Welcome to PatsFans.com

Do you believe our Gov't can spend us out of recession?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Nov 5, 2009.

?

Do you believe federal gov't spending can get us out of recession?

  1. Yes

    1 vote(s)
    3.7%
  2. No

    19 vote(s)
    70.4%
  3. Maybe, maybe not, but it can lessen the suffering of Americans

    6 vote(s)
    22.2%
  4. Maybe, maybe not, but it will lengthen the duration of this recession

    1 vote(s)
    3.7%
  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,332
    Likes Received:
    201
    Ratings:
    +576 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    This is just a poll. The results will prove nothing other than what a slice of America believes.

    I welcome any additional posts as to why you believe it can, possibly can or can't work.

    PR
     
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,625
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +472 / 13 / -14

    Government get money from 2 sources, either by borrowing it or taxing the citizens, sometimes they print money to borrow. In any case the more $$$ the government consumes the less that is available for private enterprise.

    Private enterprise is always more efficient than government, they are forced to be efficient by the marketplace (if the marketplace if free). Government is a monopoly and has no incentive to be efficient. It is institutionally geared to try to obtain power by rewarding their friends and punishing it's enemies.

    So you can't borrow and spend your way out of a recession.
     
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,006
    Likes Received:
    323
    Ratings:
    +598 / 24 / -19

    Of course, it takes money to make money. If the US spends money and doesn't raise taxes, then more money is pumped into the economy. This approach has played an important part in fueling economic growth for many years. There seems to be investor tolerance for a sizeable amount of deficit spending, and if the tolerance continues to increase, then we will be able to have another economic boon.
     
  4. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,200
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Ratings:
    +3,009 / 28 / -22

    #75 Jersey

    Better question is "Can our country INVEST it's way out of recession"?

    The paradigm shift must be made.

    Remember the day after W. won his second term? "I got a mandate, and I intend to SPEND it".

    Folks, the Chinese are INVESTING. We are good at SPENDING.

    Your children and grandchildren will have to learn how to speak Chinese.
     
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,006
    Likes Received:
    323
    Ratings:
    +598 / 24 / -19

  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,929
    Likes Received:
    291
    Ratings:
    +788 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    He didn't use the M word. Look it up. The "spending" he referred to was of "political capital" so your attempt to be smart has fallen short although Bush was certainly an unfortunately big spender.

    The answer to the question is no. Long term, anyway. They may be able to window dress it for a while just like I could make my house look awesome while racking up debt on my credit card. But then the bill would come, it would all be returned . . . and I'd lose the house.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2009
  7. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,692
    Likes Received:
    761
    Ratings:
    +2,016 / 42 / -31

    #24 Jersey


    What the heck are you on to post this stuff ... it's paper money that is backed by debt ... which by the way our foreign investors do not want anymore so we're printing it and buying it back ourselves. Do some research on Germany in the early 1900's ... that will be us, History repeated.
     
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,457
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +918 / 7 / -3

    I thought he did use the term mandate, cuz I remember shaking my head about it. Bush didn't understand that the votes he got were more a reflection of the other guy, than it was an ok of him. However, I do agree that the "spend it" was in reference to the "political capital" he felt he earned from his votes, as opposed to actual dollars. At any rate, it's not like Bush ever needed a mandate to spend our money. He did all day, everyday, anyway.
     
  9. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,832
    Likes Received:
    145
    Ratings:
    +481 / 11 / -7

    #91 Jersey

    We have become China's B!tch.
     
  10. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,692
    Likes Received:
    761
    Ratings:
    +2,016 / 42 / -31

    #24 Jersey


    Aren't we already that ... trade practices are already slanted their way.
     
  11. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,929
    Likes Received:
    291
    Ratings:
    +788 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    Not sure how I got drawn into Bush but . . . he may have said the word mandate at some point but the quote that was being referred to was "I have earned some political capital and I plan to spend it".
     
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,457
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +918 / 7 / -3

    The more things change, the more they sound the same. I found this article via google. I haven't found him personally saying mandate yet, although the title does print it.

    Bush claims mandate, sets 2nd-term goals / 'I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it'

    Bush claims mandate, sets 2nd-term goals

    'I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it'

    Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief

    Friday, November 5, 2004


    I don't see him saying mandate personally in there. It's late, so I might have missed it. At any rate, reading that article, parts sound just like the same old same old we hear today. Only with the mouths reversing order.
     
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,006
    Likes Received:
    323
    Ratings:
    +598 / 24 / -19

    What the heck are you talking about. We don't have inflation like Germany had and overall we do not have the symptoms of a worthless dollar. The world has changed enormously since the 1930s and the fact is that the global economy to some extent props itself up because it's in everyone's interest for that to happen. Economics is largely built on human belief systems and emotions; at it's core it's based on trust and faith, which right now conservatives are doing all they can to shake because they'd rather see the country go down that the Democrats win or force the Democrats to raise taxes on the middle class.

    Personally, I think the Democrats should and will raise taxes on the wealthy. I think we can continue to grow our deficit because there's historical precedent for higher deficits relative to GDP (during WWII we carried a higher deficit), but I personally think we should raise taxes on the wealthy because at some point deficits will shake investor confidence, but we obviously have not reached that point yet.
     
  14. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,332
    Likes Received:
    201
    Ratings:
    +576 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    Here you say "If the US spends money and doesn't raise taxes...." and then in another post you say, "personally I think the gov't should and will raise taxes on the wealthy".

    You contradicted yourself.

    The opinion that "this approach has played an important part in fueling economic growth...." is widely debateable. Keynesian economic theory has had several runs in popularity, but does it really make sense...especially under the current circumstances?

    Whenever any gov't spends more than it collects...the piper is going to have to get paid eventually. The biggest issue we're facing is that I doubt our economy will ever "get back to where it once was". We will never again be as economically dominant has we were up until 2-3 years ago. As a matter of fact, much of that dominatin was an illusion fueled by "Bubble economics".

    Take the period of the early 90's up until the current down-turn. Our federal, state and local gov't "HAD THE OPPORTUNITY" to eliminate deficits because tax revenues always boom along with an economic boom. The problem is, we really didn't take advantage of the opportunity, ESPECIALLY at the state level. Yes, our federal deficit did decrease, but not nearly as much as it should have.

    If we all take off our partisan hats and refrain from foolishly "blaming the other guy", we should see that in reality, we should have very littel deficit...even now! A responsible federal gov't never would have borrowed from it's citizens retirement saving and not paid it back....the result? We have no social security fund.

    If we accrue a deficit during difficult economic times, it should disappear and actually become a federal surplus. And when we consider that the United States has had FAR more boom years than it has recessionary periods, our surplus SHOULD be HUGE!

    But, no...we have complacent citizens who have allowed our gov't to spend more than the billions....trillions of tax dollars by adding more and more programs, military spending, social programs, ad infinitum.

    If any of us continually made tons of money over a lengthy period, but stayed in debt, we'd be called irresponsible at best....fugn' fools at worst. Yet people like Patters are fine & dandy with all this rape & pillage of the American people and we're all rewarded by more & more debt.

    When does it end? Why do we TRUST our gov't to do the right thing financially when politicians abuse our tax dollars to appease their constituency just to get re-elected?

    In my opinion, we need to tell our gov't "The shyte stops right here, right now!" That is the bandwagon I'm on folks!
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2009
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,006
    Likes Received:
    323
    Ratings:
    +598 / 24 / -19

    No, I didn't contract myself. I believe there has to be a threshold somewhere, but we have obviously not reached it yet. If the government was to go out tomorrow and spend $100 trillion so we could all buy mansions, I think the global economy would tank. So, even though I suspect the economy can handle more deficit, I see no reason not to pay some of it down as a sensible precaution and as a means of preparing in the event we have to increase the deficit again (because of, for instance, war or natural disaster).

    It's clearly a partisan issue. The Republicans introduced the idea of lower taxes and higher spending and turned taxes and government into a pariah. This is the reality the Democrats have to contend with. They cannot raise taxes without risking a Republican revolution that will overturn many programs designed to protect the poor, minorities, the environment, etc. They cannot cut government because there really isn't all that much to cut (though there's certainly some) and there are things we need (infrastructure repair and improved homeland security to some degree).

    If anything, we have become complacent by not raising taxes. What are you proposing cutting?

    If any of us continually made tons of money over a lengthy period, but stayed in debt, we'd be called irresponsible at best....fugn' fools at worst. Yet people like Patters are fine & dandy with all this rape & pillage of the American people and we're all rewarded by more & more debt.

    When does it end? Why do we TRUST our gov't to do the right thing financially when politicians abuse our tax dollars to appease their constituency just to get re-elected?

    In my opinion, we need to tell our gov't "The shyte stops right here, right now!" That is the bandwagon I'm on folks![/QUOTE]

    What are you talking about? What should be cut in the federal government? Where do you think all the massive waste and unnecessary programs are? Can you think of another country that is modern and advanced, with a high quality of life, where the taxes are significantly lower?

    No one in their right mind is against cutting government, but rather than just get all irate about the subject, share what specifically you think can be cut and how much do you think can be saved. Most of the debatable programs are not blanketly bad or blanketly good. Even conservatives don't support cutting most programs to the extent that they would be eliminated. After all, if you cut social welfare, you have to increase police, courts, and prison spending. These are complex issues without the easy answers. You have chosen to simply avoid the fundamental question of what to cut. I have said we should raise taxes, and of course look at the budget closely to find opportunities to save, but I'm not against new spending for good programs.

    Again, what do you think we should cut, and about how much could we save by doing so?
     
  16. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,692
    Likes Received:
    761
    Ratings:
    +2,016 / 42 / -31

    #24 Jersey

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2009
  17. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Classic meltdown.



    Priming the f*cking pump, people. Learn it, love it.


    Does Stimulus Stimulate? - Forbes.com
     
  18. alvinnf

    alvinnf In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +16 / 2 / -0

    Spending is out of control. If the Democrat's had waited a little longer to push their health care plan I believe they would have gotten more support for it. Most Americans aren't feeling the effects of the stimulus yet as job losses rise.
     
  19. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,332
    Likes Received:
    201
    Ratings:
    +576 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    What are you talking about? What should be cut in the federal government? Where do you think all the massive waste and unnecessary programs are? Can you think of another country that is modern and advanced, with a high quality of life, where the taxes are significantly lower?

    No one in their right mind is against cutting government, but rather than just get all irate about the subject, share what specifically you think can be cut and how much do you think can be saved. Most of the debatable programs are not blanketly bad or blanketly good. Even conservatives don't support cutting most programs to the extent that they would be eliminated. After all, if you cut social welfare, you have to increase police, courts, and prison spending. These are complex issues without the easy answers. You have chosen to simply avoid the fundamental question of what to cut. I have said we should raise taxes, and of course look at the budget closely to find opportunities to save, but I'm not against new spending for good programs.

    Again, what do you think we should cut, and about how much could we save by doing so?[/QUOTE]

    Look Patter, we all know for a fact there is TONS of gov't waste. You want me to go through a line item list of every gov't program we have? Stop posing ridiculous propositions. You question is a cop-out, not my reply.

    We could obviously START by addressing the prices our gov't agrees to pay for things that would cost ordinary citizens 10 time less. I'll give you one simple example...the cost medicare pays for those silly chairs (Hoveround) on wheels.

    Let's just have an independent company review the prices our gov't pays for EVERYTHING from toilet paper to nuts & bolts....AND THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

    FYI....

    Fed Chair Calls for Cuts to Record Deficit

    "(AP) Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Monday called for the United States to eventually whittle down its record-high budget deficits and for countries like China to get their consumers to spend more, moves that would help combat skewed global trade and investment flows that contributed to the financial crisis.

    "As the global economy recovers and trade volumes rebound, however, global imbalances my reassert themselves," Bernanke warned. For the United States' part, "the most effective way" to boost national savings in this country "is by establishing a sustainable fiscal trajectory, anchored by a clear commitment to substantially reduce federal deficits over time," Bernanke said in prepared remarks. He didn't suggest ways to do so.

    "....such action should focus on boosting consuption,"

    Fed Chair Calls for Cuts to Record Deficit - CBS News
     
  20. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,332
    Likes Received:
    201
    Ratings:
    +576 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    Our citizens won't accept building the deficit any further. I'd kick Keynes' arse in a debate on this any time any where...oh, wait...is the db still alive?:D (and I'm not gonna look it up cause no one cares) I hope he is in fact dead.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>