IMO, that's all this is, the economy isn't anywhere close to being as bad as the media makes it out to be. Recessions happen, it's part of the economic cycle. The key to surviving these things is to not panic, and not try to spend your way out of it. Unfortunately it seems our government has decided that throwing money at the problem is the best way to solve it.

IMO, that's all this is, the economy isn't anywhere close to being as bad as the media makes it out to be. Recessions happen, it's part of the economic cycle. The key to surviving these things is to not panic, and not try to spend your way out of it. Unfortunately it seems our government has decided that throwing money at the problem is the best way to solve it.

 

So what would be the media's goal in exaggerating the extent of the problems?

 

Personally, I do think it all depends on your personal situation and perspective. If things are still going pretty good for you (still have job, wages not cut, able to pay bills and still afford some niceties), then it's not too bad. If you are one of the persons directly impacted, then it's a severe recession. I haven't been affected in the slightest, but it doesn't make sense to me that these stories of massive layoffs and huge corporate losses are but a figment of the media's imagination.

I know the hit my 401K took this year wasn't an exaggeration by the media. :irked:

I know the hit my 401K took this year wasn't an exaggeration by the media. :irked:

 

Nor mine. Brutal. Absolutely brutal. Gee, thanks for reminding me about that. :irked: I think I've posted several times that I haven't been affected at all by the recession and kind of forgot about the staggering blow to my 401K. Have any other devastating news you need to remind me of?

I know the hit my 401K took this year wasn't an exaggeration by the media. :irked:

 

And as long as you're not looking to retire in the next couple years, it'll be back to where it was and then some.

IMO, that's all this is, the economy isn't anywhere close to being as bad as the media makes it out to be. Recessions happen, it's part of the economic cycle. The key to surviving these things is to not panic, and not try to spend your way out of it. Unfortunately it seems our government has decided that throwing money at the problem is the best way to solve it.

 

Stimulus spending is indeed a time-tested and proven way of moving the economy forward out of such tough times. It has been done for every single recession and agreed by just about every economist I've ever heard of as an appropriate and accepted practice. If not that, what would you suggest?

Stimulus spending is indeed a time-tested and proven way of moving the economy forward out of such tough times. It has been done for every single recession and agreed by just about every economist I've ever heard of as an appropriate and accepted practice. If not that, what would you suggest?

 

I assume by stimulus you're talking about the checks that have been sent out to the likes of you and me. I'm talking in terms of the economic bailout packages. They're a terrible idea. If it were up to me, they'd all go bankrupt. It'll work itself out if we just give it time.

I assume by stimulus you're talking about the checks that have been sent out to the likes of you and me. I'm talking in terms of the economic bailout packages. They're a terrible idea. If it were up to me, they'd all go bankrupt. It'll work itself out if we just give it time.

 

"Stimulus spending" includes many other government-sponsored expenditures on infrastructure in the economy, not just the rebates checks.

I know the hit my 401K took this year wasn't an exaggeration by the media. :irked:

 

Mine,either!:madman:

IMO, that's all this is, the economy isn't anywhere close to being as bad as the media makes it out to be. Recessions happen, it's part of the economic cycle. The key to surviving these things is to not panic, and not try to spend your way out of it. Unfortunately it seems our government has decided that throwing money at the problem is the best way to solve it.

I'm getting technical here, but a few things to consider:

 

1. The way to get out a recession is more spending.

2. This can be government spending as well- however, that comes with more of a liability for future taxpayers and an unbalanced gov't budget. It's a balancing issue.

 

The alternative is to spend and tax now. Personally, I find it ironic that the President-Elect has chosen not to raise taxes because of the current economic status- isn't he admitting that raising taxes is bad for the economy? If raising taxes is the way to help the poor, then wouldn't we raise them now because the poor need it most?

 

In all, I find that the most effective way is the one with the least government spending, if not for the tax liability, for the fact that the government struggles to be effective at near anything.

So what would be the media's goal in exaggerating the extent of the problems?

 

Personally, I do think it all depends on your personal situation and perspective. If things are still going pretty good for you (still have job, wages not cut, able to pay bills and still afford some niceties), then it's not too bad. If you are one of the persons directly impacted, then it's a severe recession. I haven't been affected in the slightest, but it doesn't make sense to me that these stories of massive layoffs and huge corporate losses are but a figment of the media's imagination.

 

The same goal as any company, to make more money and draw more profits. No news sells like bad news and it is really easy to get people interested in something that could eventually directly affect them. Even if by the very action of saying the economy is going downhill helps to speed it along.

The same goal as any company, to make more money and draw more profits. No news sells like bad news and it is really easy to get people interested in something that could eventually directly affect them. Even if by the very action of saying the economy is going downhill helps to speed it along.

 

Got it. So the recession is an imaginary, media-created conspiracy designed for the purpose of selling more newspapers and increasing TV news viewership? I wonder how we'll explain that to the 2 million people that have become unemployed since the beginning of the recession? "Sorry, Mr. Worker, you weren't actually let go because your employer was struggling and/or your factory shut down. No, they're doing fine. It just made for more titillating news to help the Associated Press, Gannett Company, New York Times, News Corp, and other news/media organizations make millions of dollars." (Though oddly enough, it hasn't had this effect at all on their stock prices or profits. Bad plan these evil conglomerates hatched to make more money . . . . :devil:)

I'm getting technical here, but a few things to consider:

 

1. The way to get out a recession is more spending.

2. This can be government spending as well- however, that comes with more of a liability for future taxpayers and an unbalanced gov't budget. It's a balancing issue.

 

The alternative is to spend and tax now. Personally, I find it ironic that the President-Elect has chosen not to raise taxes because of the current economic status- isn't he admitting that raising taxes is bad for the economy? If raising taxes is the way to help the poor, then wouldn't we raise them now because the poor need it most?

 

In all, I find that the most effective way is the one with the least government spending, if not for the tax liability, for the fact that the government struggles to be effective at near anything.

 

I'm unclear. So which is the best way to help the economy recover from a recession - more government spending or less?

 

You cannot tax your way out of a recession. If you raise taxes, you cause people to further curtail spending, and deepen the recession. The bottom-line is that you have to get money flowing through the economy again and you do this through government spending (and, yes, eventually this has to be paid for down the road with higher taxes) and reducing interest rates to encourage less saving by the consumer and more borrowing by companies to grow their businesses.

I think it all depends on what walk of life you lead. My dad's been in the housing industry forever. He's had two places he's worked for either have serious cut backs, or close shop. Luckily he's still able to adjust and handle the situation accordingly. Not everyone can adjust. I wasn't feeling the crunch until the past couple months, honestly I've seen it the most since the election. I didn't vote for Obama, but I also don't feel that it's because he won that I've seen it more now lately. Just the timing of it all, summer construction winds down, winter season brings alot of different good things and bad, quarterly earnings for the summer were not very high, alot of it did have to do with gas prices.

 

We'll see what happens, I wouldn't say the economy is as bad as the media makes it out to be, we're in a rough spot, we'll see what happens come spring time. This next spring and summer, as well as what the incoming administration announces, will play a big part in the next 9 months.

Stimulus spending is indeed a time-tested and proven way of moving the economy forward out of such tough times. It has been done for every single recession and agreed by just about every economist I've ever heard of as an appropriate and accepted practice. If not that, what would you suggest?

Stimulus spending has never been done on the scale Barack Obama and the Democrats are talking about, at least not in my lifetime. $600 billion to $1 trillion in spending on top of all of the bailouts already done and those in the mill is going to make our economic situation worse in the long run.

 

Drastic corporate income tax cuts would do more to fix our economy than any government spending program. Instead, our government is piling on new taxes on businesses and individuals. The governor of New York even wants to levy a tax on non-diet sodas. Government should shrink during a recession and instead politicians are proposing expansion.