.. In my opinion the best way to fix the economy is to first off, limit population. That has the added bonus of cutting down on human waste and pollution. Less population= more jobs. Also, we need to move away from the model of endless growth. Success needs to be based off of SOMETHING different. I have no idea what. Maybe resources available or quality of life ? I don't know, I'm just some hillbilly that plays ERG guitars.. lol
Guitarman700
Well-Known Member
For a self described hillbilly, you are a wise man.
Watty
Naturally Cynical
Fixed; though it didn't need much.
China might have been going about it in the "harshest" way possible, but they're on to something. That family with 20 kids or some such.....no. Just. No.
We could just stop the Catholics from preaching that abortion and birth control are immoral...but that's just me. If you can't afford to support a kid, you should't have the kid. People owe it to their offspring to raise them in a secure environment, and if we all embraced that mantra, I'd bet we'd all be better off...
Vinchester
Well-Known Member
If Americans stop overspending like many of them have been doing, I think the economy would significantly contract because of low demand. People have been living above their means for so long that the market is geared to serve that oversized demand. When they go back to reality, a lot of business will have to go.
But yes, financial prudence is the most sustainable way of living.
EDIT: I agree with you regarding population control. Industries have been modernizing and frankly there aren't enough jobs in many part of the world. I'm not even talking about limited food/natural resources, just well-paying jobs. Personally I think having more than 2-3 children (The replacement rate is about 2.1 children/family) is a great disservice to everyone precisely because our kids WILL have to live in the overcrowded and largely impoverished world.
One of my friends jokingly once said that he thinks we should just kill everyone over 65. Because when people retire they're nothing but burdens to society anyway.
At least I think he was joking...
