Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)12:53
No.6210893

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)12:53 No.6210893

muh 5 point plan

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)12:53
No.6210899

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)12:53 No.6210899

By stopping to send aid money to Venezuela, unlike Obama who is a chinese shrill.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)12:55
No.6210914

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)12:55 No.6210914

Replies: >>6210934 >>6211031 >>6211857

>>6210876 (OP)

Businesses aren't going to be scared shitless by Romney like they are of the uncertainty Obama & his class warfare 'fair share' bullshit causes. So they'll dare to expand, hire, and grow again, instead of circling the wagons and going into a wait & see mode like they've been doing for the last 4 years.

Business trusts Romney, because he's one of them. They hate obama because he is, at heart, a marxist.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)12:56
No.6210931

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)12:56 No.6210931

Replies: >>6211857

By lowering taxes and increasing spending.

He says it won't increase the deficit because he'll close loopholes. But not any of the big ones because he's already said he wouldn't. He can't tell us which ones he'll actually close, that's a surprise for after he's elected.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)12:56
No.6210934

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)12:56 No.6210934

Replies: >>6211000

>>6210914
So basically, the only difference is that businesses won't be spooked by having a black man in the white house?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)12:56
No.6210935

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)12:56 No.6210935

Because bailing out the loosers at the top is restricting opportunities for small flexible businesses at the bottom who will drive the real recovery.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)12:58
No.6210965

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)12:58 No.6210965

Replies: >>6211857

If people make more money, they hire more people. For example, I'm expecting a Christmas bonus so I'll just use that money to hire more kids to mow my lawn more often.

People hire more people when they have more money to spend. This is a proven fact of economic law.

And so like, if Bill Gates gets to take home more of his paycheck he'll use that money to let Microsoft hire more developers. The work will pay for itself because having more product out there means more people will buy his product. And he can use his personal income because he owns the company.

So basically, Romney's gonna reduce taxes in order to create enough cash for job creators to create jobs because those job creators don't have enough money to hire anyone right now.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)12:59
No.6210973

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)12:59 No.6210973

Replies: >>6211011

He won't, but at least he won't waste billions on "muh green energy" projects.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:00
No.6210995

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:00 No.6210995

My business was holding off hiring people because Obama's jobs bill would have distorted the employment market.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:01
No.6211000

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:01 No.6211000

Replies: >>6211028

>>6210934
Not all niggers are marxists, don't be so racist.

Business would be fine with someone like Herman Cain at the helm.

Look, I know it's been joked about and latched onto by tinfoil types, but the fact is Obama IS a marxist. He may not be able to act as one, but you know damn well he wishes he could.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:01
No.6211006

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:01 No.6211006

>Romney's gonna reduce taxes in order to create enough cash for job creators to create jobs
This worked great under bush, so many jobs.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:02
No.6211011

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:02 No.6211011

Replies: >>6211021

>>6210973

Fossil fuels are finite. We're going to run out sooner or later. I know this. Does Mitt Romney?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:02
No.6211021

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:02 No.6211021

Replies: >>6211812

>>6211011
>Fossil fuels are finite

Do you know how deep the crust goes? Believe me, there's plenty left for many millennia.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:03
No.6211028

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:03 No.6211028

Replies: >>6212600

>>6211000 implying he's not a center-right corporatist

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:03
No.6211031

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:03 No.6211031

Replies: >>6211144

>>6210914
>Obama
>class warfare

You don't know what class warfare is do you.

I'd really like for there to be a class war too so I can show you what "class warfare" is. It's not asking you to pay higher taxes, it's breaking into your house, stealing your stuff and cracking open your skull in front of your wife and kids because you have more money than me. If that in your mind bears any resemblance to paying a higher tax rate, please seek mental help.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:06
No.6211066

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:06 No.6211066

he will restore confidence and stability and certainty to the business climate, present and future. he will get rid of the business killing obamacare and lower taxes and keep taxes low. He won't come out with one insane government program or policy every day like obama does, which puts a monkey wrench in our economy.

Romney will single handidly save the global economy.

T

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:06
No.6211069

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:06 No.6211069

Because Obama is a lazy negro who has been slacking off in the white house. If we put the white back into the white house we can be assured he will fix the mess our black brother created.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:10
No.6211140

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:10 No.6211140

Replies: >>6211321

File: 1350148232598.jpg-(159 KB, 660x934, fivepointplan.jpg)

He has a five-point plan. A FIVE-POINT PLAN!

That's like, 4 more than Obama's plan to make informed decisions and forge action at the expense of arbitrary populist ideology.

Only Romney is taking a firm stance with specific policy points such as "Cut the deficit" and "Make trade work". You don't see Obama being so clear!

So the score, in points: ROMNEY 5 ; OBAMA 1 (or maybe 1/2, since he doesn't actually have bullet points or a nice tagboard visual aid).

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:10
No.6211144

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:10 No.6211144

Replies: >>6211188 >>6211274 >>6211289

>>6211031
>I'd really like for there to be a class war too so I can show you what "class warfare" is.

So would I.

I'm one of those 'clings to their guns' types that you hear about that lives in flyover country. I have more firearms than I have pairs of socks. I have a stack of assault rifles that I am fucking proficient with. I have thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition. I have dogs that will probably kill you long before I have the chance to shoot you. I have wood and metalworking equipment. I can and do weld, rebuild engines, gunsmith, hunt, and grow my own food. When shit hits the fan, the cities will resort to violence and cannibalism and destroy themselves. Us 'rednecks' in flyover country will be just fine.

Anyway, the rich already pay more than their fair share of taxes. Our rich pay more of the tax burden than in any other western nation, including semisocialist eurostatess It's time for the poor to pick up the fucking slack.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:13
No.6211188

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:13 No.6211188

Replies: >>6211355

>>6211144
>Our rich pay more of the tax burden than in any other western nation, including semisocialist eurostatess It's time for the poor to pick up the fucking slack.
[citation needed]
......because im almost entirely sure this is wrong. Even if it is true in theory im am willing to bet money that overseas they pay a higher effective rate

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:15
No.6211221

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:15 No.6211221

Replies: >>6211254

Romney will make America a better place for big business. That means most of lose but there will probably be more jobs, at least to appease the American voter for making rich people's lives even easier. It's not right, but it's the way or our "money is free speech" and "corporations are people" system.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:16
No.6211254

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:16 No.6211254

Replies: >>6211291

File: 1350148617095.jpg-(9 KB, 201x251, images.jpg)

>>6211221
>Romney will make America a better place for big business

You don't understand Obama and socialism do you?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:17
No.6211274

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:17 No.6211274

>>6211144
Oh shit, a paragraph dedicated to establishing himself as an internet tough guy! This person is worth replying to!

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:18
No.6211289

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:18 No.6211289

Replies: >>6211406

>>6211144
Which state?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:18
No.6211291

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:18 No.6211291

Replies: >>6211329

>>6211254
Explain it to me.

Moloch
10/13/12(Sat)13:21
No.6211321

Moloch 10/13/12(Sat)13:21 No.6211321

>>6211140

My favorite policy point is "Achieve Energy Independence." Period.

Man, assuming that weren't a baldfaced lie, why didn't anyone else think of it?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:21
No.6211329

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:21 No.6211329

>>6211291
Basically socialism supports big business because it likes businesses to get too big to fail and bails them out, essentially becoming an extension of the state, and all employees are state controlled, whereas a true conservative likes lots of small businesses.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:23
No.6211355

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:23 No.6211355

Replies: >>6211467 >>6211517 >>6211571 >>6211591 >>6213613

File: 1350148994964.gif-(12 KB, 356x338, ir_22f2.gif)

>>6211188
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm

The thing is in euroland the rich pay high taxes, true, but the poor also have to pay VAT a good chunk of their income, and other taxes as well, which is only fair as the services the nanny states provide to them is super high.

America is in a situation where a huge chunk of the population pays no federal tax, while federal services that they use are increasing all the time.

This is not sustainable.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:26
No.6211406

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:26 No.6211406

Replies: >>6211481

>>6211289
Michigan.

Our economy is a chilling picture of things to come for the rest of America if we keep heading down the path we are on.

Also, fuck GM. Should have let it fail.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:29
No.6211467

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:29 No.6211467

Replies: >>6211609

File: 1350149384321.jpg-(75 KB, 600x358, 1328978898635.jpg)

>>6211355
>America is in a situation where a huge chunk of the population pays no federal tax
nope

The Slavic Caligula !O.N1d/WL9c
10/13/12(Sat)13:30
No.6211481

The Slavic Caligula !O.N1d/WL9c 10/13/12(Sat)13:30 No.6211481

>>6211406
My opinion
GM, should have been bailed out
Chrysler had there chance and blew it with the Lee Iaccoca era loans just to run into a bailout again.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:30
No.6211483

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:30 No.6211483

He won't, he won't be able to get anything done. Republicans have < 15% chance of regaining the Senate. It's going to be 4 more years of the same shit if he wins.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:33
No.6211517

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:33 No.6211517

Replies: >>6211609

>>6211355

They do pay federal tax. It's called payroll tax - it's what's automatically deducted from one's salary.

There's a significantly smaller population who gets some or all of their payroll tax refunded when they file income tax. A great thing about that is that it encourages everyone to actually file their tax returns and thus distinguish earned income from, say, trust funds, property, inheritance, child support, etc etc etc,

Among other sources of federal revenue is price inflation on tariffs and all licensures, which are non-graduated to income,

So "federal services ... increasing all the time" and "not sustainable" need sources, though are both largely untrue.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:36
No.6211571

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:36 No.6211571

File: 1350149798156.gif-(1.74 MB, 177x150, 1348961274763.gif)

>>6211355
>America is in a situation where a huge chunk of the population pays no federal tax

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:37
No.6211591

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:37 No.6211591

Replies: >>6211719

>>6211355
Also, regarding your chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation#Criticisms

Most think tanks are subject to criticisms, but there are far more careful ones out there, and having methodological complaints is a serious charge.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:38
No.6211609

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:38 No.6211609

Replies: >>6211662 >>6211682 >>6211756

File: 1350149929033.jpg-(86 KB, 289x335, PolicyBasics_WhereDoFeder(...).jpg)

>>6211517
>>6211467

Okay fine, half of the payroll section of this graph comes out of all workers paychecks, rich & poor alike, assuming they work jobs that collect said tax, which a lot of the poor don't do.

However, compare that income portion to the burden that social security / medicare are on the federal budget and I strongly stand by my 'not sustainable' portion.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:39
No.6211631

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:39 No.6211631

Because Obama has no record of creating jobs, and Romney has created thousands.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:40
No.6211647

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:40 No.6211647

Replies: >>6211746

>>6210876 (OP)
>So how is Romney going to fix the economy?
He's not going to. The problem is, neither is Obama.

>Why should I think he'd be better than Obama
He's not, The problem is, Obama is just as bad.

Don't vote for either of them.

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ.
10/13/12(Sat)13:41
No.6211662

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ. 10/13/12(Sat)13:41 No.6211662

Replies: >>6211787

>>6211609
>assuming they work jobs that collect said tax, which a lot of the poor don't do.
......
Such as?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:41
No.6211666

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:41 No.6211666

He'll start a 3rd WW with Russia to.reignite the economy as the Morons of RAND had suggested a few years.ago.How stupid are you americans to vote a dickhead. moron who believes in a Moroni angel?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:42
No.6211682

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:42 No.6211682

>>6211609
> which a lot of the poor don't do

Source?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:43
No.6211704

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:43 No.6211704

Replies: >>6211722

Reaganomics works.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:44
No.6211719

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:44 No.6211719

Replies: >>6211758

>>6211591

You're missing the point.

In 'socialist' countries, everyone is expected to pay for these services. In America we are talking about raising taxes on the rich alone, forgetting that the 'evil' bush tax cuts lowered the tax brackets across the board.

Any talk of increasing the tax burden on anyone but the most rich is a political non-starter.
Any talk of reducing entitlement spending is also a political non starter.

Hell, we can't even talk about cutting federal funding to a puppet show that can EASILY fund itself with merchandise licensing revenue without raising a shitstorm.

This country is fucked.

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ.
10/13/12(Sat)13:44
No.6211722

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ. 10/13/12(Sat)13:44 No.6211722

File: 1350150257055.jpg-(6 KB, 251x251, brieface.jpg)

>>6211704
How do you force yourself to type those words?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:45
No.6211746

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:45 No.6211746

>>6211647
Gary Johnson 2012!

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:46
No.6211756

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:46 No.6211756

File: 1350150366024.jpg-(16 KB, 306x227, 1267463915720.jpg)

>>6211609
>assuming they work jobs that collect said tax, which a lot of the poor don't do.
nigger, what? can you make a post without a retarded claim added onto it? if you learned how, you might actually have a better chance of getting people to listen to you.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:46
No.6211758

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:46 No.6211758

>>6211719
>forgetting that the 'evil' bush tax cuts lowered the tax brackets across the board

No one is forgetting anything. Obama has consistently said that he wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire only for people making > $250,000.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:47
No.6211787

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:47 No.6211787

Replies: >>6211805 >>6211845 >>6211850 >>6212021

>>6211662
I don't. My income these days (thanks obama) comes from working under the table, selling things on ebay / craiglist, and bartering. I haven't payed payroll or income tax in years.

I know that the mexicans down at the tire shop I frequent don't, as well as plenty of other smallish under the radar workers.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I have. The underground economy is the only thing that is growing.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:48
No.6211805

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:48 No.6211805

Replies: >>6211825 >>6211951

>>6211787
>i commit crimes, everyone else must also commit crimes

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:48
No.6211812

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:48 No.6211812

>>6211021
Not at our current growth rate.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:49
No.6211825

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:49 No.6211825

Replies: >>6211870

>>6211805
>Voluntary trade between two parties is a crime.

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ.
10/13/12(Sat)13:50
No.6211845

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ. 10/13/12(Sat)13:50 No.6211845

>>6211787
Jesus christ, I sell drugs for a significant percentage of my income and I still pay taxes on it, you little parasitic fuck.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:50
No.6211850

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:50 No.6211850

>>6211787
>muh anecdotal evidence

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:50
No.6211857

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:50 No.6211857

Replies: >>6211915

>>6210931
>>6210914
>>6210965

Or this whole "trickle-down" theory will fall flat on its face when we suddenly remember that people are scum and the rich will just hoard this newly-gained wealth for themselves instead of reinvesting it in their businesses, leaving nothing for the rest of us.

Why work to get more money tomorrow when these people have ridiculous amounts of money today? They'll just go "fuck it" and buy another 5 yachts.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:51
No.6211870

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:51 No.6211870

>>6211825
it's illegal to not declare income. so yes i am calling something that is illegal a crime. feel free to tell me how doing something illegal isnt committing a crime.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:52
No.6211887

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:52 No.6211887

12 MILLION JERBSSS

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:54
No.6211915

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:54 No.6211915

Replies: >>6211933 >>6211938 >>6211988

>>6211857
>nobody is employed by making, selling, and repairing yachts

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ.
10/13/12(Sat)13:55
No.6211933

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ. 10/13/12(Sat)13:55 No.6211933

Replies: >>6212039

>>6211915
UFCKING KILL YOUROSELF

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:55
No.6211938

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:55 No.6211938

Replies: >>6211978 >>6212039

>>6211915
doesnt really help us when those jobs are done in other countries.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:56
No.6211951

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:56 No.6211951

Replies: >>6212031

>>6211805
I get paid under the table too.
seriously, fuck this country.
I don't want to live here anymore, Obama and Romney can both suck my nuts.

RON PAUL 2012! *dead dream*

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:56
No.6211961

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:56 No.6211961

Replies: >>6212004 >>6212064

by recognizing there is a budget crisis. by not being in the pocket of the big govt system that is bankrupting us.

its basically just this. the left will never fix the debt because they can't. their support comes from govt jobs, and govt benefits. they can't politically afford to cut govt. therefore they are less likely to do anything.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:57
No.6211978

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:57 No.6211978

>>6211938

Step it up then, murriclaps, and be competitive enough to build the yachts for your billionaires in the free market.

Protectionism is anti-market and anti-growth.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:58
No.6211988

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:58 No.6211988

Replies: >>6212253

>>6211915

Don't be stupid. You know what I mean: increasing wealth does NOT guarantee jobs. It just means that businesses will generate more profit. Where that profit actually goes depends on the decisions of business leaders, and right now it seems that most of them aren't even interested in expanding anyway. Any extra wealth they generate goes straight into their pockets, and NO WHERE ELSE. The only people making money in this scenario are at the top. The rest of us are still stuck getting wages that haven't been updated for years while everything around us gets more and more expensive.

Nobody expands, nobody hires, everything just stays the same. Only the rich get richer.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:58
No.6212004

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:58 No.6212004

Replies: >>6212065

>>6211961
but romney wants to spend more money. the progressive caucus is the only group that actually put together a budget that bothers to deal with the deficit. feel free to leave your narrative sometime and actually pay attention to reality.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)13:59
No.6212021

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)13:59 No.6212021

>>6211787
> just because your a gypsy doesn't give you working knowledge of the world

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:00
No.6212031

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:00 No.6212031

>>6211951
Why not move to another country, then? What are you looking for from a country, maybe we can find you some place that fits your needs?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:01
No.6212039

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:01 No.6212039

Replies: >>6212156

>>6211933
>i am incapable of formulating a real argument, so i resort to insults

>>6211938
>mississippi
http://www.trinityyachts.com/
>new york
http://www.chmarineyachts.com/
>new jersey
http://www.silverton.com/

Need I say more? Even the ones that operate overseas are bound to create jobs in the United States in related markets. The point was not that yachts specifically are going to save the economy. Sure, some niche markets are more popular overseas, but it's not true that the wealthy of the US spend more money overseas.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:02
No.6212064

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:02 No.6212064

Replies: >>6212087 >>6212139

>>6211961
>Romney
>not for big government and big spending

Pick one.

Romney wants to keep SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the majority of the same tax loopholes, increase defense spending by $2 trillion (which the DoD has already said they don't need), while cutting taxes by 20% across the board. Obama might be a complete fucking retard, but at least he's (marginally) decreased the deficit and won't try to implement ideas that contradict themselves.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:02
No.6212065

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:02 No.6212065

Replies: >>6212099 >>6212258

File: 1350151362387.png-(62 KB, 901x645, federal budget.png)

>>6212004
spending more money on the military is not spending MORE money. if he makes the necessary cuts it won't matter. the military is just 20% of the budget meanwhile entitlements are over 50% and growing twice as fast.

reigning in these entitlements is what is causing the problem. not the military

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:03
No.6212087

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:03 No.6212087

Replies: >>6212131

>>6212064
Saying Romney "wants" anything is kind of glib; he's said such things, certainly, but who can know what his true plan is?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:04
No.6212099

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:04 No.6212099

Replies: >>6212152

>>6212065
> entitlement spending is a problem, therefore military spending is not
No, they are both a problem.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:06
No.6212131

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:06 No.6212131

>>6212087
romney will be very thrifty with tax money.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:06
No.6212139

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:06 No.6212139

Replies: >>6212170

>>6212064
source?

in the debate Romney specifically clarified that the old people would still get their benefits, which implies that the younger generation won't

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:07
No.6212152

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:07 No.6212152

Replies: >>6212209 >>6212227 >>6212249

>>6212099
the entitlements and expensive regulation and taxation is what is not only bankrupting us its also strangling the economy.

the military doesn't do those things

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:08
No.6212156

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:08 No.6212156

>>6212039

Bullshit. Even when jobs are created most manufacturing jobs are getting outsourced to china where you can make stuff for fucking pennies per unit. With globalization in full swing businesses have thumbed their noses at expensive American laborers and they instead hire cheap-as-fuck foreigners.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:08
No.6212169

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:08 No.6212169

Who 's more projew?Mit or Barak?!

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:08
No.6212170

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:08 No.6212170

>>6212139
Apologies, I should have qualified it with keeping SS and Medicare for retirees and soon to be retirees.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:09
No.6212180

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:09 No.6212180

Replies: >>6212206 >>6212224

Hint: He's not going to fix the economy.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:09
No.6212196

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:09 No.6212196

The economy is out of the US president's control.

If Europe goes, the world economy will further decline.
If China goes, same thing. And both are possible.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:10
No.6212206

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:10 No.6212206

>>6212180

The only people who can fix the economy are the ones making bank on the very fact that its tanking.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:10
No.6212207

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:10 No.6212207

Lets see where American elite gets their yachts

htttp://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/americas-top-100/americas-100-largest-yachts-2010

Ten biggest are built in:

>1.Germany
>2.Germany
>3.Germany
>4.Germany
>5.Japan
>6.Germany
>7.Netherlands
>8.Netherlands
>9.USA USA USA
>10.Germany

Of 100 largest yachts owned by Americans 75% is made by foreigners.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:10
No.6212209

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:10 No.6212209

Replies: >>6212342 >>6212349

>>6212152

once Romney gets in there, he probably will not spend a lot on the military. Our financial situation is very dire.

Also, I don't see him making the obvious point that the government cannot continue to hand out printed money because it will soon become worthless. the entitlement money won't buy anything unless our economy is strong and growing.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:11
No.6212224

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:11 No.6212224

>>6212180
The good news is that the economy is probably going to recover regardless of who wins the election. The only difference is going to be who gets to claim credit for being in the white house when it happens.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:11
No.6212227

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:11 No.6212227

Replies: >>6212373

>>6212152

Because when I think of our current recession, underregulation was clearly the cause. If we just deregulated more the banks would've stopped committing fraud and making risky, stupid bets!

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:12
No.6212249

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:12 No.6212249

Replies: >>6212388

>>6212152

Yes it does, military spending is spending with no significant return, just like entitlements.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:12
No.6212253

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:12 No.6212253

Replies: >>6212305 >>6212551

>>6211988
Economics isn't your strong point is it? The wealth you keep insisting that is "hoarded" isn't just stored in a mattress or cave somewhere, it is actually recycled through banks and lending institutions, ultimately adding to the overall capital available for growth.
Growth = jobs. Period.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:12
No.6212258

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:12 No.6212258

>>6212065

The problem with any chart including Social Security is that it is a stand-alone system with money paid in going directly to money paid out.

There is indeed a deficit in SS due to the Baby Boomers, but that is temporary and currently offset (and hopefully permanently offset if they ever pass a decent plan to do so).

So the chart you gave is misleading in the sense that paying into a 401k is a guaranteed and separable fund to yourself, whereas paying income taxes goes to a variable government budget which is a majority defense and War on Terror.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:15
No.6212305

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:15 No.6212305

Replies: >>6212391

>>6212253
>it is actually recycled through banks and lending institutions

This doesn't greate jobs, it creates profit for the banks. If you can create more profit without hiring more people (expenditure) you do so because profit is actually something business is obliged to do while "creating jobs" is not.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:17
No.6212342

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:17 No.6212342

>>6212209
>once Romney gets in there, he probably will not spend a lot on the military

Romney's own website says that he's going to eliminate the Obama cuts to the military and increase military spending by a minimum 4% of GDP.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:17
No.6212349

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:17 No.6212349

>>6212209
Other than the increase Navy spending by 66%, more than the DoD actually wants?

Here's an all-Romney article that gives the details. Oddly enough, the most details Romney has given are in increases to defense spending:
http://defense.aol.com/2012/10/11/romney-will-cut-dod-civilians-boost-navy-zakheim-and-zakheim/

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:19
No.6212373

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:19 No.6212373

Replies: >>6212662 >>6212779

>>6212227
except under regulation WASN'T the cause.

thats just a lie the left feeds people to push for more regulation.

i work in banking. the idea that housing and banks are unregulated is completely retarded.

loaning money is so fucking regulated its crazy.

the banks took advantage of being protected from any losses by the govt.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:20
No.6212388

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:20 No.6212388

Replies: >>6212450 >>6212487

>>6212249
except the military is necessary. the other things aren't

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:20
No.6212391

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:20 No.6212391

>>6212305
>Nobody works at banks.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:23
No.6212450

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:23 No.6212450

Replies: >>6212541

>>6212388
And why is a military that spends outrageously more than any other country necessary?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:25
No.6212487

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:25 No.6212487

Replies: >>6212557

>>6212388

They're mandatory spending, so yeah they're as necessary as the military.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:29
No.6212541

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:29 No.6212541

Replies: >>6212665

>>6212450
because if we didn't have the military Russia and China and Europe etc would all become more aggressive.

Its US military power that keeps other powers in check. Do you think its coincidence that the last 60 years have been a hundred times more peaceful than the 60 or 100 years before it?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:29
No.6212551

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:29 No.6212551

Replies: >>6212659 >>6212735

>>6212253
Econ 101: there are four places to allocate resources: labor, capital (investment), material, and entrepreneurial (raw profit, which may go into future lending/investment, or beach houses.)

Right now economic growth vastly exceeds labor growth, and this is (in most editorials I've read) because profit is going right to capital and being hoarded, quite understandably, as a financial buffer. It will be necessary for companies to feel financially secure, and quickly, for job growth to get into full gear. One way to do this is a government-guaranteed financial buffer, i.e. through stimulus packages, loans, and lowered interest rates, though all of these are unpopular and less effective than hoped.

The point is that growth > jobs by necessity. You fail econ101.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:29
No.6212557

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:29 No.6212557

Replies: >>6212643 >>6212647

>>6212487
why are they mandatory?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:31
No.6212600

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:31 No.6212600

>>6211028
>Implying that just because he's paid to do something, he enjoys and wants to do it

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:34
No.6212643

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:34 No.6212643

Replies: >>6212706

>>6212557

>what is mandatory spending

Spending that is, you know, required by law and cannot be touched by President or anyone else unless Congress changes the law.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:34
No.6212647

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:34 No.6212647

>>6212557
Because why do you hate America?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:35
No.6212659

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:35 No.6212659

Replies: >>6212824 >>6212869 >>6213006

>>6212551
except a rich person simply putting their money in the bank is money that the bank can now lend out.

if you didnt over tax the rich that would be near twice as much money in the banks and thus near twice as much money to be lended out.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:35
No.6212662

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:35 No.6212662

Replies: >>6212834

>>6212373

I hope you're the first against the wall.

You lying, lying shit.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:36
No.6212665

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:36 No.6212665

Replies: >>6212889

>>6212541
Well, there's the UN and the EU and the Marshall Plan and the Information Revolution and the two-superpower balance of the Cold War (which arguably was not very peaceful, since it spawned Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan (USSR)).

Other than the last one, which again was specific to having two nuclear & geopolitical superpowers (something that does not exist now nor will exist in the near future - Iran is definitely not a geopolitical superpower - half the MidEast hates them more than we do), none of this had to do with the size of our military.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:37
No.6212706

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:37 No.6212706

>>6212643
so theyre mandatory the govt says theyre mandatory?

thats awesome

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:39
No.6212735

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:39 No.6212735

Replies: >>6212765 >>6212986

>>6212551
You admit yourself that Obama's stimulus package(s) were not effective, yet you advocate reelection.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:40
No.6212765

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:40 No.6212765

Replies: >>6212835

File: 1350153633855.jpg-(48 KB, 250x250, 27623021.jpg)

>>6212735
<-- Typical Socialist Thinking

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:41
No.6212774

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:41 No.6212774

he's going to cut taxes, slash domestic govt spending, but increase defense govt spending

so basically:

taxes cut: decrease revenue, increase growth
domestic spending cut: increase revenue, massively decrease growth
defense spending increase: decrease revenue, increase growth

basically bush2.0

inb4 paultard "muh debt" monkeys who don't understsand simple middle school economics

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:41
No.6212779

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:41 No.6212779

>>6212373
>thinks loaning money is where the bubble came from

The big problem was securities, which were, by law, nigh-unregulated. There were also no regulations on ratings agencies, which allowed for crap securities to be packaged as AAA and bought by specialist investments funds (i.e. retirement) that only bought AAA securities. The regulations against bank consolidation that lead to "too big to fail" were struck down, as well. And, believe it or not, loan originators were getting by with forging client's signatures and doing no background checks on clients, since almost every bank cared about volume over anything and took the originator's word.
Lack of regulation was a huge part of the crisis.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:43
No.6212824

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:43 No.6212824

Replies: >>6212850

File: 1350153784546.jpg-(67 KB, 595x398, 1345068845228.jpg)

>>6212659
>More debt is a good thing for the economy

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:43
No.6212834

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:43 No.6212834

>>6212662
you people are dangerous.

>all deposits are federally insured
>fannie mae and freddie mac
>Community Reinvestment Act
>moral hazard

yeah you're an idiot

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:43
No.6212835

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:43 No.6212835

Replies: >>6212861 >>6212960

>>6212765

how did keynes not work you fucking idiot.

its economics 101. you increase govt spending to cushion the economic landing from lack of private sector spending. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT IT DID

the US govt especially has the capacity to spend extra when we need it because we're seen as a safe haven by the ENTIRE fucking world and our debt is ridiculously cheap.

conservative economics will go down as having ruined the recovery. the stimulus package should have been at least 1.5x as big

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:44
No.6212846

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:44 No.6212846

>mittens"Hey guys, I found out how to make 2+2=5"
>america"How can you do that?"
>mittens"IM NOT TELLIN YOU UNTIL YOU ACEPT IT AND MAKE ME UR RULOR"

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:44
No.6212850

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:44 No.6212850

Replies: >>6213181

>>6212824

debt grows more than it costs you retard. thats the entire premise of the private equity industry, which as you know, is doing fairly well.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:44
No.6212861

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:44 No.6212861

Replies: >>6212950

File: 1350153878624.jpg-(27 KB, 391x344, uoghuhij.jpg)

>>6212835
Take money out of the private sector via tax, to soften the landing of the private sector!

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:45
No.6212869

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:45 No.6212869

Replies: >>6213067 >>6213167

>>6212659
I didn't say that the rich saving money for themselves was significant. I said (and this again comes from pretty much every editorial I've seen on why job growth hasn't kept pace) that companies were saving capital as a hedge for their own industry, which is again understandable and probably smart, but keeps them from hiring and expanding at a time when it would be beneficial for everyone if they started doing both.

I'm not blaming them. I'm just saying that a lot of the suggestions given here ("growth=jobs") are way too simplistic and come from armchair econ101fags who don't care to look at what real economists are actually saying based on factual *evidence* and not mindless ideology.

You've got three basic options: let companies hedge and tolerate slow job growth, or encourage job growth now by discouraging hedging or having the government hedge for them.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:45
No.6212889

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:45 No.6212889

>>6212665
minor conflicts in the the third world do not equal the violence that was inflicted on the world during the times of imperial Europe.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:47
No.6212915

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:47 No.6212915

Because the corporate machine will start spending again to make him look good. They've been sitting on their hands, because Obama turned on them after courting them in 2008.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:49
No.6212950

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:49 No.6212950

>>6212861

I don't think you understand what I said

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:50
No.6212960

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:50 No.6212960

Replies: >>6213089 >>6213146

>>6212835
>conservative economics will go down as having ruined the recovery.

and liberal economics will go down as causing the recession in the first place.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:51
No.6212986

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:51 No.6212986

Replies: >>6213131

>>6212735
I didn't say they were not effective, and I especially didn't say the original big stimulus package was not effective, and I extremely didn't say that they shouldn't have been done (in fact, they should have been bigger and faster, as most economists advocated).

Basically, actual fiscal policy analysts had the right idea. Ideologues don't. Colin Powell changed his endorsement from McCain (to whose campaign he had donated previously) to Obama because, during the economic crisis, he "listened" to the problems and solutions.

I talked to a ex-Washington economist/analyst at a complex systems conference, and asked her how one explains to lawmakers the nuances of how and why certain economic policies can work. Her answer: "Don't."

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:52
No.6213006

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:52 No.6213006

>>6212659

the banks aren't lending out money, thats the problem, they're sitting on cash or parking it at the fed reserve

one interesting proposal has been to charge banks for doing this, but apparently that fucks up all the money markets.

the real answer is (like it has been for decades before republicans started chimping out about debt) for the government to pick up the slack when the private sector and banks aren't investing / lending

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:56
No.6213067

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:56 No.6213067

>>6212869
Let the government hedge for them? Wow, why not just morph the entire US government into a socialist state while we're at it?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:57
No.6213089

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:57 No.6213089

>>6212960

>Republicans cause recession
>Blame Liberal policy

all of my fucking what

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)14:59
No.6213131

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)14:59 No.6213131

Replies: >>6213194 >>6213239

>>6212986
You DID say it was not effective.
>One way to do this is a government-guaranteed financial buffer, i.e. through stimulus packages, loans, and lowered interest rates, though all of these are unpopular and less effective than hoped.

Herp.

I think the other guy had it right. Keynes isn't working? Liberal solution: MORE KEYNES.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:00
No.6213146

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:00 No.6213146

Replies: >>6213248

>>6212960
Can we just agree that the economic policies of both camps got us in this mess, and neither party is fit to get us out?

A lot of these woes have to do with business culture favoring short term gains over long term sustainability, cutthroat competition instead of constructive cooperation, and stagnant defense of old IP instead of bold progress.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:00
No.6213150

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:00 No.6213150

Replies: >>6213357

At the moment, the only consistent theory that explains what exactly happened with respect to the economic crisis is the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, here's a paper on it.
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae15_1_1.pdf

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:01
No.6213167

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:01 No.6213167

>>6212869
the govt cannot create jobs. and when it does you either end up with GM, or you end up with overly expensive govt jobs.

if you allow the rich to keep their own money that they can either invest in good times or sit on in bank accounts in bad times. that is far superior to the govt taking half of it and wasting it.

banks with more money are more willing to lend it out, which means more people able to start their own businesses etc.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:01
No.6213181

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:01 No.6213181

Replies: >>6213282

>>6212850
First, private equity =/= publicly-traded equity. Banks are stock-listed, and adjust their methods for such. Second, banks don't do much lending to PEFs. The majority of their lending is in the form of home loans, car loans, student loans, credit cards, etc... None of which are inherently revenue-generating, as opposed to PEF stuff like venture capital and distressed securities. The only profit to be made is off of interest, which effectively tells the lendee "find more money than I gave you to pay me back". Most lendees don't own businesses, they simply work for them; there's no growth, only a revenue flow towards the banks. Third, PEFs are doing so good right now BECAUSE of the economic crisis (with all the businesses doing shitty, it makes for a flood of LBOs/DSEs.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:02
No.6213189

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:02 No.6213189

Replies: >>6213246 >>6213352

Imagine an alternate world where Bush wasn't president.

2008, we go into recession.

"FUCK what do we do?"

"Oh wait, since we didn't waste endless money on wars or give tax cuts where it wasn't needed, we can dip into our massive surplus and pick up government spending to make up for lack of private spending"

"Republican won't try and chimp out about debt, because there is no debt"

...

Who am I kidding, the republicans would still have tried and blocked government spending, they are that economically illiterate (as we clearly see here on /pol/)

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:02
No.6213194

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:02 No.6213194

>>6213131
>Less effective than hoped
INSTEAD OF LETTING PEOPLE SAFEGUARD THEMSELVES WITH THEIR OWN MONEY, WE'LL TAKE THEIR MONEY AND SAFEGUARD THEM WITH IT, ONCE OF COURSE WE PAY TO THE DREDGES WHO DON'T WORK, THE BAILOUTS FOR INEFFICIENT FIRMS AND THE BONUSES TO THE BANKERS, NOT TO MENTION MONEY FOR THE POLITICIANS WHO RUN THIS PONZI SCHEME

>Keynes
>Not even once

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:05
No.6213239

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:05 No.6213239

Replies: >>6213291

>>6213131

...READ FUCKER, READ. He said LESS effective, not UN-effective.

And it was less effective because we were working off of bad, lower then the reality numbers.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:05
No.6213246

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:05 No.6213246

>>6213189
>Alternative world where Greenspan and Bernanke aren't in control of the FED
2008, no recession!

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:05
No.6213248

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:05 No.6213248

>>6213146
>Can we just agree that the economic policies of both camps got us in this mess, and neither party is fit to get us out?

I agree that both parties are to blame, but only one recognizes that more of the same isn't a good idea. the democrats will never change anything if they think more govt is the answer to govt caused economic problems.

also, the reason these companies can only focus on short term gains is because the govt will most likely bail them out causing moral hazard.

why care about bankruptcy if there is 75% chance you'll get bailed out?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:07
No.6213282

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:07 No.6213282

Replies: >>6213494

>>6213181
>First, private equity =/= publicly-traded equity. Banks are stock-listed, and adjust their methods for such.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about or how that is a response to what I said.


Anyway...


I work in investment banking. We work with PE shops, private companies and public companies all the time. whatever the case, some debt is always seen as a GOOD thing. Like I said, companies that take on debt, can use this new source of cash to grow revenue faster than the cost of the debt. THIS IS THE PREMISE OF THE ENTIRE PRIVATE EQUITY INDUSTRY. now big companies, especially public ones with great credit ratings, can get debt pretty cheap. but NONE can get it as cheap as the US government can. If the US govt was a company, no one would blink an eye at it taking out a massive loan because its debt is so fucking cheap right now.

btw: public companies also do this. Ebay recently took out a huge loan. Not for any specific reason, just because debt right now is so, so so cheap.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:07
No.6213291

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:07 No.6213291

Replies: >>6213365

>>6213239
Less effective than hoped? Well what exactly does that mean? STILL WORTH TRYING I GUESS.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:08
No.6213315

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:08 No.6213315

>liberal economics
>conservative economics

This pisses me off. The only thing liberal or conservative about the major schools of thought (NOT Austrian, at least not how RonPaulfags describe it) is which parties have adopted them in their rhetoric.

Both monetarist and keynesian policies advocate regulation, stimulus, and deficit spending in inefficient markets, just using different techniques. Nobody serious advocates a gold standard, nobody advocates ending social programs, and everybody knows that evidence and math are the only ways to do real economic analysis and policy -- not armchair theorizing (and nobody in any science does that anymore anyway - not even in philosophy).

Real-world policy in both parties is a hybrid of these methods and (ideally) stresses robustness, fluidity, and social progress over ideology. Unfortunately, rhetoric is utterly hijacked by ideology, and this too often is translated into what politicians actually do, as opposed to listening to people who actually study the issues and use, again, evidence and math.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:10
No.6213352

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:10 No.6213352

Replies: >>6213390

>>6213189
you act like the govt just saves money. money that was wasted on wars would've been wasted elsewhere.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:10
No.6213357

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:10 No.6213357

Replies: >>6213508 >>6213526

>>6213150

>Austrian theory
>accurately explaining this recession

this is what conservatives actually believe.

Actually, keynesian model perfectly describes why we're in a recession:

1. Companies are afraid of the future so they don't use their cash

2. Less people have work since companies aren't using their cash aka hiring employees

3. less people working means less people buying shit (aka aggregate demand is down)

4. gdp dips

5. Companies are afraid of the future so they don't use their cash

and the cycle goes on and on

the main way this has been fixed historically is for GOVERNMENT TO START SPENDING MASSIVELY (FDR anyone?)

but republicans are going to make sure this country is going down the drain no matter what

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:11
No.6213365

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:11 No.6213365

Replies: >>6213531

>>6213291
It means I recognize that the economic realities of a nation of 300 million people are more complex than an absolute statement of value can describe.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:12
No.6213390

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:12 No.6213390

Replies: >>6213429

>>6213352

Yeah, you're probably right on this. Although you have to admit we would not be THIS deep in the hole if it wasn't for the bush era tax cuts or the wars

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:14
No.6213429

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:14 No.6213429

Replies: >>6213446

>>6213390
even without the wars the housing crisis would have still happened, and the recession would have still occurred, and very little would've changed. the wars had very little effect on our economic situation.

and the housing crisis was caused by govt influence in housing.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:15
No.6213446

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:15 No.6213446

Replies: >>6213521 >>6213529

>>6213429

the point is that we would have had a lot more money for a much larger stimulus without having to worry about as much about debt. this would have undoubtedly made the recession much less of a dip

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:18
No.6213494

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:18 No.6213494

Replies: >>6213543

>>6213282
See:
>The majority of their lending is in the form of home loans, car loans, student loans, credit cards, etc... None of which are inherently revenue-generating, as opposed to PEF stuff like venture capital and distressed securities. The only profit to be made is off of interest, which effectively tells the lendee "find more money than I gave you to pay me back". Most lendees don't own businesses, they simply work for them; there's no growth, only a revenue flow towards the banks. Third, PEFs are doing so good right now BECAUSE of the economic crisis (with all the businesses doing shitty, it makes for a flood of LBOs/DSEs.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:19
No.6213508

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:19 No.6213508

Replies: >>6213582

>>6213357
1:
>FDR fixing the economy
>Nope.jpg
FDR prolonged the recession that would've been over in 2 years time. Read about the small recession of 1921, which started out worse than the great depression, but didn't have the idiot duo of Hoover and FDR to fuck it up.
2:
If the keynesian model is so correct, why was the recession so sudden, and not a gradual cycle of decline, as your model would suggest? Why was consumption up all the time without any dip? Why were all the keynesians so shellshocked when it happened, whilst austrians were yammering on about it for the last 4 years?
3. The austrian model predicts everything that happened:
>Expansion of credit
>Interest rates go down artificially, demand for loans artificially goes up
>Investment (in this case in housing) goes up as a result of retards becoming enterpreneurs
>Malinvestment, increased misuse of resources
>New money percolates to the common man, increase in expenditures and consumption loans
>Once enough loans are taken, banks realise theyll have to call some loans back
>People can't pay loans back, the boom was artificial, there aren't as many resources as the money supply would suggest.
>The bubble bursts and the interest rates force their way up (and atm are being artificially held down by QE, which is pumping another bubble)

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:19
No.6213521

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:19 No.6213521

Replies: >>6213651

>>6213446
>the point is that we would have had a lot more money for a much larger stimulus without having to worry about as much about debt. this would have undoubtedly made the recession much less of a dip

Depends how you look at economics. A Keynesian would say that the war was a stimulus, because the money goes to American soldiers and US military contractors, very little of it stays in Afghanistan.

If you actually look at things like that you'll see that we've been stimulus junkies in one form or another for the past 20 years and it's time to sober up.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:19
No.6213526

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:19 No.6213526

Replies: >>6213589 >>6213593

>>6213357

just to clarify for the conservative paultard austerity fetishists here:

the way government spending would have fixed this cycle is that more people would have been hired by the govt = more people employed with money = more people buying shit = higher gdp = private sector confidence returns and they start hiring again

THAT is when you start cutting down the government

I seriously don't understand why so many people here are ignorant of basic macroeconomic theory. Did you not get taught the new deal when you were a kid?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:20
No.6213529

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:20 No.6213529

>>6213446
the stimulus is also not what caused our debt crisis.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:20
No.6213531

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:20 No.6213531

>>6213365
Except you are saying we absolutely need to more than double down on Keynesian ideologies.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:20
No.6213543

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:20 No.6213543

Replies: >>6213648

>>6213494

>credit cards
>not inherently revenue-generating

my sides

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:22
No.6213582

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:22 No.6213582

Replies: >>6213635

>>6213508

>Why was consumption up

what the fuck are you talking about?

http://www.stanford.edu/~pista/cons_recess_August_2011.pdf

the rest of your post is invalid because of this retarded statement

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:23
No.6213589

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:23 No.6213589

>>6213526
except govt jobs are more expensive than theyre worth and just cause more debt, and in good times nobody wants to make the necessary cuts so cuts don't get made.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:23
No.6213593

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:23 No.6213593

>>6213526
I know that as a keynesian you'd rather the 1921 recession didn't exist, but the facts speak for themselves:
>government spending during recession only slows down recovery, as witnessed in 1929-1945 and now
>when markets are free to readjust, recession is over in 2 years time.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:24
No.6213613

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:24 No.6213613

Replies: >>6213664

>>6211355
>can't into gini coefficient

They're paying a greater portion of the taxes because they have all of the fucking money.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:25
No.6213635

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:25 No.6213635

>>6213582
if you look at the very fucking paper you posted, consumption was relatively level until the recession, the bubble burst was sudden, not as your theory would predict, a gradual cycle of decline.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:26
No.6213648

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:26 No.6213648

>>6213543
You're thinking on a "how2profit" scale, not a 'fixing economy" scale. Yes, CCs generate revenue for banks, but it takes more revenue out of the economy. This leads to more CC leans, more CC income, and so on, which ends with the bank pooling money. An economy has to have flowing capital, it's like blood flow. If money stagnates in banks or the wealthy, the economy falters.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:26
No.6213651

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:26 No.6213651

Replies: >>6213666 >>6213715

>>6213521

Keynesian theory says you use stimulus when the economy is DOWN not when it is doing fine like in 2003.

that's one of the biggest reasons our debt is so bad. keynesianism doesn't advocate full on govt spending all the time like some people here think, it only advocates it for when times are bad. old Georgie W didn't realize this and just kept spending and giving tax cuts left and right in the boom times of 04-07 and then when everything crashed we were completely fucked

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:27
No.6213664

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:27 No.6213664

Replies: >>6213694

>>6213613
why does the gini coefficient matter?

if Mark Zuckerberg makes 100 billion dollars does that mean everyone else in the country has less?

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:27
No.6213666

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:27 No.6213666

Replies: >>6213699

>>6213651
>not when it is doing fine like in 2003
except that 2003 was an artificial boom, sparked by an expansion of credit.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:28
No.6213694

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:28 No.6213694

Replies: >>6213708 >>6213714

>>6213664

if Mark Zuckerberg makes 100 billion dollars does that mean everyone else in the country has less?

Yes, this is exactly what it means

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:29
No.6213699

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:29 No.6213699

Replies: >>6213729

File: 1350156546877.jpg-(5 KB, 217x253, 5y9nkn.jpg)

>>6213666
>sparked by an expansion of credit

Haha good goyim...

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:29
No.6213708

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:29 No.6213708

>>6213694
>Economics is not a zero sum game

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:29
No.6213714

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:29 No.6213714

Replies: >>6213892

>>6213694
bahahahahahhahhahahahhahhahahahahhahahahhHAHBHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAH.

I sometimes forget how retarded liberals are.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:29
No.6213715

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:29 No.6213715

>>6213651
this

keynesian theory was only expected to work if during times of economic growth we drastically cut spending and built up a big surplus to be used in times of crisis

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:30
No.6213729

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:30 No.6213729

>>6213699
>implying the jew wouldn't be a stalwart keynesian, defending the expansion of credit and stimulus so that the crooks on wall street get richer whilst the common man gets poorer

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:38
No.6213892

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:38 No.6213892

Replies: >>6214020

File: 1350157102105.jpg-(15 KB, 246x216, 1345002998036.jpg)

>>6213714
>Money is infinite

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)15:44
No.6214020

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)15:44 No.6214020

Replies: >>6214409

>>6213892
Again, economics (a monetary measure of life, resources, standard of living, etc) is not a zero-sum game. We live better today than 200 years ago.

Zuckerberg is worth 100m because our quality of life became (arguably) that much better with Facebook. We don't pay for Facebook, and advertisers make money by advertising on Facebook.

The only resource loss is in servers and time-wasting, but that internet bandwidth would have been used anyway.

Good, successful ideas are positive-sum and generate value for everyone. That's why humans are a successful species, and that's why good policies and stable systems and sustainable development are important.

Anonymous
10/13/12(Sat)16:02
No.6214409

Anonymous 10/13/12(Sat)16:02 No.6214409

>>6214020
Best post in thread. It seems that the 99%ers seem to think that real life is like monopoly and there's only a finite amount of weath.