AP Via Fox:Tentative Deal Reached on Future of Big Bank Failures
64 replies, posted
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21746237]The Republicans have already said they'll monolithically oppose whatever the Democrats propose.
Go for broke, you pansy Democrats.[/QUOTE]
So wouldn't the best way for democrats to get what they want be to propose things that they really oppose?
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;21767569]So wouldn't the best way for democrats to get what they want be to propose things that they really oppose?[/QUOTE]
The Democrats could propose anything and the Republicans would still oppose it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;21767512]Oh yes, because the private sector being corrupt is a perfect excuse for the government to be corrupt.
If it's not your problem, what are you posting in this thread for? Why bother responding to him?[/QUOTE]
Where did I say that?
[editline]04:22AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;21767419]Tell that to Tim Geithner[/quote]
You're surprised some rich politician got off?
[quote]Whatever. Your money.[/quote]
We make more money then American's
[quote]I just took a look at my conversion again. and I some how got my wires crossed on what currency was worth more.. Still makes games more expensive though[/QUOTE]
but not by much
[editline]04:23AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Relys;21767529]I'm currently have a 96% in my college level economics class and I can offically state that Glaber has some vary flawed views about how the world works. I suppose he's just living in rational ignorance, but seriously Glaber. Go a head and take the Redpill. The small opportunity cost of your personal time is worth the enlightenment.[/QUOTE]
dude, if you had a 3% in your class, you would be able to see how flawed Glaber is.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21768003]We make more money then American's
[/QUOTE]
So why do you think we oppose the raising of taxes then? After all, we don't make as much money as your country does.
I think glaber is just a really skilled troll.
[QUOTE=Glaber;21774521]So why do you think we oppose the raising of taxes then? After all, we don't make as much money as your country does.[/QUOTE]
Because you people are insane and don't understand taxes?
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21768003]Where did I say that?
[/QUOTE]
You said that there's no reason to put the financial system in government control.
I said the government is corrupt.
Your reply was basically, "Well the private sector is corrupt too".
That's not an excuse.
The public sector has shown itself to be more effective. The Private sector has not.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21775248]The public sector has shown itself to be more effective. The Private sector has not.[/QUOTE]
Maybe in your country, but in mine it's the public sector that's proven to be ineffective.
It didn't help that we put "progressives" in power since the 60's.
What's that joke again about the opposite of Progress?
[QUOTE=Glaber;21775476]Maybe in your country, but in mine it's the public sector that's proven to be ineffective.
It didn't help that we put "progressives" in power since the 60's.
What's that joke again about the opposite of Progress?[/QUOTE]
uh, Progressives since the 60's have been very effective. What's the alternative? that war criminal Reagan? One of the worse presidents in history?
[editline]06:33PM[/editline]
George Bush?
[editline]06:33PM[/editline]
Richard Nixon?
[editline]06:34PM[/editline]
not exactly a good selection
Lol. Glaber, you believe in idiotic things like reagonomics and you really just flat out don't understand basic economics. At all. Stop arguing now.
Fine, then explain it. but from where I'm sitting, part of my understanding is "Don't spend what you don't have!"
This is why I don't use a credit card.
[QUOTE=Glaber;21779097]Fine, then explain it. but from where I'm sitting, part of my understanding is "Don't spend what you don't have!"
This is why I don't use a credit card.[/QUOTE]
Alright Glaber, here's why government spending is a good thing.
The way our GDP is calculated is C + I + G + X. Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Exports - Imports. This is a general thing, and I probably won't be coming back to it, but good to throw out there. Now there are two things, one called MPC - marginal propensity to consume, and one called MPS - marginal propensity to save. Basically they are how likely you are to save and how likely people are to spend or save money they have.
Now there are two multipliers you should know about. The government spending multiplier is 1/MPS. The tax multiplier is -(MPC/MPS) - it is always one lower than the spending multiplier, so if spending multiplier is 5, tax multiplier is 4.
Now here's the important part. What the multiplier does is show the effect of spending or taxes on the economy. If the government spent $100 billion, and the spending multiplier was 5, it would have the impact of $500 billion. This is because the government spends all $100 billion on whatever....the place they spend it at saves a certain amount (MPS*amount of money they get), and spends the rest. So if the multiplier is 5, MPS is .2, so the place they spent the money at would save $200 million, and spend $800 million. The place they spent the money at would do the same, and on and on until eventually $500 billion worth of growth has come of the government's $100 billion dollar initial spending. So if we're after growth, the government spending a lot of money can very well spur us out of a recession and do wonders for the economy.
There, that is the best I can explain it right now. Hope it's clear to understand
*saves for future reference*
Hmm. that's good for the theory, but what about practice? The government can't be the only consumer. It seems like there is a missing variable here.
This model assumes that what ever the government spends money on or in will in turn make more money or profit, but what happens if they wind up not making more money than before or no profit and only make just enough to cover operating costs?
Remember, The government spent money on GM. How would GM work with this model in where they either successfully sell more cars and make a profit, or in case 2, where they fail to Sell enough cars to make a profit?
1. I'm not saying that the government is the only consumer, but they are certainly a huge part of the economy. Consumption is roughly 70% of net GDP, I'm having trouble remembering the other 3 but, the government is certainly a large portion.
2. All money the government spends DOES get turned into money or profit - except the saved portion. This is because of a form of the trickle-down effect. Here's an example: The government spends $100 billion dollars on buying helicopters from Sikorsky. Assuming that MPS is .2, Sikorsky will save $200 million, and then spend another $800 million, buying iron. The company they buy the iron from will put away $160 million, spend $640 million. So on and so forth. Eventually $500 billion dollars worth of goods and services would have been created by that initial $100 billion dollar investment.
3. Saving jobs is one of the most important things we can do; sudden massive amounts of lost jobs are one of the worst things that can happen in the economy because things start spiraling down very fast. Recessions feed on themselves; lost jobs means less demand means even more lost jobs, and on and on. We certainly don't want to encourage the wrong kind of business mentality, but it's necessary. It's a really serious problem called moral hazards that need to be taken care of that are the root of the issue.
Glaber, just do us a favor and never post again. Your brain cells must have been eliminated or they're being controlled by Fox News. How are you even breathing still?
Ahh yes, You have proven your point, Bassplaya7.
Now In my mind it will take a while for it to sink in, but like oil on watter, it is currently sitting on the surface.
However, the thing that could burn it off is where does the government get their money and what happens if taxes cost more than what the taxed person gets payed, or close to it. There is also the problem of perception of Government spending too much and the Taxed person not having enough money left over to buy the unnecessary junk they like. Such as junk food and video games. People also don't like when they think they are providing the government with money that the government then uses on a project or company they precieve(sic) is bad.
An example would be GM as they now have the stigma from the stimulus/bail-out and the unwanted nickname "Government Motors".
[QUOTE=Glaber;21783727]Ahh yes, You have proven your point, Bassplaya7.
Now In my mind it will take a while for it to sink in, but like oil on watter, it is currently sitting on the surface.
However, the thing that could burn it off is where does the government get their money and what happens if taxes cost more than what the taxed person gets payed, or close to it. There is also the problem of perception of Government spending too much and the Taxed person not having enough money left over to buy the unnecessary junk they like. Such as junk food and video games. People also don't like when they think they are providing the government with money that the government then uses on a project or company they precieve(sic) is bad.
An example would be GM as they now have the stigma from the stimulus/bail-out and the unwanted nickname "Government Motors".[/QUOTE]
Just out of curiosity, how old are you and did you vote for McCain?
23 and yes. Remember, I watch Fox so chances are that I also listen to Hannity. (Now if only the radio station would play the third hour rather than switch over to Mitch Album) Around the time of the election, Hannity had the Stop Obama Express. It failed though.
[QUOTE=Glaber;21783801]23 and yes. Remember, I watch Fox so chances are that I also listen to Hannity. (Now if only the radio station would play the third hour rather than switch over to Mitch Album) Around the time of the election, Hannity had the Stop Obama Express. It failed though.[/QUOTE]
:froggonk:
I love how he openly admits how ignorant he is and makes fun of himself. It's pathetic.
If you can't laugh at yourself, where's the fun?
[QUOTE=Glaber;21784066]If you can't laugh at yourself, where's the fun?[/QUOTE]
Laughing at you.
[QUOTE=JDK721v2;21783689]Glaber, just do us a favor and never post again. Your brain cells must have been eliminated or they're being controlled by Fox News. How are you even breathing still?[/QUOTE]
I know you really hate Glaber and everything he stands for, but could you be less obnoxious about it? You sound like a broken record.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;21784380]I know you really hate Glaber and everything he stands for, but could you be less obnoxious about it? You sound like a broken record.[/QUOTE]
Have you seen his posts?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;21784380]I know you really hate Glaber and everything he stands for, but could you be less obnoxious about it? You sound like a broken record.[/QUOTE]
Fucking this. Every thread I've been in that's authored by glaber has half its replies be 'fucking glaber' or 'glaber your so stupid' etc. You guys just shit up his threads and then accuse him of being a troll.
[QUOTE=Conscript;21784548]Fucking this. Every thread I've been in that's authored by glaber has half its replies be 'fucking glaber' or 'glaber your so stupid' etc. You guys just shit up his threads and then accuse him of being a troll.[/QUOTE]
No one accuses him of being a troll, he's not bright enough for that. The reason all of us say "fucking glaber" is because he often starts threads with news he doesn't understand, throws out empty assumptions based only on party rhetoric, and then continues to act ignorant when any holes in his arguments are called out.
If 90% of your posts is party rhetoric, and you've yet to acknowledge that disagreements with your views are valid, while you're still ignorant behind the economic, political, and by god, the "foxness" of all this, you deserve to be a short hand term like "Fucking glaber".
[QUOTE=Conscript;21784548]Fucking this. Every thread I've been in that's authored by glaber has half its replies be 'fucking glaber' or 'glaber your so stupid' etc. You guys just shit up his threads and then accuse him of being a troll.[/QUOTE]
I don't thinks he's a troll. It's more that he's just misinformed which has to do with the fact that all he is watches and listens to is Fox, Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh. We've TRIED to have sensible debates with him but it just doesn't work.
[QUOTE=Glaber;21783727]Ahh yes, You have proven your point, Bassplaya7.
Now In my mind it will take a while for it to sink in, but like oil on watter, it is currently sitting on the surface.
However, the thing that could burn it off is where does the government get their money and what happens if taxes cost more than what the taxed person gets payed, or close to it. There is also the problem of perception of Government spending too much and the Taxed person not having enough money left over to buy the unnecessary junk they like. Such as junk food and video games. People also don't like when they think they are providing the government with money that the government then uses on a project or company they precieve(sic) is bad.
An example would be GM as they now have the stigma from the stimulus/bail-out and the unwanted nickname "Government Motors".[/QUOTE]
I mean, taxes are never more than the amount the person gets paid. I'm not really sure what the hell you could mean by that. I'm fairly certain in another one of your threads I explained HOW exactly income taxes work and why our current system is more than fair, and is often demonized by people who have no clue how it works and just assume that people are actually being taxed 37% or w/e when the real amount is no where near that. And sorry, but people have a duty to pay taxes to support the country they live in. Taxes are an integral part of keeping our society running.
Also, the other multiplier, the one I didn't explain, is another option for something the government could do to increase GDP. -MPC/MPS is the tax multiplier. If we use the earlier numbers, the tax multiplier would be -4. If you cut taxes by $100 billion, it would cause $400 billion dollars in growth because people have more disposable income. If you increased spending the same amount in the same situation, you would increase GDP to grow by $500 billion.
Current republican economic policy makes no fiscal sense. They play off fear of the government and offer no solutions. Trickle-down economics is bullshit, Smithian economics is to nationalistic and outdated, and Keynesian economics only makes sense when facing depression conditions. Just remember, right now, the republicans aren't trying to do right by the American people. They're trying to regain the political upper hand. That's what an opposition party does.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.