Voters believe Bachmann would do most damage to economy as president

[jackoroe]

@Jackaroe

I'm at least glad to know to never ask you for financial advice (though I never would anyways as a quasi-financial planner). You LOSE money from inflation, not gain it. There's a reason why a dollar today is worth more than a dollar "tomorrow".

I'm fully aware that we lose money as a result of inflation. The government benefits however.

 

[maxpowr9]

I'm fully aware that we lose money as a result of inflation. The government benefits however.

To some extent yes, they do. But when the US keeps printing money to repay said debt (a la Germany 1930s) it hurts those who are actually residents of the USA.

 

[opinterph]

either deaf or stupid.

Why combine deaf with stupid? I have a deaf friend who is quite smart, actually. She can also read lips rather effectively. If she can see a person’s face, she is able to listen-in on whatever that person says. Equip her with a pair of binoculars and she can “listen” from a quarter mile away. Perhaps most of us accept the limitation that our ears impose without ever trying to listen to the things we cannot hear.

She thinks stopping all borrowing overnight and collapsing the economy will help. It will not.

Maybe that’s how she will give us that $2 gas bike10 mentioned in an earlier post.

Ms. Bachmann will give us $2.00 gas, cure all gays [and] screw the economy.

“The day that [Barack Obama] became president gasoline was $1.79 a gallon. Look at what it is today. Under President Bachmann, you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again. That will happen.” [Link]

You have to be careful what you wish for because the recipe for cheap prices these days is economic disaster. [CNN Money]

 

[hotatlboi]

Why combine deaf with stupid?

I was not trying to imply that deaf people are stupid.

What I was saying is, if someone is capable of listening to and understanding what Bachman is saying, and still feels that her suggestion would benefit the economy (cutting 10% of total economic output overnight), then I don't really think they have a full understanding of the issues involved, as she clearly doesn't.

 

[Just_Believe18]

"It could have been worse!" Now there's a campaign slogan

It's more than that. The economy was in free fall during the first months of Obama's presidency. God only knows where we would be at now, if things had been different under a McCain Administration. So Obama does deserve that credit that we went from a potential Great Depression II to the Great Recession. The depleted outlook we are facing now over the last few months is because of two reasons: The manufactured debt ceiling crisis that the Republican Party created that resulted in the downgrade of the U.S.' credit rating, and the European Union debt crisis that is beyond our control.

It is easy to criticize a President because the worst didn't happen. We'll never know just how bad it could have been, but our current leadership deserves at least some respect in averting an economic crisis.

 

[Kulindahr]

The funny thing is none of them could fuck things up as bad as the current [STRIKE]occupant[/STRIKE] House Republicans who only care about taking [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] the White House. He does, after all, now have a record he's going to have to run on.

The statement is now accurate.

She proposed earlier this year (and continued to repeat) that we should immediately cut 43% of all federal spending.

Bachmann is an idiot when it comes to the economy, and anyone who thinks she isn't is either deaf or stupid.

She stole that idea from Gary Johnson, without having the brains and understanding of how to implement it.

 

[Kulindahr]

See, this is the premise that libs work from that screws their thinking up. This assumption is that reducing spending takes money out of the economy. That's patently false.

Where does government get it's money? It takes it out of the economy. So, if we reduce spending, more money will be left in the economy. Her premise is correct. I doubt that she's bothered to flesh it out to any kind of workable plan. You are correct, I haven't spent much time listening to her. Nor have too many other people, apparently.

Simplistic analysis.

You have to ask where the spending is going and where the money is coming from. On the second part, your right-wing orthodoxy is wrong: currently, that 43% is NOT coming out of (from) the economy, it's mostly coming from overseas. The result is that a huge amount of money would in fact be sucked out of the economy. And the suddenness of it would set off a crash like we can hardly imagine.

Something else involved that I haven't heard even Gary Johnson address would be the sudden dumping of a horde of people into the ranks of the unemployed.

But this is a blind spot of conservatives: they conceive of the U.S. economy as a closed system. In a closed system, cutting taxes for the rich would in fact create some jobs. In our open system, it creates jobs, too, but it creates them where labor is cheap -- overseas. Thus cutting taxes for the rich has the effect of cutting American jobs.


Here's a far better idea: reduce the pay of all federal employees to no higher than the median.

And here's one that gives me the creeps to say, but raising the minimum wage to $12.50/hr. Unfortunately, that has one weakness: too much of it would be spent on imports.

Sadly, I haven't heard any of the candidates for president show a grasp of the complexity of the matter. We have to get more money into the hands of workers (basically stop the plundering of honest labor), while increasing American manufacturing. The latter means massive tax increases on the wealthy, with deductions for new jobs created here -- Republicans like to (mendaciously) refer to the wealthy as "job creators"; well, let's give them a reason to create those jobs here, instead of overseas.

Then there are other steps needed (flat tax cuts, for one), but I'll leave that there.

 

[Kulindahr]

Let me give you an economics lesson. Government gets it's money from only four sources. Taxes, debt, fines and inflation.

You've chosen to ignore the fact that we collect $2,000,000,000,000 in taxes on an annual basis. Unfortuneately we spend about $3,500,000,000,000 per year.These taxes represent money confiscated from private individuals and business. That money is no longer available for them to invest, save or spend. It has been taken out of a sector which actually produces wealth and given to a sector that does not. In fact the government on it's best day, only redistributes wealth.

Do the arithmetic there: you just said that her plan would take $1.5 tn out of the economy.

And you're still making the false assumption that the money returned to the private sector will go into the U.S. economy, when the evidence and reason say a large portion of it will go overseas.

You've got to get money to people who will spend it -- all those people who aren't paying federal income taxes because they don't make enough to live on. Of course given our trade patterns, a lot of that will go overseas, too.

We've made a copmplex system that drains money from America. Fixing it is NOT simplistic.

 

[jackoroe]

Do the arithmetic there: you just said that her plan would take $1.5 tn out of the economy.

And you're still making the false assumption that the money returned to the private sector will go into the U.S. economy, when the evidence and reason say a large portion of it will go overseas.

You've got to get money to people who will spend it -- all those people who aren't paying federal income taxes because they don't make enough to live on. Of course given our trade patterns, a lot of that will go overseas, too.

We've made a copmplex system that drains money from America. Fixing it is NOT simplistic.

The Keynesians would have us believe that aggregate spending will lift us out of this economic morass. Obama has spent $4,000,000,000,000 that we don't have to that end. How's that worked out for us? 9.1% unemployment using the U3 number. The fact is the U6 number more closely resembles the way unemployment was calculated until the mid 1990's. The U6 number is over 16% now. If GDP breaks 2% for the year it will be a miracle.

So, we can discount aggregate spending as a failed course of action. We quite simply need to increase aggregate consumption. People need to feel secure enough to stop sitting on cash and part with some of it. Those still lucky enough to have jobs, anyway.

 

[hotatlboi]

The Keynesians would have us believe that aggregate spending will lift us out of this economic morass.

Again, this is nothing but a deflection to a different issue.

Saying that we should not cut 10% of GDP overnight and collapse the economy is not equivalent to say we need another stimulus package or massive increases in spending because Keynes will save us.

If GDP breaks 2% for the year it will be a miracle.

Here's some perspective for you.

In the recession GDP declined by about 5%.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/great-recession-even-deeper-than-thought-2011-07-29

That recession dealt a huge blow to the economy, that will take the better part of a decade to get out of.

And you want to cut twice that overnight?

 

[jackoroe]

Again, this is nothing but a deflection to a different issue.

Not at all. It's really very simple. Massive spending hasn't worked. We're in debt beyond any hope of paying it back. Either we stop engaging in this economic suicide, or wind up like Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland et al. Some people get that. Obama doesn't.

 

[hotatlboi]

Not at all. It's really very simple. Massive spending hasn't worked. We're in debt beyond any hope of paying it back. Either we stop engaging in this economic suicide, or wind up like Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland et al. Some people get that. Obama doesn't.

What you don't seem to get is that cutting 10% of GDP overnight will plunge us into an even deeper recession, lower tax revenue even further, and WIDEN the deficit. It will make the situation worse, not better.

 

[Spiff]

Damaging the economy more would be the least of my worries with her. I'd be more worried about her trying to take away our rights and driving many of us back into the closet.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Keynesians would have us believe that aggregate spending will lift us out of this economic morass. Obama has spent $4,000,000,000,000 that we don't have to that end. How's that worked out for us? 9.1% unemployment using the U3 number. The fact is the U6 number more closely resembles the way unemployment was calculated until the mid 1990's. The U6 number is over 16% now. If GDP breaks 2% for the year it will be a miracle.

So, we can discount aggregate spending as a failed course of action. We quite simply need to increase aggregate consumption. People need to feel secure enough to stop sitting on cash and part with some of it. Those still lucky enough to have jobs, anyway.

And you think pulling $1.5 tn out of the economy is going to HELP?

The remedy is simple -- and no one is proposing it.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Keynesians would have us believe that aggregate spending will lift us out of this economic morass.

Actually it would -- if we could afford to borrow that much, like if the national debt right now was under five trillion. The Cheney notion that "debt doesn't matter" is right ONLY if you don't have to pay interest on it.

 

[hotatlboi]

And you think pulling $1.5 tn out of the economy is going to HELP?

The remedy is simple -- and no one is proposing it.

I'll make an attempt.

1. targeted spending cuts that impact the domestic economy the least (like foreign aid/empire building)

2. targeted tax increases that do not depress the business climate by much (a 3% increase on the wealthy does not)

3. a long term deficit reduction plan that gradually reduces spending over the long term (and possibly increases taxes more) starting in 2-3 years. The budget could be balanced in 10-20 years with such a plan. At that point we would not be incurring further debt and could start reducing overall debt.

 

[Kulindahr]

What you don't seem to get is that cutting 10% of GDP overnight will plunge us into an even deeper recession, lower tax revenue even further, and WIDEN the deficit. It will make the situation worse, not better.

Right.

The big lie conservatives are believing is that their "job creators" will create and HERE. So long as our money is bleeding away overseas when people buy basics, there's no reason anyone would want to create jobs here; they'll create them where the labor is less.
Yet to cut $1.5 tn from the economy would have a massive impact because there's that much less to spend on domestic products -- to say nothing of the multitude of jobs it would cost.
Real unemployment right now is about 16%. Bachmann's ideas would vault us to 20% or worse.

 

[CFoTsD]

Gov't spending is robbing Peter to pay Paul except Paul receives less than what was taken from Peter

 

[Kulindahr]

I'll make an attempt.

1. targeted spending cuts that impact the domestic economy the least (like foreign aid/empire building)

2. targeted tax increases that do not depress the business climate by much (a 3% increase on the wealthy does not)

3. a long term deficit reduction plan that gradually reduces spending over the long term (and possibly increases taxes more) starting in 2-3 years. The budget could be balanced in 10-20 years with such a plan. At that point we would not be incurring further debt and could start reducing overall debt.

A 12% increase on the wealthy wouldn't -- 15% might.

But make it a 25% increase, with deductions for making new jobs here.

 

[hotatlboi]

Gov't spending is robbing Peter to pay Paul except Paul receives less than what was taken from Peter

So...you are in favor of $0 in government spending then?