PDA

View Full Version : Americans Paying Down Debt



Gayle in MD
02-16-2011, 01:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Climbing out of debt, Americans are saving more

By Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 15, 2011; 7:16 PM

The recession that just rocked the U.S. economy happened in part because Americans were borrowing and spending more than they could afford. Now, three years after the downturn began, families are moving faster than many analysts had expected to put their finances in order by paying down debt and boosting their savings



That bodes well for the recovery. Once Americans get their savings to a comfortable level, they can increase their spending all over again - but this time without necessarily going into hock - and give the economy a badly needed lift.

Compared with the summer of 2008, when consumer debt peaked, Americans now have 7 percent less mortgage debt, 12 percent less in auto loans and 15 percent less credit card debt, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Loan payments last year were at their lowest level in a decade.

Meanwhile, Americans are saving at nearly triple the rate they did between 2007 and 2009, setting aside 5.3 percent of their disposable income in December, according to the Commerce Department.

It's not just that people are becoming more frugal. Indebtedness has decreased in part because banks are less inclined to extend loans and have written off billions of dollars in loans that went bad.

But a range of government and private data show that ordinary Americans, such as Brenda Marshall of Clinton, are playing a large role in improving the economic picture.

"I never would have thought I would be able to get my credit card bills under control, and I'm really proud that I've been able to do it," said Marshall, 52. She has paid about $5,000 in credit card debt over the past year and expects to retire the remaining $3,000 by April.



</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "How far along are we in readjusting household balance sheets?" said Mark Greene, chief executive of Fair Isaac, the company that produces FICO credit scores. "We are clearly well along the way, and I think we're probably at about the halfway point. We may have another year or so to go."

Three factors have been contributing to falling levels of consumer debt, not all equally encouraging.

People are choosing to pay down bills. And when consumers pay off credit cards, auto loans or mortgage debt, it benefits the economy because they will have more to spend in the future.

The lower debt levels reflect tight lending standards. Some people might want to borrow but can't get credit. Once banks feel more comfortable giving loans, the economy might get a boost. But there's a risk that people are again taking out loans they can't afford.

Finally, banks and other lenders have been writing down loans as unlikely to be repaid. That does the economy no good because people who couldn't make mortgage or credit card payments are unlikely to drive economic activity.

Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York examined whether consumers are reducing their debt or just defaulting.

"That's the question we wanted to address. And we're satisfied that through 2009 there's evidence they were doing more than just defaulting, but in fact, paying down both mortgage and other obligations," said Andrew Haughwout, an economist at the New York Fed.



</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On Tuesday, the Commerce Department announced that retail sales inched up 0.3 percent in January for the seventh straight month.

The amount of revolving consumer debt - primarily on credit cards - fell for 26 straight months, according to Federal Reserve data, most months by billions of dollars.

In December, it rose for the first time since September 2008, increasing $2.3 billion.

</div></div>



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...ST2011021502863 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021502605_2.html?sid=ST2011021502863)


<span style="color: #990000"> Good sign, if the Repubs don't Screw it up, pandering to the rich, and the M.I.Congressional Complex, and making huge cuts that loses millions of jobs, which they already seem determined to do.

They have already held back the recovery, for years now, and when and if they screw it up even more, they're blame everybody else for it, it's the Republican Way.

G. </span>

pooltchr
02-16-2011, 01:45 PM
Very good. Now, apply those same ideas to the federal government and you might understand why some of us are pushing for some drastic spending cuts in Washington.

Steve

Sev
02-16-2011, 01:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very good. Now, apply those same ideas to the federal government and you might understand why some of us are pushing for some drastic spending cuts in Washington.

Steve </div></div>

Baaaaaaahhh HAHHAAAHAAAHAHA!!!

Not a chance!!!

Soflasnapper
02-16-2011, 04:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very good. Now, apply those same ideas to the federal government and you might understand why some of us are pushing for some drastic spending cuts in Washington.

Steve </div></div>

Your view is common, and entirely incorrect. Well, depending on what you want to happen, that is.

If we really must liquidate out the whole country, then you have the right idea. Maybe this is necessary, and maybe the end result 20 years out might work out. In the meantime, however, your idea would replace the limping along 9-10% unemployment (which is disastrous) with 25% or more (U-2 scored; probably 40% U-6 scored) unemployment, as we spiral downwards into worse and worse shape.

Frankly, I doubt this country can survive THAT. The masses wouldn't just be looking to raise taxes on the wealthy, they'd be looking to confiscate the wealth itself.

By contrast, look at Japan. Yes, everyone made fun of their 'lost decade' of stagnation, and THEIR national debt is about 189% of gdp, or well over twice our percentage. But their unemployment rate two months ago was 4.9%. link (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=JPY) And they have no trouble at all raising money in the world marketplace at reasonable rates.

Your idea says we will solve unemployment by putting another million people on the unemployment lines (and that's just the beginning of the chain of events).

As more people are unemployed, less taxes are paid, and government expenses for safety net spending go up, so the deficit is made WORSE. Then it's time for more governmental spending cuts, I take it, and then the entire cycle repeats.

Where is the deus ex machina to come from in your scenario to actually solve any of these problems? Will businesses then invest, as unemployment rises from &lt;10% to 12, 15, 18 and 20% rates? Wouldn't they be smart businessmen and say, in the absence of any recovery and improved employment numbers, business will be weak, and therefore we should not invest?

cushioncrawler
02-16-2011, 04:36 PM
Neil Irwins stuff iz mostly krappynomix.
But i think that households spending less iz very good -- my meaning iz that households spending on non-necessary krap iz good.
My meaning iz that high household spending iz ok (kan be ok) if it iz spent on non-krap stuff.
In fakt household spending shood be high all the time -- or at least it shood never go up and down (much). Up and down iz krappynomix.
mac.

JohnnyD
02-16-2011, 05:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Neil Irwins stuff iz mostly krappynomix.
But i think that households spending less iz very good -- my meaning iz that households spending on non-necessary krap iz good.
My meaning iz that high household spending iz ok (kan be ok) if it iz spent on non-krap stuff.
In fakt household spending shood be high all the time -- or at least it shood never go up and down (much). Up and down iz krappynomix.
mac. </div></div> You speak the truth.

Sev
02-16-2011, 08:35 PM
Sometimes you have to burn down the village in order to save the village.

Pain is one of the best learning tools there is.

eg8r
02-17-2011, 07:39 AM
Repubs have nothing to do with consumers paying down their own debt. You really are a miserable old woman. These are good signs that people are wisening up and deciding to not be a slave to the lender. Getting out of debt by paying it down has nothing to do with which political group is in office.

eg8r

eg8r
02-17-2011, 07:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your view is common, and entirely incorrect. Well, depending on what you want to happen, that is.
</div></div>Seems you are quite presumptuous don't you think? First you tell him he is entirely incorrect and then you state you have no idea what he is referring to? Please, after this short time you have been dicussing with us, don't fall into the same trap that gayle and qtip are in. If you disagree that is fine but to act like they do is not good.

eg8r

eg8r
02-17-2011, 07:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By contrast, look at Japan. Yes, everyone made fun of their 'lost decade' of stagnation, and THEIR national debt is about 189% of gdp, or well over twice our percentage. But their unemployment rate two months ago was 4.9%. link And they have no trouble at all raising money in the world marketplace at reasonable rates.
</div></div>Kind of like a guy that cannot afford to buy groceries decides to take an equity line out on his mortgage to buy a new car. A country that has to "raise" money at reasonable rates is the saying the same thing as increasing debt. That is NOT what I want to happen to the US so I don't look to them as any type of standard we should be shooting for.

Are you going to offer a "world is falling" response every time we mention the Government being proactive in paying down debt? Our government is much too large and it needs to be corrected. This includes drastic reduction of spending in the 3 major areas that cause us the most debt. Will some jobs be lost, sure, but those will be the people who are not pulling their weight and causing a drain on the process anyways.

eg8r

Sev
02-17-2011, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Repubs have nothing to do with consumers paying down their own debt. You really are a miserable old woman. These are good signs that people are wisening up and deciding to not be a slave to the lender. Getting out of debt by paying it down has nothing to do with which political group is in office.

eg8r </div></div>

Paying down debt and saving money = less revenue for the government and less economic activity.

That means more cutting or more taxes.

eg8r
02-17-2011, 01:34 PM
The author on the other hand had a different viewpoint in that paying down debt and saving a certain amount of money would actually help the economy. Their reasoning is that it would build confidence in the consumer and eventually lead back to increase purchases. I don't disagree with this idea at all I just hope the consumers do not fall back into the debt they just dug themselves out of.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-18-2011, 03:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your view is common, and entirely incorrect. Well, depending on what you want to happen, that is.
</div></div>Seems you are quite presumptuous don't you think? First you tell him he is entirely incorrect and then you state you have no idea what he is referring to? Please, after this short time you have been dicussing with us, don't fall into the same trap that gayle and qtip are in. If you disagree that is fine but to act like they do is not good.

eg8r </div></div>

I'm saying if he wants a 10 year depression event, because he thinks that is necessary to purge this debt, then his view of proper policy would accomplish that.

But I presume his theory is rather that strongly reining in the spending and growth of indebtedness of the government would improve the economy and the level of employment, say in a year or two. If that's the theory, then he's mistaken.

Soflasnapper
02-18-2011, 03:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The author on the other hand had a different viewpoint in that paying down debt and saving a certain amount of money would actually help the economy. Their reasoning is that it would build confidence in the consumer and eventually lead back to increase purchases. I don't disagree with this idea at all I just hope the consumers do not fall back into the debt they just dug themselves out of.

</div></div>

The people have already dropped from a near 7% savings rate for a while to maybe mid-4%s.

Qtec
02-18-2011, 03:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Will some jobs be lost, sure, but <u>those will be the people who are not pulling their weight </u>and causing a drain on the process anyways.

eg8r </div></div>

Never heard such a crock in all my life.
Are you saying that those who lost their jobs because of the massive Wall St/ Bank fraud and subsequent credit crisis, deserved it?

Q

pooltchr
02-18-2011, 07:12 AM
Damn, Q, pay attention!
He is not talking about private sector jobs which suffered from the recession. He's talking about government jobs, which are actually a drain on the economy.

Yes, downsizing government is going to have a short term impact on unemployment, but the long term benefits of moving things out of the government's greedy little hands and into the private sector will result in a much healthier economy in the future.

What we have been doing lately is just the opposite. We have been adding more government jobs, while the private sector has suffered. There is no way that trend can produce a healthy economy in the long run.

Steve

Sev
02-18-2011, 07:26 AM
Obama is averaging 100,000 new federal employee's a year.

They are not needed.

He is also exceeding spending levels set by the bailout. There is no reason that the spending levels cant be taken back to pre bailout or even Pre Tarp levels.

eg8r
02-18-2011, 09:58 AM
I know you haven't. The reason is because you want to surround yourself with people that agree with your BS. Sorry but reality is what it is.

eg8r

eg8r
02-18-2011, 10:02 AM
Look, talking with that idiot is like talking algebra to a first grader. I cannot remember a single thread where he actually understood the subject and decided to discuss that subject. It just does not happen. Soflasnapper has definitely been a great addition to the board. Between him, the queen of rant and the queen of copy/paste, Soflasnapper wins hands down. He sounds intelligent, listens to those who disagree and responds accordingly. The other two twits just keep their rants going.

eg8r

LWW
02-18-2011, 05:23 PM
Excellent post.

LWW

eg8r
02-19-2011, 04:57 PM
There aren't going to be any quick fixes at this point, but it sure would have been a lot easier without a trillion healthcare bill that still does not cover everyone and has become an addition, federally mandated, expense for everyone, including the people whom we are already buying cheese and milk.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-20-2011, 01:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very good. Now, apply those same ideas to the federal government and you might understand why some of us are pushing for some drastic spending cuts in Washington.

Steve </div></div>

Your view is common, and entirely incorrect. Well, depending on what you want to happen, that is.

If we really must liquidate out the whole country, then you have the right idea. Maybe this is necessary, and maybe the end result 20 years out might work out. In the meantime, however, your idea would replace the limping along 9-10% unemployment (which is disastrous) with 25% or more (U-2 scored; probably 40% U-6 scored) unemployment, as we spiral downwards into worse and worse shape.

Frankly, I doubt this country can survive THAT. The masses wouldn't just be looking to raise taxes on the wealthy, they'd be looking to confiscate the wealth itself.

By contrast, look at Japan. Yes, everyone made fun of their 'lost decade' of stagnation, and THEIR national debt is about 189% of gdp, or well over twice our percentage. But their unemployment rate two months ago was 4.9%. link (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=JPY) And they have no trouble at all raising money in the world marketplace at reasonable rates.

Your idea says we will solve unemployment by putting another million people on the unemployment lines (and that's just the beginning of the chain of events).

As more people are unemployed, less taxes are paid, and government expenses for safety net spending go up, so the deficit is made WORSE. Then it's time for more governmental spending cuts, I take it, and then the entire cycle repeats.

Where is the deus ex machina to come from in your scenario to actually solve any of these problems? Will businesses then invest, as unemployment rises from &lt;10% to 12, 15, 18 and 20% rates? Wouldn't they be smart businessmen and say, in the absence of any recovery and improved employment numbers, business will be weak, and therefore we should not invest?

</div></div>

We are in recovery, but the recovery is still fragile.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frankly, I doubt this country can survive THAT. The masses wouldn't just be looking to raise taxes on the wealthy, they'd be looking to confiscate the wealth itself.

</div></div>

If the Republicans start to massively eliminate jobs, any sort of jobs, government, or otherwise, at this time, they could put us right back into freefall, where Bush originally left us.

The "Deficit" used to be an issue about which Steve wrote....

"The deficits don't matter"

Of course, that was back when Bush and the Repubs were running up the deficit, borrowing their asses off, and hidng their huge war costs in emergency spending bills.

There is, IMO, no comparison between the Bush Administration's spending, and the blank check Republican majority's spending, when they owned Washington D.C., from one end of Pann. Ave. to the other, both houses, annd the White House, which went on for years, as they wasted a budget surplus, and ran up more debts than all previous administrations, combined, back when Steve was writing, "the deficits don't matter".... and the recent spending, which was necessary in order to help states, keep needed public servants, in their jobs, finish the two wars Bush left us to finish, and try to stimulate the collapsed economy, also left to us by Bush and his overly zealous Free Market-deregulatory neocons.

Two entirely different things, IMO. One, the Bush Administration's spending, is spending by choice, and warring by choice, the other is energency spending, to thwart an impending Depression, and finsih the wars, left to us by Bush.

IMO, that comes under the heading of necessary emergency spending, not reckless spending.

After all, the Bailouts, were signed and delivered, by Bush, and also, the right is telling huge lies about the number of government jobs, the President has been adding, by <span style='font-size: 17pt'>hugely </span>exaggerating the numbers.

Spending is not the most important issue at this time, IMO, creating jobs, investing in education, clean energy research and investments, investing in industry for products that can only be produced here in our country, and made by American Workers, is by far, more important at this time, than fear mongering over the deficit, and going into convulsive, rash cuts, that destroy jobs.


This is no time for cutting jobs, IMO.....throwing more people into social programs, like Unemployment, is not way to support the recovery, nor to cntinue the recovery, in fact, it is dangerous to do so at this particular time.

G.

pooltchr
02-20-2011, 02:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
There is, IMO, no comparison between the Bush Administration's spending.... and the recent spending,

G. </div></div>

I completely agree, Gayle. There is <u>absolutely no comparison</u>. Obama has run up more debt in two years than Bush did in eight.

What amazes me is that you screamed about Bush admittedly overspending, but now want to give Obama a pass for taking spending to unprecedented levels!

Steve

Sev
02-20-2011, 06:19 PM
He's black. So there in lies her excuse.

Soflasnapper
02-20-2011, 08:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
There is, IMO, no comparison between the Bush Administration's spending.... and the recent spending,

G. </div></div>

I completely agree, Gayle. There is <u>absolutely no comparison</u>. Obama has run up more debt in two years than Bush did in eight.

What amazes me is that you screamed about Bush admittedly overspending, but now want to give Obama a pass for taking spending to unprecedented levels!

</div></div>

Obama has run up more debt in two years than Bush did in eight.

Not true. That claim relies on ignoring Bush's off-budget borrowing (which wasn't stated in the budget numbers, since it was held off-budget in the emergency spending category), which added a large amount of money to the debt even off-budget. It also requires that fiscal year '09, dating from Oct. 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009, be booked over to Obama's watch.

CBO said that the FY '09 budget deficit was $1.2 trillion BEFORE anything Obama did once he got in office.

Putting these two factors together, the Bush years' total addition to the debt was ~100%, taking about a $5 trillion dollar debt to close to $11 trillion, while leaving the country's economy in tatters. O's contribution so far has been to a) see the greatest decline in a deficit year over year ever experienced (&gt; $200 billion less deficit-- true, you can look it up!), and b) an additional $3 trillion or so added to the debt.

Most of which, at an 85% percentage or greater, is the continued cost of two wars that weren't paid for, the Medicare D program that wasn't paid for, and the very large tax cuts, all of which are still in effect from when Bush caused this country to bear these debts. The rest is primarily the loss of revenues from the bad unemployment situation, and the added debt service burden from the doubling of the national debt incurred under Bush's spendthrift fiscal policies.

O's REAL addition, from things he authored? Prolly not more than $200 billion a year.

LWW
02-21-2011, 02:47 AM
Let's look at this through the prism of truth.

The first "BUSH" budget would have started with a total US gubmint debt of $5,807,463,412,200.06.

His last budget with an R congress ended with a gubmint debt of $9,007,653,372,262.48.

That's $3,200,189,960,062.42 over 6 years, or $533,364,993,343.74 on average.

If you insist on counting the D congress budgets into the mix the numbers do change, and go to $6,102,365,591,311.64 in total and $762,795,698,913.96 on average for 8 years.

Bad, very bad.

Now, under dear leader, here is the story.

$2,260,170,996,488.30 in 1.5 years. $1,506,780,664,325.53 per year, on average. The next year is estimated to be another $1,600,000,000,000.00. Take a half year and call it $800,000,000,000.00. That gives 2 years at $3,060,170,996,488.30, and an average of $1,530,085,498,244.15 per year.

So, in reality, dear leader and the dems have accumulated roughly the same debt in 2 years as Bush and the R's did in 6 years.

Now, to be intellectually honest, if you want to blame Bush ... and we all know that you do ... for the 2 years deficit under a D congress, you must also blame dear leader as he was in the senate voting for those deficits. In fact, he was pushing for them to be even higher and taking credit for being the father of the TARP bill ... until it blew up, then it became Bush's fault.

If you do this then the numbers get really ugly.

Under dear leader, in the first 5 years of his involvement in the federal budget process, the federal debt will have increased by $5,962,346,627,737.52 and at an average pace of $1,192,469,325,547.50 per year. With annual deficits of in excess of $1,000,000,000,000.00 for as far into the future as the budget has been estimated.

Now, what's the next lame excuse for such an abysmal performance.

OH DEAR! (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

OH GOSH! (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-21-2011, 01:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Will some jobs be lost, sure, but <u>those will be the people who are not pulling their weight </u>and causing a drain on the process anyways.

eg8r </div></div>

Never heard such a crock in all my life.
Are you saying that those who lost their jobs because of the massive Wall St/ Bank fraud and subsequent credit crisis, deserved it?

Q </div></div>



/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


Crazy statements, and even more offensive, coming from someone on the Government dole, who works for a defense contractoro!!!!Given that our country's worst offenders, of falling short on their contracts, overchanging tax payers, causing waste, amounting to wholesale theft, in many cases, are the defense contractors!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

JohnnyD
02-21-2011, 06:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very good. Now, apply those same ideas to the federal government and you might understand why some of us are pushing for some drastic spending cuts in Washington.

Steve </div></div>

Your view is common, and entirely incorrect. Well, depending on what you want to happen, that is.

If we really must liquidate out the whole country, then you have the right idea. Maybe this is necessary, and maybe the end result 20 years out might work out. In the meantime, however, your idea would replace the limping along 9-10% unemployment (which is disastrous) with 25% or more (U-2 scored; probably 40% U-6 scored) unemployment, as we spiral downwards into worse and worse shape.

Frankly, I doubt this country can survive THAT. The masses wouldn't just be looking to raise taxes on the wealthy, they'd be looking to confiscate the wealth itself.

By contrast, look at Japan. Yes, everyone made fun of their 'lost decade' of stagnation, and THEIR national debt is about 189% of gdp, or well over twice our percentage. But their unemployment rate two months ago was 4.9%. link (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=JPY) And they have no trouble at all raising money in the world marketplace at reasonable rates.

Your idea says we will solve unemployment by putting another million people on the unemployment lines (and that's just the beginning of the chain of events).

As more people are unemployed, less taxes are paid, and government expenses for safety net spending go up, so the deficit is made WORSE. Then it's time for more governmental spending cuts, I take it, and then the entire cycle repeats.

Where is the deus ex machina to come from in your scenario to actually solve any of these problems? Will businesses then invest, as unemployment rises from &lt;10% to 12, 15, 18 and 20% rates? Wouldn't they be smart businessmen and say, in the absence of any recovery and improved employment numbers, business will be weak, and therefore we should not invest?

</div></div>

We are in recovery, but the recovery is still fragile.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frankly, I doubt this country can survive THAT. The masses wouldn't just be looking to raise taxes on the wealthy, they'd be looking to confiscate the wealth itself.

</div></div>

If the Republicans start to massively eliminate jobs, any sort of jobs, government, or otherwise, at this time, they could put us right back into freefall, where Bush originally left us.

The "Deficit" used to be an issue about which Steve wrote....

"The deficits don't matter"

Of course, that was back when Bush and the Repubs were running up the deficit, borrowing their asses off, and hidng their huge war costs in emergency spending bills.

There is, IMO, no comparison between the Bush Administration's spending, and the blank check Republican majority's spending, when they owned Washington D.C., from one end of Pann. Ave. to the other, both houses, annd the White House, which went on for years, as they wasted a budget surplus, and ran up more debts than all previous administrations, combined, back when Steve was writing, "the deficits don't matter".... and the recent spending, which was necessary in order to help states, keep needed public servants, in their jobs, finish the two wars Bush left us to finish, and try to stimulate the collapsed economy, also left to us by Bush and his overly zealous Free Market-deregulatory neocons.

Two entirely different things, IMO. One, the Bush Administration's spending, is spending by choice, and warring by choice, the other is energency spending, to thwart an impending Depression, and finsih the wars, left to us by Bush.

IMO, that comes under the heading of necessary emergency spending, not reckless spending.

After all, the Bailouts, were signed and delivered, by Bush, and also, the right is telling huge lies about the number of government jobs, the President has been adding, by <span style='font-size: 17pt'>hugely </span>exaggerating the numbers.

Spending is not the most important issue at this time, IMO, creating jobs, investing in education, clean energy research and investments, investing in industry for products that can only be produced here in our country, and made by American Workers, is by far, more important at this time, than fear mongering over the deficit, and going into convulsive, rash cuts, that destroy jobs.


This is no time for cutting jobs, IMO.....throwing more people into social programs, like Unemployment, is not way to support the recovery, nor to cntinue the recovery, in fact, it is dangerous to do so at this particular time.

G. </div></div> Excellent post.