Ntruder

Seriously, I know you're not oblivious to what has been happening in our economy over the past few years. One second, you want to be completely serious, the next second, you're trying to pass off nonsensical Sean Hannity talking points in place of a serious discussion. Tell me with a straight face that Obama had any choice in this matter. He was handed this economic climate. He was handed an economy that was shrinking what, 4, 5%? That means that unless the government injects cash into the economy, our economy will continue to shrink, lay off workers, shrink some more (because there are more jobless), which causes more layoffs, and more shrinking, and when does it stop?

There is a several trillion dollar hole in our economy right now. For once, there is actually good reason to spend all this money. Spending a trillion dollars in Iraq: NOT a good reason. Spending a trillion dollars to try to salvage our crippled economy: GOOD reason. Running a 2 trillion budget deficit wasn't in Obama's long term plan for running his administration. Its an emergency action to stop the would be downward spiral of our economy, ultimately leading to a long depression. Is that what you'd want? Just let the middle class be wiped out by an economy in free-fall as businesses lay off millions of people?

I don't think conservatives fully appreciate the mechanics of a recession. When companies downsize, they leave CONSUMERS without income, meaning demand decreases. That means our economy shrinks EVEN MORE, because there is less demand. So then EVEN MORE companies downsize, to try to stay in business, and they lay off millions MORE people, and the economy SHRINKS EVEN MORE STILL, and this process will continue until something intervenes to fill the void.

If we don't spend all this money to make up for the lost consumer spending, what is going to stop the recession? What force will bring it into balance? Explain to me how that will happen, because that is something that I never learned in my years of studying this stuff in school.

Thank you. But I did take Civics in 4th grade, so I already knew this. Its just easier to generalize by president

#1, Bush used "emergency supplimentals" to fund his trillion dollar war in Iraq. He didn't include any of that in the budget. How is this any different?

#2, Ok, there, you just admit that the spending was needed. So why are we having this conversation? What was that whole first paragraph about then? See, I know that you get it; I don't see why you sometimes act like Obama has a choice.

#3, Bush handed out trillions of dollars to Wall Street as a parting gift on behalf of the American people, no strings attached. Obama hasn't even used all of his half of the TARP funds IIRC, and he is actually attaching rules to the acceptance of this money. Bush put NO controls on how any of the trillions of bailouts would be spent. Obama put SOME, probably not enough. When you treat Obama as a co-conspirator with Bush, its laughable. All of Obama's spending related actions are a DIRECT RESULT of Bush's failed economic policies, and 30 years of Reaganomics by Reagan, Bush, Bush and Clinton. You should be upset with them, but certainly not Obama!

When a vandal sets your house on fire, burns it nearly to the ground, and you call the fire department, and the fire truck tears up your lawn, are you honestly going to get pissed at the fire department??

You're right, sounds like our taxes on the wealthy are too low. Glad we agree. Maybe we should go back to that 71% top marginal rate. That would straighten out a lot of the deficit issues, don't you think?

Also, maybe we should actually tax the giant corporations who do business in this country, and close up the tax loopholes that allow them to be tax evaders. Oh wait, Obama is doing that.

I agree, its a recipe for disaster if we don't have fundamental economic change. Like, for example, raising taxes on the rich, balancing our trade deficit and reinstating import tariffs (most important), reinstating Glass-Steagel, and repealing Grahmm, Leech, Bliley, and finally, nationalizing the Federal Reserve

I want you to understand how we got into this mess. Milton Freidmann/Adam Smith style supply side economics adopted by Reagan, Bush sr, Clinton, and Bush jr, which let corporations remove all regulations that might keep them in check, let them run our country, write our laws, elect our congressmen, and destroy our democracy. One more of these free market hawks, and we might see a full blown fascist state emerge. Total corporate takeover.

Its an idea that is responsible, and the people who bought into that idea. You could argue Milton Freidmann is most responsible, the architect behind the bad ideas, although nobody forced Republicans and many corporate Democrats to listen to that kook.

We still have an economy in which productivity (supply) has outpaced wages (demand) for decades. Our economy grew way faster than wages supported, and the only way it was possible to do so was by way of expanding credit. With the help of the federal reserve, some giant banks, and the human desire for instant gratification, and without any regulation, we inflated a giant economic bubble that cannot be sustained.

It all comes down to greed; the most overlooked force in our universe. Corporations operate out of sheer greed; their only purpose is to generate a profit. Corporate executives are now paid in company stock; they're not interested in long term sustainability. They are interested in instant gratification. I could go on, but it all leads to one simple point:

Unregulated laissez faire capitalism does not work.