Cleveland Buck;863895 wrote:Moderates, Democrats, and typical Republicans have no solutions for the problems we face, so why would anyone be interested in that?

Well plenty of reasonable, intelligent people flat out disagree with you. Gold-bugs continue to shout to the mountains about problems that we do not have. Mr. Market does not feel that the U.S. will have problems paying its debt and yes, the temporary commodity inflation that we saw in June has come down and proves, once again, as both the San Francisco Fed and Atlanta Fed reproduced in new studies that Headline Inflation (which takes into account commodity prices) tracks core inflation. And yes it was caused by demand.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/04/21/chinas-resource-demand-feeding-its-own-inflation/


And mean while this is Peter Schiff at LewRockwell.com, yes that Peter Schiff and that Lew Rockwell....Even he agrees that a WWII type stimulus would work...but libertarian types don't believe in it out of principle....it is prima facie wrong for the government to act and to end suffering. I mean why would you borrow the money from Uncle Ben when you believe Uncle Ben's job to be worthy of the highest contempt?

[QUOTE=There is overwhelming agreement among economists that the Second World War was responsible for decisively ending the Great Depression....

The numbers were indeed staggering. From 1940 to 1944, federal spending shot up more than six times from just $9.5 billion to $72 billion. This increase led to a corresponding $75 billion expansion of US nominal GDP, from $101 billion in 1940 to $175 billion by 1944. In other words, the war effort caused US GDP to increase close to 75% in just four years!

The War also wiped out the country's chronic unemployment problems. In 1940, eleven years after the Crash, unemployment was still at a stubbornly high 8.1%. (because of too soon contractionary policies in 1937 just like we are doing now...this is my addition) By 1944, the figure had dropped to less than 1%. The fresh influx of government spending and deployment of working-age men overseas drew women into the workforce in unprecedented numbers, thereby greatly expanding economic output. In addition, government spending on wartime technology produced a great many breakthroughs that impacted consumer goods production for decades...Surely, the tremendous GDP growth created by such spending would make short work of the so-called Great Recession...[/QUOTE]

Libertarians always say this "artificial prop up, etc." fetishizing the "real" prices and lecturing the mainstream about what they say is really going on. I mean Ron Paul claimed in the first Pub debate that we'd have 10% economic growth if we eliminated the Fed! Unicorns are reallz! There is not a single ultra-minimum state nor anarcho-capitalistic society on Earth and there are no nation's without a central bank. If history is any guide you cannot have communism without tyranny and you cannot have the ultra-minimal state without anarchy. Fair minded and compromising rational conservative leaning, liberal leaning and moderate people can meld their ideas together so that society may persevere. The far right does not hold some special province over the magical formula just like the left does not. And even if it did, this is a pluralistic society with a wide array of comprehensive doctrines encompassing vastly different concepts of justice and good government, and if we are to stick together...if that is desirable and I think it is, we must do as the protestants and catholics did and come to a deal that reasonable men may agree upon.

And for what it's worth, if we had the 5.6% inflation that we had during the Reagan years, the debt overhang that is burdening our nation and our citizenry would be getting some relief and may be a good thing in this depressed economy but unfortunately we do not.

I am very disappointed in President Obama and Congress and the media. The rational voices have been silent and Obama has done nothing but cower and be a wimp. He is not a leader it would seem. But, every single Conservative running for President apparently believes in policies far to the right of the mainstream and not in line with the majority of the people or mainstream economic thought. So it's very frustrating.

There are solutions but they don't meld well with your ideal of pristine jeffersonianism. JMO. We need economic growth now and cannot afford to wait for the long run.

Writerbuckeye;863920 wrote:Chrissy Matthews said on his show that the media will be spending every nickle they have investigating Perry's background.

Like we didn't already know that.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/15/chris-matthews-news-organizations-are-going-spend-every-nickel-they-h

This paragraph summarizes and confirms the unmistakable media bias that is rotting and decaying this country today:

Wouldn't it have been nice if Matthews, Robinson, and the rest of their colleagues behaved this way in 2007 and 2008? Maybe if they had, we'd have someone qualified in the White House now.

Instead, having completely abdicated their journalistic responsibilities in order to assist the inexperienced junior senator from Illinois attain the highest office in the land, media members are now going to bring all forces to bear to discredit any serious challengers to ensure his reelection.

This comes days after Matthews was jubilant at the thought of eleven of his twelve regulars on the syndicated program bearing his name claiming it's going to be easier for the Obama campaign to attack Perry than Romney.

With all the time, energy, and money the press are - in Matthews and Robinson's view - willing to spend on investigating the Texas governor, it's a metaphysical certitude the White House will have plenty of ammunition to place in negative ads regardless of veracity or accuracy.

Makes you seriously worry about the future of this nation witnessing such an unholy collusion between the media and our most powerful elected official.

majorspark;863945 wrote:Its been nearly 25yrs and ones personal politics can change. Mine have somewhat. As for Perry and Gore, I'd say Gore did more changing. Al Gore has learched so far left he is hardly recognizable.

Losing the same election 5 times can do that to a person . . .

"I'd say Gore did more changing. Al Gore has learched so far left he is hardly recognizable."

Al Gore isn't left, he's just lost it. Most people have heard about the global climate part of his speech in Aspen, if one has 30 minutes or so to listen to the whole thing, here it is:

http://soundcloud.com/aspenjournalism/al-gore-highlights-from-aspen-institute-remarks#

Nothing short of disturbing. There is little he says that makes any sense at all, using multi-syllabic words with the wrong meaning does not impress me. We dodged a bullet by not electing him in 2000.

jmog;863927 wrote:If you truly believe Obama is a moderate then you are really far left.

Explain to me why any number of rational conservatives agree with me. Bruce Bartlett, the author of Reaganomics (Bruce R. Bartlett, Reagonomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action, Arlington House (1981)). The Man literally wrote the Kemp-Roth tax bill which formed the basis for Ronald Reagan's 1981 Tax Cut. The man was literally an architect in the 80's conservative nirvana and he has called President Obama a moderate. I've already posted the article. Why is he wrong? How can one of Ronald Reagan's right hand men think that if Obama is a socialist mastermind?

Are you sure it is not you that is so far right that you might not even recognize the paragons of conservative of decades past? I mean there's no way you would agree with this statement I imagine. "vanishing loopholes and a minimum tax will mean that everybody and every corporation pay their fair share." If you were in the midst of a recession? But a certain conservative icon would.

People way smarter than me are recognizing that Obama is not the change liberals can believe in.

But let me point out again....even if we were to accept that Obama is this secret socialist in his heart and dreams of a fantasy world wherein the U.S. is brought down...which is what the conservatives here, Writer, BG, Quaker, etc. believe based upon evidence such as his former pastor and a dinner party with Bill Ayers rather than his policy record....he has in no way governed that way and moderate conservatives (which don't exist in the republican party anymore) are agreeing more and more.

Are they rational conservatives because they agree with you?

"But let me point out again....even if we were to accept that Obama is this secret socialist in his heart and dreams of a fantasy world wherein the U.S. is brought down.."

I don't think that at all, I think he's unqualified and will listen to anyone that continues to praise him, whether it is the far left wing or public opinion that urges him to compromise. He only appears to be a "socialist" because that's the crowd that provided him the doors that have lead to where he is. Those doors are shut. He has to run on his accomplishment, which are what?

bases_loaded;864015 wrote:Are they rational conservatives because they agree with you?

Perhaps moderate was a better word. But, I would indeed say that if you would not take 10 spending cuts to 1 increase in revenue (as every R POTUS candidate said they would) when you claim deficit and debt reduction to be your biggest priority that is an irrational bargaining position. Ronald Reagan, the Conservative DemiGod Raised taxes on Corporations in the 1982 recession and raised the Payroll taxes on the Middle Class later in his presidency....all in the name of helping to curb deficits. All told as POTUS he raised taxes 11 times and had the audacity to raise them in a recession and raised them more than President Obama even desired to in his initial bargaining position during the debt ceiling debates and the Bush Tax Cuts debate.

By Contrast Grover Norquist says this, which all the contemporary republicans seem to agree with; "tax hikes are what politicians do when they don't have the determination or the competence to govern." That is an unreasonable position it would seem and in direct contrast to the Chief Icon of the Conservative movement when the man who edited his presidential diaries, Douglas Brinkley, had this to say about him "Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes...He knew it was necessary at times..."

You tell me which is a more reasonable proposition: 1. X is always and forever wrong regardless of circumstance or utility; 2. X is usually wrong but may be justified under the right circumstances or projected utility.

Manhattan Buckeye;864020 wrote:"But let me point out again....even if we were to accept that Obama is this secret socialist in his heart and dreams of a fantasy world wherein the U.S. is brought down.."

I don't think that at all, I think he's unqualified and will listen to anyone that continues to praise him, whether it is the far left wing or public opinion that urges him to compromise. He only appears to be a "socialist" because that's the crowd that provided him the doors that have lead to where he is. Those doors are shut. He has to run on his accomplishment, which are what?

Really I agree with much of what you say here. But c'mon man, although you are certainly a conservative individual, you must agree that many of your brethren on your side of the spectrum, have a genuine belief that he is a neo-colonialist seeking to bring down the economy on purpose...including it seems, at least one prominent POTUS candidate. Maybe that doesn't bother you because it would achieve the purpose of getting him out of office but I don't know...

I'm fine with raising taxes as long as every piece of government waste has been cut first. Raising taxes to make up for a bad social security or Medicare program is not ok with me. Fix what's broken and if we still aren't meeting the deficit then we can talk about raising the burden of the life blood of the country, working tax paying Americans.

Stumbled across this
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/stimulus-thinking

Adventures in Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance

wrote: THIS (gated, sorry) was the most amazing thing I read today. It's a couple of weeks old, but bear with me here. It comes from a post by Judson Phillips, the Tennessee lawyer who heads Tea Party Nation, a far-right pressure group, objecting to prospective defence cuts proposed by the administration, which he refers to as "the Party of Treason". Rather than downsizing from 11 to 9 carrier task forces, Mr Phillips says, we should be building even more aircraft carriers:

If we decided to build a couple of new carriers, thousands of workers would be hired for the shipyards. Thousands of employees would be hired for the steel mills that would provide the steel for the hull and various sub contractors would hire thousands. Do you know what that means?It means they would receive paychecks and go out and spend that money. That would help a recovery. That is a shovel ready project!Increasing spending for the military does a couple of things. It not only not only stimulates the economy, it protects our nation. That is a better investment than say spending money on teaching Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly.
Now, an aircraft carrier costs about $9 billion. The prospect of someone in the government trying to design a programme that could spend $9 billion teaching Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly fills me with limitless mirth and joy. I think to succeed in spending that kind of money, you'd basically have to stage the programme inside a brand-new purpose-built aircraft carrier.

But what's amazing here, obviously, is that Mr Phillips is justifying building aircraft carriers because government spending creates jobs and stimulates the economy. And he's right about that! But it seems that there are no other things the government spends money on, apart from defence, that Mr Phillips believes can stimulate the economy. He appears to believe that while government spending on aircraft carriers leads to workers getting hired, spending their paychecks, and helping the recovery, government spending on highways, high-speed rail, education, and health care does not. Meanwhile, Mr Phillips also believes, as he argued in a Washington Post op-ed last week, that the government shouldn't borrow any more money, because that's leading us to economic ruin, like Greece. And he believes that the government shouldn't raise taxes, because that kills jobs. So where is the money supposed to come from? We're left with one possibility: Mr Phillips believes that we should build more aircraft carriers to stimulate the economy, and fund it by cutting other government spending programmes. But obviously when you cut other government spending programmes, the people who were working for those programmes lose their jobs, stop receiving paychecks, and stop spending money, which harms the recovery. And then there's the question of how many $2.6m prostitute-safe-drinking programmes you can find to cut. You need 3,500 of them to fund your $9 billion aircraft carrier.

The tea-party movement has spent the past year arguing that stimulus doesn't work and cannot, by nature, create more jobs or economic activity. The idea that a major tea-party figure can turn around and make a bog-standard argument for defence spending on Keynesian grounds testifies to a startling capacity for cognitive dissonance. I'm impressed. And just to make it clear: I believe that it is absolutely worthwhile to explore whether Chinese prostitutes would be less likely to contract HIV if they learned some techniques and habits to avoid becoming drunk in encounters with clients, and I have every confidence that the money for the programme Mr Phillips attacks was awarded in a proper merit-based fashion.

^^^Silliness on too many levels to be taken seriously. Keynesian economics will never create real growth. It's all a mirage that comes crumbling down when the pipeline stops flowing. And with no real wealth being created, the pipeline does eventually shut down. Ask the lovely folks of the USSR how it all worked out for them.

As for lumping me in with those who believe Obama's goal is to bring the US down, please find a post of mine that says such. I doubt you will (unless I was being overly dramatic for effect) because I don't believe that for a second.

I believe the man is incompetent and an ideologue to the nth degree. I also believe he is a classic narcissist who needs the adoration of those around him, and can't stand it when people disagree. The combination is proving deadly for our economic outlook right now, as witnessed by the "staggering" GDP numbers that have been coming out and then getting revised down most of the time.

The types of strangling regulatory controls that Obama is setting up via Obama care, the EPA and other agencies screams LEFTIST and not moderate. To think or say otherwise is either delusional thinking or lies.

BoatShoes, what you fail to recognize is that most conservatives are ok with tax increases for the right reason.

However, most conservatives have watched our elected officials in DC completely screw up tax increases over and over and over again to the point where we don't want them doing so one last time.

Most conservatives, on this board (even the ones you label as far right wing) has said MANY times that they would be ok for tax increases AFTER we balance the budget by spending cuts and IF the tax increases are bound by law to pay off the debt (not lower the deficit).

Sorry, I am just a fiscally sound person.

If I spend more than I make, I HAVE to reduce my monthly bills FIRST and THEN I can go looking for a 2nd part time job to pay off my mountain of credit card debt. Its just sound reasoning skills which DC doesn't appear to have.

Writerbuckeye;864078 wrote:^^^Silliness on too many levels to be taken seriously. Keynesian economics will never create real growth. It's all a mirage that comes crumbling down when the pipeline stops flowing. And with no real wealth being created, the pipeline does eventually shut down. Ask the lovely folks of the USSR how it all worked out for them.

As for lumping me in with those who believe Obama's goal is to bring the US down, please find a post of mine that says such. I doubt you will (unless I was being overly dramatic for effect) because I don't believe that for a second.

I believe the man is incompetent and an ideologue to the nth degree. I also believe he is a classic narcissist who needs the adoration of those around him, and can't stand it when people disagree. The combination is proving deadly for our economic outlook right now, as witnessed by the "staggering" GDP numbers that have been coming out and then getting revised down most of the time.

The types of strangling regulatory controls that Obama is setting up via Obama care, the EPA and other agencies screams LEFTIST and not moderate. To think or say otherwise is either delusional thinking or lies.

Apologies for lumping you in with that contingent. Nevertheless your bias against the facts remains fervent. And you are wrong about Keynesian economics and even hardcore libertarians like Richard Posner and Peter Schiff would agree. I've even posted one of their words today and the other recent. I mean I've provided evidence today of one of the most well known Austrian/Libertarian economists at least acknowledging that Fiscal Stimulus would make quick work of the Recession (but not endorsing it because he doesn't want to borrow from Uncle Ben...he wrote it before we could borrow for free but I suspect he'd still be against it as debt is a moral issue for the austrian types). If you believe WWII ended the great depression then you must believe that a Fiscal stimulus can end a depression. Cannot have it both ways. We know that Monetary Policy is preferable and works like Volcker demonstrated in 82 but we are near out of monetary options as interest rates are at the zero bound and the economy hasn't recovered and monetary expansion did little and did not cause inflation just as the Keynes/Hicks model would predict and just like it predicted in Japan in the 90s. Your comment about the USSR really just shows you seem to associate a temporary fiscal stimulus with that type of statism which is not the case at all in any shape or form. The question of fiscal stimulus is not if it would work but rather a normative question...and for the last few years we've heard that we should not because the deficit is the primary concern and the market has repudiated that proposition with malevolence. The reality is, even if you were to accept the simple acknowledged truth that expansionary economic policies and contractionary economic policies are contractionary...I'd be willing to be that you would rather knowingly choose the contractionary policy...knowing it would lead to hire unemployment, more harmful effects on medium to long term deficits and slower economic growth because it really means more to you that Barack Obama lose the presidency. I mean you know full well that if we arched towards full employment that BHO's odds of getting elected would increase and that is far worse than Americans suffering.

Let me ask you this, just suspend your disbelief for just a moment, if you were to have a Crystal Ball and you could look into it and know that if we passed a dramatic fiscal stimulus much larger than the first....something like $6 trillion...and you could know that it would drop unemployment to below 3% and cause very strong economic growth enabling us to rapidly pay back that borrowed cost just like after WWII....but you also knew it would guarantee BHO's reelection, would you do it? Or would you rather stick out the remaining year on the brink of another recession so as to increase the chance of BHO losing.

(*Please, I know you don't believe in Fiscal stimulus but just pretend)

BoatShoes;864004 wrote:But let me point out again....even if we were to accept that Obama is this secret socialist in his heart and dreams of a fantasy world wherein the U.S. is brought down...which is what the conservatives here, Writer, BG, Quaker, etc. believe based upon evidence such as his former pastor and a dinner party with Bill Ayers rather than his policy record....he has in no way governed that way and moderate conservatives (which don't exist in the republican party anymore) are agreeing more and more.

His policy agenda, his appointments, his prior voting record (when he found the time to vote), his mentors, his rehtoric, his support, and his actions all align with a far-left radical dogma. It is undeniable. And that is what makes your assertions so incredibly bizarre.

From the Wall St the other day:

"That is why my own answer to the question, "What Happened to Obama?" is that nothing happened to him. He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president, and it is this rather than inexperience or incompetence or weakness or stupidity that accounts for the richly deserved failure both at home and abroad of the policies stemming from that reprehensible cast of mind."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576502093021646166.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Opinion

jmog;864080 wrote:BoatShoes, what you fail to recognize is that most conservatives are ok with tax increases for the right reason.

However, most conservatives have watched our elected officials in DC completely screw up tax increases over and over and over again to the point where we don't want them doing so one last time.

Most conservatives, on this board (even the ones you label as far right wing) has said MANY times that they would be ok for tax increases AFTER we balance the budget by spending cuts and IF the tax increases are bound by law to pay off the debt (not lower the deficit).

Sorry, I am just a fiscally sound person.

If I spend more than I make, I HAVE to reduce my monthly bills FIRST and THEN I can go looking for a 2nd part time job to pay off my mountain of credit card debt. Its just sound reasoning skills which DC doesn't appear to have.

You are the opposite of fiscally sound. There is a Republican House. No new social program will ever get to BHO's desk to spend any increase of revenues on. We are taking in 14% of GDP, 4% points below the historical average. You have endorsed the exact opposite strategy of Ronald Reagan which was to use revenue increases to pair down deficit concerns. And, you also fail to acknowledge that since the 70's, sound budgets and surpluses have only been used to justify tax cuts (with out spending cuts tied to them...ensuring deficits). This notion that "if we give more revenue up it'll just get spent" is not supported by recent history.

It makes just as much sense if you're spending more thank you make to get another job if you're making less money than you have historically. Shit, even Dave Ramsey would disagree with you. You're acting like you cannot do both at the same time which is an erroneous red herring.

BoatShoes;864116 wrote:You are the opposite of fiscally sound. There is a Republican House. No new social program will ever get to BHO's desk to spend any increase of revenues on. We are taking in 14% of GDP, 4% points below the historical average. You have endorsed the exact opposite strategy of Ronald Reagan which was to use revenue increases to pair down deficit concerns. And, you also fail to acknowledge that since the 70's, sound budgets and surpluses have only been used to justify tax cuts (with out spending cuts tied to them...ensuring deficits). This notion that "if we give more revenue up it'll just get spent" is not supported by recent history.

It makes just as much sense if you're spending more thank you make to get another job if you're making less money than you have historically. ****, even Dave Ramsey would disagree with you. You're acting like you cannot do both at the same time which is an erroneous red herring.

I'm going to have to apologize to the board, I live 12 hours away and I'm only up due to a 3:00 conference call US east coast time and am very, very tired, but I've read this post times and have no idea what point is trying to be made. Grammatical and spelling errors aside (I'm guilty of those myself), what the heck are you talking about?

BoatShoes;863985 wrote:There are solutions but they don't meld well with your ideal of pristine jeffersonianism. JMO. We need economic growth now and cannot afford to wait for the long run.

I guess it depends on your definition of solution then.

What you are looking for is the next bubble, and the best way to get that would be to eliminate regulation and wait. Right now the Federal Reserve is flooding the market with cheap money and free credit, but all that is doing is refilling the balance sheets of the banks and countries that are/were insolvent. Once those trillions are put back on the balance sheets then prices will soar and someone somewhere will decide the next big thing and a new bubble will be formed that will last us a little while.

And Ron Paul must be nuts if he thinks the economy can grow without the Federal Reserve. Look at the 1920s where the Fed was pumping money out as fast as they could and the GDP grew from $88 billion in 1920 to $103 billion in 1929, a 17% increase. (To be fair, the WWI inflation bust then happened and GDP dropped to $74 million in 1921, so from bottom to top the GDP grew around 40%.) The roaring 20s were the most prosperous time in our nation's history thanks to the Federal Reserve. Of course that prosperity was followed by a bust that took the GDP from $103 billion in 1929 to $58.7 billion in 1932 and the GDP didn't reach the 1929 level again until 1941. Inflation causes booms and busts and the more you inflate the bigger the bust.

In 1880 we were savages with no Federal Reserve and a gold standard. Of course fractional reserve banking was still around, so we did still have inflation of the money supply, but not nearly like we do nowadays. From 1880 to 1889, prices plummeted, so obviously times were "tough", but the GDP grew by 34% ($10.3 billion to $13.8 billion), production skyrocketed, and real wages increased by 20%. This was followed by the "Panic of 1893", where the economy fell from $16.3 billion to $14.1 billion and reached 1892 levels again a few years later.

Price inflation is an effect of the real problem which is money supply inflation. Prices aren't rising as fast as you would expect right now because that extra money is still stuck propping up the banks and insolvent nations. The thing is, the whole world has been artficially inflating their economies for so long that it could take a while to prop them up and we might hyperinflate ourselves trying to do it.

Looking back at WWII spending to finally bring us out of the Depression, I don't know if you should be bragging about a $63 billion increase in spending to create $74 billion in economic growth, which after you pay interest on the debt and account for inflation, probably ends up as a loss anyway. Keynesian spending has never and will never stimulate the private economy.

Your options for "solutions" are:
1. To put a government band aid on the problem, and keep borrowing money for nonsensical stimulus.
2. Keep printing money and fuel a new bubble that will simulate prosperity for a few years and hope that the next time we try to inflate our way out of trouble it doesn't destroy the currency.
3. Actually solve the problem and let the economy deflate like it so desperately needs to so that domestic prices are affordable and labor isn't overpriced and it would be cheaper to produce our own products instead of buying them from elsewhere.

Cleveland Buck;864122 wrote:I guess it depends on your definition of solution then.

What you are looking for is the next bubble, and the best way to get that would be to eliminate regulation and wait. Right now the Federal Reserve is flooding the market with cheap money and free credit, but all that is doing is refilling the balance sheets of the banks and countries that are/were insolvent. Once those trillions are put back on the balance sheets then prices will soar and someone somewhere will decide the next big thing and a new bubble will be formed that will last us a little while.

And Ron Paul must be nuts if he thinks the economy can grow without the Federal Reserve. Look at the 1920s where the Fed was pumping money out as fast as they could and the GDP grew from $88 billion in 1920 to $103 billion in 1929, a 17% increase. (To be fair, the WWI inflation bust then happened and GDP dropped to $74 million in 1921, so from bottom to top the GDP grew around 40%.) The roaring 20s were the most prosperous time in our nation's history thanks to the Federal Reserve. Of course that prosperity was followed by a bust that took the GDP from $103 billion in 1929 to $58.7 billion in 1932 and the GDP didn't reach the 1929 level again until 1941. Inflation causes booms and busts and the more you inflate the bigger the bust.

In 1880 we were savages with no Federal Reserve and a gold standard. Of course fractional reserve banking was still around, so we did still have inflation of the money supply, but not nearly like we do nowadays. From 1880 to 1889, prices plummeted, so obviously times were "tough", but the GDP grew by 34% ($10.3 billion to $13.8 billion), production skyrocketed, and real wages increased by 20%. This was followed by the "Panic of 1893", where the economy fell from $16.3 billion to $14.1 billion and reached 1892 levels again a few years later.

Price inflation is an effect of the real problem which is money supply inflation. Prices aren't rising as fast as you would expect right now because that extra money is still stuck propping up the banks and insolvent nations. The thing is, the whole world has been artficially inflating their economies for so long that it could take a while to prop them up and we might hyperinflate ourselves trying to do it.

Looking back at WWII spending to finally bring us out of the Depression, I don't know if you should be bragging about a $63 billion increase in spending to create $74 billion in economic growth, which after you pay interest on the debt and account for inflation, probably ends up as a loss anyway. Keynesian spending has never and will never stimulate the private economy.

Your options for "solutions" are:
1. To put a government band aid on the problem, and keep borrowing money for nonsensical stimulus.
2. Keep printing money and fuel a new bubble that will simulate prosperity for a few years and hope that the next time we try to inflate our way out of trouble it doesn't destroy the currency.
3. Actually solve the problem and let the economy deflate like it so desperately needs to so that domestic prices are affordable and labor isn't overpriced and it would be cheaper to produce our own products instead of buying them from elsewhere.

There's your answer, boat.

As for the question about having a good economy and Obama getting re-elected: I'd take the good economy of course. I've said it before. But what you're describing is some leftist wet dream...not reality.

BoatShoes;864004 wrote:Explain to me why any number of rational conservatives agree with me. Bruce Bartlett, the author of Reaganomics (Bruce R. Bartlett, Reagonomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action, Arlington House (1981)). The Man literally wrote the Kemp-Roth tax bill which formed the basis for Ronald Reagan's 1981 Tax Cut. The man was literally an architect in the 80's conservative nirvana and he has called President Obama a moderate. I've already posted the article. Why is he wrong? How can one of Ronald Reagan's right hand men think that if Obama is a socialist mastermind?

We all knew who Reagan was and what he believed before Bruce Bartlett came along. The speeches for GE, helping Goldwater's campaign, 8 years as governor, running against Ford in '76. So he had a record before he had a record. Now, the details as President reflect the reality of governing with the likes of Tip ONeill running the House- same as Obama dealing with Boehner.

People way smarter than me are recognizing that Obama is not the change liberals can believe in.

But let me point out again....even if we were to accept that Obama is this secret socialist in his heart and dreams of a fantasy world wherein the U.S. is brought down...which is what the conservatives here, Writer, BG, Quaker, etc. believe based upon evidence such as his former pastor and a dinner party with Bill Ayers rather than his policy record....he has in no way governed that way and moderate conservatives (which don't exist in the republican party anymore) are agreeing more and more

By "governed" I assume you mean in the normal constitutional fashion, wherby the President signs or vetoes bills that have been passed by both houses of Congress. What you're forgetting, and what we conspiracy theorists are saying, is that his true intentions and motives can be seen in countless areas- unending regulations by unelected bureaucrats in the EPA, etc, etc, his mentors- none of whom have one good thing to say about the USA, his appointments/czars- none of whom faced any scrutiny from the establishment media or Congressional committees, and on and on.

Cleveland Buck;864122 wrote:Your options for "solutions" are:
1. To put a government band aid on the problem, and keep borrowing money for nonsensical stimulus.
2. Keep printing money and fuel a new bubble that will simulate prosperity for a few years and hope that the next time we try to inflate our way out of trouble it doesn't destroy the currency.
3. Actually solve the problem and let the economy deflate like it so desperately needs to so that domestic prices are affordable and labor isn't overpriced and it would be cheaper to produce our own products instead of buying them from elsewhere.

#3 won't happen. Despite their lectures about Federal fiscal responsibility, the Chinese will continue to artificially prop up the U.S. economy so we can keep purchasing cheap goods from their subsidized industries and prevent their own underpaid masses from being unemployed.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/ron-paul-beats-gov-rick-perry-and-all-others-in-texas-gop-poll.html

I'm telling you guys...Ron Paul has a ton of followers...The mainstream media hates it, but there is no denying this guy has a serious shot of winning.

baseballstud24;865258 wrote:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/ron-paul-beats-gov-rick-perry-and-all-others-in-texas-gop-poll.html

I'm telling you guys...Ron Paul has a ton of followers...The mainstream media hates it, but there is no denying this guy has a serious shot of winning.

Ummm, really?

Azimuth seems to have only done a few polls, judging from its website. If you write to the email address provided on the site, it quickly bounces back with "Unknown address error 550-'unrouteable address.'" Also, the only photo on the site is one of several people on the phone that looks remarkably similar to one taken by a Flickr user named Barack Obama who captioned the photo as "Phone Bank to Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

baseballstud24;865258 wrote:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/ron-paul-beats-gov-rick-perry-and-all-others-in-texas-gop-poll.html

I'm telling you guys...Ron Paul has a ton of followers...The mainstream media hates it, but there is no denying this guy has a serious shot of winning.

Ron Paul's foreign policy positions will keep him from being electable.

haha...So how do you guys describe him falling just 1 % behind Bachmann in the straw poll? Oh, let me guess, the straw poll doesn't mean anything all of the sudden?

Con_Alma;865311 wrote:Ron Paul's foreign policy positions will keep him from being electable.

Ron Paul being Ron Paul will keep him him from being electable. I respect a lot of his views and ideas (and disagree with some of them), but he isn't executive level. He'd make a fine cabinet secretary and respected counsel, but that is as far as it gets for him.