Comments on: Report: U.S. $1.2 Trillion In The Hole

Congressional Estimators Project Unparalleled Budget Deficit For 2009; Obama Balancing Debt and Stimulus

[incog-nito]

And then other countries put tariffs on our exports. Problem is we''''re not the super-power we used to be, and we''''re not the super-provider we used to be. The end result would be the same, or worse: Jobs lost because our exports go down. Besides, most developing countries can''''t afford our products because they are union-made and very expensive.

Posted by down-ndirty at 02:07 AM : Jan 08, 2009

First of all, we have been exporting less and less and import more and more. Tariffs have the effect of creating MORE jobs, because it no longer pays to outsource jobs to countries with cheaper labor. Foreign companies are more likely to build plants in the U.S. to avoid tariffs. Without some kind of protection, it''s a certainty that more and more jobs will be lost to countries where labor is much cheaper, and where labor, pollution, etc. laws and regulations are lax to nonexistent.

Globalization, not Wall Street, is the reason the U.S. economy is where it is today.

[down-ndirty]

The question is, will it be enough in the long run? A lot of jobs are permanently lost to outsourcing, with a lot more on the way. In the end the gov''''t can only get back a fraction of what it spends to stimulate the economy. The rest has to come from the private sector, which continues to ship jobs overseas. Frankly, I doubt the downward trend can be reversed anytime soon, if at all.
Posted by incog-nito at 02:00 AM : Jan 08, 2009


Sadly, I agree. Our children and grandchildren will be paying for this mess for a very long time. The current debt is about $40K/person and that''s not something you pay off in just 10 or 12 years when you already have other household debts.

They can only tax us so much; and they will raise our taxes to pay it off...sooner or later.

[down-ndirty]

THEY DID IT BY NOT USING THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION - TARIFFS!!!!!!!!
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 11:16 PM : Jan 07, 2009


And then other countries put tariffs on our exports. Problem is we''re not the super-power we used to be, and we''re not the super-provider we used to be. The end result would be the same, or worse: Jobs lost because our exports go down. Besides, most developing countries can''t afford our products because they are union-made and very expensive.

[incog-nito]

It seems to me that a real economic stimulous package would get unemployed people out of the unemployemnt ranks and back into jobs, and paying taxes and spending money again.

My guess is that about 90% of every dollar earned and spent eventually goes back to the government in the form of taxes. That''''s a lot of revenue when you add it all up.


Posted by down-ndirty at 01:48 AM : Jan 08, 2009

I would agree that the economy needs a jump start, and Obama is doing the only thing a president can do to that effect. That is, to create jobs building infrastructure. There''s really not much else the gov''t can do.

The question is, will it be enough in the long run? A lot of jobs are permanently lost to outsourcing, with a lot more on the way. In the end the gov''t can only get back a fraction of what it spends to stimulate the economy. The rest has to come from the private sector, which continues to ship jobs overseas. Frankly, I doubt the downward trend can be reversed anytime soon, if at all.

[down-ndirty]

Well if Obama is trying to correct the deficit, why is he adding to it?
Posted by DJ_Houston at 01:18 AM : Jan 08, 2009


Well, if you have to ask the question then it''s going to be difficult for you to understand the answer.

For the past six years Bush has done nothing to stimulate the economy, in spite of rising unemployment rates. His tax cut went mostly to the rich but they don''t spend and when they do they find loopholes to avoid taxes.

Bush did invest heavily in an unnecessary war with the "expectation" that we would reap "oil benefits." Yup, gas was nearly $5/gal and is now heading back in that direction. And it looks like the only people to benefit from Bush''s war stimulous is OPEC, Blackwater, and KBR. But I guess you would rather have us continue "investing" in the middle east war than to try something different.

It seems to me that a real economic stimulous package would get unemployed people out of the unemployemnt ranks and back into jobs, and paying taxes and spending money again.

My guess is that about 90% of every dollar earned and spent eventually goes back to the government in the form of taxes. That''s a lot of revenue when you add it all up.

[galloglaigh]

The high unemployment was just lingering effects of Carter. By the time Reagan left office, the economy WAS better than it had been in a decade.
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 08:03 PM : Jan 07, 2009


So, by the same analogy one could say that Carter''s problems were JUST a lingering effect of EIsenhower and Nixon''s failures in the middle east. Carter''s major failure was his inability to deal with the hostage crisis, which was caused by OPERATION AJAX and Nixon''s middle-east oil policy. Of course, Reagan was working behind the scenes to make sure Carter failed; ergo, hostage release 15 minutes after Reagan became president.

LoL!!! Your statement above is dubious, at best. Reagan left office with a 5.3% unemployment rate. A DECADE before that the unemployment rate was 5.9% and declining.

On the other hand, the unemployment rate in Jan 93 was 7.3% and declined steadily for the next eight years to about 4% in Jan 2001. You do recall those were the Clinton years.

Wouldn''t you agree that "more people working" equates to a "good economy?"

What I recall from the Reagan years is 1) tax cuts that went mostly to the wealthy; 2) *** the military; 3) Iran/Contra and all the lies that went with it; and 4) his manipulation of the hostage release.

LOL!!! Reagan was just a B-movie actor and his best acting was as POTUS. But still B-grade.

Well if Obama is trying to correct the deficit, why is he adding to it?


Posted by DJ_Houston
-----------------
Well, for one thing, it''s gonna take some time to reverse the idiot-son''s tas rates - so the stinkin'' rich ain''t getting a free ride anymore...

[dj_houston]

Well if Obama is trying to correct the deficit, why is he adding to it?

[galloglaigh]

The American economy never did so well as the last time we had a Democrat as President -- low unemployment; low inflation, high growth rate; budget surpluses -- all in an era where Clinton had inherited a quadrupling of the National debt by the Bush and Ronnie RayGun regimes.
Posted by mtee12 at 08:00 PM : Jan 07, 2009



AND he did it with a rethuglican-controlled congress.

Clinton had the benefit of being AFTER Reagan. All the good things Reagan did were still paying off in the Clinton years.
Then Clinton botched things up, so by the time Dubya took office, all the Reagan prosperity was gone.
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 07:51 PM : Jan 07, 2009
=======================
Reagun prosperity?? You gotta be in a very high tax bracket to say something as outrageous as that!!