New Deal: Saving Grace Or Con?

[TheMason]

Pardon me while I rant a little. And Mods: if this would've been better posted as a response to another thread could ya cut me a little slack? I didn't see where it would fit in another topic and my internet time is kinda limited by where I'm at.

Did you know that in 1939 unemployment was still at 20% or more? That this is after more than eight years of New Deal political-economics? Furthermore, in testimony the Commerce Secretary (the guy whose job it was to guide New Deal economics) said that every dollar spent on public works jobs took dollars out of private sector jobs. He wondered if perhaps this was doing nothing but prolonging the Depression.

Did you know that in 1932 FDR BLASTED the former President's (who happened to be Republican) handling of the economic crisis was leading the US towards socialism and was wrong for this country? That FDR ran on a platform of change from a much hated and maligned Republican administration? However, once in office FDR copied and accelerated the policies of the President he so maligned and blamed in the election?

2002: The much maligned and vilified Bush pushes through an economic stimulus plan. 2008: The much maligned and vilified Bush spends the last of his political capital to get TRILLIONS of dollars based upon the unarguable economic logic that the treasury department needed a "large number". 2009: The much glorified Obama puts his celebrity and high approval ratings beyond a stimulus plan on the principle that we need to do something now, we need to do a lot.

Did you know that only about 30% of the newest stimulus law will go into effect in 2009/10 when economists say the money would actually be, oh, helpful.

The stimulus package ties the hands of state and local officials on how to spend the money. Instead of letting officials who actually live in and around the public works projects that need money and know what schools and roads need to be serviceable...Washington is dictating new programs. What happens when the federal funds dry up? See the thing about establishing programs rather than bid out contracts for construction that once done will pass into extinction...is you can't pull the plug on a government program. So in a few years the state and local governments will have these programs to fund...and no federal funds to pay for them. This causes a run-up of either deficits or higher taxes.

Reversing Bush's bans on stem cells and funding for abortion advocates are NOT going to stabilize the housing industry. Regardless of how you feel about these issues, they should NOT be included in an economic stimulus package. I don't want to debate the merits of these issues in this topic...because that rightfully belongs in a political discourse on these issues on their own. What happened to promises of bi-partisanship and placing (rightfully) earmarks in the dustbin of history? Sneaking ideological (right or left) pet issues into a bill intended to stimulate economic recovery is not the way of a) stimulating the economy or b) confining harmful partisanship to the dustbin of history.

I want change. I do not want Obama to fail. You see I think that a coach metaphor is more apt for the role the Chief Executive plays in our society than the parental metaphor. We need to be a team, we need to pull together. If our 'coach' fails then we all lose. I want to see Obama become a wild success.

But he is continuing the policies that he blasted on the campaign trail as failed (much like FDR did with Hoover). I am afraid that we are only speeding up the train toward Depression.

[D2Kvirus]

One thing I can say about New Deal (British version, having experienced it first hand) is that it's a way to massage the statistics: after about six months on New Deal, you're put on a course that's three months long for 30+, and six months for 18-30 - and whilst you're on it, you're classified as a "student", not someone claiming benefits.

They really didn't appreciate it when I asked if I'd get a Student Loan on my first day, that's for sure...

[Korriken]

You forget to mention that the Demagogue party is moving forward with "health reform" saying that "We can't fix the economy without first fixing the health system" Which makes absolutely no sense in my mind. How could the health system in its current state possibly be holding the economy down?

It CAN'T. Obama is holding a knife to the throat of the economy while he rapes the system for all he can get. The loyal media curs, are of course, as always, agreeing with him, keeping the blinders on the unwary public, who never think past what they are told to think. While our economy continues to flounder, he will keep "making change" and forcing his agenda through the legislature, raising taxes, and causing economic decay. All the while, pinning the blame on Bush and saying "The mistake of the Bush Administration can still be felt, even now, We do our best to fix it, but we can't fix it without fixing <next piece of his agenda>! It's not just a moral imperative, its a fiscal imperative!"

After it's all over, god knows... If he starts eyeballing the idea of a global currency or a global bank, or any kind of massive global bailout, I suggest open revolt. The problem with our government is no one is willing to stand up to them anymore as they shit all over the constitution (DC getting a vote? that's not constitutional, and certainly wasn't what the founding fathers had intended, not that our politicians care. They'll do whatever keeps them in power.)

[Al6200]

At 3/2/09 11:01 PM, Korriken wrote: You forget to mention that the Demagogue party is moving forward with "health reform" saying that "We can't fix the economy without first fixing the health system" Which makes absolutely no sense in my mind. How could the health system in its current state possibly be holding the economy down?

A single hospital visit for a family without insurance (or with insurance, for that matter) is financially crippling. That is the argument that can be made.

[thedo12]

im not a free market capitalist nor am i a hardcore socalist , however, I think tax payer money has no buisness going into the hand of banks or other industreis simply to keep them afloat. If there going to fall let them fall.

[Korriken]

At 3/2/09 11:08 PM, Al6200 wrote:

A single hospital visit for a family without insurance (or with insurance, for that matter) is financially crippling. That is the argument that can be made.

perhaps, but its not the cause of our economy being the way it is. The economy can be lifted up without the need of massive hospital reform, which is gonna cost insane amounts of money, which of course, will lead to even higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, which will bring the economy down even further as with the heavier taxes they'll have even LESS money in order to expand and hire people, or even keep the people they have. In turn, keeping the economy in the dump. Either that or he'll just print the money, causing more inflation, dragging down everyone's wealth and driving prices even higher, which helps no one.

I think I'm gonna head over to the book store, buy a few books on economics, and mail them to Obama, because he either has no idea how economics works, or he's taking advantage of the economy to keep people distracted while he rapes our economic system to further his agenda.

the former would be an indication that he's clueless, the latter is malicious, unethical, and a good reason to find a way to remove him from office. I'm guessing he KNOWS he isn't helping the situation. Instead, he's using the falling economy along with his poisoned words to turn America into Europe, in a hope to go down in history as the "man who changed America." He will most likely be remembered as "The worst president America has ever had."

I'll bet $200 when he leaves office his approval rating will be lower than Bush's.

[Memorize]

At 3/3/09 12:21 AM, Korriken wrote:

I'll bet $200 when he leaves office his approval rating will be lower than Bush's.

I'm betting in the mid to high 30's.

[TheMason]

At 3/3/09 12:21 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 3/2/09 11:08 PM, Al6200 wrote:

A single hospital visit for a family without insurance (or with insurance, for that matter) is financially crippling. That is the argument that can be made.

perhaps, but its not the cause of our economy being the way it is. The economy can be lifted up without the need of massive hospital reform, which is gonna cost insane amounts of money, which of course, will lead to even higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, which will bring the economy down even further as with the heavier taxes they'll have even LESS money in order to expand and hire people, or even keep the people they have. In turn, keeping the economy in the dump. Either that or he'll just print the money, causing more inflation, dragging down everyone's wealth and driving prices even higher, which helps no one.

A few things here.
1) I saw a graph that showed that currently, government expenditures on health care are within like 5% of how much the private sector pays in healthcare costs. Something has to be done about healthcare, but not single-payer/Universal health like many on the far Left want.

2) To the Left: taking money from the private sector and giving it to the government for 'make work programs' does not solve unemployment. If it did, then after eight years of FDR's New Deal we would have had single digit unemployment rather than the double digit we had.

3) Obama is counting on inflation. A devalued dollar is one way to halve the deficit quickly. How else do you think Obama is going to halve the deficit in four years whilst increasing spending? The end result is even more pain on individuals. The way I see it, Obama is going to take the Recession he inherited from Bush and turn it into a full-blown depression.

I think I'm gonna head over to the book store, buy a few books on economics, and mail them to Obama, because he either has no idea how economics works, or he's taking advantage of the economy to keep people distracted while he rapes our economic system to further his agenda.

Clicky Here's a book I just started reading, fascinating read.

The funny thing is Obama is being compared to FDR which is interesting:
* FDR never really worked. He failed out of law school, but passed the Bar exam which allowed him to practice the law. However this attempt failed because he did not want to do the work. Instead he lived off of his mother's dole while he harbored political ambitions (state legislator, Assistant SecNavy, Governor NY then President).

* He found the study of business and economics tedious and boring. He never excelled at it in prep school or Harvard. However, this guy then thought he was qualified to go around to other countries "diagnosing" economic woes and fixing other people's problems. So a person who found the topic boring and only got "Cs" in it, and failed at practically every business/investment project he undertook...felt qualified to diagnosis and fix economic problems the world over? Talk about either very insane or very arrogant.

* During the 1920s he pursued get rich schemes rather than research investments. He thought airplanes were just a passing fad...so he invested in Zeplins (can you say Hindenberg?). He played the currency market, thing that the German Mark was a just splendid investment that was going to net him big rewards.

* He told a gathering of farmers that he had helped write Hati's constitution...a claim later found to be an outright lie. When confronted with it, he denied ever saying it. FDR was known for his tendency to overexaggerate and basically tell outright lies.

* FDR believed that one of the underlying causes of the Great Depression was "underconsumption". That people working in factories could not afford the products they produced. This was during the roaring twenties when people were buying things like new cars faster than anytime before in US history. Competition had made things like cars more affordable (and more technologically advanced) than before. For example Ford's innovative Model T was cheaper than GM's products, in response GM produced a car that was cheaper...but also had an ignition system and spedometer. One of the things that FDR did to fix the problem was the National Industrial Recorvery Act which created the National Recovery Administration (NRA). This body set price controls and wage standards that had the effect of stifling innovation and making it so that small businesses could not compete with the big guys and went out of business...thereby putting people out of work. This was later struck down as unconstitutional.

In sum: All fondness and esteem our Grandparents/Great-Grandparents hold for FDR aside...is this really the President we should want/desire right now?

[The-Great-One]

When it comes to the economy Bush is only partially to blame. Mainly for the war and the gas prices as well as not assisting the stock market. The rest is on everyone else.

Think about it. All these fancy technological gizmos we have nowadays. Cell phones, computers, mp3 players, iPods, iPhones, and not to mention cars. Yet people still waste their money on all this and blame the government... why?

[TheMason]

At 3/3/09 04:07 AM, The-Great-One wrote: When it comes to the economy Bush is only partially to blame. Mainly for the war and the gas prices as well as not assisting the stock market. The rest is on everyone else.

People want to cite the war as one of the reasons we're in this mess. The cost of the war, as figured by War Opponent Joseph Stiglitz will probably end up somewhere between $1-2 Trillion dollars.

But do you realize that since October 2007 $11 Trillion in wealth has vanished because of the stock-market decline? This follows the 2002 bursting of the dot-com bubble that turned the surplusses of individual states into massive deficits.

Furthermore, the financial meltdown of September 2008 was caused by a rumor A FUCKING RUMOR! Bear-Sterns collapsed because of a rumor reported on CNBC that they were in trouble. Their stock tumbled and they lost a major source of cash that helped keep them solvent. Just like in the late 1920s when people heard rumors about the banks they pulled out their savings and the instutions collapsed...the same thing happened last year. It's called systemic risk.

But what made them vulnerable? Their investments in toxic assets...especially "subprime" and ARM housing loans. Now we all want to blame greedy...individuals who bought outside of their means and the predatory lenders who were more than happy to sell them the loans. But who made all of this possible? The Clinton Administration. It seems that it was not only the greedy bankers and thrift industry...but also community organizers who wanted more minorities owning homes. (Nevermind that Hispanic home ownership had already increased by 87%, African American by 72% and Asian by 46%.)

Now it may seem that I'm a Bush apologist. I am not. The Bush Administration let Lehman Bros fail, which froze credit (essential for business) and totally demolished investor confidence and almost crashed the market. Also his administration has turned on the printing press. Our money supply has increased by more than 200%. So while I talk about how Obama is going to print his way out of the deficit...I believe that Bush plugged in the printing press and warmed it up for him. Not good and my "little guys" are going to pay for it.

But to bring this to a close, $11 Trillion in wealth has vanished over the past year. This is not just the Madoff's, Gates and Spielbergs. It is the average joe. More Americans than ever are in the stock market. 401ks, Thrift Savings Plans, profit sharing benefits...Wall Street is open to Main Street. And Main Street's fiscal health is dependent upon it.

It is not what we've done overseas that is hurting us...but rather what we are and have doing at home.

[TheMason]

Are we crashing?

In 1929 over the course of three days the stock market lost between 11%-13% of its value on a daily basis. By the time it bottomed out, it had lost 89% of its value.

Fast forward to today:
* Since October 2007, its last peak, the Market has lost 40% of its value.

* Since the beginning of this year, just two months ago, it has lost 23% of its value.

* Closings of -300 to -400 points have happened several times. In fact on at least one occassion since Sept 2008, the dow dropped so much they almost suspended trading.

So I wonder, are we in the middle of a slow crash? If so, I wonder if it will ease into a bottom and then a gradual climb back up...or if at some point it will make a dramatic downward spiral?

[Korriken]

The only thing that can really save us at this point would for the "the people" the blind, fearful, stupid sheep that elected this fool to wake up, and tell their senators and congressmen that further support of Obama will basically result in the death of their careers come 2010/2012. To facilitate this awakening is for the conservative side of the media to press harder and expose the Obama Administration's scheme and show what he is doing. this recession could have ended already, or at least could have been dampened and we'd be on our way out of it.

I think Adolf Hitler said it best, "The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a great lie than a small one." and "What luck for rulers that men do not think."

Perhaps after this is all said and done the people will learn WHY you avoid listening to great orators, which Obama really isn't that great of an orator. He's can't fuction without something in front of him to tell him what to say. Personally I would love to go to some of his speeches with a bunch of others, then ask him the questions he does NOT want to be asked in front of a live camera. Of course, I got that damnedest feeling he knows who to pick out of the crowd and what they are going to ask. Some day someone like Obama couldn't possibly be so calculating, but I say yes he can.

*notices a bunch of people coming at him, one with a "RACIST" rubber stamp*

[Jagos]

At 3/2/09 11:14 PM, thedo12 wrote: im not a free market capitalist nor am i a hardcore socalist , however, I think tax payer money has no buisness going into the hand of banks or other industreis simply to keep them afloat. If there going to fall let them fall.

This I have to ask, if the banks fail, won't this cause anarchy?

It's fairly similar to the depression. The banks have runs, they fall on cash and close, and while everyone is running to get cash the banks are closing faster because they can't get money from the loans they have outstanding.

Which is why the FDIC was made, to stop the bank runs of the 30s and create stability in the market.

[Evark]

What really drives me up the walls here is Republicans. They've been in office for 8 full years. 6 of which they were an unopposable MAJORITY in all branches of government. In those 8 years, we've seen the makings of the largest economic decline, possibly ever. One of the major points of the Clinton administration's end days was to get the deficit and National Debt under control. Gore promised to continue and further improve our debt situation. Bush fucked that royally.

The republicans are the hypocrites here, NOT democrats. BUSH (despite the fact that his party is the largest outspoken voice of anti-government spending/anti socialist doctrine, anti free-handouts for deadbeats, etc.) championed the FIRST government bailout to the tune of 600 billion or whatever. Now that Obama's looking to invest in our economy it's the wrong choice? Fucking bullshit. WHERE WERE YOU WHINEBAGS WITH YOUR "WAH LET'S BE MORE BIPARTISAN" WHEN BUSH WAS PUSHING IT THROUGH? For sure, there were republican objections, but only from those that knew they weren't immediately facing re-election in November. Why didn't we hear Democrats whining? Because Democrats tend to have this weird need to harmonize with those around them. They actually AGREED with Bush's stimulus plan, not for any other reason than they saw the merit behind the idea and didn't care which side of the aisle was pushing.

Now what happened to those same Republicans who were on board for Bush's stimulus plan? They've rolled over. Democrats are about to SPEND MONEY OH NO GOD NO. The problem they have is that the money's likely going to help EVERYONE, instead of mostly Republicans. They're impeding bipartisan efforts here, NOT Democrats. Democrats don't even have to be bipartisan in their policy. It's just a courtesy. If America wanted bipartisan decision-making, they wouldn't have overwhelmingly elected a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president.

And what have Republicans got to offer INSTEAD of Obama's stimulus package? All I've heard so far is retaliation. "Nope, this is a bad idea." Well, sir, what the fuck is a GOOD idea to you? What's YOUR plan? Oh, it's tax breaks? Yea, remember how we've been incurring further and further debt, WASTING tax dollars on a useless war in Iraq? And now you want LESS government spending on our failing economy, and LESS taxes FURTHER crippling funding for the very same stimulus YOU ALREADY GOT PASSED!?

Fuck that. Republicans are arguing up from the resultant plummeting of having lost the last piece of their political footing. It's blatant. I honestly don't believe that Republicans will ever recover from the Bush administration. I think the tragic irony to their "History will be more kind to George W. Bush" argument is that they're right. History will see George Bush as the last Republican president, the one whose detachment from the reality of the American condition finally galvanized Americans into permanent disillusionment with the Republican party, leading to it's dissolution.

Obama's going to get more people to college. College education is BAAAD for the Republican party. Obama is going to vastly improve the American infrastructure. He's going to solve all the problems that people have been whining about for the past 50-100 years, or at least make enough changes that everyone will agree he's made a valiant attempt. I think it's great. He's basically going to remove the necessity for the Republican party altogether by moving the American situation beyond their current conservative footing. I think Democrats are finally beginning to see that there's no point in trying to win the argument with Republicans, just respond to reality and their arguments will naturally fall apart on their own.

[hrb5711]

At 3/3/09 02:48 PM, Evark wrote:

The problem they have is that the money's likely going to help EVERYONE, instead of mostly Republicans.

Yeah cause that $13 dollars a week (That I will pay back at the end of the year in taxes anyways) helps me a ton! Thank god people on wel-fare got $25...........

If America wanted bipartisan decision-making, they wouldn't have overwhelmingly elected a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president.

So even though American OVERWHELMINGLY said no to Obama's bill, and so did the Republicans in the Senate. The ones who didn't vote for it are wrong, even though that is what people wanted?

Fuck that. Republicans are arguing up from the resultant plummeting of having lost the last piece of their political footing. It's blatant. I honestly don't believe that Republicans will ever recover from the Bush administration. I think the tragic irony to their "History will be more kind to George W. Bush" argument is that they're right. History will see George Bush as the last Republican president, the one whose detachment from the reality of the American condition finally galvanized Americans into permanent disillusionment with the Republican party, leading to it's dissolution.

You really are just as bad as those far-right. No matter what happens, or what Obama does, you will follow him blindly, without questioning anything he does....awesome.

Obama's going to get more people to college. College education is BAAAD for the Republican party.

How so? By giving more grants to the poor? Screw the upper-middle class right? Like mine and my wife's situation.

Back when we were both going into college we did our FASFA and found out our parents make to much money for us to get grants. Yes my parents made 100,000 a year, that is with five children, 2 cars, and a house. My wife was basically the same situation. Parents make to much for grants, but not enough to pay for college.

So now four years later we have racked up close to $100,000 in student loans. Even though we both have jobs, and between us make $90,000 a year. Even though we worked our asses off, paid for school ourself, went out and got good jobs, we still have to pay for people who don't want to work. And now Obama is going to make us pay more so they don't have to work. The way I look at it, if we are already paying these people for about 25 hours a week at minimum wage, lets make them do some work. Have them pick up trash, plant trees, build playgrounds, do some kind of work for their money. They can even do something close to their home so transportation isn't an issue.

Don't get me wrong about Wel-fare, I think it is ok for a short time if you got laid off (not fired, etc.), I think it should be limited to 60 days.

Obama is going to vastly improve the American infrastructure.

Yeah, I like that part.

He's going to solve all the problems that people have been whining about for the past 50-100 years, or at least make enough changes that everyone will agree he's made a valiant attempt. I think it's great.

What problems do we still have from 100 years ago? Women are still voting?

I think Democrats are finally beginning to see that there's no point in trying to win the argument with Republicans, just respond to reality and their arguments will naturally fall apart on their own.

And there is no point doing it with you. No matter what evidence is presented, what events happen, you will always see the world as republican bad, democrat good.

[smileagent]

Mason, I'm going to do something different here. Instead of straight out countering your argument, I'm going to point out some weak points in your original post that need expansion/modification/clarification/cit ation/etc:

At 2/28/09 03:00 AM, TheMason wrote: Did you know that in 1939 unemployment was still at 20% or more?

True, but is the unemployment rate the only signifier of a healthy economy? Have you done research into the US's GDP or Private investment statistics from 1933 to 1939? Focusing on only one factor (unemployment) gives your argument a weak foundation.

Furthermore, in testimony the Commerce Secretary (the guy whose job it was to guide New Deal economics) said that every dollar spent on public works jobs took dollars out of private sector jobs. He wondered if perhaps this was doing nothing but prolonging the Depression.

This is an appeal to authority fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam). Just because the Commerce Secretary says it doesn't mean it's true. There's nothing wrong with letting us know that the Commerce Secretary was the one who made the argument, but you must the also explain to us the arguments that he made so we can decide for ourselves if we agree with them. Providing a citation would be nice as well.

Did you know that in 1932 FDR BLASTED the former President's (who happened to be Republican) handling of the economic crisis was leading the US towards socialism and was wrong for this country?

Did he? That's is some new and surprising information and I think it's a very good point. Please provide a citation for this.

However, once in office FDR copied and accelerated the policies of the President he so maligned and blamed in the election?

Did he copy and accelerate the policies of Hoover? I think you're exaggerating. While Hoover did intervene somewhat in the government (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act), he never actually performed any large scale government intervention. That is to say, he never allowed the government to provide jobs for the unemployed, which was the basis of Roosevelt's new deal.

2002: The much maligned and vilified Bush pushes through an economic stimulus plan. 2008: The much maligned and vilified Bush spends the last of his political capital to get TRILLIONS of dollars based upon the unarguable economic logic that the treasury department needed a "large number". 2009: The much glorified Obama puts his celebrity and high approval ratings beyond a stimulus plan on the principle that we need to do something now, we need to do a lot.

Fair enough.

Did you know that only about 30% of the newest stimulus law will go into effect in 2009/10 when economists say the money would actually be, oh, helpful.

Once again this an appeal to authority fallacy. We cannot argue with these economists. We can only argue with you. It is your duty to provide us with an argument that supports the idea that the stimulus money will only be helpful in 09/10. Most of us want to hear arguments and not blindly accept the authority of said 'economists'.

The stimulus package ties the hands of state and local officials on how to spend the money. Instead of letting officials who actually live in and around the public works projects that need money and know what schools and roads need to be serviceable...Washington is dictating new programs.

Perhaps an article with further reading on this? I would like to see details on exactly how Washington is restricting State governments.

What happens when the federal funds dry up?

It's my understanding that these are not federal funds, but rather 'borrowed' money collected by selling Treasury Bonds.

See the thing about establishing programs rather than bid out contracts for construction that once done will pass into extinction...is you can't pull the plug on a government program.

Why exactly can't you?

So in a few years the state and local governments will have these programs to fund...and no federal funds to pay for them. This causes a run-up of either deficits or higher taxes.

I think you need to explain this in more detail. I as a reader am not understanding why exactly government program can't end.

Reversing Bush's bans on stem cells and funding for abortion advocates are NOT going to stabilize the housing industry. Regardless of how you feel about these issues, they should NOT be included in an economic stimulus package.

I can think of a counter for this.

Such funding provides jobs for higher level workers, and invests in future technologies simultaneously. You can't expect all US citizens to be employed building roads.

I don't want to debate the merits of these issues in this topic...because that rightfully belongs in a political discourse on these issues on their own.

I agree

What happened to promises of bi-partisanship and placing (rightfully) earmarks in the dustbin of history? Sneaking ideological (right or left) pet issues into a bill intended to stimulate economic recovery is not the way of a) stimulating the economy or b) confining harmful partisanship to the dustbin of history.

I'm not sure I would consider all of them earmarks (although I'm not going to none of them are). A good way to expand on this would be to explain the percentage of the bill earmarks make up. If it's something significant I think you have a case.'

That's about it. If you adress these concerns and reform your original post you'll have much more solid and convincing argument.

[Jagos]

At 3/3/09 02:48 PM, Evark wrote: What really drives me up the walls here is Republicans. They've been in office for 8 full years. 6 of which they were an unopposable MAJORITY in all branches of government. In those 8 years, we've seen the makings of the largest economic decline, possibly ever. One of the major points of the Clinton administration's end days was to get the deficit and National Debt under control. Gore promised to continue and further improve our debt situation. Bush fucked that royally.

Hmmm... I thought there was a discussion about who is supposedly to blame for recessions or surpluses. It was Bush Sr's usage of Reagonomics lite in his 6-8 years that gave us a surplus. When you look at him cutting taxes and believing in supply side economics, that makes sense. To say that Bush Jr "fucked that royally" is just sensationalist. Might wanna work on that. Some of the things, as said, started with the Clinton administration. Why not give credit where credit is due? Bush did what he could but the man can't solve every last problem.

The republicans are the hypocrites here, NOT democrats. BUSH (despite the fact that his party is the largest outspoken voice of anti-government spending/anti socialist doctrine, anti free-handouts for deadbeats, etc.) championed the FIRST government bailout to the tune of 600 billion or whatever. Now that Obama's looking to invest in our economy it's the wrong choice? Fucking bullshit. WHERE WERE YOU WHINEBAGS WITH YOUR "WAH LET'S BE MORE BIPARTISAN" WHEN BUSH WAS PUSHING IT THROUGH? For sure, there were republican objections, but only from those that knew they weren't immediately facing re-election in November. Why didn't we hear Democrats whining? Because Democrats tend to have this weird need to harmonize with those around them. They actually AGREED with Bush's stimulus plan, not for any other reason than they saw the merit behind the idea and didn't care which side of the aisle was pushing.

I'm calling BS on this one. Chris Dodd of Connecticut is taking lower payments from Countrywide before they folded and Barney Frank is an idiot. Of course, people are going to be against Obama spending XY and Z amount of dollars. It's tax money that going into infrastructure and earmarks up the wazoo. Did you know about the Oyster Rehabilitiation earmark in the ARRA? Did you even read it before you sat there and say Repubs have no right to complain? I know I can't speak for every Republican but when you have only 17 hours before you have to vote on something (the Patriot Act got ZERO hours before it was voted on) it tends to limit your choices.

Now what happened to those same Republicans who were on board for Bush's stimulus plan? They've rolled over. Democrats are about to SPEND MONEY OH NO GOD NO. The problem they have is that the money's likely going to help EVERYONE, instead of mostly Republicans. They're impeding bipartisan efforts here, NOT Democrats. Democrats don't even have to be bipartisan in their policy. It's just a courtesy. If America wanted bipartisan decision-making, they wouldn't have overwhelmingly elected a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president.

Wow... Do I even want to touch this rhetoric?

Fuck that. Republicans are arguing up from the resultant plummeting of having lost the last piece of their political footing. It's blatant. I honestly don't believe that Republicans will ever recover from the Bush administration. I think the tragic irony to their "History will be more kind to George W. Bush" argument is that they're right. History will see George Bush as the last Republican president, the one whose detachment from the reality of the American condition finally galvanized Americans into permanent disillusionment with the Republican party, leading to it's dissolution.

No, I'm not a Republican. I'm fairly moderate, maybe fiscally conservative, socially liberal. But to simply say that NO other Republican ever has a chance and that Democrats are going to save the US... That's a little hard to swallow at this time. I don't agree with everything that Obama supports but how about we give him two years to see how this goes?

Obama's going to get more people to college. College education is BAAAD for the Republican party. Obama is going to vastly improve the American infrastructure. He's going to solve all the problems that people have been whining about for the past 50-100 years, or at least make enough changes that everyone will agree he's made a valiant attempt. I think it's great. He's basically going to remove the necessity for the Republican party altogether by moving the American situation beyond their current conservative footing. I think Democrats are finally beginning to see that there's no point in trying to win the argument with Republicans, just respond to reality and their arguments will naturally fall apart on their own.

College isn't bad for Repubs. They believe in education just as much as Dems. Just school vouchers and private schools rather than public funded. Makes sense when all of them have been in private schools and never really saw a need for public schools. But it's hard to talk to someone that has no logical basis to his argument, only sensational rhetoric inspired to stir up everyone emotionally.

Oh well, maybe the next post can be a little better...

[jminuse]

At 3/3/09 06:06 PM, Jagos wrote:

:It was Bush Sr's usage of Reagonomics lite in his 6-8 years that gave us a surplus.
Oh, I see. So Republican policies take 8 years to take effect, and do so under Democratic administrations that have long since revoked them. Well, that's amazing. Thanks for sharing.

:When you look at him cutting taxes and believing in supply side economics, that makes sense.
To someone who believes in supply-side economics, yes. However, when you consider than Bush Sr did this and ended his term with a recession, and his son did likewise with the same result, you should start to doubt this creed and read up on real economists.

[The-Great-One]

I'm not worrying much. If Obama screws up you know how many black people will be pissed? Come 2012 Election if we go into a depression then we shall be pulled out by another president. Like when FDR became president, but reversed parties.

[thedo12]

At 3/3/09 10:19 AM, Jagos wrote: This I have to ask, if the banks fail, won't this cause anarchy?

the government could create a temporary program where they lend money to people (and with zero percent intrest)

[Evark]

At 3/3/09 04:00 PM, hrb5711 wrote: Yeah cause that $13 dollars a week (That I will pay back at the end of the year in taxes anyways) helps me a ton! Thank god people on wel-fare got $25...........

As far as I understand it, the tax cuts are most immediately going to be put into effect via employer's not automatically taking as much out of paychecks for taxes. If you're making less than 250k a year, then I don't think you really need to worry about 'paying back' the tax break at the end of the year. I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to work.

So even though American OVERWHELMINGLY said no to Obama's bill, and so did the Republicans in the Senate. The ones who didn't vote for it are wrong, even though that is what people wanted?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114184/Public -Support-Stimulus-Package-Unchanged.aspx
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. This is the first result on my google search. The stimulus bill is a couple weeks old now, so I don't think there's any more recent data than anything that leads only up to the beginning of February. That link includes approval for the president and congressional democrats all positive, with general disapproval for congressional republicans.

You really are just as bad as those far-right. No matter what happens, or what Obama does, you will follow him blindly, without questioning anything he does....awesome.

Not true. I think going into Afghanistan is a mistake. I think ALL foreign military involvement is a mistake. Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was not. Now Afghanistan is no longer justified, because as a result of our botched efforts to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice, he's escaped to Pakistan (likely) and will rebuild. I think if we've got all our money in DOMESTIC DEFENSE ONLY, we're in a good situation and we're not wasting time and resources elsewhere.

But, for the most part: yea. I know I'm going to agree with Obama's policies because I believe in Obama. I voted for him despite going into the primaries believing Hillary was the best choice for Democrats. Everything I've seen from his administration so far has improved my respect for the man. He's honest, forthright, considerate, and THOUGHTFUL. You can tell when he fields questions that he likes to answer or at least speak to EVERY issue the question is touching on. I respect the man, but it's not because he's Obama, it's because he's looking to do things that I've agreed with and wished would be tackled EVEN DURING CLINTON'S YEARS.

How so? By giving more grants to the poor? Screw the upper-middle class right? Like mine and my wife's situation.

You're already through college. You'll be alright. You paid a lot less for tuition than I have had to, and I paid a lot less for tuition so far than those just going into college would've had to. Our country has been an educational joke (public education) for years now. He's going to improve public schools rate of success, and attempt to make college more affordable. My 'bad for republicans' is an off-handed reference to folk knowledge that the majority of college students are liberal.

Back when we were both going into college we did our FASFA and found out our parents make to much money for us to get grants. Yes my parents made 100,000 a year, that is with five children, 2 cars, and a house. My wife was basically the same situation. Parents make to much for grants, but not enough to pay for college.

I was screwed out of Federal aid as well. Sounds to me like you're in agreement with Obama's interest in lessening the cost associated with college. Unless you're just spiteful that you had to pay so much before the American government came back down to earth in terms of what the American people actually need.

So now four years later we have racked up close to $100,000 in student loans. Even though we both have jobs, and between us make $90,000 a year. Even though we worked our asses off, paid for school ourself, went out and got good jobs, we still have to pay for people who don't want to work. And now Obama is going to make us pay more so they don't have to work. The way I look at it, if we are already paying these people for about 25 hours a week at minimum wage, lets make them do some work. Have them pick up trash, plant trees, build playgrounds, do some kind of work for their money. They can even do something close to their home so transportation isn't an issue.

Obama sees it the same way. He wants to offer FURTHER incentives to students to join American volunteer associations to do JUST THAT.

Don't get me wrong about Wel-fare, I think it is ok for a short time if you got laid off (not fired, etc.), I think it should be limited to 60 days.

I don't think that's the case. I think there are some people who genuinely cannot survive without government help. I think anyone who is anti-abortion AND anti-welfare is deluded and hypocritical. I also can't understand why most who apparently have such a huge problem with giving someone a standard of living above wandering the streets seems to have no problem with the over-bloated defense budget. We don't need NEARLY as many soldiers as we have, and certainly not in any of the ridiculous amount of military bases maintained around the world. I think soldiers should be stationed in America and/or places of active war ONLY. And if they're not stationed in a war zone, they should be doing the same community work you think civilians getting government money should be doing.

Yeah, I like that part.

Man, it's exciting, isn't it? The thought that in 20 years we could drop our reliance on foreign oil and drive our new cars down intact roads? I hope it happens.

What problems do we still have from 100 years ago? Women are still voting?

Healthcare. Government accountability. The drug war (ie: prohibition). Education. 100 years is a stretch, but these same issues have been around and kicked back and forth for ages. The feeling I'm getting is that Obama's just going to solve them and move society beyond quibbling about them.

And there is no point doing it with you. No matter what evidence is presented, what events happen, you will always see the world as republican bad, democrat good.

Not true. I'm not a democrat at all. In fact, I refuse to classify myself on the spectrum. I see reasonable Republicans on television all the time. I see retardedly stupid Democrats on television ALL THE TIME. I just calls it likes I sees it, and I sees much more elitism from Republicans than Democrats. Hell, the names even. Democrats: everyone's got a say in government. Republicans: only the chosen representatives have say. America's a democratic republic, and obviously the old adage about judging books by their covers holds true, but really you just need to look at Republican policy for the most part.

For example: I watch Bill Maher's show and Ron Paul was on the other day. I had no knowledge of who he was other than he is a Republican. After hearing his opinion on matters, I found that I agreed with 90% of his sentiments on most issues. Though, I disagree with his opinion that we need to NOT do anything to help the economy, I could even see where he was coming from with his thoughts. Reasonable man through and through.

[Evark]

At 3/3/09 06:06 PM, Jagos wrote: Hmmm... I thought there was a discussion about who is supposedly to blame for recessions or surpluses. It was Bush Sr's usage of Reagonomics lite in his 6-8 years that gave us a surplus. When you look at him cutting taxes and believing in supply side economics, that makes sense. To say that Bush Jr "fucked that royally" is just sensationalist. Might wanna work on that. Some of the things, as said, started with the Clinton administration. Why not give credit where credit is due? Bush did what he could but the man can't solve every last problem.

For the most part, I don't believe that either side is 'to blame' for our current economic situation. I just see failure to preempt an attack on Sept. 11 by the Bush administration, subsequent waste of nearly a trillion dollars to remove a dictator we had no reason to care about in the first place (RE: Iraq), and a general apathy on Bush's part when it came to paying off or decreasing the National Debt or deficit. Hell, I blame Clinton for Bush's presidential mistakes just as much as I blame Bush himself. If Clinton had kept it in his pants, maybe the democrats would have had just THAT MUCH MORE credibility going into the 2000 election cycle in order to win. The dot-com bust occured on Clinton's watch, too, right?

I don't think it's productive to figure out who is to blame for past problems. I think the productivity is best served by actually trying to get things done NOW with NOW's problems in mind. And as I see it, instead of offering reasonable solutions, Republicans only have a 'NO NOT WHAT DEMOCRATS WANT" to offer. Tax cuts are a joke. It's not taxes that are killing the American people, it's the fact that they're losing their jobs from recession. It's the fact that our infrastructure is crumbling. It's the fact that people are expected to pay for their own healthcare when they make less money in a year than an extended stay at the hospital costs. It's the fact that students leaving college and trying to get a job CAN'T FIND ONE and are still expected to pay back crippling student debt incurred over the past 4 years of their life when the economy hadn't lost over a quarter of its wealth.

I'm calling BS on this one. Chris Dodd of Connecticut is taking lower payments from Countrywide before they folded and Barney Frank is an idiot. Of course, people are going to be against Obama spending XY and Z amount of dollars. It's tax money that going into infrastructure and earmarks up the wazoo. Did you know about the Oyster Rehabilitiation earmark in the ARRA? Did you even read it before you sat there and say Repubs have no right to complain? I know I can't speak for every Republican but when you have only 17 hours before you have to vote on something (the Patriot Act got ZERO hours before it was voted on) it tends to limit your choices.

Ha ha. If you're gonna call BS, feel free to do so with something relevant. I will admit, my opening post was mostly in mockery of the salvo of sensationalist bullshit I hear all the time. Now that I've provoked response, I'm willing to draw back on the bullshit and actually debate a little. Anyway, I don't know what you're specifically referring to with the oyster Rehabilitiation earmark because I can't find anything from searching. But the devil's advocate in me has heard of an Oyster Rehabilitiation project underway in Boston's Charles River. The oyster's presence will cut down on pollution and consequently improve public health. I'm NOT opposed to government spending when it comes to community improvement projects, but I DO think that earmarks have no place in federal legislature. The problem is that you can't reject individual pieces of bills. Congress just loads up a bill with the bullshit and it's presented 'take it or leave it/as-is'. I'd rather the earmarks didn't exist, but I think they're small potatoes and ultimately have some merit to them anyway, so I don't think it's the big deal nay-sayers make it out to be. They pale in comparison to the Iraq war.

Wow... Do I even want to touch this rhetoric?

Apparently not. Though if you did, I'd feel free to back up my over the top claims with shreds of objective evidence woven together to form the tapestry of a coherent argument.

No, I'm not a Republican. I'm fairly moderate, maybe fiscally conservative, socially liberal. But to simply say that NO other Republican ever has a chance and that Democrats are going to save the US... That's a little hard to swallow at this time. I don't agree with everything that Obama supports but how about we give him two years to see how this goes?

Of course. But you would surely agree that the majority of nay-sayers are Republicans? And you would certainly agree that Bush is a Republican? And you would certainly agree that Bush passed a nearly identical stimulus package shortly before leaving office? And you would certainly agree that John McCain voted FOR that wall street bailout?

" McCain said now is the time for bipartisanship in order to push through the $700 billion proposal, which failed in the House of Representatives Monday.

"To state the obvious, we are in the greatest financial crisis of our lifetimes. Congressional inaction has put every American and the entire economy at the gravest risk. Yesterday, the country and the world looked to Washington for leadership, and Congress once again came up empty-handed," he said.

"Bipartisanship is a tough thing; never more so when you're trying to take necessary but publicly unpopular action. But inaction is not an option."" is from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/c ampaign.wrap/index.html in case you don't remember his championing. I find the LAST sentence particularly telling of Republican hypocrisy here. Granted, many Republicans were against the Wall Street Bailout. And I'm not willing to look into whether or not they were up for election, so I'll concede that they weren't.

College isn't bad for Repubs. They believe in education just as much as Dems. Just school vouchers and private schools rather than public funded. Makes sense when all of them have been in private schools and never really saw a need for public schools. But it's hard to talk to someone that has no logical basis to his argument, only sensational rhetoric inspired to stir up everyone emotionally.

Ha ha ha. You guys get so wrapped up in NOT calling out someone's bullshit, but just identifying it. SO WHAT IF I'M OBVIOUSLY OVER THE TOP WITH MY OPINION!? It's an opinion. I'm here to spark debate first, THEN engage it reasonably (as I think you'll agree is the case with my subsequent posting). Anyway, for your information, the logical basis is common knowledge that those of college age tend toward liberalism, and consequently, the Democratic party.

Oh well, maybe the next post can be a little better...

See? You DID recognize that I'm here to debate reasonably. : b

[dySWN]

At 3/4/09 09:14 PM, Evark wrote:

At 3/3/09 06:06 PM, Jagos wrote: Hmmm... I thought there was a discussion about who is supposedly to blame for recessions or surpluses. It was Bush Sr's usage of Reagonomics lite in his 6-8 years that gave us a surplus. When you look at him cutting taxes and believing in supply side economics, that makes sense. To say that Bush Jr "fucked that royally" is just sensationalist. Might wanna work on that. Some of the things, as said, started with the Clinton administration. Why not give credit where credit is due? Bush did what he could but the man can't solve every last problem.

For the most part, I don't believe that either side is 'to blame' for our current economic situation. I just see [lengthy Bush Derangement Syndrome rant]

Riiight...

Republicans only have a 'NO NOT WHAT DEMOCRATS WANT" to offer.

I don't have a link, but I remember hearing somewhere that the Republicans in the Senate did offer an alternative bill, but were rapidly shut down by the majority.

The oyster's presence will cut down on pollution and consequently improve public health.

This is good and all, but it has no place in a bill that should be all about economic recovery. How does saving an oyster translate to decreased unemployment or growth in private investments?

but I DO think that earmarks have no place in federal legislature.

See above.

Congress just loads up a bill with the bullshit and it's presented 'take it or leave it/as-is'. I'd rather the earmarks didn't exist, but I think they're small potatoes and ultimately have some merit to them anyway, so I don't think it's the big deal nay-sayers make it out to be.

Honestly, it should be a big deal - especially considering that Obama:
A. Promised during his campaign to get rid of earmarks, and
B. While pushing to get the bill hastily passed, promptly waited days (without even having read the bill) to sign it despite rhetoric on his part not one week before stating that the bill needed to be enacted as soon as humanly possible.

Anyway, for your information, the logical basis is common knowledge that those of college age tend toward liberalism, and consequently, the Democratic party.

Some would argue that this is rather a product of youthful idealism than of attending college - many of the strongest conservative voices of our time are college educated, and common knowledge also dictates that older folks tend to lean to the political right.

[Al6200]

At 3/3/09 03:46 AM, TheMason wrote:

A few things here.
1) I saw a graph that showed that currently, government expenditures on health care are within like 5% of how much the private sector pays in healthcare costs. Something has to be done about healthcare, but not single-payer/Universal health like many on the far Left want.

Of course if you implemented universal healthcare you'd have to tax people more. Whether or not people are net winners or net losers depends solely on whether universal healthcare is more efficient than the insurance system (assuming that the tax isn't progressive).

Universal healthcare is more efficient because it encourages people to use preventive medicine instead of getting expensive treatment at the emergency room. Suppose that you are a poor person with no health insurance and you have a high risk of getting cancer. Under the current system you probably will not get screened regularly or get check-ups because you cannot (or do not want to) pay for them. When your symptomns get really bad, you'll get treated at the emergency room and probably die because they detected it too late (never mind the expenses of the treatment).

With universal heatlhcare you'll probably get screened for cancer because you don't have to pay for it, and the tumor will be detected early. It will be very easy to treat, very inexpensive, and best of all you won't day.

That scenario is not absurd, it is in fact very common. Heart disease, stroke, cancer, AIDS, infections (I could go on all day) can be treated most efficiently if they are treated early.

2) To the Left: taking money from the private sector and giving it to the government for 'make work programs' does not solve unemployment. If it did, then after eight years of FDR's New Deal we would have had single digit unemployment rather than the double digit we had.

The problem is that if you give people tax cuts they will save some portion of the money. If the economy is bad, they will save a very large portion of that money. The only way that the government can stimulate the economy is by spending money directly.

3) Obama is counting on inflation. A devalued dollar is one way to halve the deficit quickly. How else do you think Obama is going to halve the deficit in four years whilst increasing spending? The end result is even more pain on individuals. The way I see it, Obama is going to take the Recession he inherited from Bush and turn it into a full-blown depression.

I think that you are right to be concerned about inflation. But I think it will work so long as other countries continue to buy our T-bills.

* FDR believed that one of the underlying causes of the Great Depression was "underconsumption". That people working in factories could not afford the products they produced. This was during the roaring twenties when people were buying things like new cars faster than anytime before in US history. Competition had made things like cars more affordable (and more technologically advanced) than before. For example Ford's innovative Model T was cheaper than GM's products, in response GM produced a car that was cheaper...but also had an ignition system and spedometer. One of the things that FDR did to fix the problem was the National Industrial Recorvery Act which created the National Recovery Administration (NRA). This body set price controls and wage standards that had the effect of stifling innovation and making it so that small businesses could not compete with the big guys and went out of business...thereby putting people out of work. This was later struck down as unconstitutional.

Wage controls are a dumb way of balancing supply and demand. It would have been much better if he had just made taxes more or less progressive.

[Evark]

At 3/4/09 09:52 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 3/4/09 09:14 PM, Evark wrote: For the most part, I don't believe that either side is 'to blame' for our current economic situation. I just see [lengthy Bush Derangement Syndrome rant]

Riiight...

Bush Derangement Syndrome? We've BEEN up to our ears in National Debt FOREVER. That's why I'm not willing to assign blame. Blame is DUE, however, when it comes to WASTING [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ntent/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846 _pf.html] 3 trillion dollars according to this article. That makes Republicans... wait, you'll accuse me of being entirely one-sided here... ANYONE who complains about WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING while having supported the war in Iraq a hypocrite.

I don't have a link, but I remember hearing somewhere that the Republicans in the Senate did offer an alternative bill, but were rapidly shut down by the majority.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/
idUSN0142074920090203] Don't accuse or imply I have poor debate skills and then fail to google things yourself. Their plan was heavily centered on tax cuts, which is a terrible idea. Why? That's all Bush's administration had been doing. You can't just keep slashing taxes, because it doesn't matter how much people pay in taxes when they're jobless. And it doesn't matter how much cheaper it is to employ a worker when there's no demand because nobody has a job and so nobody's buying anything in the first place.

This is good and all, but it has no place in a bill that should be all about economic recovery. How does saving an oyster translate to decreased unemployment or growth in private investments?

For one thing: oyster farms growing the oysters, OR a bunch of people hired to go out and GET oysters. For another, paid workers will have to put the oysters in place. For a third: less pollution means less (statistically speaking) in the way of costly health problems. For a fourth: someone will have to monitor the populations in order to ensure they're taking.

It's a better idea for the government to SPEND A LOT MORE MONEY than it is for them to spend a lot less money in a situation such as this. Why? Because the entire economy is based on the idea of monetary circulation. The more circulation there is, the more smaller amounts of money can support larger populations. Because that same dollar you have in your pocket is WORTH more to society when it's moved around. When you spend it on candy, you've bought into the promise the candy company makes to it's suppliers, producers, delivery people, executives, etc. that someone will buy the product and they will get paid as a result. But if it sits in your pocket stagnating because you're not spending that money, those workers worked for nothing at the end of the day.

America is a beautiful place. The more spent on further beautifying it, the more foreign tourists will be attracted to visiting here. If we've got alternative fuels, maybe air travel isn't as prohibitively expensive from country to country, and we get MORE tourists. I don't know why people are so fearful of letting people into America, the only reason why there's people that want to destroy what we have here is because we've marched right into their homeland without regard to THEIR need to remain sovereign in the first place.

You've gotta think 'bigger picture' when you're talking about government spending. America's investment has been in a HUGE military, so we don't have to worry about any nation trying to call in our debts by force... YET. But if we flounder around for too long in a depression, other nations like China and India, one an emerging economic force and the other an emerging technological force, may start to take advantage of American weakness.

Honestly, it should be a big deal - especially considering that Obama:
A. Promised during his campaign to get rid of earmarks, and

I think he was pushing on a campaign of change and government accountability reform. Both of which he's delivering on, as far as I'm concerned. I believe McCain was all about eliminating earmarks. He said 'pork-barrel' so often that I started wishing someone would punch him.

B. While pushing to get the bill hastily passed, promptly waited days (without even having read the bill) to sign it despite rhetoric on his part not one week before stating that the bill needed to be enacted as soon as humanly possible.

[http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/02/17/o bama-signs-stimulus-bill-launches-recove rygov/] Looks like he signed it the 17th. It reached his desk on the 13. There's a link on recovery.gov to the bill in its entirety, so I'm going to counter your baseless assumption that he didn't even read the bill (which may have been unnecessary anyway, considering he held all sorts of meetings with Dems and Repubs alike to talk about it's contents) with the assumption that he DID, in fact, read it before signing it. Not that signing it matters, because the first funds for it weren't released until a couple days ago.

Some would argue that this is rather a product of youthful idealism than of attending college - many of the strongest conservative voices of our time are college educated, and common knowledge also dictates that older folks tend to lean to the political right.

"Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age." Recent findings by Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels show that since World War II, Democratic presidents have generally been more successful in both spurring overall income growth and creating a more equitable distribution of income than opposition leaders. After allowing for a one year time lag between assuming office and the effects of policies, and accounting for several economic events that could have caused such a development, such as oil prices and labor force participation, the correlation with a Democratic presidency and higher income growth remains significant. He concludes that correlation between higher and more equally distributed income growth and the incumbency of Democratic presidents is likely not a mere repeated coincidence.

This is straight out of the wikipedia article, and since it cites a published book [http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Democracy -Political-Economy-Gilded/dp/B001I8FK80] Amazon.com verifies to exist and be, indeed, exactly that; I believe wikipedia here.

Anyway, I stumbled across this stuff while trying to search for any conclusive study about education level and political leanings. No surprise, it's basically just folklore. I wasn't entirely serious with the comment to begin with. ; )

[Korriken]

At 3/4/09 08:53 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 3/2/09 11:01 PM, Korriken wrote: After it's all over, god knows...

I'm going to laugh when the recession is over in a year or two and you forget that you ever made these arguments ever, considering that our current economic situation isn't horrible enough to get people taking to the streets or putting a third of the population out of work.

not yet anyway. If the government stays on course, we're screwed. The economy won't recover if Obama keeps piling on new taxes. Things are getting to the point where more moderate Democrats are starting to turn on Obama. Those with financial sense on the left are starting to realize that Obama's grand scheme is not only a bad idea, its outright destructive. Things will recover once Obama realizes many in his own party are turning against him and teaming up with the right to put a stop to him. At that point, things will begin to recover.

and I have a prediction of 2010. As the economy continues to sink, the elections come up for senators and congressmen. The left will try and use the sinking economy along with the stimulus package against the right by saying that the republicans want to destroy the economy by repealing the stimulus package right before it begins to work. The reason the package was set up to not work so long is to hold it as a hostage in order to keep seats come 2010, because Obama knows if the balance shifts to the right, then his ambitions are as dead as Britney Spears' career.

[Jagos]

Bush Derangement Syndrome? We've BEEN up to our ears in National Debt FOREVER. That's why I'm not willing to assign blame. Blame is DUE, however, when it comes to WASTING [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ntent/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846 _pf.html] 3 trillion dollars according to this article. That makes Republicans... wait, you'll accuse me of being entirely one-sided here... ANYONE who complains about WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING while having supported the war in Iraq a hypocrite.

... You do realize the Iraq war is ~7% of our spending? When you factor in SS, Medicare and Medicaid, that takes over 50+% of the spending done to continue to provide for our aging community.
In regards to the article, it doesn't say ANY numbers just gives a ballpark of 1 trillion... Seriously, even if it's the Washington Post and every soldier's life was $500,000 a piece, I'm finding this a little far fetched that we can't have a number for the equipment, construction, contracting or anything else that's been vital to Iraq.

I don't have a link, but I remember hearing somewhere that the Republicans in the Senate did offer an alternative bill, but were rapidly shut down by the majority.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/
idUSN0142074920090203] Don't accuse or imply I have poor debate skills and then fail to google things yourself. Their plan was heavily centered on tax cuts, which is a terrible idea. Why? That's all Bush's administration had been doing. You can't just keep slashing taxes, because it doesn't matter how much people pay in taxes when they're jobless. And it doesn't matter how much cheaper it is to employ a worker when there's no demand because nobody has a job and so nobody's buying anything in the first place.

:It centered on cutting in half a 6.2 percent payroll tax on employees, cutting the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent and lowering the bottom two income tax brackets to 10 percent and 5 percent, all for one year.

McCain and Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Mel Martinez of Florida also proposed $11 billion to help prevent home foreclosures and $65 billion in state grants to build and repair bridges and roads.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but giving more money to employees or employers is wrong how?

For one thing: oyster farms growing the oysters, OR a bunch of people hired to go out and GET oysters. For another, paid workers will have to put the oysters in place. For a third: less pollution means less (statistically speaking) in the way of costly health problems. For a fourth: someone will have to monitor the populations in order to ensure they're taking.

That's still justifying an earmark that should have been appropriated elsewhere...

It's a better idea for the government to SPEND A LOT MORE MONEY than it is for them to spend a lot less money in a situation such as this. Why? Because the entire economy is based on the idea of monetary circulation. The more circulation there is, the more smaller amounts of money can supportlarger populations. Because that same dollar you have in your pocket is WORTH more to society when it's moved around.... etc.

Look up Ben Bernanke. He's been wanting to fight the circulation of TOO much money at one time. He doesn't want inflation to weave its head, rendering your money useless like weak currencies.

America is a beautiful place. The more spent on further beautifying it, the more foreign tourists will be attracted to visiting here. If we've got alternative fuels, maybe air travel isn't as prohibitively expensive from country to country, and we get MORE tourists. I don't know why people are so fearful of letting people into America, the only reason why there's people that want to destroy what we have here is because we've marched right into their homeland without regard to THEIR need to remain sovereign in the first place.

Ok, alternative fuels... So you want the price of corn to go up to make ethanol. I love me some tacos but I don't want that to be used in my gas tank. And when our government is dumb enough to give agribusiness a subsidy for it, I believe we can all shake our heads and sigh... These are our leaders we elected... *sigh*

You've gotta think 'bigger picture' when you're talking about government spending. America's investment has been in a HUGE military, so we don't have to worry about any nation trying to call in our debts by force... YET. But if we flounder around for too long in a depression, other nations like China and India, one an emerging economic force and the other an emerging technological force, may start to take advantage of American weakness.

China hasn't hit its stride yet. India has Pakistan to worry about. China worries me far more than the over 1 billion population of India. But I doubt highly China will call in a debt when they know it will hurt them as well. Notice how when the US went into recession so did their economy as the US dropped back on raw materials on goods? So... Yeah...

B. While pushing to get the bill hastily passed, promptly waited days (without even having read the bill) to sign it despite rhetoric on his part not one week before stating that the bill needed to be enacted as soon as humanly possible.

[http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/02/17/o bama-signs-stimulus-bill-launches-recove rygov/] Looks like he signed it the 17th. It reached his desk on the 13. There's a link on recovery.gov to the bill in its entirety, so I'm going to counter your baseless assumption that he didn't even read the bill (which may have been unnecessary anyway, considering he held all sorts of meetings with Dems and Repubs alike to talk about it's contents) with the assumption that he DID, in fact, read it before signing it. Not that signing it matters, because the first funds for it weren't released until a couple days ago.

Some would argue that this is rather a product of youthful idealism than of attending college - many of the strongest conservative voices of our time are college educated, and common knowledge also dictates that older folks tend to lean to the political right.

"Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age." Recent findings by Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels show that since World War II, Democratic presidents have generally been more successful in both spurring overall income growth and creating a more equitable distribution of income than opposition leaders. After allowing for a one year time lag between assuming office and the effects of policies, and accounting for several economic events that could have caused such a development, such as oil prices and labor force participation, the correlation with a Democratic presidency and higher income growth remains significant. He concludes that correlation between higher and more equally distributed income growth and the incumbency of Democratic presidents is likely not a mere repeated coincidence.

This is straight out of the wikipedia article, and since it cites a published book [http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Democracy -Political-Economy-Gilded/dp/B001I8FK80] Amazon.com verifies to exist and be, indeed, exactly that; I believe wikipedia here.

Anyway, I stumbled across this stuff while trying to search for any conclusive study about education level and political leanings. No surprise, it's basically just folklore. I wasn't entirely serious with the comment to begin with. ; )

I won't doubt the article but Repubs are more interested in making the pie bigger, not in equitable share which is the main Democratic view. So it's a choice, does everyone get a share of the pie or is someone going to make the pie bigger?

[Jagos]

and I have a prediction of 2010. As the economy continues to sink, the elections come up for senators and congressmen. The left will try and use the sinking economy along with the stimulus package against the right by saying that the republicans want to destroy the economy by repealing the stimulus package right before it begins to work.

Unless the recession's over by 2010. Again, wasn't it the Republicans not doing anything that let the 1929 crash happen and allowed it to accelerate? Until FDR came along that is- considering that the world was in an economic depression as well you can't argue that he made it worse, either. His socialist policies eventually proved beneficial for the United States- at least in terms of a financial infrastructure- which prevented another serious crash from snowballing.

I kinda disagree there... FDR's policies may have primed the pump by creating a few jobs and enriching the Peace Corps through Keynesian Economics which was new, but I don't necessarily believe it was effective.

He pushed so hard for heavy taxes, it's STILL being used today. Point being, if it wasn't for the times that we were in, more than likely we would still be feeling the effects of the Depression unless Congress reversed and repealed some of the laws that caused the stock drop in the first place.

The reason the package was set up to not work so long is to hold it as a hostage in order to keep seats come 2010, because Obama knows if the balance shifts to the right, then his ambitions are as dead as Britney Spears' career.

Not saying Republicans are incompetent- but their base is thoroughly drained right now.

I believe Repubs are looking at Jindal as an Obama-esque character. Now, you get him to work on his public speaking and stop using McCain...

And STOP using Limbaugh for public speaking!

[Lagerkapo]

Fictional money whose value is abitrarily decided by a small group of people with business interests who work with fictional and inherently antagonistic derivatives, printed on a worthless medium that most people just ASSUME has intrinsic value, a Central Bank that prints money AT INTEREST to the nation it is supposed to serve, TRILLIONS in corporate money perpetuating reckless and greedy agendas of profiteering, a political system within which NOBODY can succeed without selling out and a

STUPID

Public all makes for a pretty shitty scenario.

We were pretty much fucked from the outset. The miracle is that it took this long.

[Evark]

At 3/5/09 09:12 PM, Jagos wrote: ... You do realize the Iraq war is ~7% of our spending? When you factor in SS, Medicare and Medicaid, that takes over 50+% of the spending done to continue to provide for our aging community.

Yea, and I'm of the opinion that our DEFENSE budget in its entirety is way too bloated. 7% of our TOTAL budget is just our botched handling of a fledgling democracy? And you're making a big deal out of an earmark worth a couple mill in an 800 billion spending plan? Don't imply anyone's biased ever again.

In regards to the article, it doesn't say ANY numbers just gives a ballpark of 1 trillion... Seriously, even if it's the Washington Post and every soldier's life was $500,000 a piece, I'm finding this a little far fetched that we can't have a number for the equipment, construction, contracting or anything else that's been vital to Iraq.

I didn't actually read it. I just took the Washington Post as credible and cited it in order to give you a ballpark estimate. I'm not here to argue exact figures, I'm here to say that ANY amount wasted on Iraq is too much, considering our reason for being there is null since the first year we arrived (WMDs).

It centered on cutting in half a 6.2 percent payroll tax on employees, cutting the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent and lowering the bottom two income tax brackets to 10 percent and 5 percent, all for one year.

Right, centering on tax-cuts. Which haven't worked in the past 8 years. Hence: rejected.

McCain and Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Mel Martinez of Florida also proposed $11 billion to help prevent home foreclosures and $65 billion in state grants to build and repair bridges and roads.

I believe the Obama bill includes provisions for the same thing. Perhaps MORE going to infrastructure improvements. Recovery.gov has a big banner talking about how much money is RIGHT NOW available for infrastructure improvements along America's roads.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but giving more money to employees or employers is wrong how?

I'm afraid I can't understand what you're looking for me to say here, nor what it is you might be wrong about.

That's still justifying an earmark that should have been appropriated elsewhere...

You didn't ask me to defend its insertion in the bill (because you hopefully understood when you read my position on earmarks in the post prior), but you did ask me to defend the usefulness of said program in terms of job creation, which I can see you accept as plausible.

Look up Ben Bernanke. He's been wanting to fight the circulation of TOO much money at one time. He doesn't want inflation to weave its head, rendering your money useless like weak currencies.

IE: don't print too much extra money. Something the Bush administration is guilty of, for sure. Money relies on static gold reserves belonging to whatever country is printing the money. What I'm talking about isn't increasing the amount of money there is, but the amount of money that's moving around in the first place. When the economy is in recession, it's because those who don't have money can't get any to spend, and those who DO have money don't spend any for fear that they won't be able to earn it back.

Ok, alternative fuels... So you want the price of corn to go up to make ethanol. I love me some tacos but I don't want that to be used in my gas tank. And when our government is dumb enough to give agribusiness a subsidy for it, I believe we can all shake our heads and sigh... These are our leaders we elected... *sigh*

You're putting words in my mouth. I agree with experts who think that ethanol is a dead-end. Hydrogen power, electric cars, solar power, wind power, and a number of other options aren't as limited. I think if we're going to be growing assloads of corn, people should be eating it.

China hasn't hit its stride yet. India has Pakistan to worry about. China worries me far more than the over 1 billion population of India. But I doubt highly China will call in a debt when they know it will hurt them as well. Notice how when the US went into recession so did their economy as the US dropped back on raw materials on goods? So... Yeah...

India is the only military force that could even REMOTELY compare with the US. They're buying all our old aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers are the most formiddable show of military force there is. A navy is basically a number one determining factor in a country's global power. Britain was the most powerful empire because it had a strong Navy from it's many colonies. Before that it was Spain. Now the most powerful is the United States, because we have an ownage Naval influence to protect our secluded position.

Anyway... yea. There are plenty of reasons why China and India aren't currently a threat. But there's also plenty of reasons why they could become one. That's all I'm saying.

I won't doubt the article but Repubs are more interested in making the pie bigger, not in equitable share which is the main Democratic view. So it's a choice, does everyone get a share of the pie or is someone going to make the pie bigger?

I don't think your analogy holds water, so to speak.