44th President and 111th Congress (US Gov't 2009-2011)

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by james0246

^My link is more accurate. There is no point is talking about a myth that was already debunked by the GOP Chairman Michael Steele himself (as you said earlier, please read the link I provided).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

Funding sources

In May 2004, the New York Times reported that Media Matters has received "more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals" and "was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress".[22]

Everybody loves to use wikipedia for information, thought I'd just throw this out there. Got any more reliable links?

[sikvod00]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-mouse-cookie/

Wonder which one of us is more accurate...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-house-mouse/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...rancisco-mice/

Spoiler for Summary:

Three projects would turn abandoned industrial salt operations back into natural wetlands, about 26,000 acres in all. It turns out the mouse is an endangered species that likes tidal salt marshes, and it's mentioned by name as one of several species that will benefit.

But the projects themselves — the South Bay Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project , the Napa Plant Site , and the Napa Salt Marsh restoration — are intended to do more than just benefit wildlife. It's major construction work to create recreation areas and to restore marshland that will resist flooding and storm surge.

"This is bulldozers, front-end loaders, backhoes. These are major earth-moving projects to break down levees, to resculpt the landscape and to make sure nature can do its thing," Ritchie said. "Right now, we just have these lousy little salt pond levees and they break."

"These are real jobs, and these are truly ready to go," he added. "We can definitely spend this money for construction by Nov. 30, 2010."

Given this description of the projects, which were first reported in the San Jose Mercury News , it's a serious distortion to say there's money in the bill to protect San Francisco mice. The bill doesn't even list the San Francisco projects by name. And the funding agencies — the Corps of Engineers or NOAA — could still decide to fund the projects or not. The bill passed a final vote in the House on Feb. 13, with no Republicans supporting it.

So Pelosi did not put an earmark in the bill to save the mice. In fact, there's no money in the bill for mice. For this reason, we rate Pence's remark False.

[Cluelessly]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Japan's problem was that it bit the bullet too late. Once the deflationary spiral had set in, the cost of reinflating its domestic economy through fiscal measures became too great. Hence the ever looming public debt that never achieved its intended aim.

What's really needed in Japan's domestic economy right now is actually more competition. In truth, it's still a very closeted, heavily-protected economy dominated by a handful of zaibatsu. Japanese companies prove that they are actually very competitive — in foreign markets — but at the same time, they don't want to compete against foreign rivals in their own turf. Products and services therefore improve at an inefficient pace, which does little to encourage the Japanese to spend instead of hoarding cash.

How do you overcome deflation when the business model set by what drove inflation has collapsed? Even if you re-inflated what will keep it re-inflated? In the end we live in a finite world.

And I don't understand the money supply? Are my other posts really so wrong? Who exactly do you learn from? The media?

It is not an ivory tower. Caring about the NOW is why the future (which has become the NOW) is screwed.

EDIT: In fact let's discuss the money supply. You can have to first shot. Do you think what I'm saying is a joke? The contraction in certain numbers published by the Fed clearly shows there is either a massive withdrawal from the system from either transference or default. But that you disagree with me so vehemently shows that you clearly do not understand this.

Actually after reading your post again I am lost. Yes savings can be used as leverage. When it is invested correctly there is an increase. In the long run supply is the driving force, not demand.

What does this have to do with the money supply? And to debt? Tell me, what lies at the end of consumption when the money is spent on fraudulent excess?

And even if it weren't wasted, what happens when what goes in less of a result than what must be paid to take care of the debt? Lol?

Here is the Fed link: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/24

Tell me what you see.

EDIT 2: Wow I'm really bad at this...I do not discuss this often with J6P...I am not sure we are on the same page.

Government spending does not only rest on what it stimulates in the now, the cost of the stimulus and how the resulting interest of that spending will be paid by the original investment must also be included since it's becoming obvious we will never pay off the national debt. In a perfect world many things would be possible, but the present isn't as such. In fact I think those who preach of government stimulus as the savior are the ones who sit in the ivory tower with no understanding of how debt works.

Anyway, I didn't understand you at all since you seem to have gone off on some tangent. Some parts of it I do agree with, but those things don't really explain to me how your view of this money supply I do not understand works so...? Feel free to teach me. All I see is a mishmash of ideas that seem to have come from various sources that seem somewhat contradictory.

It takes many assumptions that are near impossible to come to the conclusion that government spending will save us. A reset does not have to be a bad thing. It is impossible to directly discuss policy as everything translated to the real world situations depend on many conditions, but what is happening to the money supply (as shown in the above link) is something indisputable. This is the real world that economists who want to preach government intervention do not see in their "flow of goods" theories.

The various sides of FDR's New Deal would be a great example now that I've read the other posts. Nobody knows for certain what conditions are present, only the numbers don't lie. And the numbers tell me what they wish to pursue is wrong if they do not want a monetary reset. If they tell you something different I would like to be educated in the matter. Otherwise I'm sure a quick google would turn up arguments and counterarguments on everything.

[sikvod00]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

Funding sources

In May 2004, the New York Times reported that Media Matters has received "more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals" and "was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress".[22]

Everybody loves to use wikipedia for information, thought I'd just throw this out there. Got any more reliable links?

You have some nerve to talk about a link's credibility when yours doesn't even cite references. Media Matters at the very minimum backs up their claims with sources.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by sikvod00

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-house-mouse/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...rancisco-mice/

Spoiler for Summary:

Three projects would turn abandoned industrial salt operations back into natural wetlands, about 26,000 acres in all. It turns out the mouse is an endangered species that likes tidal salt marshes, and it's mentioned by name as one of several species that will benefit.

But the projects themselves — the South Bay Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project , the Napa Plant Site , and the Napa Salt Marsh restoration — are intended to do more than just benefit wildlife. It's major construction work to create recreation areas and to restore marshland that will resist flooding and storm surge.

"This is bulldozers, front-end loaders, backhoes. These are major earth-moving projects to break down levees, to resculpt the landscape and to make sure nature can do its thing," Ritchie said. "Right now, we just have these lousy little salt pond levees and they break."

"These are real jobs, and these are truly ready to go," he added. "We can definitely spend this money for construction by Nov. 30, 2010."

Given this description of the projects, which were first reported in the San Jose Mercury News , it's a serious distortion to say there's money in the bill to protect San Francisco mice. The bill doesn't even list the San Francisco projects by name. And the funding agencies — the Corps of Engineers or NOAA — could still decide to fund the projects or not. The bill passed a final vote in the House on Feb. 13, with no Republicans supporting it.

So Pelosi did not put an earmark in the bill to save the mice. In fact, there's no money in the bill for mice. For this reason, we rate Pence's remark False.

My point still stands. Federal tax dollars going to pet projects in states, NOT stimulating the economy.

It's major construction work to create recreation areas and to restore marshland that will resist flooding and storm surge

Don't know if any of you have ever lived up in that area, but there isn't much flooding at all. This is something the state should be dealing with, not Federal. So people in Kentucky are paying for stuff like this in California. NOT what the Government was built for.

Of course, California has a 42 billion dollar budget deficit and needs Uncle Sam to help it out.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by sikvod00

You have some nerve to talk about a link's credibility when yours doesn't even cite references. Media Matters at the very minimum backs up their claims with sources.

Hey everyone loves using Wikipedia. I'm just using it back at them. Vexx did it to me earlier yet no one called him on it.

Well time to eat dinner and take a shower before bed-time. Work comes early. Must pay taxes for those who won't do their part. Was fun discussing with you all.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

Funding sources

In May 2004, the New York Times reported that Media Matters has received "more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals" and "was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress".[22]

Everybody loves to use wikipedia for information, thought I'd just throw this out there. Got any more reliable links?

Okay, I will use the same approach:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times

Both liberals and conservatives often refer to the Times as politically conservative.[16] Critics have cited it along with, among others, the Wall Street Journal, the Fox News Channel and talk radio, as epitomizing conservative media bias.[9][17][18][19] Salon.com[20][21] and the The Daily Howler[22][23][24][25] have published analyses of what they believe are serious factual errors and examples of bias in the paper's news coverage.

Conservative-turned-liberal writer David Brock, who worked for the Times' sister publication Insight on the News, said in his book Blinded by the Right that the news writers at the Times were encouraged and rewarded for giving news stories a conservative slant. In Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy, Brock wrote "the Washington Times was governed by a calculatedly unfair political bias and that its journalistic ethics were close to nil."[26]

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, "Because of its history of a seemingly ideological approach to the news, the paper has always faced questions about its credibility."[27]

Media Bias is evident everywhere, the trick is read articles that cite various sources. The Washington Post article comes directly from something Steele mentioned in an e-mail that was then spread to various conservative talk shows and then found its way into an actual article.

[Vexx]

I think justinstrife is providing an excellent picture of where he stands and his reasoning and sources of his data. It just isn't having the results he expects.
I also suspect I pay far more taxes than he does so that bit was irrelevant.

Oh, I'm no more fond of the Democrats than the Republicans as an exploration of my posts over the years will show. I've been a Republican most of my life - but the GOP is *completely* without any credibility at this point just as their talking heads and media outlets have no credibility. Some of what the Democrats are proposing does address the problems and more importantly - mitigates the unavoidable blow in the hopes it doesn't spiral into lethality. The Republicans and their neocons have nothing. Their sole purpose seems to be to prevent any actions from succeeding or to lie loud enough to make some people think it failed.

Certainly there's some crap in the bill.... but a lot of what has been labeled "pork" or "doesn't create jobs" is flat-ass lying or mischaracterization. The bill is named "The Recovery Act" -- some of it has the purpose of revitalizing failing infrastructure that was left neglected for 10 years.

Repairing and improving infrastructure happens to *create jobs* ... just as "permament" as any job with a corporation can be these days.

Part of me thinks a fair portion of the GOP neocons are simply are too young too remember not being in control (since 1994) and they're just completely flipping out. Yet they had control... for more than 10 years.

Interestingly, Greenspan is basically on board with much of the concepts:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Tuesday the current global recession will "surely be the longest and deepest" since the 1930s and more government rescue funds are needed to stabilize the U.S. financial system.
"To stabilize the American banking system and restore normal lending, additional TARP funds will be required," Greenspan said in a speech to the Economic Club of New York. The U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program designed to help bail out banks has been partially successful, he said.
Despite his prognosis on the current downturn, Greenspan said the pace of economic deterioration "cannot persist indefinitely."
He reiterated, however, that a housing recovery is a necessary condition for the end of the financial crisis, and said that "the prospect of stable home prices remains many months in the future."
The stock market, meanwhile, is being suppressed by "a degree of fear not experienced since the early 20th century," Greenspan said. "Certainly by any historical measure, world stock prices are cheap. But as history also counsels, they could get a lot cheaper before they turn."
A recovery in the equity market driven by lessening fear could be "a seminal turning point of the current crisis," he said.
Citing the Japanese experience of the 1990s, Greenspan said U.S. authorities need to assure the repair of the financial system before major fiscal stimulus takes hold.
"Unless we are successful at that, in my judgment, the positive impact of a fiscal stimulus will peter out after its scheduled completion," he said.
He said the real test of fiscal stimulus is whether it "primes the pump" for private demand.
Greenspan said the Federal Reserve's myriad emergency lending programs and the Treasury's TARP funds have the potential of being unwound eventually without leading to inflation or great cost to the taxpayer.
He warned, however, that politics could be an obstacle.
"At the first signs of stabilization and a flattening of the unemployment rate, I presume the Federal Reserve will start to rein in much of its credit extension," Greenspan said.
"However, Congress is likely to strongly object to any tightening of credit prior to full employment being restored. Policy reversals on the fiscal front are nearly certain to meet stiff resistance," he said.
The U.S. Treasury will have to heavily issue debt to fund its stimulus package, and while at the moment the Treasury is having no difficulty finding buyers for it, there is a limit to the expansion of the federal debt, he said.

[sikvod00]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

My point still stands. Federal tax dollars going to pet projects in states, NOT stimulating the economy.

How can your point still stand when that wasn't you original assertion?

Your first point:
30 million dollars to protect marsh field mice in the Bay area(Nancy Pelosi's district)

And your second was a link to an article from the conservative editorial section of the Washington Times, which accussed Pelosi of the same thing.

Now that it was debunked, you changed your point to being tax dollars going to ANY state project. Dishonest, much?

Also, there are economists who believe that government spending does in fact stimulate the economy.

[Cluelessly]

Just something.

I have no problem with government spending in a theoretical world since any number of assumptions can be made. And government spending can help build infrastructure, etc. We could go around in circles about this issue forever. I don't see why I am wrong about how the spending should not be with creation of debt that is impossible to pay off though. Government only knows how to spend and "change" is not change at all in what matters.

Anyway:

The trend is obviously not linear. I posted a more confusing graph earlier of Zero Hour, but I think this is easier to understand. Debt as we have debt now is not what debt used to be. Debt does become bad when there is no longer any return on that debt.

Earlier there was talk about how the fact that consumer's had gone from a negative savings rate to a positive one (like 3%) was a bad thing. 3% is somehow a bad thing when the historical average is 10% on the low end...but we never talk about just what debt is or how money works.

There is probably something wrong with the debt being made if M1 (currency in circulation + checkable deposits + traveler's checks) is somehow smaller than the monetary base.

An effort to control the social fallout for what is to come is much better than kicking the can down the road some more. Even if somehow miraculously this "fixed" (not happening - notice the FOMC's desperate attempts to calm Ts) things there are many other problems with the monetary system that need to be addressed. Going by the timeline of credit bubbles bursting it seems a lot like this problem arises every time the generation that learned the lesson dies off. And every time we try to fix it in a variety of ways that still results in a decrease in living standards. Before it gets said, using devaluation as the solution yields the same result with a different set of prices.

Another thing about inverting populations, if you double infrastructure but there is no double in workers you will not gain a proportional gain in supply. No matter how highly trained the workers only so much can be milked out of an individual.

This was really long at first, but I cut off most of it so there's probably some stuff missing.

Out of left field: fake wealth created from speculative investment is really really really really bad since we always go through periods of credit contraction. There is nothing bad about short positions that contribute to liquidity/work as hedges though. Most of the problem comes from re-leveraging up to hedge instead of decreasing exposure.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Since I'm kinda a local on this issue [Japan's economy], maybe i'll try to understand this.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Pray tell, where is the equilibrium mark? You're theorising from the comfort of an ivory tower. Meanwhile, the jobless man on the street couldn't care less — he needs a job, now.

Japan's problem was that it bit the bullet too late. Once the deflationary spiral had set in, the cost of reinflating its domestic economy through fiscal measures became too great. Hence the ever looming public debt that never achieved its intended aim.

What's really needed in Japan's domestic economy right now is actually more competition. In truth, it's still a very closeted, heavily-protected economy dominated by a handful of zaibatsu. Japanese companies prove that they are actually very competitive — in foreign markets — but at the same time, they don't want to compete against foreign rivals in their own turf. Products and services therefore improve at an inefficient pace, which does little to encourage the Japanese to spend instead of hoarding cash.

Now, remember that this was caused by the post-WWII tariffs implemented such that Japanese would save their money. With more money in banks, loans and credit became easier to obtain, and with Japan running large trade surpluses, the yen appreciated against foreign currencies.

This allowed local companies to invest in capital resources much more easily than their competitors overseas, which reduced the price of Japanese-made goods and widened the trade surplus further. And, with the yen appreciating, financial assets became very lucrative. This caused much speculation.

The easily obtainable credit had helped create and engorge the real estate bubble, and when the economy crashed, it crashed hard.

So there you go - some parts from Wiki.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Cluelessly

Caring about the NOW is why the future (which has become the NOW) is screwed.

I won't disagree with this, since it is true, but like anything else the only way to address it is to learn and move forward. We've blundered before, we'll pick ourselves up by the bootstraps like always.

In fact I think those who preach of government stimulus as the savior are the ones who sit in the ivory tower with no understanding of how debt works.

It's safe to say that without a reset the country will always be in debt. This isn't a problem, unless something happens to the ability to generate money to float that debt. It's still passing the buck, but hypothetically a smart budget and controlled spending would eventually fix the problem of paying the debt down (and as you pointed out in my previous quote, people like to screw that up).

Another thing about inverting populations, if you double infrastructure but there is no double in workers you will not gain a proportional gain in supply.

I think creating or sustaining jobs is a myth meant to sell government spending. In reality, I think the real point of spending all this money is to create demand in non government sectors so that others step up to the plate. Even with all the money the government is spending, it cannot continue to prop up the system either. It has to bolster the other sectors so that it doesn't break under the burden of the whole thing. Historically speaking, governments just don't have the ability to control every nuance of every system indefinitely. Something will have to give. I think that's the worrisome part for most people - what is the breaking point, and how bad will it be if it happens?

Either way it's painful. Only time will tell what prediction of the future will hold true.

[jadarksage]

obama is ur first black prez thank god

[Luminisk]

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

It took me a good 1.5-2 hours for me to fully digest the whole thing.
The information is well presented and most of the data comes from the government, but when it comes to statistic I'm always the skeptic.


Fiscal conservatives... the greatest lie ever told.

[Demongod86]

Frankly all of this government hubbub makes me realize one thing:

Stop asking the government to do anything. Obama isn't going to wave a wand and make your problems go away.

Solve your problems yourself, and let the government help you however it can. Stop asking for handouts.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Cluelessly

When it is invested correctly there is an increase. In the long run supply is the driving force, not demand.

Dummy question: "an increase" from?

And in my silly opinion, there isn't any long run because it is always cut short half-way through.

[Demongod86]

Increase in GDP, increase in money supply, money velocity...

One of these things...

[iLney]

So it's like the classic:

I have 100$. I lend you 90$. You put 90$ in my bank. The market has 190$?

[Demongod86]

Originally Posted by iLney

So it's like the classic:

I have 100$. I lend you 90$. You put 90$ in my bank. The market has 190$?

No.

You have $100. You lend me $90. I invest that $90 into buying raw materials and employee costs. That $90 then gets deposited into another bank by my suppliers, and then said other bank lends 81, and thus the total amount of money created isn't $190, but $1000.

[Cluelessly]

Originally Posted by Solace

I won't disagree with this, since it is true, but like anything else the only way to address it is to learn and move forward. We've blundered before, we'll pick ourselves up by the bootstraps like always.

It's safe to say that without a reset the country will always be in debt. This isn't a problem, unless something happens to the ability to generate money to float that debt. It's still passing the buck, but hypothetically a smart budget and controlled spending would eventually fix the problem of paying the debt down (and as you pointed out in my previous quote, people like to screw that up).

You got it.

Originally Posted by Solace

I think creating or sustaining jobs is a myth meant to sell government spending. In reality, I think the real point of spending all this money is to create demand in non government sectors so that others step up to the plate. Even with all the money the government is spending, it cannot continue to prop up the system either. It has to bolster the other sectors so that it doesn't break under the burden of the whole thing. Historically speaking, governments just don't have the ability to control every nuance of every system indefinitely. Something will have to give. I think that's the worrisome part for most people - what is the breaking point, and how bad will it be if it happens?

Either way it's painful. Only time will tell what prediction of the future will hold true.

Government spending crowds out the private sector. It's hard to mathematically quantify this, but I think it should be true as the bottom line is government does not have to be competitive in the normal sense and is thus burdened immense waste among other things. What I really meant by the infrastructure/population comment is that the population issue needs to be addressed.

@iLney

Welcome to fractional reserve lending?

Whether it is evil or not is a different discussion, but Demongod86 already said what I would have.