http://gamingtrend.com
August 02, 2014, 02:58:16 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Just print more money  (Read 2526 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5094



View Profile
« on: November 08, 2008, 10:19:33 PM »

Recent bailouts:

# $29 billion for Bear Stearns
# $143.8 billion for AIG (thus far, it keeps growing)
# $100 billion for Fannie Mae
# $100 billion for Freddie Mac
# $700 billion for Wall Street, including Bank of America (Merrill Lynch), Citigroup, JP Morgan (WaMu), Wells Fargo (Wachovia), Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and a lot more
# $25 billion for The Big Three in Detroit
# $8 billion for IndyMac
# $150 billion stimulus package (from January)
# $50 billion for money market funds
# $138 billion for Lehman Bros. (post bankruptcy) through JP Morgan
# $620 billion for general currency swaps from the Fed

Rough total: $2,063,800,000,000   crybaby
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Mithridates
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 631


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2008, 12:50:16 AM »

I'd rather call it 2.0638 x 1012. It doesn't seem so bad that way.
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2008, 01:08:26 AM »

I know, that total is insane, and not one cent of it should be spent in those ways.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2008, 01:55:49 AM »

I'd be happy with a $5 billion bailout for my self....
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2008, 05:24:32 AM »

Hell, I'd be happy with $200,000  bailout for myself. Tongue
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2008, 05:28:23 AM »

Quote from: brettmcd on November 09, 2008, 01:08:26 AM

I know, that total is insane, and not one cent of it should be spent in those ways.

Yeah, maybe not all of it was needed, but I think its pretty clear the way things were heading that a very large stimulus package was needed. I know you'll disagree with me, and thats fine, but you're wrong. All these billions to my knowledge have kept the credit market from collapsing and getting us into a worse mess than the Great Depression.

We should be pillorying Bush and Clinton advisors over this. Hopefull Obama can dig us out of the hole, though it will probably take two terms to do. At least I live in the industrial country least affected by this crisis.

The only thing I'm worried about is the fact that Obama will need to probably do some general tax increases and they'll be needed, but Americans don't seem to realize yet that having the lowest tax levels in the post-industrial world has got to end if the government is going to remain able to pay bills in the long term. Again, you can disagree with me on this as cutting some of the social programs would largely solve these issues (and we could have a discussion about that), but that doesn't seem realistic or even feasible.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2008, 05:32:02 AM by CSL » Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2008, 05:59:52 AM »

Quote from: CSL on November 09, 2008, 05:28:23 AM

Quote from: brettmcd on November 09, 2008, 01:08:26 AM

I know, that total is insane, and not one cent of it should be spent in those ways.

Yeah, maybe not all of it was needed, but I think its pretty clear the way things were heading that a very large stimulus package was needed. I know you'll disagree with me, and thats fine, but you're wrong. All these billions to my knowledge have kept the credit market from collapsing and getting us into a worse mess than the Great Depression.

We should be pillorying Bush and Clinton advisors over this. Hopefull Obama can dig us out of the hole, though it will probably take two terms to do. At least I live in the industrial country least affected by this crisis.

The only thing I'm worried about is the fact that Obama will need to probably do some general tax increases and they'll be needed, but Americans don't seem to realize yet that having the lowest tax levels in the post-industrial world has got to end if the government is going to remain able to pay bills in the long term. Again, you can disagree with me on this as cutting some of the social programs would largely solve these issues (and we could have a discussion about that), but that doesn't seem realistic or even feasible.

Yes yes tax increases when in an economic downturn, thats a recipe for recovery   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Cutting programs is the only way to make up any of this money, unless you just want to increase the length of the recession or even turn it into a depression with idiotic tax increases.
Logged
mikeg
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2549


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2008, 02:38:22 PM »

Quote from: brettmcd on November 09, 2008, 05:59:52 AM

Quote from: CSL on November 09, 2008, 05:28:23 AM

Quote from: brettmcd on November 09, 2008, 01:08:26 AM

I know, that total is insane, and not one cent of it should be spent in those ways.

Yeah, maybe not all of it was needed, but I think its pretty clear the way things were heading that a very large stimulus package was needed. I know you'll disagree with me, and thats fine, but you're wrong. All these billions to my knowledge have kept the credit market from collapsing and getting us into a worse mess than the Great Depression.

We should be pillorying Bush and Clinton advisors over this. Hopefull Obama can dig us out of the hole, though it will probably take two terms to do. At least I live in the industrial country least affected by this crisis.

The only thing I'm worried about is the fact that Obama will need to probably do some general tax increases and they'll be needed, but Americans don't seem to realize yet that having the lowest tax levels in the post-industrial world has got to end if the government is going to remain able to pay bills in the long term. Again, you can disagree with me on this as cutting some of the social programs would largely solve these issues (and we could have a discussion about that), but that doesn't seem realistic or even feasible.

Yes yes tax increases when in an economic downturn, thats a recipe for recovery   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Cutting programs is the only way to make up any of this money, unless you just want to increase the length of the recession or even turn it into a depression with idiotic tax increases.

I agree.  Increasing taxes as a way to boost the economy-the concept is so flawed it's laughable.  It is the SIZE and WASTE of government spending that has got us here.  The ONLY way to fix it is to do what you, me, and ANYONE else with even the teeniest sense on how to stay within a budget would do,  stop spending money on things you don't absolutely need and pay off your debt. 

Let me tell you why raising taxes won't lower our national debt.  Because, get ready for it, the government won't spend a fucking dime on paying off the debt.  They will just continue to spend money on bad, wasteful programs, and even start a few more.  They are like a person whose credit card is completely charged up to the max and then someone is stupid enough to give them money so they can go buy a new stereo.  How fucking dumb is that??!!!


Mark my words, giving them another red cent more than they are getting will       not      fix      anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged

I am Xboxalot on Live.
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3364



View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2008, 03:32:05 PM »

Quote from: Zarkon on November 09, 2008, 05:24:32 AM

Hell, I'd be happy with $200,000  bailout for myself. Tongue

Even $2,000 would be a major help. That's about what they say we'll get from the next tax giveback. Imagine being able to keep up with your prescriptions and keep the heat turned up without robbing the grocery budget!
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 674



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2008, 05:50:25 PM »

Quote from: mikeg on November 09, 2008, 02:38:22 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on November 09, 2008, 05:59:52 AM

Quote from: CSL on November 09, 2008, 05:28:23 AM

Quote from: brettmcd on November 09, 2008, 01:08:26 AM

I know, that total is insane, and not one cent of it should be spent in those ways.

Yeah, maybe not all of it was needed, but I think its pretty clear the way things were heading that a very large stimulus package was needed. I know you'll disagree with me, and thats fine, but you're wrong. All these billions to my knowledge have kept the credit market from collapsing and getting us into a worse mess than the Great Depression.

We should be pillorying Bush and Clinton advisors over this. Hopefull Obama can dig us out of the hole, though it will probably take two terms to do. At least I live in the industrial country least affected by this crisis.

The only thing I'm worried about is the fact that Obama will need to probably do some general tax increases and they'll be needed, but Americans don't seem to realize yet that having the lowest tax levels in the post-industrial world has got to end if the government is going to remain able to pay bills in the long term. Again, you can disagree with me on this as cutting some of the social programs would largely solve these issues (and we could have a discussion about that), but that doesn't seem realistic or even feasible.

Yes yes tax increases when in an economic downturn, thats a recipe for recovery   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Cutting programs is the only way to make up any of this money, unless you just want to increase the length of the recession or even turn it into a depression with idiotic tax increases.

I agree.  Increasing taxes as a way to boost the economy-the concept is so flawed it's laughable.  It is the SIZE and WASTE of government spending that has got us here.  The ONLY way to fix it is to do what you, me, and ANYONE else with even the teeniest sense on how to stay within a budget would do,  stop spending money on things you don't absolutely need and pay off your debt. 

Let me tell you why raising taxes won't lower our national debt.  Because, get ready for it, the government won't spend a fucking dime on paying off the debt.  They will just continue to spend money on bad, wasteful programs, and even start a few more.  They are like a person whose credit card is completely charged up to the max and then someone is stupid enough to give them money so they can go buy a new stereo.  How fucking dumb is that??!!!


Mark my words, giving them another red cent more than they are getting will       not      fix      anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you would never consider increasing your income as part of your plan? That's pretty silly.

Ale
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5094



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2008, 07:37:11 PM »

Quote from: Alefroth on November 09, 2008, 05:50:25 PM

So you would never consider increasing your income as part of your plan? That's pretty silly.

The government doesn't have income. Taxes are removing money from one part of the economy, taking some out to cover bureaucracy and then moving it to another part of the economy.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2008, 01:42:57 AM »

Quote from: mikeg on November 09, 2008, 02:38:22 PM

Let me tell you why raising taxes won't lower our national debt.  Because, get ready for it, the government won't spend a fucking dime on paying off the debt.  They will just continue to spend money on bad, wasteful programs, and even start a few more.  They are like a person whose credit card is completely charged up to the max and then someone is stupid enough to give them money so they can go buy a new stereo.  How fucking dumb is that??!!!

Then you quite obviously need to import Paul Martin.

More importantly, if I remember correctly Bush Sr. raising taxes in his term eventually lead to budget surpluses down the road during the Clinton years, including - shockingly - some paying down of the debt. Now I'm not saying taxes even should be raised in the forseeable future considering the current financial crisis, but tax increases will be needed at some point down the road. And to me the spendthrift ways of members of congress seems more or less equally the blame of those legislators and the electorate not taking the firm stance that needs to be taken on fiscal responsibility - but considering the general lack of fiscal responsibility across all parts of the population that seems a farfetched dream.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2008, 01:52:09 AM by CSL » Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2008, 03:25:10 PM »

Quote from: CSL on November 10, 2008, 01:42:57 AM

Then you quite obviously need to import Paul Martin.

More importantly, if I remember correctly Bush Sr. raising taxes in his term eventually lead to budget surpluses down the road during the Clinton years, including - shockingly - some paying down of the debt. Now I'm not saying taxes even should be raised in the forseeable future considering the current financial crisis, but tax increases will be needed at some point down the road. And to me the spendthrift ways of members of congress seems more or less equally the blame of those legislators and the electorate not taking the firm stance that needs to be taken on fiscal responsibility - but considering the general lack of fiscal responsibility across all parts of the population that seems a farfetched dream.

To be fair, there was no budget surplus in the Clinton Administration unless you take the "surplus" Social Security collections into account (which are supposed to be against future obligtions).  He got very close to a balanced budget ($17B), but never quite got there.  There's no doubt that the Bush I tax increases helped, but it was the booming economy that led to large increase in tax revenues that realy helped lower the deficit.

In many ways, Mikeg is right - no matter who is in charge of the government, dollars won't be used to pay down the debt.  The political will just isn't there.  We're spending something like $400B on interest payments on the debt.  The debt ($10T) is now like 72% of the GDP (it was 33% in 1980).  It's taking a larger and larger chunk of discretionary spending.  In addition, about 50% of those interest payments go overseas, which is causing a massive wealth transfer out of the US.  This is a very, very important fact since in the past the vast majority of the wealth transfer was intergenerational, not international.

The very best we could hope for is to get the deficit down to zero and to keep it there.  If you assume the economy will continue to grow (and it better or there's a whole other host of issues that will make the debt look like child's play), then the remaining debt starts to shrink as a percentage of GDP.  It's like his stereo example...if we don't buy the stereo and if we continue to get raises (increasing income), those credit card payments won't seem quite so onerous.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Scuzz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1700



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2008, 04:44:19 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on November 09, 2008, 07:37:11 PM

Quote from: Alefroth on November 09, 2008, 05:50:25 PM

So you would never consider increasing your income as part of your plan? That's pretty silly.

The government doesn't have income. Taxes are removing money from one part of the economy, taking some out to cover bureaucracy and then moving it to another part of the economy.

Damm Straight...the government just takes money from one source and thru waste and programs of various supposed benefit moves the same money around. The government has never learned to budget. Taking money from people so that you can re-distribute it to them is insane.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2008, 05:11:45 PM »

Quote from: Scuzz on November 10, 2008, 04:44:19 PM

Quote from: Moliere on November 09, 2008, 07:37:11 PM

Quote from: Alefroth on November 09, 2008, 05:50:25 PM

So you would never consider increasing your income as part of your plan? That's pretty silly.

The government doesn't have income. Taxes are removing money from one part of the economy, taking some out to cover bureaucracy and then moving it to another part of the economy.

Damm Straight...the government just takes money from one source and thru waste and programs of various supposed benefit moves the same money around. The government has never learned to budget. Taking money from people so that you can re-distribute it to them is insane.

So you're an anarchist?
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
corruptrelic
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3553


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2008, 11:01:17 AM »

Raising taxes? That better not happen.. they rape us enough as it is.

From a good chunk of each pay check going to the government to our 7% "sales tax" to our property taxes and even our phone bill tax.. we are taxed to high hell as it is.
A big +1 on what mike said, government need to look at cutting their own spending instead of looking at us, hard workers earning a living, at paying for everything. AIG getting ANOTHER bailout? Us paying for a merger between Chrysler and GM? We didn't put them in that situation, so why should we be the ones forced to fork over the money for their mistakes?

How many times has Congress voted to give themselves a raise? Why don't we, the American people, have a say in if they get a raise or not? Just like we should have had a say in the bailouts that used our tax money that we're going to be paying back for the rest of our lifetimes.

If government wants to raise our taxes, it needs to at least go through a vote to the people to let US decide where our hard earned money goes to. When we had a vote to raise the Florida sales tax by a penny, we overwhemingly shot it down. I'd expect nothing less from the general population should any vote come.. but then again, they know that too and so that's why it'll be congress (the ones living the high life off our tax dollars) who votes for it, just like they keep voting themselves new raises. If only we had more Ron Pauls in congress!
Logged

"A gladiator does not fear death. He embraces it. Caresses it. Fucks it. Every time he enters the arena, he slides his cock into the mouth of the beast."
Harkonis
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9672



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2008, 04:33:06 PM »

I do find it interesting that so many people here think we pay a lot in taxes.  Paying taxes is annoying, but I have friends in other countries who pay far higher %'s of their total income to the gov.
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5094



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2008, 05:26:28 PM »

Quote from: Harkonis on November 11, 2008, 04:33:06 PM

I do find it interesting that so many people here think we pay a lot in taxes.  Paying taxes is annoying, but I have friends in other countries who pay far higher %'s of their total income to the gov.

Saying someone has it worse doesn't make it OK.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2008, 06:23:28 PM »

Quote from: Harkonis on November 11, 2008, 04:33:06 PM

I do find it interesting that so many people here think we pay a lot in taxes.  Paying taxes is annoying, but I have friends in other countries who pay far higher %'s of their total income to the gov.

Actually, you may not.  We pay a LOT in taxes...we just pay it to many different sources so sometimes you don't realize how much you're actually paying.  And if those other countries get free health care, add the cost of your health care premiums into this equasion. 

Federal Income Tax
FICA & Social Security (this is 15%, not 7.5%)
FUTA
SUTA
State Income Tax
Sales Tax
Property Tax
Capital Gains Tax
etc.

My tax+health care cost easily exceeds 60% of my total income. 
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21052



View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2008, 06:33:23 PM »

The gov'ment fails basic economics.

If Johnny has three apples and takes one away, how many does he have?

Gov'ment math?  He has 11 apples, 13 of which belong to China, which added together equals 37 apples.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 674



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2008, 01:16:31 AM »

Quote from: Moliere on November 09, 2008, 07:37:11 PM

Quote from: Alefroth on November 09, 2008, 05:50:25 PM

So you would never consider increasing your income as part of your plan? That's pretty silly.

The government doesn't have income. Taxes are removing money from one part of the economy, taking some out to cover bureaucracy and then moving it to another part of the economy.

Isn't that what we all do? In your scenario, they don't have any expenses either. I can't believe you'd argue taxes aren't government income.

Ale






Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5094



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2008, 01:55:06 AM »

Quote from: Alefroth on November 12, 2008, 01:16:31 AM

Quote from: Moliere on November 09, 2008, 07:37:11 PM

Quote from: Alefroth on November 09, 2008, 05:50:25 PM

So you would never consider increasing your income as part of your plan? That's pretty silly.

The government doesn't have income. Taxes are removing money from one part of the economy, taking some out to cover bureaucracy and then moving it to another part of the economy.

Isn't that what we all do? In your scenario, they don't have any expenses either. I can't believe you'd argue taxes aren't government income.

No, that's not what we all do. Private citizens generate income through productively providing a product or service that people want and can afford. We don't forcibly take money from the system and put it somewhere else. And yes, the government has expenses known as bureaucracy.

I'm not an Anarchist. I think there is a proper and moral role for government to take. Unfortunately 99% of all politicians rate their success by how much they grow the size and power of government.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 674



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2008, 03:08:19 AM »

Quote from: Moliere on November 12, 2008, 01:55:06 AM

Quote from: Alefroth on November 12, 2008, 01:16:31 AM

Quote from: Moliere on November 09, 2008, 07:37:11 PM

Quote from: Alefroth on November 09, 2008, 05:50:25 PM

So you would never consider increasing your income as part of your plan? That's pretty silly.

The government doesn't have income. Taxes are removing money from one part of the economy, taking some out to cover bureaucracy and then moving it to another part of the economy.

Isn't that what we all do? In your scenario, they don't have any expenses either. I can't believe you'd argue taxes aren't government income.

No, that's not what we all do. Private citizens generate income through productively providing a product or service that people want and can afford. We don't forcibly take money from the system and put it somewhere else. And yes, the government has expenses known as bureaucracy.

I'm not an Anarchist. I think there is a proper and moral role for government to take. Unfortunately 99% of all politicians rate their success by how much they grow the size and power of government.

So taking it from another area of the economy in other words. Governments provide services we need and want. Governments have budgets. Hopefully the amount they have to spend (i.e fire dept. salary) is less than the amount they take in (i.e. property taxes). Why are you so reluctant to call what they take in income?

Ale
« Last Edit: November 12, 2008, 03:14:09 AM by Alefroth » Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2008, 02:23:22 PM »

This may be the single best piece I've read on how some of this financial disaster happened.

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom?tid=true#page1
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1089


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2008, 01:19:46 AM »

Quote from: Moliere on November 12, 2008, 01:55:06 AM

Quote from: Alefroth on November 12, 2008, 01:16:31 AM

Quote from: Moliere on November 09, 2008, 07:37:11 PM

Quote from: Alefroth on November 09, 2008, 05:50:25 PM

So you would never consider increasing your income as part of your plan? That's pretty silly.

The government doesn't have income. Taxes are removing money from one part of the economy, taking some out to cover bureaucracy and then moving it to another part of the economy.

Isn't that what we all do? In your scenario, they don't have any expenses either. I can't believe you'd argue taxes aren't government income.

No, that's not what we all do. Private citizens generate income through productively providing a product or service that people want and can afford. We don't forcibly take money from the system and put it somewhere else. And yes, the government has expenses known as bureaucracy.

I'm not an Anarchist. I think there is a proper and moral role for government to take. Unfortunately 99% of all politicians rate their success by how much they grow the size and power of government.

Income is income. If you're a robber and you rob $1000 from someone else, that is also an income. And robber don't provide a product or a service in exchange for that $1000 if you don't count not hurting you = a service. Or a thief who steal money, it is still an income to the thief. The thief doesn't provide any service or product to the victim except maybe teach the victim to be more careful or install better security.

Government provide service to the citizens and in exchange of that they got paid in taxes. So by your own definition, taxes are income. Or do you think police force, public roads, etc. are not products or service?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2008, 01:21:48 AM by Victoria Raverna » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.129 seconds with 72 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.035s, 2q)