Reply With Quote
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.
Absolutely necessary, but too few tax cuts
Absolutely necessary, but too little spending
Not necessary, and it won't help
Not necessary, but it may help
It will make everything worse
I have no idea, I don't really understand economics
Other
Check my post. I invited you to rejoin.
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.
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.
Yes, I meant the recent stimulus package. Sorry for any confusion.
Care to elaborate on what you think we should have done instead?
It was contextually clear, but you never can make things too clear for other people.
Thanks for the OP, Supergirl.
I'd like to hear it too. c_g (former SR capologist) has a pretty sharp mind for economics.
Will was WFB Jr's father. (My grandmother's uncle.)
WFB Jr.(my grandmother's first cousin) was known as Bill.
Nevermind
Does that make "Bill" a 1st cousin twice removed to you - or a 3rd cousin?
I can't keep that straight.
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.
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.
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.........
WFB Jr. is your first cousin twice removed.
WFB Sr. is your great grand uncle.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
No. In that case there won't be a country to save anymore.
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.
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.
As for jobs saved, that'd be yet another guesstimate, I guess.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions