Put your money where your mouth is

[Supergirl]

What do you really think? Honestly, but preferably with some facts to support your opinion.

[Winehole23]

Did you mean the stimulus package, SG? I don't think you meant the TARP, and bank bailout 2.0 hasn't been rolled out yet.

I voted other.

It all depends on how fast the water's draining from the bathtub right now and how quickly we turn off the spigot when the plug's back in place. There's no way to calculate this. We just have to hope our benevolent technocrats guess right.

IMO the stimulus is more palliative than theraputic as currently constructed. In December the Fed forecast 7.6% unemployment for 2009. Now Bernanke says it will reach 8.8%. More upward revisions wouldn't be so surprising.

The magnitude of human suffering will justify the stimulus. It will be clearer later this year than it is right now. Obama's hint that this stimulus isn't the last should probably be taken as a promise.

Will it work as advertised? I doubt there's the political will for the amount of spending deflation hawks like Reich and Krugman claim is necessary, so no.

It will make our bottom line worse. It may wreck the USD.

But oddly enough, if the stimulus doesn't work that might be a good thing. If it does work as advertised, the danger of hyperinflation and USD collapse is magnified; much less so if it doesn't.

IMO the stimulus pales in importance next to how we deal with our insolvent banking sector, but that's for another thread.

[101A]

Over 200 pages of the "Stimulus" package sets into motion centralizing and putting under govt. scrutiny ALL American's medical records and treatments. It provides incentives for green energy projects, increases unemployment benefits and food stamp allocations. There's more, but that's just off the top of my head.

This "stimulus" package is more of a liberal grab bag than anything else. Wouldn't want to waste a good crisis, after all.

[Blake]

I'm guessing you meant stimulus package too.....

I think the government had to do something, but I think the stimulus package is like putting a band aid on a gun shot wound.

[101A]

Oh, and if this was all caused by Bush's policies, why don't we just reverse those and be done with it.

Since the massive tax cuts for the rich, along with the invasion of Iraq were his great crimes, why don't we just raise the richer's taxes back to Clintonian levels, pull out of Iraq - that should fix everything, right?

[doobs]

Not necessary. Desirable to have some sort of stimulus, maybe, to mitigate some short-term pain. (I think the dire warnings of financial and economic collapse are fear-mongering.) Most of this stimulus is basically a budget, with too much spending on liberal pet projects.

I'm no economist, so what I'm saying obviously isn't gospel truth. But I believe that this stimulus is, for the most part, bad economics. It's bad for the debt and forces to government to borrow even more, thereby crowding out private investment in the long-term. It also threatens to bring us higher inflation. In a bad economy, that could lead us into stagflation. And then we're back to 1981-1982. Not pretty.

Moreover, it contains pernicious "Buy American" clauses--which have been watered down, but still send the wrong message to trading partners. We simply can't afford to risk closure of markets to our consumers and our exporters.

But, yes, the economy will recover, as always. This stimulus will hamper and slow the recovery, but the economy will recover. It always does. The real question is whether things improve appreciably before the 2010 mid-term election.

[Winehole23]

Oh, and if this was all caused by Bush's policies, why don't we just reverse those and be done with it.

Since the massive tax cuts for the rich, along with the invasion of Iraq were his great crimes, why don't we just raise the richer's taxes back to Clintonian levels, pull out of Iraq - that should fix everything, right?More unfunny. You're the only one making this case.

Are you trying to start a partisan food fight? Why? There's plenty of blame to go around and besides, the seriousness of the problem renders the matter of blame academic.

Focusing on blame is infantile and unresolvable. Why not drop it and rejoin the adults in a real conversation about this, 101A?
.

[LockBeard]

I like how the libs always bash the GOP, then when they know their side is fucking things up they drop "There's plenty of blame to go around" yet they never directly go after those in their party and pretty much leave it at that.

Face it, the left used this "catastrophic crisis" to push liberal agenda, fund pet projects, help with re-elections in 2010, pay back friends in the business, all while knowingly stealing $1 trillion dollars of American's money. The health of the dollar? LOL who gives a fuck about that.

The GOP fucked things up the last 8 years, but the left has already proven they are going to do their thing regardless of reason.

Go ahead and turn America into California, Illinois, and every other successful accomplishment the same ol' politics has blessed this great country with.

[Winehole23]

I like how the libs always bash the GOP, then when they know their side is fucking things up they drop "There's plenty of blame to go around" yet they never directly go after those in their party.You don't know shit about me, LockBeard.

The search function is your friend. Use it, before you jump to conclusions.

Did you see my Bruce Fein post yesterday? He and his article both should give you a pretty good idea where I'm coming from politically.

[clambake]

bump this thread in july.

unemployment will look like chernobyl.

[balli]

IMO a dollar spent is a dollar spent and the Democrats should have taken out all the tax concessions they made for republicans, before it became apparent that they [conservatives] were going to try to obstruct this thing no matter what.

[Winehole23]

IMO a dollar spent is a dollar spent and the Democrats should have taken out all the tax concessions they made for republicans, before it became apparent that they [conservatives] were going to try to obstruct this thing no matter what.They needed Spector, Snowe and Collins to prevent a filibuster, so withdrawing concessions wasn't really an option.

[101A]

More unfunny. You're the only one making this case.

Are you trying to start a partisan food fight? Why? There's plenty of blame to go around and besides, the seriousness of the problem renders the matter of blame academic.

Focusing on blame is infantile and unresolvable. Why not drop it and rejoin the adults in a real conversation about this, 101A?
.

Self-Righteous, pompous a little?

First, I'm older than you.

Second, do you not find it the least bit ironic that this is never discussed?

Bush was blamed for EVERYTHING not 90 days ago - that "his" policies, and those of the Republicans got us into this mess.

It is why we NOW have a Congress and White House completely dominated by Democrats - able to do whatever the fuck they like, including passing a stimulus bill that will probably provide little stimulus, but will have long-standing ramifications that we, our children and grandchildren will have to live with pretty much forever!!

And WHY do they get to have a free pass to bend us over so hard? Because conventional wisdom has declared this to be "Bush's Fault".

[balli]

First, I'm older than you.

What the fuck is wrong with you? No wonder you can't talk about this on anything other than a 4th grade level.

[101A]

IMO a dollar spent is a dollar spent

No, it isn't.

A dollar EARNED is a dollar earned.

A dollar's worth of value produced is a dollar's worth of dollar produced.

EVERYTHING else is just paper.

[101A]

What the fuck is wrong with you? No wonder you can't talk about this on anything other than a 4th grade level.

He said "join the adults"

I responded.

[balli]

No, it isn't.

A dollar EARNED is a dollar earned.

A dollar's worth of value produced is a dollar's worth of dollar produced.

EVERYTHING else is just paper.

Take your crude, idealistic and naive economic ramblings elsewhere. This is the situation we got.

[fyatuk]

Government spending helps, but the stimulus doesn't look like it contains enough of the right kind of spending, and too much of other kinds. Also, the deficit its going to rack up is going to stagnate the natural recovery that would be happening anyway.

Much of it is partisan BS anyway, aimed at helping the east and left coast and ignoring the heartland. Then again, the heartland isn't getting hit near as hard...

[101A]

Take your crude, idealistic and naive economic ramblings elsewhere. This is the situation we got.

You are a little cliche, aren't you?

It's almost like Ayn Rand crapped you out her ass.

Don't want to respond, so you mock. Don't like the insinuation, so you insult.

Naive?

"A dollar spent is a dollar spent" is about the most naive thing I've read all day long.

[coyotes_geek]

I cast a vote for "other". "Other" meaning something is neccessary, but something other than what we did. What we did isn't going to help.

[101A]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

[LockBeard]

Alienating the few left in this country that played by the rules and lived by personal responsibility passed down to them from those who have lived in tougher times.

Good news: Because of the preparedness, they will be able to outrun their buddy and not worry about the bear.
Bad news: They have no voice in this country.

Awesome times are ahead.

[Winehole23]

First, I'm older than you.So what? I should put up with your inane grousing b/c you're my elder? Really? Do you defer to your elders around here?


Second, do you not find it the least bit ironic that this is never discussed?Are you kidding? The stimulus has been a huge topic, and the blame game is the number one all-time pastime in this forum. I call bs.


Bush was blamed for EVERYTHING not 90 days ago - that "his" policies, and those of the Republicans got us into this mess. Ok blame it all on Obama. See if I care.:sleep


And WHY do they get to have a free pass to bend us over so hard? Because conventional wisdom has declared this to be "Bush's Fault".I would put it a little differently. The borrow and spend GOP first lost integrity with the electorate, then they lost their shorts at the polls. Who do you blame for that?

No free passes on the stimulus. Whether the obloquy falls to the Dems or the GOP remains to be seen. It all depends on how the results are perceived.

[101A]

So what? I should put up with your inane grousing b/c you're my elder? Really? Do you defer to your elders around here?

I thought you told me to defer to "the adults"?


Are you kidding? The stimulus has been a huge topic, and the blame game is the number one all-time pastime in this forum. I call bs.Pronoun non-agreement. "This" being the blame for the economic mess resting squarely on Republcans - and the ensuing windfall it has provided for Democrats (and NOT referring strictly to this forum.


Ok blame it all on Obama. See if I care.:sleepI blame everyone - lenders, borrowers, the fed, govt., etc.....


I would put it a little differently. The borrow and spend GOP first lost integrity with the electorate, then they lost their shorts at the polls. Who do you blame for that?

No free passes on the stimulus. Whether the obloquy falls to the Dems or the GOP remains to be seen. It all depends on how the results are perceived.I disagree. I think there is a chance Obama gets a free pass, ala FDR.

[LockBeard]

All this "crisis" is to them is an opportunity to re-structure American society into their image.

So if "will it work" means will things go back to the way they were, the answer is not likely. Why? Because that's the goal.

[Winehole23]

I thought you told me to defer to "the adults"?Check my post. I invited you to rejoin.


Pronoun non-agreement. "This" being the blame for the economic mess resting squarely on Republcans - and the ensuing windfall it has provided for Democrats (and NOT referring strictly to this forum.

I blame everyone - lenders, borrowers, the fed, govt., etc.....We agree on this.

The GOP shoulders much of the blame because failure happened on their watch. Boo hoo. How long has the game been played this way? It's not like they have clean hands. Their contribution to the fiasco was significant.

Them's the breaks. Life ain't fair.


I disagree. I think there is a chance Obama gets a free pass, ala FDR.You mean that Obama may end up more popular than he is now. Possible. But even FDR didn't get a free pass. People like my great great uncle, Will Buckley, called him red at the time and many people still do.

[101A]

You mean that Obama may end up more popular than he is now. Possible. But even FDR didn't get a free pass. People like my great great uncle, Will Buckley, called him red at the time and many people still do.

History is history, at the time, FDR pretty much got a free pass.

WFB began making noise in the early 50's.

Semantics, however, and props on the lineage.

[Supergirl]

Did you mean the stimulus package, SG? I don't think you meant the TARP, and bank bailout 2.0 hasn't been rolled out yet.


Yes, I meant the recent stimulus package. Sorry for any confusion.

[Supergirl]

I cast a vote for "other". "Other" meaning something is neccessary, but something other than what we did. What we did isn't going to help.

Care to elaborate on what you think we should have done instead?

[Winehole23]

Yes, I meant the recent stimulus package. Sorry for any confusion.It was contextually clear, but you never can make things too clear for other people.

Thanks for the OP, Supergirl.

[Winehole23]

Care to elaborate on what you think we should have done instead?I'd like to hear it too. c_g (former SR capologist) has a pretty sharp mind for economics.

[Winehole23]

WFB began making noise in the early 50's.Will was WFB Jr's father. (My grandmother's uncle.)

WFB Jr.(my grandmother's first cousin) was known as Bill.

[101A]

Will was WFB Jr's father. (My grandmother's uncle.)

Nevermind

[101A]

Will was WFB Jr's father. (My grandmother's uncle.)

WFB Jr.(my grandmother's first cousin) was known as Bill.

Does that make "Bill" a 1st cousin twice removed to you - or a 3rd cousin?

I can't keep that shit straight.

[Extra Stout]

At best, this stimulus is a tourniquet to get the economy through until the whiz kids figure out how to deal with the insolvency of the global financial system.

[Winehole23]

Does that make "Bill" a 1st cousin twice removed to you - or a 3rd cousin?

I can't keep that shit straight.I always heard 3rd cousin.

I have no idea what "removes" are. For some reason I think it refers to ties through marriage as opposed to descendance, but this is pure PFA.

[coyotes_geek]

Care to elaborate on what you think we should have done instead?

Give the tax cuts to businesses who are the ones who actually provide jobs. A bunch of individuals aren't going to get together and pool their $13/week to go hire someone.

Only spend money on infrastructure and extension of unemployment benefits. Stuff that will actually create jobs, lead to consumer spending, or help people weather the storm. Dump all the feel-good expenditures about green energy, massive expansion of education programs and all the various sorts of welfare. I'm not saying those are or are not worthy causes, but they aren't going to create jobs and thus need to be put on the back burner for now. Once the economy is moving again then lets talk about whether or not we need to spend more money on those things. I doubt too many people saw Obama sign the bill and said "I need to run out and buy solar panels now, I get a tax credit"!

The main thing is to keep the thing as cheap as possible. Whatever money we spend now trying to get the economy moving is going to have to be paid for by taxing money back out of the economy later. Things were bad enough before all this crap blew up. Let's not dig that hole so deep that we'll never be able to get out of it.

That's my $0.02 anyways.........

[doobs]

I always heard 3rd cousin.

I have no idea what "removes" are. For some reason I think it refers to ties through marriage as opposed to descendance, but this is pure PFA.

WFB Jr. is your first cousin twice removed.

WFB Sr. is your great grand uncle.

[Supergirl]

Give the tax cuts to businesses who are the ones who actually provide jobs. A bunch of individuals aren't going to get together and pool their $13/week to go hire someone.

Only spend money on infrastructure and extension of unemployment benefits. Stuff that will actually create jobs, lead to consumer spending, or help people weather the storm. Dump all the feel-good expenditures about green energy, massive expansion of education programs and all the various sorts of welfare. I'm not saying those are or are not worthy causes, but they aren't going to create jobs and thus need to be put on the back burner for now. Once the economy is moving again then lets talk about whether or not we need to spend more money on those things. I doubt too many people saw Obama sign the bill and said "I need to run out and buy solar panels now, I get a tax credit"!

The main thing is to keep the thing as cheap as possible. Whatever money we spend now trying to get the economy moving is going to have to be paid for by taxing money back out of the economy later. Things were bad enough before all this crap blew up. Let's not dig that hole so deep that we'll never be able to get out of it.

That's my $0.02 anyways.........

I agree with you about giving business tax cuts to expand their businesses...but only the ones committed to hiring American workers and paying a decent wage.

Investing in green energy is not only going to save our planet -- which is closer to collapse than people seem to think -- it should also be a way of creating jobs. New energy projects require engineers, construction workers, urban planners, administrative people, etc.

I agree the tax cuts for individuals won't do much - but this is an old theory of economics - if you give people money they'll spend it and stimulate our economy.

[Winehole23]

Agree with c_g that the important thing is getting as much money as possible into the hands of consumers should be the focus. A heftier payroll tax abatement would've been nice, and more even assistance to the unemployed will certainly be called for.

Not too sure about business tax cuts right now -- businesses don't hire much in down economies, even if they have the money to do it. Consumer spending is shrinking. Until GDP starts growing again, layoffs will continue. Businesses don't grow unless people are buying more of their products.

Green energy needs to be part of our industrial policy for sure, but this kind of spending isn't very stimulative unless there's already a technical base. Right now, we lack it.

[doobs]

If I'm still employed in 2012, I guess I'll have to thank Obama for "saving" my job.

Seriously, though . . . can someone please explain to me the notion of "saving or creating" jobs? If only 4 million people have jobs in 2012, and the rest are unemployed, has Obama lived up to his promise to "save or create" 4 million jobs?

[101A]

I agree with you about giving business tax cuts to expand their businesses...but only the ones committed to hiring American workers and paying a decent wage.

What's a "decent" wage? Isn't any wage better than none at all? Don't you discriminate against the least educated if you put a threshold on wages?


Investing in green energy is not only going to save our planet -- which is closer to collapse than people seem to think -- it should also be a way of creating jobs. New energy projects require engineers, construction workers, urban planners, administrative people, etc.

There were green startups all over the place very recently; and investors were digging it. However, speculative money has all but dried up for such ventures; Winehole has a point about the technology not being there to just implement product to stimulate the economy. Govt. could pump $$$ into bio-based plastics - they are close.


I agree the tax cuts for individuals won't do much - but this is an old theory of economics - if you give people money they'll spend it and stimulate our economy.

Individuals will spend money, but in this economy - not so much; people are gonna half to feel better b4 they open up their checkbooks. Also since SO many seem to be barely staying afloat, the addl. money essentially just makes them slightly less broke; it doesn't make them more wealthy.

[101A]

If only 4 million people have jobs in 2012, and the rest are unemployed, has Obama lived up to his promise to "save or create" 4 million jobs?


Yes.

[doobs]

Yes.

Well, you're not exactly pro-Obama. I would like to hear from someone who wholeheartedly supports Obama and the stimulus package. Surely there's another explanation of "saving or creating" jobs. I just want to know what it means. How are we to measure the success of the stimulus package?

[Winehole23]

Well, you're not exactly pro-Obama. I would like to hear from someone who wholeheartedly supports Obama and the stimulus package. Surely there's another explanation of "saving or creating" jobs. I just want to know what it means. How are we to measure the success of the stimulus package?We're going so far down the crapper there won't be any way to measure it. "It would've been much worse without" will be the mantra, and support for this thesis will be faith-based.

[Winehole23]

Seriously, though . . . can someone please explain to me the notion of "saving or creating" jobs? If only 4 million people have jobs in 2012, and the rest are unemployed, has Obama lived up to his promise to "save or create" 4 million jobs?No. In that case there won't be a country to save anymore.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Lol at the tendors fighting for the govt contracts, im sure some of them politicians have a financial interest in that stimulus package where they hold a interest in these so called company's.

[doobs]

No. In that case there won't be a country to save anymore.

You know what I mean, though. What does it mean to "save" a job? How can one verify that, statistically? I suppose if I had the time I could research it, but I figured it would be easier to ask the wise men of this forum.

[Audrey III]

You know what I mean, though. What does it mean to "save" a job? How can one verify that, statistically? I suppose if I had the time I could research it, but I figured it would be easier to ask the wise men of this forum.I guess you could count up public sector jobs. There might be a way to guesstimate stimulus driven jobs growth, but you'd probably have to be an economist to figure it out. Not sure i'd trust it much even if you could.

[Audrey III]

As for jobs saved, that'd be yet another guesstimate, I guess.

[BradLohaus]

Other…absolutely necessary if you want to avoid a potential depression. The spending is not nearly enough, but that won’t be the case for long. $1 trillion in new treasuries were issued in fiscal year 2008. There will be $2-3 trillion issued in FY 2009. There are expectations that if that isn’t enough then there will be another $3-4 trillion issued in FY 2010. It’s hard to see how we don’t have a public debt of over $15 trillion by FY 2011… which would be a 50% increase in about 3 years. That will probably inflate us out of this current crisis; if not, then they will just spend more during the last 2 years of Obama’s term. It will put America in a worse position in the long run.

The idea behind these things is that consumer spending has fallen off; people are hoarding money. So the government should step in and makeup the difference with deficit spending, basically borrowing from the future to smooth out spending and the economy in general, thereby avoiding unnecessary negative fluctuations in GDP and consumption. But in order for this to be a sound policy, the spending that has been borrowed from the future must be paid back at some point in the future; the increase in the national debt from the stimulus must be erased.

In 1930 the debt to GDP ratio was 20%. After the stimulus of the 30s it was about 50% by 1940. 5 years later, after WW2, it was close to 120%. It was back below 100% by 1950, and to about 55% by 1960, below 40% by 1970, and to nearly 30% by 1980. In other words, what was borrowed was paid off, with huge help from the new Bretton Woods global monetary system that greatly benefited the US (along with the fact that after WW2 we weren’t in ruins like much of Eurasia).

Well, today the debt to GDP ratio stands at 75%, up from 65% just a couple of years ago. It’s anybody’s guess as to what the ratio will be in 4 years. We might reach the WW2 level of 120% during the next presidential term (12-16, although by 2012 isn't impossible.)

Think of a stimulus like a person withdrawing money from their retirement account to smooth out their consumption during a perceived temporary setback. It’s fine if they pay the money back during better times (plus the lost interest, of course). But if they don’t and they just say, “don’t worry about it, I owe it to myself” then they work for the federal government and it's not their money that they're talking about, it's yours.

[Wild Cobra]

This "stimulus" package is more of a liberal grab bag than anything else. Wouldn't want to waste a good crisis, after all.
With the added social programs that are probably mandatory spending, it will now likely cost in excess of another $200 billion added to each upcoming years budgets!

This isn't a stimulus package. It's a Kill the American Dream and Kill Freedom package.

Soon we may seen European style Socialism, or worse yet, Marxism.

[Winehole23]

Soon we may seen European style SocialismWe're already part way there.


or worse yet, MarxismNot gonna happen. Marxism is a conversation piece, even in China.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm guessing you meant stimulus package too.....

I think the government had to do something, but I think the stimulus package is like putting a band aid on a gun shot wound.

More like salt packing the wound with salt.

[Nbadan]

I agree that we need to decrease our Debt to GDP level, but that should be done as soon as this credit crisis is resolved....the world cannot afford the consequences of a global fiscal meltdown....

[Winehole23]

I agree that we need to decrease our Debt to GDP level, but that should be done as soon as this credit crisis is resolved....the world cannot afford the consequences of a global fiscal meltdown....Yes we can. It's too late not to.

[spurster]

I see the stimulus (and the bailout) as big bets. Do we do nothing while we wait out the recession, or do we try to pull ourselves out by our bootstraps, risking that we'll end up somewhere worse? I don't think anyone voted for Obama to do nothing, so I guess we voted for big bets.

I would have liked to see more emphasis on infrastructure, but the goulash produced by Congress had just enough votes to make it through, so it is hard to see how a better stimulus package could have been produced.

What I really don't understand is more bailout (coming soon, I think). I have the feeling that the major banks are so deep in the hole that nothing is going to pull them out. Also, with the bonus fiasco, my trust level in the banks dropped from zero to big negatives. If moving credit along is the big issue, the government should set up a brand-spanking-new bank to keep things moving. At least we would know then that the money was actually being used, undoubtably far from ideal, but better than fat bonuses and bottomless pits.

[Blake]

If I'm still employed in 2012, I guess I'll have to thank Obama for "saving" my job.

Seriously, though . . . can someone please explain to me the notion of "saving or creating" jobs? If only 4 million people have jobs in 2012, and the rest are unemployed, has Obama lived up to his promise to "save or create" 4 million jobs?

If I looked it up correctly, there are approximately 140 million people that currently have jobs in the US

If 136 million people lose their jobs by 2012, I seriously doubt Obama will come out and say, "well, at least I saved 4 million".

sheez.

[Winehole23]

If I looked it up correctly, there are approximately 140 million people that currently have jobs in the US

If 136 million people lose their jobs by 2012, I seriously doubt Obama will come out and say, "well, at least I saved 4 million".

sheez.doobs indulged in a bit of hyperbole, but he was emphasizing how hard it is to measure the success/failure of the promise to "save" jobs in a contracting economy. IMO he has a point.

[Winehole23]

Gregory Mankiw makes the same point here (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/create-or-save.html).

Via Reason.

[doobs]

Gregory Mankiw makes the same point here (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/create-or-save.html).

Via Reason.

He's a lot smarter than I am, so he made the point much more effectively. He's right, it's "an act of political genius."


Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus.

So he gave us a non-measurable metric. A clear and specific benchmark, without any way of ever knowing whether it has been reached.

[Blake]

doobs indulged in a bit of hyperbole, but he was emphasizing how hard it is to measure the success/failure of the promise to "save" jobs in a contracting economy. IMO he has a point.

I got the overexagerrated hyperbole.

My point is that if many jobs are lost, I don't think Obama will come out bragging about the few he might think he helped save/create.

The only way I see Obama coming out and bragging about 4 million jobs he saves/creates is if the economy somehow gets some stability or does a turnaround.

IMO, it's a moot point.

[Winehole23]

My point is that if many jobs are lost, I don't think Obama will come out bragging about the few he might think he helped save/create.That would surprise me too, but all doobs asked was "would Obama receive credit?" That goes to public perception, not self-promotion.

[coyotes_geek]

I agree with you about giving business tax cuts to expand their businesses...but only the ones committed to hiring American workers and paying a decent wage.

The U.S. has the highest tax rates on businesses out of the entire industrialized world. If we cut the taxes on businesses it will be more profitable to business here, or at least less expensive to. That's about as good an incentive as we'd be able to get. But taxes need to be cut across the board. There's just no way to target companies who want to hire American workers and separate them from the ones who don't because then all companies do is say "I need tax breaks because I'm about to go hire overseas", whether they really mean it or not.


Investing in green energy is not only going to save our planet -- which is closer to collapse than people seem to think -- it should also be a way of creating jobs. New energy projects require engineers, construction workers, urban planners, administrative people, etc.

While I support green energy the economic reality of the situation is that the consumer demand isn't there because green energy is not cost competitive. If it were, it would have all taken care of itself long ago. We should be spending money on things that maximize the percentage of cost that ends up going towards labor. That ratio on green energy projects is not very high since the technology itself is so expensive.


I agree the tax cuts for individuals won't do much - but this is an old theory of economics - if you give people money they'll spend it and stimulate our economy.

It's an old theory, but we just tried it a year or so ago with those $600 checks and it didn't work. The only purpose the tax cuts to individuals serve is to help in selling the whole package to the public. Give the masses their $500 and they won't bother to look at the hundreds of billions being spent elsewhere.

[Blake]

That would surprise me too, but all doobs asked was "would Obama receive credit?" That goes to public perception, not self-promotion.

yeah, I guess so. I'm thinking if things go right, Obama will be the one to say, "look, it worked."

If not, I guess it'll be Rush and Sean to remind everyone of the 4 million job promise.

[LockBeard]

LOL at how the Obama admin. is going after this dude on CNBC.

Hopefully we are one day closer to the r.

[Winehole23]

LOL at how the Obama admin. is going after this dude on CNBC.Rick Santelli. The guy who freaked out on TV about mortgage relief.

What's a spoxman?


Feb 20 2009, 4:18 pm by Marc Ambinder (http://politics.theatlantic.com/author/marc_ambinder/) The White House Encourages Santelli, On Purpose (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/the_white_house_encourages_santelli_on_purpose.php )

This is very simple. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs went out of his way today to blast (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/defending-presi.html)CNBC's Rick Santelli for his "rant" yesterday against Obama's mortgage assistance plan. The early press reaction asks why the White House would give Santelli free publicity and elevate him to Official status? Easy: they'd rather the opposition be identified with Santelli and stock brokers than with, say, a Joe the Plumber type (but who actually is a plumber and who has serious real reservations about the mortgage plan). Let opponents of the plan get into a tizzy, and let them have Santelli -- whose regular guy creds have to be established -- as their spoxman.

[Winehole23]

http://www.spoxman.net/ (http://www.spoxman.net/?)

http://www.joemonster.org/bojownik/spoxman


WTF! Is google a failure or only my search terms?

[byrontx]

Just drove in from Dallas this evening. Along the way I noticed the incredible amount of commerce and the flow of goods and services along the way. It seems we got a great return on that infrastructure. The interstate system (originally to rapidly move military resources when the commies invaded) was a great government (socialist!) investment. I am optimistic!