- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Poll on Economy... Is it still 'Bush's Fault'?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:09 pm to mmcgrath
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:09 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
If we installed some extra taxes at the beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars (instead of kicking the can down the road) we would be fine right now.
WOW, you really believe that? No fan of the wars, but we are talking costs around a Trillion dollars...total. Even if all that was deficit spending we'd still be close to 17 Trillion in debt. War= economic growth, from Military Salaries to all the jobs/tech building those missles,radar, ammo, Planes...Most of that is spent in the US, and injected back into this economy.. War didn't have much to do with anything to our economy on a significant scale..
2
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:25 pm to CamdenTiger
War is not economic growth. Building bombs and missiles, and weapons is useless to our economy. It's no different than getting paid to dig holes.
And it's all paid for with money that could be better served in a much more productive manner.
And it's all paid for with money that could be better served in a much more productive manner.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:36 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
Want to try to counter that? economy =/= deficit.
It's called 'growth'. Lowest growth rate after any recession. Ever. Why?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:48 pm to Zach
How long have the Dems been the majority in Congress? I think they took control in 2006 right?
But really, you can't blame just one individual or group of people. Well, unless that group is the federal government in general.
But really, you can't blame just one individual or group of people. Well, unless that group is the federal government in general.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:55 pm to Zach
quote:
It's called 'growth'. Lowest growth rate after any recession. Ever. Why?
deflation. You cannot grow in a deflationary environment, and the bubble popping in housing was massively deflationary.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:58 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
War is not economic growth. Building bombs and missiles, and weapons is useless to our economy. It's no different than getting paid to dig holes.
Nope, Defense industry is the economy of my whole town, esp. once the Paper Mill closed. Those people get paid, whether they are troops, or making a Patriot Missle. That money drives many communities. Yes, it cost a Trillion, but it wasn't Trillion dumped in a hole, and if you happened to subtract the entire value(if you think like that), we would still be 16.4 Trillion in debt. Its very small part of the problem..
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:59 pm to mmcgrath
quote:It's only temporary. CBO projects an explosion of deficits in 3 years.
The deficits are steadily coming down,
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:15 pm to Zach
It's the fault of everyone one in high power in charge of the economy. Bush was the head of the body that was in control when it went baad, but the body caused the crash not the head.
All the crap the bank did, the quick raise in house prices, the printing of money etc. caused the Crash.
We as americans like to place blame on one person. It is easy to blame bush because he was the head of the people who caused the crash. Bush actually didn't have that much to do with it.
All the crap the bank did, the quick raise in house prices, the printing of money etc. caused the Crash.
We as americans like to place blame on one person. It is easy to blame bush because he was the head of the people who caused the crash. Bush actually didn't have that much to do with it.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:15 pm to CamdenTiger
quote:War = Economic Growth was much more true in the early 1900's. The Iraq - Afghanistan Wars were extremely costly with little economic benefit, especially when money moved to private contractors who relocated overseas and bombs stopped dropping after a few months.
WOW, you really believe that? No fan of the wars, but we are talking costs around a Trillion dollars...total. Even if all that was deficit spending we'd still be close to 17 Trillion in debt. War= economic growth, from Military Salaries to all the jobs/tech building those missles,radar, ammo, Planes...Most of that is spent in the US, and injected back into this economy.. War didn't have much to do with anything to our economy on a significant scale..
On top of that, instead of a tax increase we put forth tax cuts.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:21 pm to CamdenTiger
quote:You don't get what an economy is. Military equipment serves no purpose in our country.
Nope, Defense industry is the economy of my whole town, esp. once the Paper Mill closed. Those people get paid, whether they are troops, or making a Patriot Missle. That money drives many communities. Yes, it cost a Trillion, but it wasn't Trillion dumped in a hole, and if you happened to subtract the entire value(if you think like that), we would still be 16.4 Trillion in debt. Its very small part of the problem..
Money that is being spent on bombs that explode into nothingness could be better spent on something more productive that people in this country could actually use.
It's "guns and butter" from Econ 101.
Just because people have jobs and make money in your town does not mean what they are doing is productive for the economy.
I could take money from people from another part of the country and use that money to pay everybody in your town to dig holes and fill them back up again. Everybody in your town would have jobs and make money, but it's useless to the economy.
This post was edited on 8/27/14 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:22 pm to wheelr
quote:
How long have the Dems been the majority in Congress? I think they took control in 2006 right?
But really, you can't blame just one individual or group of people. Well, unless that group is the federal government in general.
There's a reason Congress- regardless of who controlled it (since both the House and Senate have flipped back and forth since 2006) always polls lower than the President even lower than Bush did when he was the lowest rated President since Nixon, and yet 90% of the House is going to be re-elected in 69 days because people hate congress but generally like their congressman.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:25 pm to mmcgrath
quote:Not true. War was never economic growth.
War = Economic Growth was much more true in the early 1900's.
Back during World War II, factories that used to make things like food, steel, automobiles, etc. were converted into factories pumping out rations, bombs, tanks, etc for the war effort.
It meant there was much less being produced that people wanted or needed. This meant food and supply shortages here at home because factories were converted to pumping out guns and grenades instead of things you'd buy at the store.
War stunts our economic growth whether it was the 1900's or 2014. War is destruction.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:27 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
deflation. You cannot grow in a deflationary environment, and the bubble popping in housing was massively deflationary.
1. We are not in a deflationary economy.
2. So, you think inflation is a good idea?
3. So, how long is the housing bubble popping going to be can excuse? 10 years? 20 years? 100 years?
Pick one.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:32 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
War stunts our economic growth whether it was the 1900's or 2014. War is destruction
I don't believe this, and its OK if you do, but regardless its total cost are a fraction(very small fraction) of our debt, and economy.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:37 pm to CamdenTiger
quote:War spending is different from defense spending. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost trillions of dollars.
I don't believe this, and its OK if you do, but regardless its total cost are a fraction(very small fraction) of our debt, and economy.
That's trillions that could have been spent on other, more useful things.
Now, sometimes war is necessary and we have to bite the bullet.
But there is an economic cost to war. Resources are diverted from other sectors of the economy to help with the war effort.
In no way, shape, or form is war spending some kind of "stimulus".
This post was edited on 8/27/14 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:39 pm to Zach
I thought it was still Clinton's fault.
...or is it still Carter's fault? I get confused by which Democrat to blame for all of our problems - FDR?
...or is it still Carter's fault? I get confused by which Democrat to blame for all of our problems - FDR?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:46 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
.or is it still Carter's fault? I get confused by which Democrat to blame for all of our problems - FDR?
Well, you didn't hear Ronald Reagan running on "It's FDR's fault." But you sure heard Obama running on "Bush's fault."
Why the difference?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:03 pm to Zach
quote:
Well, you didn't hear Ronald Reagan running on "It's FDR's fault."
No, Reagan blamed Carter - just like everyone else.
But you didn't hear Carter blaming Nixon.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:04 pm to Zach
Damn DP...
This post was edited on 8/27/14 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:05 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
No, Reagan blamed Carter - just like everyone else.
In the first campaign. After 4 years of unprecedented growth to RR policies he did not blame Carter during his re-election. Obama did.
Try to pay attention.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News