The US Economy and Current Financial Crisis

[Guest]

Stimulus passed in the House. Not a single Republican voted in favor of it. The only part of the bill I have the slightest bit of approval towards is the infrastructure spending. The rest is a horrendous piece of trash, the likes of which will haunt Democrats should our economy take a turn for the worst.

 

Oh well.

[At Home 0]

Well, at least something's getting done (better than waiting), but it's too bad that it had to be rushed and put together so sloppily.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Anyone see the Drudge posting saying there's like 300 million for STD prevention? What the hell is that shit? Fucking Democrats...it's going to be time to punish them soon enough.

[Guest]

Jim DeMint put it quite well.

 

South Carolina Senator, Jim DeMint, said in a speech this week that the Obama administration is creating crisis and widespread panic to push the economic stimulus package. He likens the air of urgency to previous tactics used by the Bush administration to get the people and Congress to go along with whatever they wanted.

 

DeMint said, “I’ve been around long enough to know whenever someone tells me I have to make a decision right now, my response is no.”

 

It isn't wise to spend 850 billion just for the sake of getting something passed quick. It's nice to see that when it comes to fiscal matters, the new president is the same as the last. And by nice to see, I mean not nice to see.

 

The bill should've been infrastructure money, period, the end. We just spent more than half a billion dollars on digital converter box coupons. What a mess. These things stimulate our economy how? Why can't people just buy a fucking box?

 

I'm really looking forward to 2010.

[At Home 0]

Jim DeMint put it quite well.

 

South Carolina Senator, Jim DeMint, said in a speech this week that the Obama administration is creating crisis and widespread panic to push the economic stimulus package. He likens the air of urgency to previous tactics used by the Bush administration to get the people and Congress to go along with whatever they wanted.

 

DeMint said, “I’ve been around long enough to know whenever someone tells me I have to make a decision right now, my response is no.”

 

It isn't wise to spend 850 billion just for the sake of getting something passed quick. It's nice to see that when it comes to fiscal matters, the new president is the same as the last. And by nice to see, I mean not nice to see.

 

Better to get something on the ground rather than continuing to gerrymander. I'd rather this happen and have the spending be worked out as we go along than have nothing at all and require more money be injected as time goes on. Japan.

 

The bill should've been infrastructure money, period, the end. We just spent more than half a billion dollars on digital converter box coupons. What a mess. These things stimulate our economy how? Why can't people just buy a fucking box?

 

I'm really looking forward to 2010.

 

The problem with infrastructure spending is that once it is complete, it stops stimulating. Infrastructure spending doesn't really do much, if anything at all, in the long run. I'd rather quite a lot of the money go towards things that will create the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs rather than fixing the next pothole.

[Guest]

I realize that, but at the same time, when these infrastructure projects are complete, you have the possibility of these people being skilled and able to head into private industry as workers during better economic times.

 

You also have the possibility of many people being unable to find jobs after that work. But that's better than no new jobs and continued unemployment. It is all about jobs at this point.

[At Home 0]

I realize that, but at the same time, when these infrastructure projects are complete, you have the possibility of these people being skilled and able to head into private industry as workers during better economic times.

 

You also have the possibility of many people being unable to find jobs after that work. But that's better than no new jobs and continued unemployment. It is all about jobs at this point.

 

What people being skilled? Construction workers? That is unskilled labor, and what happens with that, I'm not sure. Like you said, they get contracted by the government, and chances are, after that, they'll get contracted again privately. That's what they are, contracted workers. I agree, jobs. Infrastructure spending will create jobs, but they'll be done with in the foreseeable future. In 8 years, I'd hate to say that we shot our bolt and that all we have to show for it is nice little roads and everything. Infrastructure spending just won't cut the cake, and not to mention that there are only so many people that will go into construction jobs.

 

Meanwhile, education is going to receive a promising $150 billion.

 

For your friends on the right, tax cuts may have been the least effective thing to push for, as Larry Mishel points out:

 

Tax cut approach has already been tried and failed as stimulus:...[The administration claimed t]he Bush tax cuts of 2003 ... would generate 1.4 million jobs on top of the 4.1 million jobs that were expected to be generated over the eighteen months following June 2003. See [here]...

 

EPI tracked the initiative’s effectiveness through a website, www.jobwatch.org, and found that it fell far short of its goals. Not only did the promised 1.4 million additional jobs not appear, but the 4.1 million jobs expected with no action also failed to materialize. In all, only 2.4 million jobs were created—1.7 million short of the administration’s projection without their new policy. Thus, by the Bush administration’s own metrics the tax cut program fell short by a total of 3.1 million jobs (149,000 pr month). For an analysis of how the Bush 2003 tax plan (The “Jobs and Growth" plan) fell short of its job claims see [here]...

 

On what basis can the conservatives who embraced those failed initiatives now claim that tax cuts are the best policy?

[At Home 0]

Concurrently, http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/doc...IMULUS0109.html

 

Map that shows you per state, per capita spending on the stimulus package.

[SuperJerk 0]

You guys saying you can't wait for 2010...you really want to put those idiots back in charge of the Congress? After the awesome job they did up until 2005? Really?

 

What would a Republican stimulus plan look like? Based on their track record, it'd look like corporate giveaways (i.e. war profiteers and the pharmecutical industry), none of which ever seems to trickle down to most people. At least when the Democrats are in charge, they throw money at regular people instead of big business.

 

 

The problem with infrastructure spending is that once it is complete, it stops stimulating. Infrastructure spending doesn't really do much, if anything at all, in the long run. I'd rather quite a lot of the money go towards things that will create the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs rather than fixing the next pothole.

 

The only things the government can do to encourage people to come up with technological innovations is other incentives for those innovations and make sure the public is being educated to a degree that someone with Gates' or Jobs' innate talents can realize them, but conservatives tend to argue against both of these things.

 

Isn't it possible that infrastructure spending will employ people, who will in turn spend money, which will in turn create more jobs, which will in turn cause other people to spend money....you get the idea (but if not, look up "the multiplier effect").

 

 

Reading is a skill.

Okay, so I missed one word. In my defense, what you wrote, with your references to Hispancis and big families, made it sound like you were talking about births, and not just pregnancies.

[Guest]

I realize that, but at the same time, when these infrastructure projects are complete, you have the possibility of these people being skilled and able to head into private industry as workers during better economic times.

 

You also have the possibility of many people being unable to find jobs after that work. But that's better than no new jobs and continued unemployment. It is all about jobs at this point.

 

What people being skilled? Construction workers? That is unskilled labor, and what happens with that, I'm not sure. Like you said, they get contracted by the government, and chances are, after that, they'll get contracted again privately.

I meant experienced, not skilled. Experience would've been a better word to use than skilled.

 

What would a Republican stimulus plan look like? Based on their track record, it'd look like corporate giveaways (i.e. war profiteers and the pharmecutical industry), none of which ever seems to trickle down to most people. At least when the Democrats are in charge, they throw money at regular people instead of big business.

A Republican stimulus would be tax cut city. Something I also don't believe would be a good idea. Or there would be no stimulus. No stimulus is better than this stimulus. It isn't even a stimulus. Can't even call it that.

 

[BruiserKC 0]

At this point I wish we could just throw everyone out of Congress and start over. This is a huge reason why a Democratic-controlled Congress the last 2 years had a 10% or so approval rating. Money for converter boxes and rubbers are not exactly what I call programs for a stimulus package. Those need to be separate from this bill. Those are earmarks and should be treated as such and thus introduced in a separate bill. Not to mention Obama's got the same ol', same ol', only now it's the Democrats who won't work with the Reps to compromise. Pelosi refused to meet with the Republican House members, and not only did not a single Republican vote for the package but 11 Dems crossed over to vote no also.

 

The tax cuts worked to stimulate the economy somehow, things were fine until late 2007. The problem as I've stated here before is tax cuts have to be met with cuts in spending. With Bush (and it looks to be that way now) the spending levels stayed the same. Getting the money into our hands is what it's going to take to get things going, to give people the confidence to spend their dollars. At the same time, we need to start making sure these businesses getting our money is going to be spent wisely. Honestly, I'd rather just not give them any money and let them fail, but it's too late for that.

 

[EricMM 0]

If anything this bill was overly partisan. There shouldn't have been ANY tax cuts, IMO.

 

Just give me 850B in infrastructure. Shit. Govt jobs to get people back to work repairing roads, bridges, building the green grid and green energy.

 

But this? Ugh.

 

And still no votes?

 

Fuck all Repubs and fuck giving them anything. They didn't give ANYTHING back.

 

Zero votes.

[NoCalMike 0]

Republicans are definately setting the tone for how the next 4-8 years are going to be. All reports as of a couple days ago said the bill had bi-partisan support with some "key republicans" having issues with it, next thing you know another closed-door "we have to show our strength" meeting, and suddenly not a single republican supports the bill!?!

 

 

I don't understand the lobbying for massive tax cuts. Didn't our govt try this exact strategy over the last eight years, the trickle-down redux plan, and it failed miserably. Now the Republicans want Obama to do the same thing.....WHY?

 

[Turbo Lion 0]

I hate this fucking state.

 

South Carolina is reportedly refusing help. I guess these stupid asses can't accept help from the Northern Aggressors.

 

When I lose my (State) Job, I'll be sure to thank them.

[At Home 0]

INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING STOPS STIMULATING AFTER THE PROJECT IS DONE.

[EricMM 0]

But then at least you have infrastructure.

 

What do you have when you cut taxes in this situation?

 

Deficits, or social services.

 

And 1 trillion dollars is a lot of Infrastructure.

[At Home 0]

But then at least you have infrastructure? As opposed to what? Dirt roads? Economically, they're short sighted projects and will do little after they're completed. That's not to say we shouldn't do them now, we should, but a trillion dollars of infrastructure is a lot of money to flush down the toilet. It doesn't last.

 

Tax cuts don't do shit.

[SuperJerk 0]

Infrastructure as opposed to collapsing bridges, even more congested highways (look out for those potholes), and more roads into areas that can be used for further economic development.

 

But I still say the main reason to do it is that it creates jobs, which give people money to spend, which increases demand for goods and services, which creates other jobs and more people with money to spend. Yeah, eventually the initial jobs go away, but it is potentially offset by the new jobs that were created, and the people who had those infrastructure jobs can be absorbed into the workforce in other areas once the economy is moving again.

 

Things like infrastructure, health care, and education are good investments for ngovernment because (if done correctly) they can enhance private sector productivity.

[At Home 0]

Infrastructure as opposed to collapsing bridges, even more congested highways (look out for those potholes), and more roads into areas that can be used for further economic development.

 

But I still say the main reason to do it is that it creates jobs, which give people money to spend, which increases demand for goods and services, which creates other jobs and more people with money to spend. Yeah, eventually the initial jobs go away, but it is potentially offset by the new jobs that were created, and the people who had those infrastructure jobs can be absorbed into the workforce in other areas once the economy is moving again.

 

Things like infrastructure, health care, and education are good investments for ngovernment because (if done correctly) they can enhance private sector productivity.

 

We already have infrastructure, and while I'd agree that it's falling behind, it's an economic mistake to try to make an argument that infrastructure spending should be the forefront of any sort of stimulus spending. It creates jobs, but construction jobs don't pay that well, and unskilled labor won't put that big of a dent on things safe industries, like food production or anything like that. They don't have expendable incomes. Not to mention that prettier bridges and highways don't stimulate the economy. Once they are completed, they stop stimulating.

 

Jeffery Sachs:

One of President Barack Obama's historic contributions will be a grand act of policy jujitsu - turning the crushing economic crisis into the launch of a new age of sustainable development. ... Obama is already setting a new historic course by reorienting the economy from private consumption to public investments directed at the great challenges of energy, climate, food production, water and biodiversity.

 

The new president has taken every opportunity to underscore that the economic crisis will not slow, but rather will accelerate, the much-needed economic transformation to sustainability. ... The fiscal stimulus ... will lay down the first steps of a massive generation-long technological overhaul...

 

Obama has started with the most important first step: a team of scientific and technological advisers of stunning quality... He has also focused on two core truths of sustainable development: that technological overhaul lies at the core of the challenge, and that such an overhaul requires a public-private partnership for success. Taking shape, therefore, is nothing less than a new 21st-century model of capitalism ... committed to the dual objectives of economic development and sustainability...

 

Consider the challenge of a bankrupt automobile sector... In the Obama strategy, GM will not be closed to punish it... It's worth far too much as a world leader in the electric vehicles of the 21st century. ...

 

Conservatives are aghast. The bail-out of the auto industry was hard enough to swallow. Government investments in infrastructure and research and development are viewed with scorn, compared with the tried and true (if disastrously failed) tax cuts of the Bush era. Rightwing pundits bemoan the evident intention of Obama and team to "tell us what kind of car to drive". Yet that is exactly what they intend to do (at least with regard to the power source under the hood), and rightly so. Free-market ideology is an anachronism in an era of climate change, water stress, food scarcity and energy insecurity. Public-private efforts to steer the economy to a safe technological harbour will be the order of the new era.

 

There is plenty of room for blunders... Government activism can founder on the shoals of massive budget deficits, tax-cutting populism pushed by the right, politically motivated investments such as corn-based ethanol..., and more. Yet Obama is absolutely correct that we have no choice but to try. ...

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

I completely disagree with you on the value of newer infrastructure (heard anything about collapsed bridges lately? What effect do you think making it harder for commuters and shipping to travel has on the economy and productivity?), but this took me by surprise...

 

...construction jobs don't pay that well...

 

You might want to qualify that a little bit.

[Art Sandusky 0]

People also have to maintain said infrastructure, whether it be concrete or a wire. A percentage of the initial job numbers from such projects will be maintained. And have you ever been through the South beyond the interstates? We could damn sure use some investment. Of course my state would refuse help, but hey, whatever. I almost expected that.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I was pleasantly pleased to hear that my Democrat representative in the House voted against the Bailout bill. I didnt vote for him but I have a new found respect for the guy.

[SuperJerk 0]

Mittens weighs in on the stimulus plan...

 

He said the $819 billion measure that passed the Democratic-controlled House was a plan to "spend and borrow with reckless abandon."

 

That approach could worsen the current economic crisis, he said, adding, "we could precipitate a worldwide crisis of confidence in America, leading to a run on the dollar ... or hyperinflation that wipes out family savings and devastates the middle class."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_...ney_republicans

 

More proof that he is about as sharp as a bowling ball when it comes to political positioning. If the worst case scenario doesn't occur, Mitt just ends up looking like an economic nay-sayer and obstructionist.

[SuperJerk 0]

Someone else has summed up my thoughts on the stimulus package.

[NoCalMike 0]

For the last eight years it seems Bush's economic plan was to reward the wealthy with tax cuts, and the wealthiest with even more tax cuts, claiming that it would create jobs and be great for the economy. Well after eight years of that philosophy we have an economic crisis. So what do Republicans want to do now? Reward the wealthy with tax cuts, and the wealthiest with more tax cuts....

 

 

The saddest part of this is that it seems like the Republicans are still running things with the way this whole thing is playing out. I understand Obama just got into office, and doesn't want to come off like a partisan prick as much as the last administration did but seriously, after eight years of one certain political philosophy and the disaterous results that came of it, it is about time to say enough is enough.

 

I am not even trying to say that everything the Dems want to do in this package is great, but I am not exactly sure what the Republicans are bringing to the table other then, "more corporate tax cuts"

[At Home 0]

You're confusing two philosophies. The trickle down theory and the free market theory are two different things, and the latter has been discredited in the last 6 months, not really the former.

 

Also, the problem with the whole thing is that Obama announced the issue as a bipartisan issue instead of a fix-the-economy issue.

 

$500,000 pay cap for bailed out company CEOs was announced today.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The $500,000 pay cap is a brilliant move. Companies wont want any bailout money now, and if they do, their CEO's will leave to companies that can pay them more. No one is going to want all the headaches and crap associated with running a company and only get paid $500,000, so the company will go in the tank anyway after taking bailout money. Brilliant plan!

[At Home 0]

I'm sure these companies would rather file bankruptcy too! Brilliant Beck plagiarism!

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I'm sure these companies would rather file bankruptcy too! Brilliant Beck plagiarism!

Its the truth though. Who in the world is going to sit there and take that much of a pay cut to stay with a company that could very well be gone anyway in a year? At 1 million a year thats a 50% paycut. At 10 million a year thats a 95% pay cut.

 

Maybe some of these senators who completely suck at their jobs should be forced into a 50% paycut. That would leave them with $85,000 a year which is still about $50,000 more than the average person in America makes.

[Hawkius Maximus 0]

I know this is common sense. However, if your company is on the verge of dying, perhaps you shouldn't be paying yourself a million dollars.

 

Seems like the exact opposite of "good business" there.