Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (624040)	8/12/2011 12:14:29 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1577025

In 1937 federal spending was cut very modestly compared to the recent huge spending increases, then it went back up with an increase in '38 that was larger than the '37 spending cut. Spending dropped by $600mil, then increased by $1bil the next year. Its rather unreasonable to think a spending cut of $600mil, caused a GDP drop of $3.2bil a year later( esp. when spending increased by a billion that next year), even Krugman doesn't think the fiscal multiplier is that big. There is some reasons to think its very small (even in some cases negative), but if you follow the arguments of the strongest "stimulus" supporters you get a figure more like 1.5, not 5 and a third. The double dip on the depression wasn't because of spending cuts, it was because of monetary contraction, tax increases and expanded regulation. The government increased taxes, including a new "undistributed profits tax" that amounted to a truly massive tax on any company with retained earnings, all about the time that money was being tightened (which is at the wrong time enough to send an economy in to a downturn all by itself). Also you had the passage of the National Labor Relations act in 1935, followed by a doubling of unionization from 36 to 38 and increase in major strikes.

To: bentway who wrote (624040)	8/12/2011 12:33:55 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1577025

Barack Obama faces calls to cancel summer holiday ............................................................................................................................... Barack Obama is facing calls to cancel his annual summer holiday in Martha's Vineyard and concentrate on steadying the US economy. By Alex Spillius, Washington 2 Aug 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8698284/Barack-Obama-faces-calls-to-cancel-summer-holiday.html With the credit rating of the United States downgraded for the first time, and the stock markets on a rollercoaster ride, critics argue that relaxing on the exclusive Massachusetts island with his family for 10 days at the end of the month would send the wrong signal to voters. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, was forced to defend the president's holiday plans. "I don't think Americans out there would begrudge that notion that the president would spend some time with his family," he said, adding that "there's no such thing as a presidential vacation". "The presidency travels with you. And he will, of course, be fully capable, if necessary, of traveling back if that were required. It's not very far," he said. Robert Shrum, a Democratic strategist generally supportive of the president, said: "The Congress and the president shouldn't be on vacation while tens of millions of Americans are on forced vacations in the form of unemployment." The president faced similar criticism about his leisure time last year when he continued a visit to his home town Chicago during the early days of the BP oil spill.