Welcome to PatsFans.com

Our Gov't can NOT fix the Economy

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Sep 17, 2011.

  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,939
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +208 / 3 / -10

    It is impossible and that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

    Yet week after week, I read newspapers and magazines talking as they too believe it's possible. The only thing our gov't can do is throw money at the problem.

    Ask any economist, banker, business owner or even "Politician" to spell out EXACTLY how our economy can be fixed, and you'll get a 1,000 different ideas. Why? Because no one knows how to fix it. Recessions are not supposed to be "Fixed" any more than "Booms" should be fixed. They are both natural cycles.

    The only reason this recession/depression is so bad is because our gov't added gasoline to our economy and artificially inflated it WAY above it's natural level. So it's only natural this recession is matching the previous boom.

    The only thing our gov't can do is screw up the economic cycles. And the more that is done, the longer this recession/depression will last.

    Even NY Mayor Bloomberg is calling for gov't action and predicting RIOTS if nothing is done.

    Jobs crisis may spark riots - New York City Mayor Bloomberg - Sep. 16, 2011

    "The unemployment rate is 9.1%, but many experts say that figure is misleading. They prefer to use the so-called underemployment rate, which includes people who have given up their search for jobs as well as people who want to work full-time but are forced to work part-time.

    The underemployment rate is 16.2%"


    BTW...Both the 9.1% number and the 16.2% number are OFFICIAL government numbers that come from official gov't reports on unemployment. The 9.1% is called the U3 definition and the 16.2% is the U6 definition of unemployment directly from the weekly gov't report.
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2011
  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    The government wasn't alone in the demolition of the economy. The government does nothing that corporations don't either fully or reluctantly approve of. The corporations and the government are intertwined. Some arguements can be made that the very existence of the United states and the Constitution are primarily for the benefit of business regulation and order. Case in point is the continued legality of cigarettes, which pro-life types defend as a right and freedom, even though it has been proven to cause disease, suffering and premature death to its users.

    IMO, the government can't be singled out as The Cause of America's economic problems. That's a gross oversimplification. Conversely, The role of government in restoring the economy shouldn't be minimalized either. The so-called private enterprise system in the US can't exist without the government. Nor can it be absolved of responsibility for the collapse of the economy. Banks were having a ball loaning out money in the 90's and early 2000's. Now they are going around foreclosing on all that real estate, sitting on it, and waiting for the market to rebound so they can make even more cake on their engineered "collapse". I prefer to call it a correction, and markets do very well wether things are good or bad for the average person. As long as there's volatility, the rich get richer.
  3. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,939
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +208 / 3 / -10

    Nice post Wistah and I agree with most of it. I believe corporations should be allowed to exist to the extent they benefit society. The only reason we allow them to exist is because they provide jobs to Americans.

    Maybe we should evaluate which corp's truly benefit us and which ones don't. If they don't, break them up.

    You and I both know our gov't can not fix our economy. They can "stimulate" job creation at a ridiculously wasteful cost to society. If it cost $1 million to create one $75k job...you just don't do it...without exception, you don't do it. But yet that is exactly what Obama's $900B stimulis did. The cost per job was actually higher than $1M.
  4. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Corporations do not have to exist in order to provide Jobs. Corporation is simply a filing status which says these 10 people are filing as 1 unit to operate this business.

    Without the protection a Corporation provides, people who not as easily put their capital into the market.

    When you say we must have corporations, all you are saying is we must have this special designation for tax and liability purposes.
  5. KDPPatsfan85

    KDPPatsfan85 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    39
    Ratings:
    +70 / 1 / -6

    #51 Jersey

    Heres why our economy is so bad. Not only is the govt spending money like there is an endless amount, but they are also taxing to much. The govt put the highest tax rate on corporations in the world which is why all of the corporations have been outsourcing to other countries. If you lift that tax and allow corporations back into the US, then the unemployment rate will drop, there will be more jobs for US citizens. To fix the economy, you cut taxes for the rich, small business, and allow corporations to come back to the US without being taxed to hell. That is the only way we will see our economy improve and for the US dollar to be strong.
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Agree with parts.
    Reducing or eliminating the tax on corporations might help but the revenue needs to be compensated for domestically. We would need less revenue if said corporations were responsible for obtaining their own natural resources on a market basis instead of utilizing the military and subsidies. Sending kids to Asia to die for fuel is immoral and anti-American (or is it?).

    The rich do not create jobs. That's a lie. Market demand does.

    Funny how no one ever mentions stopping the wars, reducing the military global presence and corporate subsidies (except for that Paul guy).
  7. KDPPatsfan85

    KDPPatsfan85 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    39
    Ratings:
    +70 / 1 / -6

    #51 Jersey

    I agree about Ron Paul. He is the only one who gets it. He knows how to fix the economy. Before we send out money to other countries, including our enemies, we should take care of our country first! Ron Paul in 2003 predicted the housing bubble to crash and it did.
  8. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0


    This whole post is so wrong, I don't know where to begin. Not only do we not have the highest statutory corporate tax rate, but also when you compare how much is made(GDP) vs how much is actually collected in taxes, we regularly come in around 50th out of the top 50 economies in the world.

    Here's a little nugget worth considering. Most everyone online has heard about GE paying no taxes at all in 2010. You'd think that would mean that they'd be hiring like crazy right? After all if a lowering of the corporate tax for everyone is all we need to unleash the nation's economy then it being lowered to 0% for GE ought to mean lots and lots of GE jobs for the taking, right? Well unfortunately even though GE's tax burden has been dropping steadily for 10 years they've actually cut their US workforce by 20% in that same time.
  9. Ilikehappyppl

    Ilikehappyppl Rookie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Great Post,

    When people finally wake up and realize that no matter how low you make taxes no matter how many regulations you overturn, it will not effect the unemployment....

    Why would more money in the hands of people that already have money do any good? Will it somehow cause more demand? Will dropping regulations make more jobs? or just more money the rich don't to have to spend in order to be up to code.

    The real problem and the only problem is DEMAND without DEMAND no one is going to hire...... Why do you think we bounced back after the great depression? Not because we lowered taxes or made less regulation, it was cause the middle class and the poor had money to spend had unions to help them......We keep thinking the problem is taxes and regulation when in reality the problem is as clear as day, we now live in a world of rich/poor and there is no more middle class.....GREED IS OUR PROBLEM AND IF ANYONE CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT YOU SHOULD BE HIT UPSIDE YOUR FACKING HEAD!:cool:

    I want them to lower all the taxes to 0% and I want them to overturn all regulations, only way to wake up people is for them to live in their own filth. When everyone see that lowering taxes does no good other then make the rich richer and the poor poorer, when they see that overturning all regulations does more harm then good they will see.... People for some reason don't understand or just don't want too, understand history, we are repeating the same mistakes over and over again and I don't understand it!
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2011
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Of course our government can fix the economy. In fact, even you believe that. You believe that our government can fix the economy by reducing its role in the economy and leaving businesses unfettered by rules and regulations. So, your basic point is wrong.

    That said, if we look at history, we can go back to our largely libertarian days in the 1900s. Back then, taxes were low, there were few government regulations, and the robber barons and the American aristocracy thrived. Anyone who's read Evelyn Waugh or visited the Morgan library in New York can have a sense of those times. In Boston, it was the days of the Lodges, the Cabots, Isabella Stuart Gardner, and the like. It was very good time for the United States ... if you belonged to landed elite.

    Of course, it was also the period when we had a very tiny middle class, and the average working person earned around $150/week (in today's dollars), had no health care, had no pensions or retirement plans, had to care for his elderly parents, was unable to even dream of college, had few rights if a minority or a women, and had to endure about 10 recessions in the period from 1900 to 1920.

    It was not until the 1930s that government came along and fixed the economy, and the American middle class came into full swing. It's worth noting that in this economy, where the government is far less involved than it was 25-30 years ago, the wealthy continue to do well and the ranks of the middle class is in decline.

    Libertarianism brings us back to an unworkable model that is fundamentally a system of liberty and power for the capitalists and discrimination and oppression for minorities. The ideas behind it are as naive as some of the ideas of the left in the 1960s.
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2011
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,210
    Likes Received:
    129
    Ratings:
    +362 / 1 / -9

    Great thread, when some of my old truck driving friends come to visit me in their wheelchairs and lugging oxygen tanks they start ranting about the economy and the wars, I quote some of the things I read on Pats Fans and they think I'm a friggin genius.

    Brains Are A Wonderful Thing, I wish I had stayed in grammar school.
  12. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    What Patters is saying is that we just need to start a war with Eurasia or fake an alien invasion and through subsequent rationing and hardship we'll come out spiffy.

    Oh, and a few millions lives lost. But, hey, that's how government fixes economies!
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    I gather you're referring to WWI, the Phillipine American war, the Spanish-American war, our imperialist era with incursions against the Panama, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, etc., and other military evens of the 1900-1930 period? Or perhaps you forgot your American history?

    If WWII proved anything, it proved that FDR did not deficit spend enough during the 1930s to fully solve our economic crisis. It took a WW to do that. Several prominent economists have said from the start that Obama's stimulus bill was far too low to solve our economic problems; it looks like they have a point.
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2011
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Perhaps they need a little more oxygen? :)
  15. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    The only thing any War has done in the past to "fix" an economy was to remove a few million workers, which increased demand for workers.

    If you feel that killing Americans for a stronger economy is a good thing, then let's pick a fight, we need to fix un-employment!
  16. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    The vast majority of the 7 million Americans who left to fight the war came back when it was over, better than 98% in fact. According to your thinking that glut of workers should have put us right back where we economically. Instead there was a brief hiccup in the economy while we absorbed 'em and then onwards and upwards.

    I should also point out that the Republicans in congress during the late 40's were so desperate to get rid of our war debt that the military was cut to the bone and beyond. As a result the Korean war was almost over a month after it started with the ROK forces and our few people pushed into the sea.
  17. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,939
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +208 / 3 / -10

    Those who have written that the ONLY thing that can fix our economy is increased demand are correct.

    Keynesians will always say "FDR didn't spend enough" and/or Obama's first stimulus "didn't spend enough" are dead wrong and here's why. Keynesian supporters would like to see "enough stimulus spending" to create enough demand to get us over the bridge to the next economic boom period. But even if we did that, it wouldn't be govn't spending that "Fixed" the economy, it would just be enough gov't spending to last until this recession/depression is over. So even if this recession lasted 15 years and we spent at levels that kept our unemployment rate at an acceptable level, the stimulus spending wouldn't have fixed our economy, it would just provide a bandAid that got us through.

    Our economy is just like a family of 4 who owned a home that was given enough unemployment that allowed this family to keep their home until the household earners found another job. If that took 5 years, it still wouldn't have been gov't spending (unemployment compensation) that "Fixed" their situation. We would give credit to the household earners for finding jobs and that would have nothing to do with unemployment compensation.

    There is so much wrong with our economy right now. Our situation is far more dire than during the Great Depression because the economic landscape has changed dramatically from the mid 1900's. America was THE manufacturing nation back then and that provided good jobs for the middle class. Our middle class was ALL manufacturing/manual labor back then. College educated professionals were higher than middle class.

    Today, our middle class is made up of mostly college educated professionals. We can't bring American manufacturing back to the levels of the 50's. That is just not possible. We no longer dominate that sector and we never will again. It's a world economy where both consumers and corporations seek the lowest manufacturing prices.

    Add the fall of American manufacturing to our housing/real estate situation, and we see a vicious cycle of decline and falling wages and prices. The more American manufacturing falls, the more homes are lost and the lower the demand for high real estate prices. This process has just begun to play out and there is nothing our gov't can do to stop it.

    Once again, our gov't can NOT fix our economy. The only thing spending can do is provide a safety-net until it goes through it's natural cycle/correction. That is a fact history has proven over and over again. These same Keynesian nuts will say that Japan hasn's "spent enough stimulus" to correct their economy. Japan has been in decline for over 20 years now and they have spent more on stimulating their economy than any nation in history (as a % of GDP). And guess what? No level of spending will ever "Fix" Japan's economy.

    Go Patriots!
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2011
  18. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,461
    Likes Received:
    259
    Ratings:
    +370 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    So are you advocating that we do or do not keep providing that "safety net?"

    And, if not, what do you suggest we do with/for all those millions of people who will be left in free fall?
  19. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,939
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +208 / 3 / -10

    Glad you agree our gov't can not fix our economy...we're making progress!

    What "safety-net" are you referring to? I don't know if you mean stimulus spending, unemployment benefits or both. I do not support any stimulus spending like the last one...that one was a complete waste per tax dollar spent. It should not cost 3 times more than the wage the job created pays...never mind over $1 million per job.

    I'd prefer not to GIVE to these people checks for doing nothing but staying home looking for work for years on end MrsP. I'm fine with the current cap of 99 weeks.

    However, as I've stated in another post, I'd like to see massive infrastructure projects initiated by our federal gov't. But I'd prefer to see the "Prevailng wage laws bypassed for these projects. We need to get the most for our tax dollars, not pay the most. I'd like to maximize the number of people employed to fix the infrastructure, not pay prevailing wages which would limit the number of jobs.

    I'd also like to see our military involved in these projects. Bring home troops and close international military bases and bring them home to work. We can fund infrastructure via the cuts in military spending.

    But do I support endless unemployment checks to our unemployed? No, I do not. We have much that needs to be done regarding infrastructure...offer them a job or nothing after the 99 week cap on unemployment.

    The "slap in the face reality" is the question....

    What if this economy is the new reality?
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2011
  20. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,461
    Likes Received:
    259
    Ratings:
    +370 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    How you got that out of this

    I'll never know.

    I'm talking about all of it....and by all, I mean unemployment, stimulus spending, food stamps, welfare, disaster aid, Planned Parenthood subsidies, Medicaid, WIC, heating/cooling subsidies to the poor and elderly, etc. It seems to me that most of the Republican "plans" include either completely doing away with most of these or so severely cutting back on their funding that it will all but cripple them.

    What would you consider as a wage, PR? I am presuming you are talking under the minimum wage amount, yes? If so, how much less? Enough to provide an existance? What kind of existance do you think people should deserve in return for a honest day's work?

    If you are employing military people to do these jobs doesn't that mean that those who are not military and unemployed will still be standing in line hoping for one of the few remaining positions?

    I'm ok with that, too.....but again, if the military is doing those jobs how many are going to be left for the unemployed? And if you're offering sub-standard wages to them, are you also going to cut military pay to the same sub-standard amount or are people going to be working side-by-side with a huge inequality in pay for doing the same jobs?

    If we began taxing the rich at previous levels and cutting some of the exemptions for the rich maybe it wouldn't have to be the "new reality."

    I have no problem with everyone tightening up their belts - but I do think it needs to be everyone. The way it stands now it's pretty one-sided.
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2011

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>