akuma587 said:
They predicted that without a stimulus that unemployment would not get higher than 9%. I don't really see how you can fault them for the fact that the economy actually turned out to be worse than everyone expected. They got those numbers from private sources (i.e. people in the private sector, economic experts, etc.). If anything, it means there was a greater need for a stimulus than they thought. Your argument is essentially like saying that the fire department shouldn't have brought a hose to a fire because the fire was worse than they expected. It really makes no sense. |
It didn't turn out worse that everyone expected, it just turned out worse for the incompetent keynesian economists that big government politicians listen to.
In 2003 through 2006 there were countless bloggers and economists who had analyzed the numbers and were crying from the rooftops that the United States (and western world) was in the largest housing bubble in history, and the incompetent keynesian economists that big government politicians listen to said the rise in house prices was based on solid economic fundimentals.
In 2007 as the bubble burst there were countless bloggers and economists who had analyzed the numbers and were telling everyone to protect their money because we were heading for a deep recession unlike anything we have seen in our lifetime, and the incompetent keynesian economist that big government politicians listen to said that we would only face a mild pull back in the housing market in over heated regions and the fundimentals of the economy were still sound.
In 2008 there were countless bloggers and economists who had analyzed the numbers and were telling everyone that we were in a recession, and the incompetent keynesian economists that big government politicians listen to refused to acknowege it until it had gone on for 9 months.
In 2009 there were countless bloggers and economist who had analyzed the numbers and were saying that the stimulus wouldn't work and the government numbers were far too optimistic on the unemployment rate for both the stimulus and the stress tests of the banks.
How many times do these incompetent kensian economists have to be wrong before you're willing to accept that either they are incompetent or they're trying to mislead people?
akuma587 said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. run a deficit every year they were in office? I don't think we have had a fiscally conservative President since Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter. Not to mention it is pretty much impossible to avoid running a deficit during a recession unless you just shut the government down entirely and stop providing essential services. |
Have you ever tried not being partisan?
The Obama administration is going to have a larger per-capita deficit over their first six months in office than the Canadian government is going to have over the next 5 years; and being that the current projected reductions in the federal deficit are made by the same incompetent kensian economists who believed that the unemployment rate would peak at 8% without the stimulus (and at 6.5% with the stimulus) and considering that this doesn't take into account further stimulus or healthcare spending, it is likely that Obama will double the federal debt in his first term.
I think you're being remarkably dishonest with yourself if you believe that this deficit is in any way necessary to maintain government spending through the recession. Realistically, the spending increases are the equlivalent of a man building up $100,000 in credit card debt to pay for coke and whores under the belief that it will help him get a better job in the future.
