Spin it, retards.

[Btowner]

1 hour ago, Downtown said:

@Soxcat @Little Earl Do you really blame the recent Recession on Obama? Are you really this stupid? 

 

Obama started with a large deficit to fix the Republican Recession. Then he reduced it each year. 

 

Trump’s plan increases our deficit each year until 2023 when we have to decide what to do next. 

 

When looking at the deficit under Obama, Republicans also conveniently forget to mention cost of keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or the cost of the Bush tax cuts that Obama extended. War and tax cuts. 

 

Here is a really good article from the conservative leaning Forbes web site on deficit spending under the POTUS: 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/15/obamas-federal-debt-grew-at-a-slower-rate-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/2/#35d9540d1a3e

 

Reagan

• Started Presidency: $965 billion
• Ended Presidency: $2.74 trillion
• Increased 184% or 13.9% per year

H.W. Bush

• Started Presidency: $2.74 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $4.23 trillion
• Increased 54% or 11.5% per year (only in office for four years)

Clinton

• Started Presidency: $4.23 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $5.77 trillion
• Increased 36% or 4.0% per year

W. Bush

• Started Presidency: $5.77 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $11.1 trillion
• Increased 93% or 8.5% per year

Obama

• Started Presidency: $11.1 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $19.85 trillion
• Increased 78% or 7.5% per year

[Btowner]

5 hours ago, begooode said:

In defense of LEarl, Max did say spin it.

I don't know how @MadMax does it. He sends out a blatant call and someone is always willing to oblige.

[pat]

1 hour ago, Btowner said:

When looking at the deficit under Obama, Republicans also conveniently forget to mention cost of keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or the cost of the Bush tax cuts that Obama extended. War and tax cuts. 

 

Here is a really good article from the conservative leaning Forbes web site on deficit spending under the POTUS: 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/15/obamas-federal-debt-grew-at-a-slower-rate-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/2/#35d9540d1a3e

 

Reagan

• Started Presidency: $965 billion
• Ended Presidency: $2.74 trillion
• Increased 184% or 13.9% per year

H.W. Bush

• Started Presidency: $2.74 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $4.23 trillion
• Increased 54% or 11.5% per year (only in office for four years)

Clinton

• Started Presidency: $4.23 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $5.77 trillion
• Increased 36% or 4.0% per year

W. Bush

• Started Presidency: $5.77 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $11.1 trillion
• Increased 93% or 8.5% per year

Obama

• Started Presidency: $11.1 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $19.85 trillion
• Increased 78% or 7.5% per year

If only a Clinton was president man the economy would be set amirite?

[begooode]

90s = baby boomers in their prime wage earning years, big time home ownership, cheap energy and prior to quite a bit of the job loss / wealth concentration from disruptive technology and the internet.  The big inefficient holding companies were broken up in the 80s which also helped competitiveness later on (we thought we were losing out to the Japanese keiretsus).  And American confidence was at an all time high as we finally shook the Vietnam monkey off our backs with desert storm. 

[GOAT9]

8 hours ago, Little Earl said:

No doubt they are spending too much now, and it's mostly on Republicans who campaigned on reducing the deficit.

 

You are wrong on Reagan though.   He came in with a crappy economy (stagflation).   Arguments can be made the economy was as bad or worse during this time period.

Agree with this. Reagan had to deal with an economy that frankly, was in worse shape than the 08 crises. And I'm not putting all the blame on Carter, because a few of the guys before him helped as well. 

 

Also, Reagan had to spend to stick that last nail into the USSR. The Cold War was won by essentially outspending the commies into collapse over an extended period of time. 

[Rogue]

4 hours ago, begooode said:

90s = baby boomers in their prime wage earning years, big time home ownership, cheap energy and prior to quite a bit of the job loss / wealth concentration from disruptive technology and the internet.  The big inefficient holding companies were broken up in the 80s which also helped competitiveness later on (we thought we were losing out to the Japanese keiretsus).  And American confidence was at an all time high as we finally shook the Vietnam monkey off our backs with desert storm. 

While it's not all you need to know about the U.S. economy, this explains alot...

 

 

I keep pointing it out, but it never seems to take hold.  It's like nobody really wants to accept it.  

 

We've recently seen household debt levels rise again to what they were before the crash....although I do believe we are slightly better on household savings still.  

 

Simply put, our economy is based on people mortgaging their future...all the while the wealth gap increases.  

 

Why does "change" win elections?  Because people feel something isn't right.  

[GOAT9]

1 hour ago, Rogue said:

While it's not all you need to know about the U.S. economy, this explains alot...

 

 

I keep pointing it out, but it never seems to take hold.  It's like nobody really wants to accept it.  

 

We've recently seen household debt levels rise again to what they were before the crash....although I do believe we are slightly better on household savings still.  

 

Simply put, our economy is based on people mortgaging their future...all the while the wealth gap increases.  

 

Why does "change" win elections?  Because people feel something isn't right.  

This image doesn't explain a lot. What are they including in household debt? Is this including things like student loans, health bills? Or is this only including direct credit?

 

Also it isn't a measure of debt alone. It is measuring debt to disposable income. As prices rise while wages stay stagnant, that would mean disposable income would be declining. So even if you had the same amount of debt that ratio would rise if your disposable income decreases. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

7 minutes ago, GoaTTitanMcNair9 said:

This image doesn't explain a lot. What are they including in household debt? Is this including things like student loans, health bills? Or is this only including direct credit?

 

Also it isn't a measure of debt alone. It is measuring debt to disposable income. As prices rise while wages stay stagnant, that would mean disposable income would be declining. So even if you had the same amount of debt that ratio would rise if your disposable income decreases. 

Sounds like you answered your own question. 

[GOAT9]

8 hours ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Sounds like you answered your own question. 

no, I need to know what all they are including as household debt. I need to know where these numbers were acquired. 

[Rogue]

13 hours ago, GoaTTitanMcNair9 said:

This image doesn't explain a lot. What are they including in household debt? Is this including things like student loans, health bills? Or is this only including direct credit?

 

Also it isn't a measure of debt alone. It is measuring debt to disposable income. As prices rise while wages stay stagnant, that would mean disposable income would be declining. So even if you had the same amount of debt that ratio would rise if your disposable income decreases. 

All the debt of the household.  I assume disposable income as income minus mandatory spending (taxes, etc), not discretionary, and savings rate as household networth minus debt.  

 

But yeah, stagnant wages is part of the savings rate decline.  I've been talking about this since shortly after the 08 crash.  

 

 

[GOAT9]

6 hours ago, Rogue said:

All the debt of the household.  I assume disposable income as income minus mandatory spending (taxes, etc), not discretionary, and savings rate as household networth minus debt.  

 

But yeah, stagnant wages is part of the savings rate decline.  I've been talking about this since shortly after the 08 crash.  

 

 

So outrageous healthcare costs and student loans would be my guess as the primary drivers on the debt issues? Or is it uncontrollable housing prices?

 

I would imagine that it is easy for everyone to gloss over stagnant income since we continue to have the highest in the world. But its a big deal when wages stay stagnant while costs continue to rise. 

[Rogue]

59 minutes ago, GoaTTitanMcNair9 said:

So outrageous healthcare costs and student loans would be my guess as the primary drivers on the debt issues? Or is it uncontrollable housing prices?

 

I would imagine that it is easy for everyone to gloss over stagnant income since we continue to have the highest in the world. But its a big deal when wages stay stagnant while costs continue to rise. 

One of the theories argues easy credit distorts pricing.  I tend to agree.  I tend to believe much of 3rd party intervention between the consumer and producer distorts pricing and\or quality.  

 

When we moved into our old house, it came with a home warranty.   A leak presented itself that I couldn't immediately find, so I called the home warranty people.  They sent out two fellows that poked holes in my walls, didn't repair them, couldn't find the leak, and it cost me 50 bucks.  I called the warranty company again and they sent someone else....who also couldn't find the leak.  They did waive the $50 fee this time.  I ended up finding  it myself.  

 

No way these nitwits would be in business without this 3rd party involved.  And it wouldn't have cost me $50 for no services other than poking holes in my walls to be performed.  

 

I think insurance is similar.  Sure, insurance companies do protest higher prices, but I think the prices are high because insurance is there in the first place.   There is no negotiation between the consumer and producer.  Granted, the technology costs money, and that's part of it. But I also think if doctors had to negotiate with patients, we'd find a way for care to be cheaper.  It may not be the top of the line, but would suffice. 

 

And ultimately,  I think easy, cheap credit does the same thing.  Cars don't have to be made to be in line with what the consumer can afford, they just have to be made with what someone can afford over 6 years.  

 

I also believe this is partially why wages are stagnant.  As I say, we've exchanged credit for wages.  Without cheap and easy credit, the market would be forced to reduce prices, or raise wages to compensate, or both.  Either way, the consumer has more financial security. 

 

I'm not an economist, and I know it's more complicated than this, but this just makes sense to me in regards to how capitalism, at its core, is supposed to work.  

[OILERMAN]

5 hours ago, Rogue said:

And ultimately,  I think easy, cheap credit does the same thing.  Cars don't have to be made to be in line with what the consumer can afford, they just have to be made with what someone can afford over 6 years.  

I think I saw the average car loan is right under 7 years and they will actually go to 10 now

 

ridiculous