The sad cost of war

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that article is not exactly old info..and i did read your link. and i also read a few weeks back how unemployment rose to the same numbers with the stimulus plan as it was projected to without it. so, what exactly did all that proposed new spending accomplish job wise? nothing. but it sure added to our humongous deficit. so, i'd think in the end that it will do more harm than good. no job increase that they expected, no decrease in job losses, and a further drag overall due to more spending of money we DON'T HAVE.

The job loss picture is slowing, stablizing. Those are the facts, based upon current data.

??? There are many state projects out there that have hired on - projects funded by stimulus money. Mostly road projects so far. Geesh, it's there in the news. There was just a huge article about it the other day (I'd have to google, it was on an internet news site like CNN or something) - about different states, what they have done with the initial stimulus money (again, mostly road projects).

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

The job loss picture is slowing, stablizing. Those are the facts, based upon current data.

??? There are many state projects out there that have hired on - projects funded by stimulus money. Mostly road projects so far. Geesh, it's there in the news. There was just a huge article about it the other day (I'd have to google, it was on an internet news site like CNN or something) - about different states, what they have done with the initial stimulus money (again, mostly road projects).

job losses continue. the deficit grows, which the stimulus added to. if we are five years from job GROWTH, and our deficit continues to increase, how can you feel any confidence right now based on those two things? a few road projects don't reduce the deficit. overall, i think our economy is further battered by all the added spending.


are a few jobs added here or there, when the overall true unemployment rate is over 16%, worth our growing deficit?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

job losses continue. the deficit grows, which the stimulus added to. if we are five years from job GROWTH, and our deficit continues to increase, how can you feel any confidence right now based on those two things? a few road projects don't reduce the deficit. overall, i think our economy is further battered by all the added spending.

are a few jobs added here or there, when the overall true unemployment rate is over 16%, worth our growing deficit?

What should we do if we are five years from job growth? Just sit here and wait for it to happen? How will it happen if we are in a depression, or still in a recession?

Those "few" jobs here and there add up (the money is there to be spread over two years of it), and those jobs are sure important to the people that were unemployed two months ago, but have them now.

Is it your position that it would have been better to not spend that money, not improve our dangerously crumbling and outdated infrastructure (bridges collapsing on people, highway repairs, etc) and not hire those people?

Look at just the auto industry: what if, instead of stimulus, cash for clunkers, etc., the government did a complete hands off, and allowed the auto industry to fail?

Where would we be right now, six months later? Were would unemployement be? Would we be in a stabilizing recession, or would we have fallen off the cliff?

Clinton handed Bush a balanced, rapidly decreasing deficit, and Bush raised it to the highest deficit ever, and ignored a developing recession. Now we have to get out of it.

We are not in a place where hands off or cutting spending are really viable options at this time, and that's what most of the major economists have been saying all along.

Originally Posted by Riot

What should we do if we are five years from job growth? Just sit here and wait for it to happen? How will it happen if we are in a depression, or still in a recession?

Those "few" jobs here and there add up (the money is there to be spread over two years of it), and those jobs are sure important to the people that were unemployed two months ago, but have them now.

Is it your position that it would have been better to not spend that money, not improve our dangerously crumbling and outdated infrastructure (bridges collapsing on people, highway repairs, etc) and not hire those people?

Look at just the auto industry: what if, instead of stimulus, cash for clunkers, etc., the government did a complete hands off, and allowed the auto industry to fail?

Where would we be right now, six months later? Were would unemployement be? Would we be in a stabilizing recession, or would we have fallen off the cliff?

Clinton handed Bush a balanced, rapidly decreasing deficit, and Bush raised it to the highest deficit ever, and ignored a developing recession. Now we have to get out of it.

We are not in a place where hands off or cutting spending are really viable options at this time, and that's what most of the major economists have been saying all along.

If you want answers...


Look at Japan.


Then kindly stfu.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

If you want answers...


Look at Japan.


Then kindly stfu.

four so far this year for them.

back in the '90's-they passed ten, costing over 100 trillion yen. none cured the recession.

[Danzig]

As the Obama administration expands U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, military experts are warning that the United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32346408...shington_post/


just found this on my home page. well, isn't that just fantastic.



"Afghan forces will need $4 billion a year for another decade, with a like sum for development," said Bing West, a former assistant secretary of defense and combat Marine who has chronicled the Iraq and Afghan wars.

[Riot]

>> As the Obama administration expands U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, military experts are warning that the United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war.

The President was elected on the promise of pulling out of Iraq and expanding into Afghanistan.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

What should we do if we are five years from job growth? Just sit here and wait for it to happen? How will it happen if we are in a depression, or still in a recession?

Those "few" jobs here and there add up (the money is there to be spread over two years of it), and those jobs are sure important to the people that were unemployed two months ago, but have them now.

Is it your position that it would have been better to not spend that money, not improve our dangerously crumbling and outdated infrastructure (bridges collapsing on people, highway repairs, etc) and not hire those people?

Look at just the auto industry: what if, instead of stimulus, cash for clunkers, etc., the government did a complete hands off, and allowed the auto industry to fail?

Where would we be right now, six months later? Were would unemployement be? Would we be in a stabilizing recession, or would we have fallen off the cliff?

Clinton handed Bush a balanced, rapidly decreasing deficit, and Bush raised it to the highest deficit ever, and ignored a developing recession. Now we have to get out of it.

We are not in a place where hands off or cutting spending are really viable options at this time, and that's what most of the major economists have been saying all along.

forgive my pessimism, since it's my thinking that the govt got us into this morass in the first place. so far be it from me to think they can get us out of it. i also don't believe that job gains that may result from all this increased spending will turn out to be enough to tackle the resulting deficit. i think the increased deficit to new record numbers will be worse in the long run for us than adding a few jobs here or there, because of the harm it will do us overall. look at the talk right now about our ability to borrow.

legitimate spending where necessary is one thing, coming up with new programs that are tremendously expensive is absolutely ridiculous imo. like i said above, getting us out of the two wars that are one of the largest drains on our treasury would be a huge help.

most economists are saying our deficit is our number one biggest problem. obama is working on making that worse, not better.

[Riot]

>> forgive my pessimism, since it's my thinking that the govt got us into this >>morass in the first place. so far be it from me to think they can get us out of it.

You're certainly entitled to feel pessimistic, but who then will get us out? Ourselves? How?

>>i also don't believe that job gains that may result from all this increased >>spending will turn out to be enough to tackle the resulting deficit. i think >>the increased deficit to new record numbers will be worse in the long run >>for us than adding a few jobs here or there, because of the harm it will do >>us overall.

Fair enough. Economists debate the same. But where would we be without this spending? We can't just say "don't spend" and "stop spending and enlarging the deficit" without looking at what the consequences of not spending will do to us, too.

>>legitimate spending where necessary is one thing, coming up with new programs that are tremendously expensive is absolutely ridiculous imo.

I'm furious about Congress wanting to approve additional airplanes over what is being asked for - have you seen this story in the past couple days? I definitely have to start writing my Congressmen on this one. Yes, it's a small part of the budget overall, but it adds up.

The health care reform bills cost (using the current numbers that seem to be out there) is a trillion over 10 years, which is less than 1% of the budget. And the benefits to be derived, the cost savings, for millions of people that currently are an expensive drain on the entire healthcare industry, will help immensely.

And the humanity of the largest country in the world helping all it's own citizens counts for a hell of a lot, too. It has been recognized that this country needs to do something about healthcare for decades.

>>like i said above, getting us out of the two wars that are one of the largest drains on our treasury would be a huge help.

Great strides have been made in Iraq.

>>most economists are saying our deficit is our number one biggest problem. obama is working on making that worse, not better.

The budget deficit doesn't stand alone from the recession-depression-world financial situation, unfortunately. Nobody wants to grow the deficit blindly.

[Danzig]

[quote=Riot]The job loss picture is slowing, stablizing. Those are the facts, based upon current data.
QUOTE]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32349809...s_and_economy/


Though the unemployment rate dipped to 9.4 percent in July — its first drop in 15 months — economists predict it will start climbing again. Many, including people in the Obama administration and at the Fed, say it could still top 10 percent this year.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32314827...n_the_economy/


even if the economy quickly returned to the peak job creation performance of 2007, when the economy was adding roughly 400,000 new jobs a month, it would take more than two years to rehire the 7 million workers who lost their jobs to the recession.

Few economists expect a return to those 2007 growth levels any time soon.



you might want to wait for more than one weeks happy headlines before you start thinking we're out of trouble.

[Riot]

[quote=Danzig
you might want to wait for more than one weeks happy headlines before you start thinking we're out of trouble.[/QUOTE]

I never said we were out of trouble. It will take 2-4 years until we are out of trouble. It will take a long time until jobs come back. The positives are that we haven't dropped off the "let's ignore it and let business find it's own level" cliff into the second great Depression, nor is the recession currently deeping. It appears at this time to be holding steady, with small positive indicators here and there.

We still haven't seen the credit card crash, nor commerical real estate.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

I never said we were out of trouble. It will take 2-4 years until we are out of trouble. It will take a long time until jobs come back. The positives are that we haven't dropped off the "let's ignore it and let business find it's own level" cliff into the second great Depression, nor is the recession currently deeping. It appears at this time to be holding steady, with small positive indicators here and there.

We still haven't seen the credit card crash, nor commerical real estate.

Ok that last part was a joke right?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Ok that last part was a joke right?

Why? Other than the typo, what's funny about the commercial real estate mortgage market crashing, just as the residential market did?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why? Other than the typo, what's funny about the commercial real estate mortgage market crashing, just as the residential market did?

I misunderstood u as the commercial property market may have been more affected than the residential market. But those who had their eggs in one basket (a home they couldn't afford and those commercial investors leveraged to the hilt) can testify.