+- Twitist Forums (http://twitist.com)
+-- Forum: General Social Media & Marketing Forums (/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Social Marketing (/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Going over the fiscal cliff is better than the Republican option? (/thread-57484.html)
Going over the fiscal cliff is better than the Republican option? - The Contentious Otter - 01-25-2013 09:19 AM
A growing number of economists are claiming that going over the fiscal cliff is preferable to pursuing the Republican option of renewing the Bush tax cuts and repealing increased liquidity requirements in the Dodd-Frank bill. This movement started among energy economists who claimed that given the current positions of commodities markets players that the Republican option would create a massive spike in energy prices that will drive the country into a recession, while going over the fiscal cliff will -at most- reduce economic growth from the range of 2 to 2.5% to 1.5 to 2%.
Do you agree with the growing body of economists who say that 1.5% economic growth is preferable to Republican policies that will drive us into another recession with $5 per gallon gas and $7 per gallon diesel?
Bekind's response is a textbook example of Republican propaganda and misinformation.
- owg - 01-25-2013 09:27 AM
It will be interesting to see if the Republicans have learn anything from the election.
- Moe - 01-25-2013 09:27 AM
I would rather have a recession for 2 years and vote out all the republicans than destroy Social security and medicare, I have worked too long and paid in too much to have it stolen from me for tax cuts for billionaires.
- Chevy P - 01-25-2013 09:27 AM
Nothing but bad comes of following Republican policies. The cliff sounds better.
- The Virginian - 01-25-2013 09:27 AM
Yes, because with the new congress in and the impact felt Republicans will run to compromise. Their statements that they want to raise revenues is hollow. They are not talking about raising taxes.
- BekindtoAnimals22 - 01-25-2013 09:27 AM
They want the amount of required capital to be reduced for small community banks because it is causing bank failures. If all you want are the big banks left, then I guess you will reject what the repubs are saying.
"Finally, President and CEO of the American Bankers Association (ABA) Frank Keating said the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act “threatens the survival of many community banks that are the economic lifeblood of small towns across America.â€23 The ABA also issued a report explaining that the Act is “impairing community banks’ ability to serve customers and local communities"
http://post.nyssa.org/nyssa-news/2012/03/too-big-to-fail-or-too-small-to-save-dodd-frank-and-the-ripple-effect-on-big-and-small-banks.html
Of course, Dodd refutes this saying its easier for 7,000 smaller banks but there are many more than that across the nation. Just implementing the regulations is a huge burden that big banks can better absorb the costs of than the small ones.
You will be paying by the mile to drive under Obama no matter how much the gas is. Its something he's got tucked away for when he had more flexibility.
That oil commodity crap was passed in 2000 signed by Clinton. That is when the shit hit the fan with our oil/gas prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000 It also led to more lax regulations on the swaps that have also been at the heart of this recession.
Small banks have their hands tied in lending due to requirements in the capital they must keep on hand. This does impede economic growth in communities.
Where is your link? I would like to see who said this because what they have been talking about would have absolutely nothing to do with energy.