oldtimer Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 The Rolling Stones have taught us: "Havin' money is a full time job, I don't need the aggravation I'm a lazy slob so hang fire..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Actually it isn't so bad. Those who are crying must not remember or are old enough for Carter, the worthless one. He managed to mess things up so bad that we had inflation and recesion at the same time! Interest rates for a car loan was 22% YES TWENTY TWO PERCENT, I know I had one. Unemployment was double digets and he sat in his sweater beside the fire and talked every week. This is NOT the worst economy since the great deperession, not by a long shot but to hear the media types talk, you would think that word was at an end. Rant mode on: For the thin skin readers PLEASE SKIP THE REST OF THIS POST. The market goes up and down so does the economy we are in a down cycle at the moment. If this outragous "stimulis package" gets passed and signed we will be heading into a depression. That is what happened to deepen the "great depression" the government spent lots of money it did not have and pushed us further down.This pending spending by the government comes out to about $3500 per every person in the U.S. that is men, women and children. The portion of the debet on this bill alone for a family of 4 is $14,000 in ADDITION to their normal taxes! Call it a bailout bill and most people are opposed, call it a stimulus package and most people say OK, This spending is nothing more than pork on top of pork on top of pork for things like nature trails, defered maintance on buildings, handouts to pet eco projects and the like. Very little of it will actualy do any stimilus. Rant mode off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Call it a bailout bill and most people are opposed, call it a stimulus package and most people say OK, This spending is nothing more than pork on top of pork on top of pork for things like nature trails, defered maintance on buildings, handouts to pet eco projects and the like. Very little of it will actualy do any stimilus. I can understand people's opposition to a bailout and I tend to agree especially in the case of the auto and bank bailouts. Why should it be our problem that a company ran itself into the ground? However, I feel Obama's plan to invest in the infrastructure of America is a wise one. Many roads and public buildings in these parts are in desperate need of attention. Putting billions of dollars into America will create thousands of jobs for people like me who in turn will spend that money on housing, cars and maybe some more Klipsch speakers [] Construction has suffered an enormous blow from this downturned economy and investing in buildings and roads is most always a great way to stimulate spending. Think about FDR, think about all the post war building that lasted into the 60's. Creating jobs and getting people spending money again is the key to turning this economy around. And it's for those very reasons that we must also save the auto and bank industries. Millions of American jobs depend on it. No jobs = no money = no spending = RECESSION. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Call it a bailout bill and most people are opposed, call it a stimulus package and most people say OK, This spending is nothing more than pork on top of pork on top of pork for things like nature trails, defered maintance on buildings, handouts to pet eco projects and the like. Very little of it will actualy do any stimilus. I can understand people's opposition to a bailout and I tend to agree especially in the case of the auto and bank bailouts. Why should it be our problem that a company ran itself into the ground? However, I feel Obama's plan to invest in the infrastructure of America is a wise one. Many roads and public buildings in these parts are in desperate need of attention. Putting billions of dollars into America will create thousands of jobs for people like me who in turn will spend that money on housing, cars and maybe some more Klipsch speakers Construction has suffered an enormous blow from this downturned economy and investing in buildings and roads is most always a great way to stimulate spending. Think about FDR, think about all the post war building that lasted into the 60's. Creating jobs and getting people spending money again is the key to turning this economy around. And it's for those very reasons that we must also save the auto and bank industries. Millions of American jobs depend on it. No jobs = no money = no spending = RECESSION. This slough, along with $13 trillion in debt (or whatever it is, now), was 30 years in the making. Why the heck shouldn't we have 5-10 years of bottoming to tighten belts and get back to responsible government and citizenry? Nooooooo..... We can't suffer; we're entitled to not suffer. I'll say this.... When things get tight, everyone should tighten their belts and be more careful with money. That is the golden rule of proper budgeting. It blows me away that this golden rule applies to every person, corporation, business and charity - but not to government. It's just amazing! Simply amazing! The theme of my point.... "When Theory Collides with Common Sense." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Actually it isn't so bad. Those who are crying must not remember or are old enough for Carter, the worthless one. He managed to mess things up so bad that we had inflation and recesion at the same time! Interest rates for a car loan was 22% YES TWENTY TWO PERCENT, I know I had one. Unemployment was double digets and he sat in his sweater beside the fire and talked every week. This is NOT the worst economy since the great deperession, not by a long shot but to hear the media types talk, you would think that word was at an end. Rant mode on: For the thin skin readers PLEASE SKIP THE REST OF THIS POST. The market goes up and down so does the economy we are in a down cycle at the moment. If this outragous "stimulis package" gets passed and signed we will be heading into a depression. That is what happened to deepen the "great depression" the government spent lots of money it did not have and pushed us further down.This pending spending by the government comes out to about $3500 per every person in the U.S. that is men, women and children. The portion of the debet on this bill alone for a family of 4 is $14,000 in ADDITION to their normal taxes! Call it a bailout bill and most people are opposed, call it a stimulus package and most people say OK, This spending is nothing more than pork on top of pork on top of pork for things like nature trails, defered maintance on buildings, handouts to pet eco projects and the like. Very little of it will actualy do any stimilus. Rant mode off It's all so true it's worth reading again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 This slough, along with $13 trillion in debt (or whatever it is, now), was 30 years in the making. Why the heck shouldn't we have 5-10 years of bottoming to tighten belts and get back to responsible government and citizenry? Nooooooo..... We can't suffer; we're entitled to not suffer. I'll say this.... When things get tight, everyone should tighten their belts and be more careful with money. That is the golden rule of proper budgeting. It blows me away that this golden rule applies to every person, corporation, business and charity - but not to government. It's just amazing! Simply amazing! The theme of my point.... "When Theory Collides with Common Sense." Problem there is that many businesses wouldn't survive a 5-10 year recession. A small turn down in this modern economy has already wrecked havoc. We are not the same country we were 30 years ago. For better or worse, we have changed a great deal and have sent a large bulk of our manufacturing overseas. American business these days is based on retail and service industries, and these businesses will fail quickly without hard earned American cashflow. Economists have been warning us for some time that an economy based on Yahoo, iPods and variable rate mortgages was not the way to a stable American economy. The national debt was also 2.4 trillion dollars lower when Clinton left office than when he began and he also spent plenty of money on education and construction creating new jobs. Had we not been in an unnecessary war, Bush could have done what Obama plans to do... one of the oldest and simplest business plans: You gotta spend money to make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerwoodKhorns Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I agree and will add one thing. While many think self-employment is more risky, just the opposite is true. If you are self-employed and have 20 clients, when one fires/stops using you, your income does not go to $0.00. Self-employment allows much greater diversification. Unfortunately, it is work getting started. You really have to hustle for business. It doesn't just come to you because you have a great idea, you're smart, and you just bought a fax machine. Jeff, I agree but this is easy to say as you are in a very low overhead profession. All of your "infrastructure cost" was spent years ago getting your doctorate degree and passing the bar. It is difficult in other businesses where startup cost is much higher and money is very tight. My former employer went from 200+ employees to about 20 right now and I was out a little over one year ago and managed to keep them as a client. I have had some job offers but I just don't want to have to rely on anyone, so I do agree with your point. But, what do you do when you have spent years doing hundred million dollar real estate transactions? A little hard to find clients right now as our fair city is ground zero of the real estate meltdown. I am expaning to bankruptcy and loan workouts. Not much else to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 "The national debt was also 2.4 trillion dollars lower when Clinton left office than when he began..." Can you show us where this figure came from? Best info I can find indicates national debt increased every year Clinton was in office. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 ., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Debt as a % of GDP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Can you show us where this figure came from? Best info I can find indicates national debt increased every year Clinton was in office. I see your point Bob. I've had that number rolling around in my head for years now. Search the net and you'll find all kinds of numbers. Left wing numbers, right wing numbers. National debt vs. gross federal debt. The best link I could find was this: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ Of course this link is from a reputable news agency, but the source is 'Ol Bill. Wouldn't be the first time the White House lied I suppose. Another link shows this: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Whoops. JB beat me to it with charts and graphs. Top Notch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 This complicated subject seemingly can be boiled down to two figures: Total national debt and "public debt." The national debt is all that owed by the federal government to all holders of "debt instruments," while public debt is that held by states, corporations, individuals (as in savings bonds), etc., but does NOT include internal ("intragovernmental") federal debt such as that held by the Social Security Trust Funds. Public debt is included in the total debt figure. BTW, private debt is not included in any of these numbers. It was the public debt that went down in the Clinton years, following considerable but unfortunately temporary attempts to pay it down. However, the intragovernmental went up, cancelling out the reductions in the public debt. I don't understand how the public debt savings got passed over into intragovernmental holdings, but I AM suspicious! The charts below from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt) show the difference (national debt is called "gross" debt). They apparently underestimate current debt levels, since national debt in 2008 was around $10.6 trillion, with around $6 trillion of that in public debt: I am shocked at how much both kinds of national/public debt have increased since 1999 (table below). War and tax cuts, I guess, but something is also happening with the intragovernmental that I certainly don't understand. The values for fiscal years 1999-2008 are:[27] United States Public Debt End of fiscal year Intragovernmental Holdings Debt Held by the Public 1999 2.020 trillion 3.636 trillion 2000 2.269 trillion 3.405 trillion 2001 2.468 trillion 3.339 trillion 2002 2.675 trillion 3.553 trillion 2003 2.859 trillion 3.924 trillion 2004 3.072 trillion 4.307 trillion 2005 3.331 trillion 4.601 trillion 2006 3.664 trillion 4.843 trillion 2007 3.958 trillion 5.049 trillion 2008 4.216 trillion 5.809 trillion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest " " Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 This is all very simple and does not require complex math and slides. The period during the mid 80's is the point in our history in which the second wave of baby boomers entered the work force. Families shrank from a family of six to seven down to families of three to five. Folks who come in even later than the second wave baby boomers have families of two to three. making babies=economic growth reduction in babies=reduction in economic growth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 One could quibble with that point fritz. People stopped having babies as much because of economic necessity. There has also been a huge rise in two worker couples, again due to economic forces which have made it far more difficult for the family model of provider parent/stay at home with the kids parent to exist. It's the dog wagging the tail, not the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkin Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 LarryC wrote the following post at Wed, Jan 21 2009 9:21 PM: I am shocked at how much both kinds of national/public debt have increased since 1999 (table below). War and tax cuts, I guess, but something is also happening with the intragovernmental that I certainly don't understand. Could it have something to do with increased governvment spending in all sectors. More Social security, medicated and medicare since the baby boomers are aging. Also a lot more spending on governmental programs. I don't nececarily mean as percent of GDP but in gross numbers. You kind of have to look at these numbers as a percentage of GDP and also inflation factors. Most of that is above my pay grade. Doesn't look good anyway. Pay cash, pay credit card off every month, no morgage or car loan. Live in a smaller house, drive a cheaper car, take less expensive vacations until you can pay for them up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Where is $ appearing that is required to support our current debt? Past military? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 This is all very simple and does not require complex math and slides. The period during the mid 80's is the point in our history in which the second wave of baby boomers entered the work force. Families shrank from a family of six to seven down to families of three to five. Folks who come in even later than the second wave baby boomers have families of two to three. making babies=economic growth reduction in babies=reduction in economic growth ??? We have the largest population ever and growing. I don't think more babies are going to save the economy. Maybe fewer illegal aliens would lessen the burden though, and return millions of jobs to American citizens again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Where are we spending the money? Well that says it all, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.