Talking about the Stimulus package and how ridiculous some people are being. Ill start with explaining the situation to those who don't fully understand whats going on.
In 1999 Clinton made a huge mistake, he decided to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. This was protection set up for banks after the great depression that basically made it so banks were separated by different industry. Commercial banks and investment banks were separate entities. This allowed for incredibly risky behavior and higher profits. However while risk is good for allowing for much higher profit, it is never appropriate to allow certain sectors of the economy to do this. For instance with the commercial banks which are central for a healthy economy to extend financing to businesses, you shouldn't allow them to take on this ridiculously risky behavior because they in essence can not go bankrupt without having a domino effect on the economy, these pillars of the economy needed to be regulated and needed to be risk averse because if they fell the burden fell on the taxpayers, and that's what happened.
You cant argue that the Bailout was a mistake, it was not a decision it was a consequence. George W. Bush should have seen the warning signs and the goddamn SEC should have done their job, but pretty much everybody was either incompetent or corrupt. So the Republicans hate government spending, right? Except wait, how much debt did the Bush administration pile onto "the next generation" through tax cuts to the rich and two failed wars? Trillions?! ouch. So even a government controlled by the Republicans entirely (6 years of the Bush administration the Congress belonged to the Republicans as well) managed to spend and spend and spend and sunk the surplus created by the Democrats under Clinton into a dismal deficit. So remember this is important to remember when the Republicans tell you that Obama is spending too much, the truth of the matter is that the Republicans spent like crazy, whether directly through two expensive and unnecessary wars, or indirectly by giving tax cuts to corporations who did not need them at all. The neo-con mindset is that economics are simple, lower taxes and the economy does better.. however this isn't always true. The economy was still booming from the Clinton administration, tax cuts were simply not necessary and in essence really sleazy when you consider the connections that the Bush administration had with big corporations. Consider the family friendship between the Bush family and Ken Lay the CEO of Enron (before he died) this is just one example of the sleazy influences that the Republicans had to reduce taxes and if you think it was to make the economy grow you are simply wrong, it was to distribute wealth further to the rich because those were the people funding the Republicans.
So, tax cuts were proven to not be the best way to fuel an economy. In fact tax cuts when an economy is booming is just retarded, what happened in the last 8 years was complete and utter negligence of social programs and funding for the sciences. So we end up with a crisis on all front by the time the Republicans leave, Infrastructure in the country has been underfunded, the private medicare system is corrupt and costing Americans more than a public system would, and the American school system became a worldwide joke as underfunding for the public system created lifelong roadblocks for poor individuals to get educated and therefor contribute more to the economy.
So what is the Stimulus package? its a huge spending budget on a myriad of all the things that went underfunded under Bush really, none of it went to give money to wallstreet or give it away to people like Bush did in his feeble attempts to help the economy (Stimulus check, remember?!), no this is money that is being spent on things that at the same time are the infrastructure for the country and absolutely imperative, and at the same time this spending would be perfectly timed to offset the huge unemployment that the states currently is facing by creating thousands of government jobs. I can understand the opposition, they are afraid of a return to Keynesian government. The use of the word socialism is simply a slur, used inappropriately to cause outrage in the republican base. What the real outrage is, for people who believe the market should stand up on its own, is the fact that the market has collapsed so significantly that now the government has to step in to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Government spending is really one of three options that have been presented.
1) The current option, increase government spending really quickly to build infrastructure and at the same time keep people working.
2) The republican option, more tax cuts. Yes that's their idea, the same tax cuts that reduced the surpluses to a deficit under strong economic conditions, do that.. but more!
3) Let the economy collapse.
It's easy to criticize the Obama administration for picking number 1, however nobody has come up with a better solution and time is of the essence. This mess is not Obama's fault, hes just the one fixing it.. we all knew that during elections but some Republican supporters have lost their mind (SilkWizard) and forgot that the current crisis is the result of the severe transition towards Republican Ideologies, Ideologies that have proven to not work in the real world. Here's the problem now, the republicans are being so partisan that they are slowing down the effectiveness of congress and in extension the government. The sooner something is done to get people working again, the better off we all are. However the republicans want Obama to fail, they are trying to drag their heels during the entire process even though if Obama fails so does the entire country. It is unethical and just plain awful. It is hard to watch how the "patriotic" party would sooner spitefully collapse the American economy than participate with the government that was elected via democratic process.
Shame on you Republican party, everybody is in this together, this isn't a sporting event of Democrats vs Republicans, this is the well being of the country at stake.
Hmm... where to start...
For instance with the commercial banks which are central for a healthy economy to extend financing to businesses, you shouldn't allow them to take on this ridiculously risky behavior because they in essence can not go bankrupt without having a domino effect on the economy, these pillars of the economy needed to be regulated and needed to be risk averse because if they fell the burden fell on the taxpayers, and that's what happened. If "we" are unable to accept the risk involved, then why even have the guise that these "private" banks are anyhing but government controlled banks. Heck, if they _aren't_ controlled by our government, some other entity must be. There's one of two moral yet distinct paths: 1) a free market path where the private banks are allowed to fail, or 2) the government assumes that the flow of money within the country ensure sovereignty and security. So, tax cuts were proven to not be the best way to fuel an economy. In fact tax cuts when an economy is booming is just retarded, what happened in the last 8 years was complete and utter negligence of social programs and funding for the sciences. So we end up with a crisis on all front by the time the Republicans leave, Infrastructure in the country has been underfunded, the private medicare system is corrupt and costing Americans more than a public system would, and the American school system became a worldwide joke as underfunding for the public system created lifelong roadblocks for poor individuals to get educated and therefor contribute more to the economy. This is about the most ill informed amount of garbage I've heard in quite awhile. 1) Tax cuts can be a way to fuel the economy; it just so happens that it didn't apply to the US economy in the last 28 years. 2) Social programs and science have nearly nothing to do with tax cuts. Medicare and Social Security had nearly no change in its internal policy; and it was more governement mandates and not tax policy that diverted monies away from, well, say stem-cell research. 3) The Medicare/Medicaid system is public, not private. 4) Public school systems are generally funded by local tax bases, not federal taxes. Yes, federal grants for some buildings and research are there, but not for the generic salaries, inventory, and most buildings. So remember this is important to remember when the Republicans tell you that Obama is spending too much, the truth of the matter is that the Republicans spent like crazy, whether directly through two expensive and unnecessary wars, or indirectly by giving tax cuts to corporations who did not need them at all. Even if Bush and the GOP ran up spending does not excuse Obama and the Democrats from it. That's a false comparison. I have brought this point up many times; the skewering of the conservative GOP platform is one of the main reasons why GW Bush will go down in history as the worst president ever. He managed to solidify the GOP as the party of war, entangling alliances, and runaway spending -- all positions the Democrats had a firm grasp on pre 2000. It's very easy to dismiss the current GOP's outrage over the spending now, but I hope they continue to do so. And hopefully they do so based on principle as opposed to simpleton obstructionism. It's easy to criticize the Obama administration for picking number 1, however nobody has come up with a better solution and time is of the essence. This mess is not Obama's fault, hes just the one fixing it.. we all knew that during elections but some Republican supporters have lost their mind (SilkWizard) and forgot that the current crisis is the result of the severe transition towards Republican Ideologies You should have offered a #4, reduce taxes and reduce spending appropriately. SilkWizard still suffers from extreme cognitive dissonance. His support for McCain is still unfathomable and extraordinarily vapid -- especially for a so-called Objectivist. By his actions and his words, he a blind GOP cheerleader. They ate up the socialist and anti-constitutional policies of GWB without any resistance. Most of them claim to be Reagan disciples, but revere him so much to the point they can't see how socialist his policies became in 1987-88. Many folks within the GOP are just like Mr. Silk and it's killing off the principled and knowledgeable members of the GOP. | |
Bootyboy:
1)I acknowledge that there is a time and place to cut taxes to make the economy grow, I argued that Bush did them at the wrong time. Reagan for instance chose an appropriate time. 2) Government mandates did screw over stem cell research, and that is in my mind unforgivable. Tax cuts are a part of the Bush administration that while not linked directly but in conjunction with inadequate support of social programs resulted in a greater divide between rich and poor. 3) Medicare is public, but its failing. I am sorry for not distinguishing the corrupt Health Insurance industry which is private from the underfunded medicare system. As a Canadian sometimes It is easy for me to misspeak. 4)More needed to be done federally to address education, it is in everybodys best interest that no state have inadequate public school funding. Obama focused a lot on improving the school system and providing more federal support in the form of scholarships and grants. 5) It is a fair comparrison, it is obvious that in the face of a huge crisis you need to spend a lot more money than you would like. You cannot face a collapse this magnitude with 10 billion dollars in government stimulus spending, not when the economy is taking trillion dollar losses and entire sectors are falling to shambles. As for option #4 of reduce spending and taxes moderately, what exactly do you figure that would do to ward off an economic collapse? it is a great strategy during moderate downturn in the economy but not during a collapse. Anyway I respect your opinion but you should not be so disrespectful in your rebuttal. | |
Jeff8500 wrote:
Nay. I stopped reading when you proved you don't know when the Great Depression ended. You obviously didn't read anything, the only mention of the great depression was an overturned bill that was put into effect immediately following the great depression. I didn't mention any dates dealing with the great depression directly, you have reading comprehension issues. | |
Masterdan wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote: Actually, he said this because of the following: "In 1999 Clinton made a huge mistake, he decided to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. This was protection set up for banks after the great depression that basically made it so banks were separated by different industry." The Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1933, and the depression didn't end until around 1939 when WWII production kicked in to high gear. You might want to rephrase that portion of your argument. | |
Masterdan wrote:
1)I acknowledge that there is a time and place to cut taxes to make the economy grow, I argued that Bush did them at the wrong time. Reagan for instance chose an appropriate time. Fair enough, just make sure you don't make the claim that tax cuts were proven to not be the best way to fuel an economy when that is patently untrue. 2) Government mandates did screw over stem cell research, and that is in my mind unforgivable. This has nothing to do with tax cuts. Tax cuts are a part of the Bush administration that while not linked directly but in conjunction with inadequate support of social programs resulted in a greater divide between rich and poor. That also doesn't have anything to do with the funding of science. Medicare and Social Security consist of well over 50% of the US budget outlay, which are social programs... if you believe that was inadequate support, what percentage of the national budget should have been put towards those two programs? 3) Medicare is public, but its failing. I am sorry for not distinguishing the corrupt Health Insurance industry which is private from the underfunded medicare system. As a Canadian sometimes It is easy for me to misspeak. Again, how is Medicare underfunded? Proportionally, its funding is higher than the population it serves... economically, it's a preposterous program. 4)More needed to be done federally to address education, it is in everybodys best interest that no state have inadequate public school funding. Obama focused a lot on improving the school system and providing more federal support in the form of scholarships and grants. First off, how does a federal government impose non-arbitrary rules in terms of "adequate funding"? Doesn't this create regional moral hazards in terms of local tax rates and levies? How about curriculum? Can that possibly be federally managed non-arbitrarily? What difference does a federal government have over a state government in terms of knowing what a state's best interest is? Think of this, why couldn't the feds just let Kansas teach creationism in their classrooms? If that branch of "scientific" thought was allowed into Kansas, then great, the 49 states now have an advantage in the future for its students. The obvious counterargument is 1st amendment; I simply used the Kansas example to illustrate that it's the state's best interest to prioritize education if they wish to be competitive in terms of smarter constituents -- which hopefully translates to higher income/higher taxed adults. 5) It is a fair comparrison, it is obvious that in the face of a huge crisis you need to spend a lot more money than you would like. Domestically, in crisis, you should buckle down as much as you can. You cannot face a collapse this magnitude with 10 billion dollars in government stimulus spending, not when the economy is taking trillion dollar losses and entire sectors are falling to shambles. That "trillion dollars" of losses do not come off the books in your example. It's deferred US debt and the cost of prolonging this economic pain. As for option #4 of reduce spending and taxes moderately, what exactly do you figure that would do to ward off an economic collapse? it is a great strategy during moderate downturn in the economy but not during a collapse. Collapse has to happen. Bubbles have to burst. Why prolong the bursting? Burst it all at once. Prepare the US for any natural free market recovery by having as little debt overhead as possible. Anyway I respect your opinion but you should not be so disrespectful in your rebuttal. I apologize if you took "ill informed amount of garbage" as disrespectful. I just read that paragraph and couldn't believe so many untruths and misconceptions could be packed in a single paragraph. | |
Vexonater wrote:
Actually, he said this because of the following: "In 1999 Clinton made a huge mistake, he decided to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. This was protection set up for banks after the great depression that basically made it so banks were separated by different industry." Yeah, I was thinking of nitpicking him on the "In 1999 Clinton made..." part. The bill that actually went through the Senate and Congress was not vetoable. | |
Vexonater wrote:
... Fair enough, I thought it was clear but, the Glass-Steagall Act was passed as a result of the great depression, wether chronologically it happened after the great depression ended was not the focus of the point. It was a consequence of the failure of the banks from a similar significant collapse of the banks. To Bootyboy, your opinion that tax cuts and fiscal conservative is the way to end financial crisis' is a matter of ideological difference, while you may be more supportive of the Hoover approach to dealing with a economic depression, I would subscribe more heavily in the New Deal approach to rapidly addressing and recovering from a significant collapse of an economic structure. You cannot say that your way of thinking is the right way, it has been proven more often than not to be a failed ideologue but It is not clear that it is in fact wrong, however history would support my opinion more heavily than yours. Your opinions on whether or not Clinton can be held responsible for the repealing of the Glass-Steagall act would be not just in contrast with mine, but a vast majority of the world right now as im not the only person who holds Clinton partially responsible for this ordeal. | |
Masterdan wrote:
while you may be more supportive of the Hoover approach to dealing with a economic depression Let's get this straight, so you think my line of thinking is what Hoover was thinking... please do rudimentary research on President Hoover: 1) He was a staunch anti free market advocate. 2) He practically started farm subsidies 3) He engaged in government mandated price fixing 4) He mandated economic protectionism. 5) He increased taxes. Perhaps the only real similarity is the reduction of government spending. I would subscribe more heavily in the New Deal approach to rapidly addressing and recovering from a significant collapse of an economic structure. Obviously you do. And again, I completely can agree with you if you take the line that this is a defense against other countries' similar interventions. You cannot say that your way of thinking is the right way, it has been proven more often than not to be a failed ideologue but It is not clear that it is in fact wrong, however history would support my opinion more heavily than yours. Again, this isn't a question of opinions. The math plays it out. Using your loosely worded "New Deal" approach, and use it in 2009 dollars; think of a $5 trillion stimulus. Now consider the interest on it... now consider the US GDP... now think of the current social programs and their costs... very easy math. Opinions are all fine and dandy. Google "IOUSA", Dan... and learn a little bit about the US economy. Your opinions on whether or not Clinton can be held responsible for the repealing of the Glass-Steagall act would be not just in contrast with mine, but a vast majority of the world right now as im not the only person who holds Clinton partially responsible for this ordeal. Lol, let's look at your quote "In 1999 Clinton made a huge mistake, he decided to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act." Try again, Dan. | |
To say that Hoover was a bad analogy isnt something I will entirely object to, Its not a perfect analogy. However It is an example of a man who in the face of a huge economic collapse didnt do enough.
Interest is a problem on debt obviously, however there is always a cost-benefit analysis to be done isnt there. IF you spend trillions of dollars and the result of it is an indirect growth due to investing in infrastructure and keeping people employed, then you can easily outweight the interest consequences. If the money was just being flushed down the toilet your argument would be valid, however I am optomistic the stimulus package will do just that, stimulate. If it does more good than the interest does damage then it will be a success. Obviously neither of us really know the implications of it, even in retrospect it will be nearly impossible to tell what factors lead to what outcome. However It makes sense to me, because historically not doing enough has proved disasterous in the face of a collapse. Thats why I say Im a pro new deal person. I dont blame you for not, but thats basically what your favored alternative is, doing less than is being done now.. correct? That is why i made the hoover analogy, historians contest his biggest flaw was that his efforts were too little too late. And about your last comment, that made no sense to me. Im still arguing that you should hold Clinton accountable for undoing Glass-Steagall. Try again what? | |
Ill watch this movie though, looks neat.
You should download "The Smartest Guys in the Room", i saw that recently it was good. The reason I dont really fear the growth of the deficit, is because if Obama makes good on his campaign promises to pull back the Bush tax cuts, and actually starts taxing the richest people more. Then the current deficit might have a chance to shrink over time instead of grow. Its excessive tax cuts that makes the budget so far in the red. Bush went overboard. | |
Masterdan wrote:
To say that Hoover was a bad analogy isnt something I will entirely object to, Its not a perfect analogy. However It is an example of a man who in the face of a huge economic collapse didnt do enough. You should realize that both Hoover and FDR did a considerable amount of governmental intervention -- neither really knowing what would come of it. It's really not different than what Obama is doing now; he's taking his shot at governmental intervention. Interest is a problem on debt obviously, however there is always a cost-benefit analysis to be done isnt there. Let me summarize with one easy to conceptualize piece of math. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp8ZmQMCtqA IF you spend trillions of dollars and the result of it is an indirect growth due to investing in infrastructure and keeping people employed, then you can easily outweight the interest consequences. Please show your math on this. If the money was just being flushed down the toilet your argument would be valid, however I am optomistic the stimulus package will do just that, stimulate. If it does more good than the interest does damage then it will be a success. Obviously neither of us really know the implications of it, even in retrospect it will be nearly impossible to tell what factors lead to what outcome. However It makes sense to me, because historically not doing enough has proved disasterous in the face of a collapse. Again, you're talking in opinions which is fine, but doesn't that isn't compelling. Explain how extra debt and continued extension of social policies help the US escape its economic nuclear bomb. Thats why I say Im a pro new deal person. I dont blame you for not, but thats basically what your favored alternative is, doing less than is being done now.. correct? It's about doing far more. Cut spending drastically... for instance, end Medicare. Or if we want to be politicians, let's bring all of our troops home from overseas and save ourselves $500-700B a year. That is why i made the hoover analogy, historians contest his biggest flaw was that his efforts were too little too late. Which we can fully agree has no relevance to your or my arguments. And about your last comment, that made no sense to me. Im still arguing that you should hold Clinton accountable for undoing Glass-Steagall. Try again what? Try to avoid having to be patronized. Here's your quote: "In 1999 Clinton made a huge mistake, he decided to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act." Presidents only power to "repeal" an act is through a veto, and that power is superseded by a 2/3rds majority in the legislature. At that point, the Supreme Court could have overturned it based on constitutional reasons. You would have been much more accurate to say that both parties within the Congress and Senate decided to repeal the Glass-Steagall act. And by extension, the Supreme Court had a better chance of keeping Glass-Steagall than President Clinton. Does that make sense to you now? You should download "The Smartest Guys in the Room", i saw that recently it was good. I've seen it. For those who want to know, it's a film that documents the rise and fall of Enron. Thanks to Enron, we now have draconian anti-free market rules like Sarbanes-Oxley and "mark to market", neither of which would have prevented Enron from trying to exploit any market it could. California learned a valuable lesson -- price fixing energy can make you vulnerable. Not sure how on earth this is related to the bailout/stimulus though. The reason I dont really fear the growth of the deficit, is because if Obama makes good on his campaign promises to pull back the Bush tax cuts, and actually starts taxing the richest people more. Then the current deficit might have a chance to shrink over time instead of grow. Its excessive tax cuts that makes the budget so far in the red. Bush went overboard. He could raise their taxes... but that runs the risk of driving their monies to other countries. Since the rest of the world is also in the financial doldrums; you can imagine some countries welcoming the US wealthy with easy citizenship and lower tax rates. Yeah, Bush is basically the worst president the US has ever had. He left us fiscal conservatives, constitutionalists, and non-interventionists in the dust. | |
Ill only address the Clinton thing real quick here, because I have to finish this report before I go to bed.
Clinton was the Democratic president, and he had significant impact on the opinions and results that happened in the government. It is true that he signed the bill into law, and its also true that he still to this day doesnt think it was a mistake: from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act In response to criticism of his signing the bill when President, Bill Clinton said in 2008: "I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill ... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence." Ill add though, your concern about government spending, interest, etc is valid. However you have seen from that same documentary that high spending was needed during the world wars and the great depression. The problem was that while things were going well the government should have been cutting down the deficit and saving for this rainy day, your right, this sucks that now the USA will have to go even further in debt. It is like a stupid family where the dad takes out a second mortgage to buy a sports car, then an actual serious situation occurs in which a second mortgage may have been sensible and he has nowhere else to go but bankrupt. The USA should have instead been smart and during the boom, reduced the debt considerably. Your movie was interesting, but it isnt an excuse to cut social programs or government spending in general. Its a matter of efficiently optomizing the programs and returning to a Clinton era of responsibility and eventually balancing the books again... but that will have to wait until this crisis is behind us, right now Obama is going to have to take a stab in the dark like you said. I dont disagree with you on that, nobody can understand the implications of this stimulus package, but we know that something has to be done. | |
Oh what the hell, you wanted evidence? I found this article which backs me up and this guy is a PhD in Economics.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4314.shtml Quote: "The intent of the stimulus package is not to increase welfare, but to create new jobs and save businesses from going under. Tens of billions will go to states to shore up their tottering budgets, and additional funds are set aside to build schools, improve law enforcement and improve energy efficiency. The president said, This recovery plan will save or create more than 3 million new jobs over the next few years. On the tax relief side, there is a $500 tax break for single workers and $1,000 for couples, including those who dont earn enough to owe federal income taxes. This last piece is especially irksome to House Republicans as they consider this to be welfare. To conclude, under normal circumstances few economists like deficit financing, but these are troubling times. During a deep and worsening recession, most economists support government spending as the most effective antidote to the slowdown. Economists understand a percentage of the spending will be wasteful, but the need to reboot the economy for the greater good of the society trumps these concerns. Once recovery is on hand, spending should be quickly scaled back and new sources of revenues added to reduce the budget deficit, and cut the menacing national debt." Quote 2: "Most economists, including several who have won the Nobel Prize in economics, agree that waiting for the economy to right itself, or to employ the single weapon in the government arsenal acceptable to the House Republicans, a tax cut, will not do the trick. This much is evident from the experience in recent years. In a $14,000 trillion economy, a loss of one percent in the GDP growth represents a loss of nearly $140 billion in incomes and a large reduction to the tax base. If the stimulus package succeeds in adding even 3 to 4 percentage points to the GDP growth in 2009 and 2010, it would have more than paid for itself." | |
Masterdan wrote:
Clinton was the Democratic president, and he had significant impact on the opinions and results that happened in the government. It is true that he signed the bill into law, and its also true that he still to this day doesnt think it was a mistake: from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act You realize that Clinton's opinion about the validity of this legislation has little to do with your statement: "In 1999 Clinton made a huge mistake, he decided to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act." Opinions are just fine, talk show radio hosts have opinions too. Citizens may change their vote based on whether a governor or a local councilman support that bill, but that support doesn't mean that they repealed Glass-Steagall. Like I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court had far more power to overturn Gramm-etc than Clinton's useless veto. Ill add though, your concern about government spending, interest, etc is valid. However you have seen from that same documentary that high spending was needed during the world wars and the great depression. The problem was that while things were going well the government should have been cutting down the deficit and saving for this rainy day, your right, this sucks that now the USA will have to go even further in debt. It is like a stupid family where the dad takes out a second mortgage to buy a sports car, then an actual serious situation occurs in which a second mortgage may have been sensible and he has nowhere else to go but bankrupt. The USA should have instead been smart and during the boom, reduced the debt considerably. Exactly. It's irresponsible of the leaders of the US to turn a blind eye to saddling each man, woman, and child $175k of federal obligations. Your movie was interesting, but it isn't an excuse to cut social programs or government spending in general. Please explain. Your logic makes absolutely no sense at all here. Its a matter of efficiently optimizing the programs and returning to a Clinton era of responsibility and eventually balancing the books again... Clinton still used Social Security IOUs to help balance the budget. That being said, I do credit Clinton for making the most concerted effort to balance the budget since, maybe, Eisenhower. but that will have to wait until this crisis is behind us, right now Obama is going to have to take a stab in the dark like you said. I dont disagree with you on that, nobody can understand the implications of this stimulus package, but we know that something has to be done. This stimulus package feels more like a guise... Geitner has already put out a plan for $1T+ more for the banking system. The New New Deal is far from over. | |
Masterdan wrote:
Oh what the hell, you wanted evidence? I found this article which backs me up and this guy is a PhD in Economics. http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4314.shtml Dan, you're approaching Deadron inanity with wall of text quoting with no analysis nor logical train of thought. Let me analyze it for you: Quote: "The intent of the stimulus package is not to increase welfare, but to create new jobs and save businesses from going under. Tens of billions will go to states to shore up their tottering budgets, and additional funds are set aside to build schools, improve law enforcement and improve energy efficiency. There's not a debate whether the package will fund "ready to dig" projects. The primary argument that I fully accept for government spending is for infrastructure. Like you espouse, projects that optimize processes or increase efficiency make the US more competitive, which indirectly ensures our national security. But then again, let's say that your house is falling down. Yet you're spending more than your paycheck every month on your mortgage, car loans, student loans, medical obligations, and payments to your parents. What options do you really have? Economists understand a percentage of the spending will be wasteful, but the need to reboot the economy for the greater good of the society trumps these concerns. Once recovery is on hand, spending should be quickly scaled back and new sources of revenues added to reduce the budget deficit, and cut the menacing national debt." And those same economists know full well about the unsustainability of Medicare and SS in its current form. The prescription drug reform for Medicare, known as Medicare D, has obligations of $6T... that's eight times the current stimulus package and still $1T from the estimates of the final cost of The New New Deal. One single program -- which was a Bush + GOP House brainchild -- costs more than that. Slice Medicare D in half, and you still have $2.2T in fewer obligations after the stimulus. If the stimulus package succeeds in adding even 3 to 4 percentage points to the GDP growth in 2009 and 2010, it would have more than paid for itself." I suppose. Then again we were told that TARP was going to buy up "toxic assets" from banks that could potentially pay for itself... I know, totally different issue, but it's nothing more than speculation with a government that does not have a good track record. | |
its amazing me how the republican party is so opposed to the current plan even though Obama took so much effort into bipartisan. I guess they're hanging there hats on hoping that the plan fails, so they can look good in the situation.
Also you cant go preaching against wastefull spending when we're in a war where we spend up to $9 billion monthly. (that info from cbo, a nonpartisan org). 9 billion which we've been spending every month helping stimulate the iraqi economy and war profiteering companies like haliburton and blackwater.
you cant expect the tax cuts of bush and the republican party to help in this situation. In bush's tax cuts, the wealthiest 1% got 31% of the tax cut. Does that seem fair to the people?