Ideas for Stimulating the Economy

#51
#51
If we could just get the robust government out of the way, then the economy would come back in a hurry. They're the biggest road block to that happening.


It is one of several road blocks, and not the biggest, by a longshot.

The aftershocks caused by the housing bubble are still a huge factor. The amount of debt that middle class Americans took on during that period saddles them and curbs spending.

Similarly, the continuing transition away from any manufacturing is a problem.

And the natural effect of technology advancements to reduce the need for human workers is, imo, the number one reason things are the way they are right now.

Not sure how that last one is going to end up.
 
#52
#52
I generally don't like adding Amendments - too restrictive. There would need to be loopholes to allow deficit spending in certain cases (war, national emergency, etc.)

OTOH, we probably would never have one without an amendment.


We will never see a balanced budget without an ammendemt with the attitude of the WH, Senate and House.

A government with different parties in control is a good thing but not so in last few years. IMO, we have the worse group in Washington there has ever been. No compromise on anything. This is BAD for our nation.

We did have balanced budgets with some surplus during the Clinton years. I realize the internet boom was a big part of the Clinton success but a divided WH/Congress also did some things that helped.

FederalDeficit(1).jpg



Below is a link from a piece Real Clear Politics did in 2011.


RealClearPolitics - How Clinton Balanced the Budget

But if we honestly wish to bring the federal budget closer to balance, without wrecking vital services or plunging the nation back into recession, why not consult the record of the one president in recent memory who actually achieved that goal? Not Ronald Reagan, the affable wingnut whose tax cuts blew open a huge deficit, but Bill Clinton -- who left balanced budgets and a nation on track to paying off the national debt entirely.

How did he do it? Clinton isn't shy about explaining what happened on his watch. The budget deals he made with the congressional Republicans were significant, but not nearly as significant as the tax increase on the wealthy that he passed, without a single Republican vote, in his first budget in 1993.

Voting to raise taxes on the rich was the crucial step toward fiscal responsibility and a long period of high employment, national prosperity and international prestige. There is no other way to stabilize the budget without inflicting grave damage on our future.


We are totally screwed if the attitude in Washington does not change and change quickly.

What scares the crap out of me now is for the GOP to maintain the House, gain control of Senate ( both I think will happen) and elect Romney as President.

We saw what one party in complete control did for us during the first part of the Bush and Obama years.

The GOP with Bush and Dems with Obama were disasters. We need either the WH, Senate or House to be controlled by different parties. There has to be some kind of Balance of parties that are willing to work together in order for our government to do the correct thing for the USA.

I am concerned now for our nation more than I have ever been. If Romney wins and the GOP takes total control of Washington, we are screwed.

If the GOP takes control of the House and Senate with Obama being relected we are screwed unless Obama changes his attitude and is willing to work with GOP.

May God have mercy on the United States.
 
#54
#54
We will never see a balanced budget without an ammendemt with the attitude of the WH, Senate and House.

A government with different parties in control is a good thing but not so in last few years. IMO, we have the worse group in Washington there has ever been. No compromise on anything. This is BAD for our nation.

We did have balanced budgets with some surplus during the Clinton years. I realize the internet boom was a big part of the Clinton success but a divided WH/Congress also did some things that helped.

FederalDeficit(1).jpg



Below is a link from a piece Real Clear Politics did in 2011.


RealClearPolitics - How Clinton Balanced the Budget




We are totally screwed if the attitude in Washington does not change and change quickly.

What scares the crap out of me now is for the GOP to maintain the House, gain control of Senate ( both I think will happen) and elect Romney as President.

We saw what one party in complete control did for us during the first part of the Bush and Obama years.

The GOP with Bush and Dems with Obama were disasters. We need either the WH, Senate or House to be controlled by different parties. There has to be some kind of Balance of parties that are willing to work together in order for our government to do the correct thing for the USA.

I am concerned now for our nation more than I have ever been. If Romney wins and the GOP takes total control of Washington, we are screwed.

If the GOP takes control of the House and Senate with Obama being relected we are screwed unless Obama changes his attitude and is willing to work with GOP.

May God have mercy on the United States.

Why is '94-'97 Blue? There was still a deficit.

If it is because there is an upward trend, why not add in '93 to the trend and make '05-'06 blue?
 
#55
#55
have to love that mythical WH accounting. Any other company using it would be shut down and its execs jailed
 
#57
#57
have to love that mythical WH accounting. Any other company using it would be shut down and its execs jailed

This is not mythical WH accounting.
It is a fact there was a balanced budget during part of the Clinton years. IMO, it was due to the internet boom.


Are you saying there were no balanced budgets under Clinton?
 
#58
#58
Similarly, the continuing transition away from any manufacturing is a problem.

And the natural effect of technology advancements to reduce the need for human workers is, imo, the number one reason things are the way they are right now.

Not sure how that last one is going to end up.

If technological advancements are reducing the need for human workers, then why does the unskilled labor workforce (across the globe) continue to increase?

Highly sophisticated corporations, based in the U.S., Western Europe, and China, continue to export manufacturing operations to South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Africa, and, in doing so, hire an abundance of unskilled labor. Production per capita, the world over, continues to increase more and more, as well, while production per capita is slowing down in the West.

The simple fact is that manufacturing and production are not declining, industry is just moving its operations to places where they can produce cheaper; this shift leads to job loss in America and job growth in the countries that are industry-friendly.

Until the U.S. realizes that the way to sustain the economy is by bringing production back to America (which requires competitive wages, competitive corporate income tax, and less red-tape), then we will continue to lose jobs (and, continue to try to rationalize it by saying that technology is taking jobs away and the manufacturing is on the decline, in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary).

Average Annual Growth in GDP Per Capita (70s, 80s, 90s, 00s):
World (sans U.S.): 1.99, 1.28, 1.07, 1.66
U.S.: 2.17, 2.30, 2.15, 0.62
Latin America: 3.50, -0.52, 1.52, 1.88
EU15: 2.71, 2.17, 1.88, 0.75
USSR (& Former): 2.17, 1.34, -4.02, 5.59
East Asia (sans Japan): 5.41, 7.00, 7.53
SE Asia: 4.70, 3.46, 3.30, 3.61
South Asia: 1.10, 3.18, 3.19, 5.57
Sub-Saharan Africa: 0.60, -1.05, -0.19, 2.31
"Developed" (sans US): 2.75, 2.56, 1.64, 0.83

Manufacturing, requiring unskilled labor, has not slowed down; it has only left the US and the "Developed" nations.
 
#59
#59
This is not mythical WH accounting.
It is a fact there was a balanced budget during part of the Clinton years. IMO, it was due to the internet boom.


Are you saying there were no balanced budgets under Clinton?

correct and pretty sure there was no real surplus if GAAP were used. Not saying it wasn't lower than other years but it's still fudging the numbers
 
#63
#63
I read enough of it and I know enough of economics to know that the two main areas that are spoken of are drains on capital and are not sustainable. Jobs may have been created, but they are ultimately not good for the economy in the long-run.

These measures actually drive prices and costs up (in terms of real dollars, not nominal dollars), as well, which is never good for the economy.

Absurd, you didn't read the whole thing so you couldn't possibly speak intelligently on the subject. How else could you conceivably garner the proper context and interpretation?
 
#64
#64
I'd introduce a big new tax on employers.

Then they would take their ball & go home......all the way to China or Mexico. NAFTA was a huge mistake FYI IMO. Tax breaks are what lure & keep a lot of the companies we do have here.
 
#65
#65
Absurd, you didn't read the whole thing so you couldn't possibly speak intelligently on the subject. How else could you conceivably garner the proper context and interpretation?

Yeah, it is just too bad that Mohammed did not provide an abstract, a comprehensive introduction, a methodology, and comprehensive conclusion.

Further, if the person who posted the study declared that I had taken anything out of context, then I would have read deeper to see if I had (in fact, I did end up reading the study in its entirety simply out of curiosity).
 

VN Store



Back
Top