Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
"We might be witnessing the mother of all jobless recoveries."
That's how economist Bernard Baumohl described today's jobs report to the New York Times.
While there were "only" 345,000 jobs lost last month--as compared to 504,000 in April--the report doesn't account for the upcoming job losses as well as the ripple effect that will result from the GM bankruptcy. Nor does it reflect the severe budget shortfalls states continue to face. It did, however, reveal a continued collapse of wage growth, the highest unemployment rate in 25 years, and the loss of 156,000 manufacturing jobs.
Economic Policy Institute economist Heidi Shierholz writes today, "It is only in the midst of a historically steep recession that losing 345,000 jobs in a single month is actually taken as a good sign.... The US labor market is still hemorrhaging jobs. With the continued loss of jobs and hours along with the collapse of wage growth, it is time to start thinking very seriously about additional stimulus spending."
In fact, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) is maintaining an "honor roll" of economists who have called for another stimulus "in an effort to promote forward thinking...and challenge those who have not yet faced up to the severity of the current recession."
"Many mainstream economists missed the housing bubble at the root of the current crisis and many have been slow to call for an additional recovery package," CEPR Visiting Scholar, Eileen Apellbaum, told me. "In the absence of a third economic stimulus, job loss is likely to exceed half a million jobs a month through the rest of this year and possibly longer. Pain for workers will continue to mount, and the budget problems of states will worsen.... A third stimulus is the best chance working families have for weathering this economic crisis."
Appelbaum's absolutely right about the fiscal outlook for states. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that "new mid-year FY2009 shortfalls of $60 billion have opened up in the budgets of at least forty-two states and the District of Columbia." (That doesn't include the initial $48 billion in shortfalls that these and other states faced when they originally adopted their budgets for the current fiscal year.) Also, forty-six states project deficits for the upcoming fiscal year--initial estimates project a $133 billion shortfall. Without additional help, we will see more layoffs, furloughs, and cuts in vital services that will only deepen economic hardship.
As economist and Nation contributor, Jamie Galbraith, wrote me in an e-mail: "This crisis is, above all, a crisis of unemployment, of foreclosures, and--as we see in California--of the essential services, including healthcare, that state and local governments provide. None of these will be remedied fast enough by the stimulus already in the pipeline. New, stronger, better targeted and faster-acting measures are needed, including general revenue sharing, a national infrastructure fund, a housing program and publicly-funded health care."
Meanwhile, the deficit hawks continue their damaging and alarmist talk of a federal debt that will soon be above 57 percent of GDP, or 82 percent of GDP by 2019. They overlook the fact that--as Mark Weisbrot, co-director of CEPR, writes--"the United States had a public debt of 109 percent of GDP in 1946, as it began the 'golden age' of its historically most rapid economic growth over the ensuing 27 years--growth that resulted in broadly shared prosperity, unlike that of the last three decades."
Just as we saw during the New Deal, there will be signs of recovery during which the deficit hawks will urge for spending cuts. In fact, after New Deal policies cut the unemployment rate from a peak of more than 25 percent to just over 10 percent in 1936, similar calls for fiscal restraint then led President Roosevelt to try to balance the budget. The result? The unemployment rate rose again in 1937 and 1938 and the country went back into a severe recession.
As economist and Nation contributor Dean Baker said to me, "The problem was not that Keynesianism failed, it was that it was not pursued with enough vigor."
It is indeed a time for vigor. In the absence of consumer spending and business investment, the government must step in and use these deficits in order to avert a depression. Our greatest deficit, after all, is our public investment deficit.
But another stimulus won't pass without serious work. The CEPR honor roll is one good effort to get economists involved. And progressive organizations are mobilizing the grassroots.
"Grassroots organizing is critical," Apellbaum said. "The disparities in the way Citigroup and GM were treated and in the amounts of money spent to bail each of them out makes clear what elite opinion thinks is important. Working people need to mobilize to get the help they--and the real economy--need."
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
"The problem was not that Keynesianism failed, it was that it was not pursued with enough vigor."
Variations on the theme:
"The problem was not that [the war on Iraq / Vietnam / Korea / Drugs / Crime / Terror / Communism / your choice] failed, it was that it was not pursued with enough vigor."
"The problem was not that [your suicide attempt] failed, it was that it was not pursued with enough vigor."
"The problem was not that [socialism / fascism / Stalinism / Ayn Rand individualism / your choice] failed, it was that it was not pursued with enough vigor."
"The problem was not that [coitus] failed, it was that it was not pursued with enough vigor."
"The problem was not that [the gold /silver standard] failed, it was that it was not pursued with enough vigor."
"The problem was not that [the re-education of Clockwor Orange's Alex] failed, it was that it was not pursued with enough vigor."
"The problem was not that [nuclear deterrence] failed, it was that it was not pursued with enough vigor."
====
The point, of course, is that this is the rallying cry of fundamentalism and totalitarianism. If at first you don't succeed, you probably should try something else that might work.
You have to make the case that the times are somehow like 1946. I'd argue that there are important, and relevant differences. We just didn't come out of WWII. There aren't devastated cities needing to be rebuilt. Economic stimulus isn't some updated version of the Marshall Plan for the U.S., it's a giveaway that has the costs of capitalism transferred to the public and the benefits going into private pockets.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2009 @ 5:48pm
Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2009 @ 5:48pm
"You have to make the case that the times are somehow like 1946. I'd argue that there are important, and relevant differences. We just didn't come out of WWII. There aren't devastated cities needing to be rebuilt."
You should think again. The effects of climate change will devastate our civilization far worse than WW2. Our agricultural system depends on the current climate, with the current pattern of rainfall or irrigation from water systems dependent upon current precipitation patters. Probably half the world's population lives along coastlines or other bodies of water that would be affected by even a relatively modest sea level rise. The glaciers that provide drinking water to hundreds of millions in South Asia and elsewhere are vanishing.
Oh, and this is just one of quite a few problems of global significance that we are doing practically nothing about. Just so conservatives aren't whining too much about taxes and corporations can still rape the world for a buck.
Posted by zmann at 06/05/2009 @ 8:21pm
The point, of course, is that this is the rallying cry of fundamentalism and totalitarianism. If at first you don't succeed, you probably should try something else that might work.
You have to make the case that the times are somehow like 1946. I'd argue that there are important, and relevant differences. We just didn't come out of WWII. There aren't devastated cities needing to be rebuilt. Economic stimulus isn't some updated version of the Marshall Plan for the U.S., it's a giveaway that has the costs of capitalism transferred to the public and the benefits going into private pockets.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2009 @ 5:48pm
Let it be noted that you and I are in complete agreement on this.
Obama just told us last weekend that we are out of money. We are already looking at trillion dollar deficits for at least the next two decades.
To pursue this folly will have the dollar crashing completely and the Chinese cashing in their chips.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 8:40pm
Let it be noted that me and srjenkins and antisoc (Larry) are in general agreement.
That was the end of stimulus bills.
Ms vanden Heuvel is wrong again.
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 9:09pm
yep, me too.
they'll be more TLIFs and PPROINs and QLWAKs from the fedsuary*,
but bottom of the barrel-stirrin', down-home econo-perkin' stimulation ain't gonna happen.
even plasticman knew you could only stretch the rubber so far and the obamagarchs know who pays the "bills".
*(© 2009 fz, inc.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 9:18pm
gotta love it!
"Fed Intends to Hire <b>[EXENRON, SUMMERSRUBINOID]</b> Lobbyist in Campaign to Buttress Its Image
By Robert Schmidt
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve intends to hire a veteran lobbyist as it seeks to counter skepticism in Congress about the central bank's growing power over the U.S. financial system, people familiar with the matter said.
Linda Robertson currently handles government, community and public affairs at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and headed the Washington lobbying office of Enron Corp., the energy trading company that collapsed in 2002 after an accounting scandal. She was also an adviser to all three of the Clinton administration's Treasury secretaries.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 9:22pm
well worth reading:
Galbraith concludes: "Had the economy been fundamentally sound in 1929 the effect of the great stock market crash might have been small. But business in 1929 was not sound; on the contrary it was exceedingly fragile. It was vulnerable to the kind of blow it received from Wall Street."
You mean like the evaporation of $12 trillion wealth we've just experienced in the U.S.?
But the present is far more fragile and vulnerable than the U.S. economy of 1929, for the following reasons. In 1955 Galbraith could not possibly have foreseen or anticipated these current conditions:
1. A Federal government which since the "Reagan Revolution" of 1981 (e.g. don't tax and spend, just borrow and spend) has borrowed during so-called good times on a scale once reserved for rare Keynesian stimulus to combat serious recession. Thus we find ourselves at unprecedented levels of debt (comparable in terms of GDP to the entire cost of World War II) and our current Depression has barely begun.
2. A corrupt-to-the-core corporate structure riddled with bogus accounting, reliance on financial trickery for profits and misdirected/worthless regulatory oversight.
3. A banking sector of such debauchery and fraud that the excesses of the 1920s are reduced to the pranks of slighty-naughty choirboys and girls.
4. A Federal system of entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) which has grown far faster than the underlying economy for decades and now threatens the very solvency of the government itself, so stupendous are the future obligations.
5. A global military hegemony which costs more than all the other militarys and intelligence operations of the entire world put together. The U.S. military consumes more oil than the nation of Sweden (9 million residents).
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 9:32pm
the rest is here:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjune09/depression06-09.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 9:33pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 9:32pm
Good setup for our current...screwup we are experiencing. I wonder how the countries that have any of the various forms of universal healthcare deal with their entitlements to control costs, or do they similarly threaten their solvency? Not just healthcare, but retirement.
Posted by zmann at 06/05/2009 @ 9:47pm
5. As the middle class experiences a decline in their income and purchasing power (for reasons cited above: declining dollar, rising income disparity, and wages falling due to global wage arbitrage) then they turn more and more to borrowing and ever greater debt to fund what they have been brainwashed by the media to believe is "the American dream" of imported luxury goods, bloated homes, vacuous cruises, etc.
••
vacuous cruises?
impossible.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 9:55pm
Good setup for our current...screwup we are experiencing. I wonder how the countries that have any of the various forms of universal healthcare deal with their entitlements to control costs, or do they similarly threaten their solvency? Not just healthcare, but retirement.
Posted by zmann at 06/05/2009 @ 9:47pm
well, those are only points 1-5. there's more.
other countries have much lower health care costs because the population isn't corn-fed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 9:57pm
Governments spend money people earn. To have government spend even more peoples money, money that the unemployed can't earn in order to provide the extra money nuts like KVH want to spend in another failed stimulus, is nothing more than using the printing press to "stimulate"...we are now more broke than even Bush imagined.
The Chinese are already paniced...and so should everyone who voted this group into power. Our economy is going to continue to tank because this cabal has no idea how wealth is created or generated,where tax revenues actualy are derived, and what the effect of Obamas spending has had on our future as a power and as a player to be taken seriously. We are in the process of being abandonded..and it won't change until the socialists are defeated, but by then it will be too late.
the golden goose has been plucked and is now being drawn and quartered. It's over boys....viva Le France.
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/05/2009 @ 10:33pm
KvH: As economist and Nation contributor, Jamie Galbraith, wrote me in an e-mail: "This crisis is, above all, a crisis of unemployment, of foreclosures,....
Dumb me, and here I am, thinking that we have a crisis of inequality....hence, Magic the Messiah takes the rein. When everybody that loves you have lost their jobs, you'll all be equal. Great job, so far!
KvH: As economist and Nation contributor, Jamie Galbraith, wrote me in an e-mail: "...None of these will be remedied fast enough by the stimulus already in the pipeline. New, stronger, better targeted and faster-acting measures are needed, including general revenue sharing, a national infrastructure fund, a housing program and publicly-funded health care."
How about some honest admission that the $790 Billion Pork Bill, yep, THAT bill that Magic said was critical to keep unemployment under 7%, was a political payoff and NOT a stimulus bill!
Still, time is past for more robbing of the young's future!
Hey, SRJ, you just left out one truism:
"The problem was not that capitalism failed, it was that it was not pursued with enough vigor."
Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 10:34pm
Econ quiz: What's the fastest-acting stimulus?
Disclosure: I have been through at least 4~5 recessions and each time, the answer to question above worked!
Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 10:37pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 9:57pm
Heh. I doubt the corn itself is the problem, as much as the subsidies for turning whatever insanely overproduced crop of the day is into barely edible food-like substances, instead of real and satisfying food.
Posted by zmann at 06/05/2009 @ 10:39pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/05/2009 @ 10:33pm
Yeah, I guess Ike knew how to generate wealth and jobs with his 90% top marginal tax rate, huh?
Posted by zmann at 06/05/2009 @ 10:41pm
Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 10:34pm
It was my own thinking that all that money spent on the construction of a clean energy/mass transit infrastructure plus single-payer healthcare would have stimulated the economy better than anything...tons of jobs from the new infrastructure, and everyone would be able to use the money wasted on insurance premiums or insane medical costs on other things, giving the economy another boost. I would now add to that, suspending foreclosures for single-home families until the economy was doing well again. But the social welfare measures would have had to be in there too, to help the worst-off get through it.
Posted by zmann at 06/05/2009 @ 10:46pm
A thread to ignorant for response! Another new LOW.
Posted by BigPasture at 06/05/2009 @ 11:31pm
It was my own thinking that all that money spent on the construction of a clean energy/mass transit infrastructure plus single-payer healthcare would have stimulated the economy better than anything...tons of jobs from the new infrastructure,...
Posted by zmann at 06/05/2009 @ 10:46pm
Son, I was a civil engineer for 4 years, even received my PE License before leaving the field....do you have any idea of what `lead time' means? How about `staffing up a project team'? Or updating dated feasibility studies for current methodology and materials cost? Critical path studies?
The above is just for the design/engineering to get plans bid-ready, NOT shovel ready!
Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 11:37pm
This is classic misinterpretation of history. At the end of the Depression, unemployment still hovered at around 13%; some economists felt, although there would be no way to do a "placebo-controlled experiment", that Roosevelt's government-sponsored work projects and capital outlays at a cost of deficits and higher taxes, prolonged the Depression, not cured it. Now,starry-eyed and with no practical experience, Barack Obama wants to repeat this experiment, because he wants to leave his mark on history but doesn't know how to do it. When other people have to manage you, hero-worship is a natural, but unhealthy, consequence.
Posted by puponpatrol at 06/06/2009 @ 02:44am
Unfortunately, Katrinas fears of increasing unemployment are not without merit. My regret is that only 1/3 of the stimulus bill (perhaps) has been spent, and the entire bill will not be spent until 2011. A stimulus was required, and our politicians let us down, once again. They did not pass a stimulus bill. What will be needed is a massive welfare bill to help support those about to be unemployed. The American people have had it with bailouts, but will support unemployed families. Our politicians had their shot at applying real stimulus and blew it. And we will pay the price, perhaps the politicians will also, but I tend to doubt that.
Posted by Sctts001 at 06/06/2009 @ 08:43am
Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 11:37pm
Obviously not something I know much about. And all the more reason to have started 9 years ago..oh, but Bush took office then. Oh well. But there are renewable energy projects that don't require as much planning...setting up the capability to mass produce PV panels for homes and commercial buildings, solar water heaters, etc. It'd be a start.
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 08:56am
the golden goose has been plucked and is now being drawn and quartered. It's over boys....viva Le France. Posted by YourJomamma at 06/05/2009 @ 10:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
and you blame the goose for that.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/06/2009 @ 09:04am
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/05/2009 @ 10:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it's good to have you and your sunny optimism back.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/06/2009 @ 09:07am
Dear Ms. Heuvel,
You are either an outright liar or your lack of knowledge of history and economics is breathtaking. Current economic data shows that the stimulus has had no effect--it isn't working because it cannot work. The entire concept of using government spending to relieve the effects of a recession is based upon the work of a notorious charlatan named John Maynard Keynes. Keynes is virtually alone in his theory and has long been discredited by mainstream economists.
Since 1913, when Keynes wrote his first text, was disregarded, subsequently wrote his second and final text in an attempt to salvage his tattered reputation, his theories have been tried by wrong-headed governments many times because it is in their interest to do so. There is no case where the application of Keynes' failed concepts actually worked.
The argument is always the same nonsensical reason: it wasn't done right. Here you are in your bully pulpit, doing what other liberals are doing: misleading people. Stimulus II, III, IV and V will work no better; they'll each just push the US closer to disaster.
Keynesian economics is followed by governments because it permits them to spend for their own misguided policies, far-left policies in our case. The government knows very well that their attempt to "stimulate the economy" will not work. The follow-on stimulus packages will, however, enable the government to further its progressive agenda and thereby forever change the United States.
As to your part in this deception, Ms. Heuvel, I believe that it's possible that you are an ignorant pawn. However, if you actually understand what you are saying, then you are a disgrace. In either case, I recommend that you stay home and bake cookies for your grandchildren.
Posted by Jpuglis at 06/06/2009 @ 09:46am
Posted by Jpuglis at 06/06/2009 @ 09:46am
Sure, because Reaganomics really has worked, in that the majority of the population has no money to spend anymore and many are losing their jobs, homes, and well-being because of selfish, greedy fools like you and your fellow conservatives.
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 09:52am
Katrina you have lost your mind. You will notice that unemployment was worse in 83 and we recovered, so why, would we need a second and third stimulus? What we need is to let capitalism work the way it's supposed to. Natural contractions will occur and bankruptcies will be part of it, but when the government steps in the problem is exacerbated just like "The Great Depression." It was prolonged by FDR and we only came out of it because of WW11. Your assertions that in 1946 that we enjoyed great expansion is correct and we will probably never see that again because, since then, the number of government employees,social security, medicaid, medicare and pensions expenses of all the federal, state and local employees is takeing all the money the private sector can make to sustain It is as though half the country is working for the other half to live. Wait until we add health care. The burden on most will be too much to take
Posted by waldob at 06/06/2009 @ 09:56am
Your assertions that in 1946 that we enjoyed great expansion is correct and we will probably never see that again
what we will unfortunately never see again is the top tax bracket of 90%. it worked then, and it will help now.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/06/2009 @ 10:14am
it is the shifting of the tax "burden" from the rich to the middle class that killed the golden goose. when the vast middle class can no longer afford the products that are offered to them, that's when stores close and people are out of work.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/06/2009 @ 10:16am
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 09:52am
Do you have any knowledge of the facts or true awareness of what's going on? It looks to me that you just want to blindly believe some bizarre liberal agenda that you invented in your mind and now feel is right because…you invented it in your mind.
Or are you like the typical liberal, wanting something for nothing? Are you angry at those who have worked hard and who therefore have more than you as a result? Do you see this as unfair and want the government to give you a piece of their wealth? If you are truly liberal, that's what you're asking. And if that's what you're asking, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Worse, your response was devoid of facts, telling me that you don't like what I wrote, but you don't really know why. That, too, is consistent with the way that liberals think: they don't want to work, especially if it means having to learn something. Liberals want what they want and they desperately want someone to give it to them for free.
Here's an old expression for you. "Liberals avoid the facts at all costs. When confronted with the facts, they attack." Do you find it as ironic as I do that you did exactly that? You seem to have an empty head but a strong desire for my stuff.
How about this: develop a work ethic, go out and work, learn some self-discipline, save your money, pay your taxes and then wake up one day to find that you're a conservative. Alternatively, at least be honest enough with yourself to admit that you don't want to know anything, don't know how to do anything, and would rather sit around criticizing those who work to support you.
Posted by Jpuglis at 06/06/2009 @ 10:33am
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 09:52am
Do you have any knowledge of the facts or true awareness of what's going on? It looks to me that you just want to blindly believe some bizarre liberal agenda that you invented in your mind and now feel is right because…you invented it in your mind.
Or are you like the typical liberal, wanting something for nothing? Are you angry at those who have worked hard and who therefore have more than you as a result? Do you see this as unfair and want the government to give you a piece of their wealth? If you are truly liberal, that's what you're asking. And if that's what you're asking, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Worse, your response was devoid of facts, telling me that you don't like what I wrote, but you don't really know why. That, too, is consistent with the way that liberals think: they don't want to work, especially if it means having to learn something. Liberals want what they want and they desperately want someone to give it to them for free.
Here's an old expression for you. "Liberals avoid the facts at all costs. When confronted with the facts, they attack." Do you find it as ironic as I do that you did exactly that? You seem to have an empty head but a strong desire for my stuff.
How about this: develop a work ethic, go out and work, learn some self-discipline, save your money, pay your taxes and then wake up one day to find that you're a conservative. Alternatively, at least be honest enough with yourself to admit that you don't want to know anything, don't know how to do anything, and would rather sit around criticizing those who work to support you.
Posted by Jpuglis at 06/06/2009 @ 10:34am
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 09:52am
Do you have any knowledge of the facts or true awareness of what's going on? It looks to me that you just want to blindly believe some bizarre liberal agenda that you invented in your mind and now feel is right because…you invented it in your mind.
Or are you like the typical liberal, wanting something for nothing? Are you angry at those who have worked hard and who therefore have more than you as a result? Do you see this as unfair and want the government to give you a piece of their wealth? If you are truly liberal, that's what you're asking. And if that's what you're asking, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Worse, your response was devoid of facts, telling me that you don't like what I wrote, but you don't really know why. That, too, is consistent with the way that liberals think: they don't want to work, especially if it means having to learn something. Liberals want what they want and they desperately want someone to give it to them for free.
Here's an old expression for you. "Liberals avoid the facts at all costs. When confronted with the facts, they attack." Do you find it as ironic as I do that you did exactly that? You seem to have an empty head but a strong desire for my stuff.
How about this: develop a work ethic, go out and work, learn some self-discipline, save your money, pay your taxes and then wake up one day to find that you're a conservative. Alternatively, at least be honest enough with yourself to admit that you don't want to know anything, don't know how to do anything, and would rather sit around criticizing those who work to support you.
Posted by Jpuglis at 06/06/2009 @ 10:36am
-You mean like the evaporation of $12 trillion wealth we've just experienced in the U.S.? -
by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 9:32pm...
It was never there in the first place, Frosty...
The money didn't 'go away'... or evaporate... or get lost in bad investments...
It was 'imagined' into existence in order to artificially continue US hegemony... and redistribute economic control... again... into the hands of a few.
We aren't 'out of money... we are standing on our feet again... on a level playing field. This has not been the case since before Reagan... and though we are all pining for what seems to us to have been 'the good times'...
...the la la land of trickle down leverage... essentially legalized counterfeiting... has ended... drawn to a close by it's own reckless excesses.
It's time for us to make our own luck... instead of buying someone else's for profit version of it...;^)
Posted by ttr at 06/06/2009 @ 10:44am
Posted by Jpuglis at 06/06/2009 @ 10:33am
Nice way to ignore my statement that your favored economic system has not worked, go ahead and attack me as a lazy liberal. Conservatives always retreat to ad hominem it seems...and not just with me, you called the author of this article an "outright liar". I didn't see any facts in either of your two posts. I suppose you're just blind to the fact that we have tried conservative economics for the last few decades and we're more or less in the second Great Depression. I could link you to studies and statistics showing the Keynesian deficit spending policies of FDR and show they resulted in greatly reduced unemployment numbers, a basic social safety net to allay some fears, construction of national infrastructure still enjoyed by our nation today, etc. But I won't bother, I don't want to spoil your ignorance.
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 11:15am
Posted by ttr at 06/06/2009 @ 10:44am
Unfortunately however, those who created this system of imaginary profits and trickle-down leverage still have their massive amounts of money, while those of us ripped off by the system are still out of money (or in massive debt).
Check out this video, the good part starts about 1/3 the way in: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id /21134540/vp/27888374#27888374
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 11:20am
Posted by snowball666 at 06/06/2009 @ 11:43am
Yes that last part of his post was rather sexist, wasn't it? Besides, I baked cookies with my mom for Christmas when I was a kid, I really miss doing that. And wouldn't you know it, mentioning that at an interview got me my first job, at a supermarket bakery.
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 11:46am
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 11:15am | ignore this person | warn this person
very good. one more thing to remember. the WPA and other programs created things like parks, beaches, art like post office murals and other infrastructure that are ours to keep forever.
in my neighborhood in NYC is a beautiful park, created by Robert Moses with WPA labor. these accomplishments have been enjoyed by generations, and will be enjoyed by generations to come.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/06/2009 @ 11:46am
9.4% unemployment and growing. Yet most of the Obama worshipping media made it sound like good new that we only lost 345,000 jobs! This despite the fact that Obama has spent more money, plunged us into more debt, and printed more money then in the history of the world. Half the amount in tax cuts for individuals and small business would have turned us around, but Obama doesn't trust the American people. His trust is in Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid spending trillions in corrupt earmarks which he lied to us about! Obama is destroying us with spending and debt which the poorest of us will be working a liftime to pay back and Katrina Vanden Heuvel wants trillions more in corrupt Government spending???? She thinks public debt of 109% is the key to prosperity? Well Katrina won the last election and Obama is taking us there very fast. It looks like we'll see if even more trillions of debt and printed money are really the answer? Obamanomics: You work for the Government, you work for a union for a company owned by the Government, you are unemployed.
Posted by valwayne at 06/06/2009 @ 11:52am
Posted by emile duBois at 06/06/2009 @ 11:46am
Do you know if there's a list of WPA and similar projects that are still around today?
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 11:54am
Posted by valwayne at 06/06/2009 @ 11:52am
I doubt the media is cheering and overemphasizing any good economic news because they love Obama, rather, they love their stock options, 401(k)s, and their paychecks signed by corporations. If a corporation owns a media outlet, and of course that corporation depends on its stock price being high, do you ever expect that corporate-owned media to tell the truth when the economy is bad?
Oh, and show me a business that does not run on debt, please. Then you can complain about government debt.
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 11:59am
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 11:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
I don't know. I know many of the ones in my area. I imagine the info on this is on line. should you decide to search, be sure to share with us.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/06/2009 @ 12:19pm
The debt is starting to make me nervous, and I'm no conservative. I wish we could have the spending on actual useful stuf (Wind-powered electric trains across the plains & prairies! micro hydro generators!) and not give so much money to the dang bankers. Also we apparently don't need to spend any more money bailing out industries which will proceed to lay off all of their workers anyway. The stimulus will be useful if it helps lay the groundwork for a sustainable economy. If it just helps ratchet it back up into the stupid fit we've been having for the last twenty years or so, it will be a disaster. There is some evidence that the administration intends the former, but they've sure been inconsistent about it.
Posted by cdlepthien at 06/06/2009 @ 1:00pm
Models of societal response
According to Joseph Tainter[4] (1990), too many scholars offer facile explanations of societal collapse by assuming one or more of the following three models in the face of collapse:
1. The Dinosaur: The best example is a large scale society in which resources are being depleted at an exponential rate and yet nothing is done to rectify the problem because the ruling elite are unwilling or unable to adapt to said changes. In such examples rulers tend to oppose any solutions that diverge from their present course of action. They will favor intensification and commit an increasing number of resources to their present plans, projects and social institutions.
2. Runaway Train: An example would be a society that only functions when growth is present. Societies based almost exclusively on acquisition, including pillage or exploitation, cannot be sustained indefinitely. The societies of the Assyrians and the Mongols, for example, both fractured and collapsed when no new conquests were forthcoming. Tainter argues that Capitalism can be seen as an example of the Runaway Train model as it requires whole economies, individual sectors, and companies to constantly grow on a three month basis. Current methods of resource extraction and food production may be unsustainable; however, the philosophy of consumerism and planned obsolescence encourage the purchase of an ever increasing number of goods and services to sustain the economy.
3. House of Cards: In this aspect of Tainter's model societies that grow to be so large and include so many complex social institutions that they are inherently unstable and prone to collapse.
---------------------------------------------------
when will we cease following ALL THREE OF THE ABOVE ROUTES TO HELL?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/06/2009 @ 1:00pm
Posted by ibblebibble at 06/06/2009 @ 1:00
Precisely. Though it seemed from your post that Tainter was criticizing people who used these models. And why pick on the dinosaurs? The asteroid was not their fault.
Posted by cdlepthien at 06/06/2009 @ 1:09pm
return to national self reliance...
when a resource needed is found in problematic places, we must direct scientific research and development to make up for the deficit.
it is not our duty to impoverish ourselves to enrich others in the world.
if the economic system that got us in to this is capitalism...i'm a socialist.
i suspect that the economic system that got us into this is the worst combination of socialism and capitalism imaginable, a false dichotomy to begin with designed to comfort aynrandian corporate socialists and ketman capitalist socialists, but devoid of substance.
without seriously addressing the loss of wealth generating capacity in this country while attempting to maintain an IMPERIALISTIC SIZED MILITARY which eats up a HUGE CHUNK OF OUR NATIONAL WEALTH we are headed for the trash heap of history.
time to consider a third way economically and socially, and it better not involve the further impoverishing of our civilization.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/06/2009 @ 1:16pm
by ibbleblibble at 06/06/2009 @ 1:00pm...
Even these guys saw what was going on...;^)
Living easy, living free Season ticket on a one-way ride Asking nothing, leave me be Taking everything in my stride Dont need reason, dont need rhyme Aint nothing I would rather do Going down, party time My friends are gonna be there too
Im on the highway to hell
No stop signs, speed limit Nobodys gonna slow me down Like a wheel, gonna spin it Nobodys gonna mess me round Hey satan, payed my dues Playing my investment hand Hey momma, look at me Im on my way to the promised land
Im on the highway to hell (dont stop me)
And Im going down, all the way down Im on the highway to hell
Posted by ttr at 06/06/2009 @ 1:18pm
In case you forgot what it was like 'back then'...;^)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqwFfGgLPzM
Posted by ttr at 06/06/2009 @ 1:21pm
Posted by ttr at 06/06/2009 @ 1:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah - poor dinosaurs...
one minute yer munching or being munched upon, the next...
POW!!!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/06/2009 @ 1:40pm
Ms. Vanden Heuvel is entirely, correct, of course, in her conclusions about the Great Depression, its remedies, and the need for similar measures today. The most obvious evidence of this is the fact that the Golden Age of prosperity she mentions -- the quarter century after WWII during which incomes, living standards and real wages were growing for nearly all Americans -- began in the aftermath of the biggest Keynesian stimulus program of all time: The Second World War. It is true that said program was vastly expensive, creating huge quantities of public debt. But it was debt that had a massive and beneficial effect on the overall economy, because it was money that was used to transform the balance sheets of tens of millions of US households. At the end of the 1930s Americans as a people were plagued by debt, low wages, unemployment and a general sense of fear. By 1946 Americans as a people had accumulated huge savings, they were earning higher wages than even before in history, their labor was in high demand, and they had regained their customary optimism and confidence. This vast transformation was accomplished largely through a titanic government spending program financed by borrowing. Full stop.
Posted by 99Jasper at 06/06/2009 @ 1:46pm
Posted by 99Jasper at 06/06/2009 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person | warn this pers
well we also have to cut our military budget and commitment.
what ever happened to the peace dividend at the end of the cold war?
this is why i advocate economic autarchy and a complete re-thinking of how we order our house, economically and socially. hate to be a prophet of doom, but i fear the solutions obama is implementing, though better than nada, may only make the situation ultimately worse, since they STILL are constrained by the conventional economic "wisdom" of the 70's - 90's aynrandian economic canon.
we need to reduce our international military presence, reduce our military budget, and re-direct half of what we cut on the military to research, re-tooling, and ensuring sustainable economic security.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/06/2009 @ 1:59pm
Wow, the winguts are really out in force. Looks like this article hit a raw nerve, or something. Is it the scent of reasoned argument backed by statistical analysis and historical fact that has them foaming at the mouth so? Or the realisation that its over for wingnuttia. For now. For a longtime. Well their third world model has certainly worked:- wealth transfer to a tiny minority, increased inequality, homelessness, poverty, crumbling infrastructures. Turns out that most Americans didn't realise that was what they were getting though. Until it was too late. Too late being that bit where it all utterly collapsed in failure. Whoocoodaode? All those chanting the 'tax cut, small govt, limited regulation' mantra, are invited to leave now for their policy paradise . Any one of the many third world countries should suit just fine. Rather than seeking to regress the US to third world standards, the wingnuts should be more honest, bite the bullet and actually move there. Please. Get out of the way and let the rest of us get to work on a new new deal. Fair swap - we take all the progressives from every developing nation.
Posted by jansky at 06/06/2009 @ 2:01pm
It was never there in the first place, Frosty...
Posted by ttr at 06/06/2009 @ 10:44am
oh, i know that.
i just cut and pasted the thing.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/06/2009 @ 2:08pm
Do you know if there's a list of WPA and similar projects that are still around today?
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 11:54am
my knowledge is GOOGLEPLEXIAN!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23153416@N06/2217838904/
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/06/2009 @ 2:13pm
Grammo-Span-o-Paulsonomics.
Posted by snowball666 at 06/06/2009 @ 12:03pm
not bad.
how's "greengrammgold'o'manrubbersachs'o'nomics"?
naw, too cumbersome.
reaganomics works (as a moniker) quite well.
<i>"oh, please, please. let's us have your tricklings....."
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/06/2009 @ 2:18pm
now, this is something i can understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/06/2009 @ 5:50pm
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. As every government stimulus package throughout the history of man has failed (we have spent close to $2T in the lastest attempt and look where we are) to suggest more stimulus via government spending is an act of insanity. What is needed now is what has always worked---tax cuts---and sharp reductions in government spending. As proven time and time again from Kennedy to Reagan to Thatcher to Bush 2 tax cuts spur productivity and increase tax revenues collected and cutting government spending will keep interest rates low. Eliminate the corporate income tax and watch jobs grow as corporations flock to the USA to invest. However Socialists will never willingly do this as their objective is not a strong economy but a government controlled economy where they can reward their friends (UAW, SEICU, Acron, etc...) and punish their enemies. "The trouble with Socialism is you eventually run out of the other guy's money." Also end illegal immigration and you will immediately create 10M new jobs for those who pay the freight. Make the loser pay court costs and watch healthcare costs crash. But both of these common sense low cost solutions hurt Socialist parasites and are not on the table.
Posted by dalelama at 06/06/2009 @ 6:37pm
Posted by zmann at 06/05/2009 @ 8:21p
"Global warming" has the potential to become the "progressive" equivalent of the "War on Terror" - same vagueness, same goal of engendering fear.
I'm not one to deny global warming. I think the science is there, and it is intuitive.
The problem I have is what do you propose we do about it? Build levees in Bangladesh? Forced reductions of population through forced sterilization? Cut reliance on fossil fuels - via "alternative energy", nuclear power, back to the land primitivism or something else? There are thousands of things that are conceivable. The question is whether they are moral and possible.
Just as you can go with "War on Terror" or target Al Qaeda and kill 80% of its current leadership and cut off 80% of its funding in 5 years, you can go vague or specific. I don't give any more thought to "Global Warming" than I do to "War on Terror". They are both weasel phrases. Tell me what you want to do about it - besides argue for deficit spending to keep an unsustainable way of life creaking along for another decade or two, and then we can talk.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2009 @ 7:19pm
Posted by Jpuglis at 06/06/2009 @ 10:33am
How about this: Anytime you think that some group you belong to is the only one that has self-discipline, works, pays taxes or knows the "facts" - you can bet the farm that your wrong and are in desperate need of some introspection.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2009 @ 7:25pm
Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2009 @ 7:19pm
For starters, I try to live my life with as low a footprint, carbon or otherwise, as possible. I walk and (hybrid! ) bus to work or elsewhere, I conserve energy bu turning off and unplugging my appliances when I leave, I conserve water by turning the shower off when I am not rinsing or wetting myself. I buy organic or otherwise more naturally farmed or raise foods when possible with my meager paycheck, and eat less beef than I used to, which produces more CO2 to raise than any other major meat.
For the rest of society, there are practically unlimited ways to reduce energy use, and thus globe-warming pollution. Use a bike or public transit where it is feasible, use fuel-efficient vehicles where it is not. Changing to lightbulbs that use less energy to buying appliances which are more energy efficient. Making minor adjustments to water heater and A/C or boiler temperatures. Get as many renewable sources of energy as possible on already-built structures, and provide nearly everyone with some local energy generation. Build wind turbines in windy areas, both on and off land, get them to supply the nearest areas with energy. Build solar thermal plants where they work best, and ditto. Harness the energy of the waves from our gigantic coastline to produce electricity, and the same with large river systems. Use economic incentives to encourage energy conservation...something like a lower electricity rate for less energy use would work, I'm sure. And, I suppose, plan for the worst, because it's already too late to stop some horrible effects from happening.
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 8:14pm
Posted by snowball666 at 06/06/2009 @ 7:36pm
The main problem is the lack of semantic content. Energy Conservation isn't going to scare anyone, primarily because it can mean as little as changing your bulbs to longer lasting ones made of mercury that will undoubtedly pollute landfills like the previous kinds never did.
If you want to talk about Global Warming or Energy Conservation, you have to talk about moving away from a society that is centered on the globalization, fossil fuels, and notions of abundant fresh water. That means looking at everything from the centrality of the automobile as the primary mode of transport to agribusiness. In short, a complete rethinking of lifestyle. But, the bottom line is that people will not make this change until they are forced to do so. This is the essence of conservativism, and most people are this kind of conservative.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2009 @ 8:49pm
Posted by zmann at 06/06/2009 @ 8:14pm
Band-aids. You aren't addressing the central problems. But, don't worry. You don't need to do it. Rethinking these issues will become second nature as gas climbs from $3 a gallon to $100+. It's going to be a long, painful process that government "stimulus spending" or your effort to reduce your "carbon foot print" isn't going to solve.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2009 @ 8:56pm
What a great idea Katrina! Another stimulus package after the first one with all those "shovel ready" projects hasn't even shoveled out five percent of the 787 billion of our money yet. Let's go spend some more, that will fix the unemployment problem. You are a genius.
Posted by niner at 06/06/2009 @ 9:01pm
>>Our greatest deficit is in public investment. <<
Our greatest deficit, and more stimulus eh?
She has become even crazier.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/06/2009 @ 9:07pm
More stimulus? Are you drunk?
The first round of "stimulus" has not worked but has left the US with a tremendous amount of debt. We are forcing our children to become tax slaves to pay for our current "benefits."
I think you are afraid people will catch on that this Keynesian approach is a fraud and that BO and the remaining dems will be left holding the bag. As job losses mount, inflation sets in and tax rates increase across the board the emptiness of the "stimulus" promise will become apparent.
Posted by bigheelfan at 06/06/2009 @ 9:10pm
More stimulus? Are you drunk?
The first round of "stimulus" has not worked but has left the US with a tremendous amount of debt. We are forcing our children to become tax slaves to pay for our current "benefits."
I think you are afraid people will catch on that this Keynesian approach is a fraud and that BO and the remaining dems will be left holding the bag. As job losses mount, inflation sets in and tax rates increase across the board the emptiness of the "stimulus" promise will become apparent.
Posted by bigheelfan at 06/06/2009 @ 9:10pm
Posted by Jpuglis at 06/06/2009 @ 10:33am
Hey, since you were telling us how conservatives are hard working and good with facts, can you explain this National Review cover where Wise Latina Sotomayer is graphically illustrated as a...Buddha?
Too busy making money to make cultural distinctions or they don't have any hispanics on staff? Or both? Even if you didn't have a brain in your head it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a culturally relevent image - such as Obama as Don Quixote and Sotomayer as Sancho Panza with all the delicious implications that brings.
But no, the lack of imagination is stunning - and unfortunately, not atypical. Buckley, at least, wasn't ignorant.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/
Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2009 @ 9:19pm
A larger stimulus would be helpful except that jobs and industries are being outsourced overseas, Without those jobs and industries producing the disposable income that supports the economy, there will be no recovery. There will be no recovery without tariffs behind which the American market can be rebuilt. No American market and no recovery!
Posted by pjcasey at 06/06/2009 @ 11:04pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naan
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/07/2009 @ 12:14am
In short, a complete rethinking of lifestyle. But, the bottom line is that people will not make this change until they are forced to do so.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2009 @ 8:49pm
not necessarily.
many people have made significant changes in their lifestyles because they kinda understand the significance of doing so.
the larger the system, the slower change can happen.
you like naan?
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/07/2009 @ 12:20am
It's going to be a long, painful process that government "stimulus spending" or your effort to reduce your "carbon foot print" isn't going to solve.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2009 @ 8:56pm
hey, every little bit helps....
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/07/2009 @ 12:22am
Even if you didn't have a brain in your head it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a culturally relevent image - such as Obama as Don Quixote and Sotomayer as Sancho Panza with all the delicious implications that brings.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/06/2009 @ 9:19pm
with big ben as the windmill.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/07/2009 @ 12:24am
There will be no recovery without tariffs behind which the American market can be rebuilt. No American market and no recovery!
Posted by pjcasey at 06/06/2009 @ 11:04pm
mold school.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/07/2009 @ 12:26am
But Frosty... you will admit that something does need to be done to restore the American markets... right?
Tariffs occasionally work... but informal ones... ie, the "buy American" kind can be effective and P.C.
What is your best solution?
Posted by ttr at 06/07/2009 @ 01:56am
snowball666 you have displayed the Socialist's typical ignorance of facts and history, 1) Keynesian policy turned a severe recession which last at most 3 years into a depression which lasted at least 12, 2) tax cuts worked for JFK, RR, and GWB as reduced taxes actually increase tax revenues by incentivizing productivity, 3) government spending doesn't necessarily create demand as consumers know taxes, inflation, and interest will be increasing shortly thereafter and begin to hoard their cash as is happening right now while tax cuts allow companies or individuals to spend more of what they produce, 4) corporate income taxes generate about $200B per year which could be put to work creating real jobs or lowering prices both of which would stimulate the economy, I am glad we agree they should be eliminated, 5) eliminating illegal immigrant labor will increase jobs and wages as the work has to be done and wages will rise as employers bid them up to attract workers from a shrunken supply pool, a side benefit will be reduced deficits as public dollars as not funneled to those who do not pay their fair share of taxes, and 6) as you do not rebut the assertion that making the losers of lawsuits pay costs will reduce health costs as malpractice insurance costs decrease I will assume you agree to that proposal. So there you are we have agreed on two key initiatives, eliminate the corporate income tax and tort reform. Now if we could agree on implementing the "Fair Tax" the problem is solved.
Posted by dalelama at 06/07/2009 @ 06:35am
Posted by dalelama at 06/07/2009 @ 06:35am
Ah yes, another "conservative" with all the answers. Let's start with two basic facts:
1. You are correct that government intervention extended the Great Depression. For example, the passing of Social Security took money out of people's pockets, and since there were no beneficiaries, this effectively decreased the money supply - leading to the recession of 1937. There were other factors, such as attempts to manipulate the gold standard. Read Rethinking the Great Depression for a good overview from a relatively "conservative" economist.
Now, let's crib from Wikipedia: "In Keynes's theory, some micro-level actions of individuals and firms can lead to aggregate macroeconomic outcomes in which the economy operates below its potential output and growth." This was demonstrated by the Great Depression and the factors that have led to the current economic situation.
Your argument basically amounts to, "Roosevelt got it wrong." So what? That doesn't say Keynesian economic theory other than add a corollary, that government can be added to the list along with individuals and firms.
2. Fair Tax doesn't work. Various countries have tried VATs and other forms of low, flat taxes, and they have all been abandoned for the simple reason that they do not raise enough money to pay for government, any government. I've read that dreadful Flat Tax book, and the whole argument is based on the fairy tale that reduced taxes will lead to explosive economic growth that will pay the taxes necessary at the lower rate. It doesn't happen that way. It's been tried. It doesn't work.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 09:58am
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/07/2009 @ 12:22am
I'll grant any change is better than no change. However, If you are a case a beer a day drinker and you cut your consumption to 22 beers a day - how's that helping you if prohibition is going to be passed in a week?
The only way it works - using my analogy - is if prohibition is a long time off, you continue to cut your consumption of beer over time and you have substitutes, such as fresh drinking water.
Now switch beers a day, with current levels of barrels of oil a day and the likely moment that fossil fuels will become prohibitively expensive for the common uses they are used for today due to their scarcity, and tell me if you think we have the time to slowly cut our consumption down.
It's possible. But, I don't think it is likely. I think we are fooling ourselves - patting ourselves on the back because we only consume 22 beers. Whoop-de-doo.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 10:09am
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 09:58am
"2. Fair Tax doesn't work. Various countries have tried VATs and other forms of low, flat taxes, and they have all been abandoned for the simple reason that they do not raise enough money to pay for government, any government."
Perhaps that is exactly what they want.
Posted by zmann at 06/07/2009 @ 11:59am
Posted by snowball666 at 06/07/2009 @ 10:38am
"I would offer that the only reason we haven't already is that we're 'invested' in the status quo."
Partly true. Another part is that solar energy is a lot less efficient and only becomes viable, in the present environment, if there are incentives. The problem is that by the time that there are market incentives, such as $100 a gallon gas, there will be precious little time to find the financing, plan, build and connect to the grid.
Use the Nellis plant as an example. It costs $100 million to build, occupies 140 acres, and produces 30 million kilowatt hours. Let's assume Electrical consumption rates in the U.S. of 4 trillion kilowatt hours (Energy Information Administation).
4 / .00003 = 133,333 Nellis plants
133,333 x $100,000,000 = $13 trillion
133,333 x 140 acres = 1866620 acres or 2916 sq. miles or larger than Delaware or more than half the size of Connecticut.
Why would you pay for this when gas is $3 a gallon? Want to guess how long it will take once it makes financial sense to do it? Catastrophe.
Posted by zmann at 06/07/2009 @ 11:59am
I generally view the state as an evil. The larger the state, the larger the capacity for evil. So, I don't have any problems with reducing the size of government, particularly federal government. Call me left libertarian or libertarian socialist, if you like.
The problem with most Fair Tax people is they want to pretend that the Fair Tax will continue to support other policies like military base imperialism. Now, there may be a few Old Right conservatives that are behind the Fair Tax who are trying the bait and switch, as you suggest. But, the majority of this group are just people that listen to Neal Boortz who don't understand that his argument is bad.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 1:12pm
Posted by snowball666 at 06/07/2009 @ 2:13pm
$100 gas is just used for to illustrate a price point where solar starts to make sense, but I don't know the price point. It could be anywhere higher than current prices, but I think it has to be significant to warrant a $13 trillion investment, and that's just for electricity.
What I know is that fossil fuels are limited, our society depends on them, and and there are few alternatives and even less infrastructure to support them. The problem will be that the time between when alternatives are economically viable and when we will need them will be very short - and the consequences for not making that transition dire.
All of which supports your argument for reduced carbon footprints and the like, but it also supports my point that we aren't doing what needs to be done - and I maintain that, in the long run, there is going to be a lot of suffering and gnashing of teeth as a result.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 3:02pm
Classical cost analysis is by it's very nature unable to evaluate long term savings due to eventual shortages and 'side effects'...
...unless we factor them in to our economic equations now.
Market forces can do wonders with known and owned rescources... however... competitive pressures create 'incentives' for us to effectively overlook environmental concerns and resource depletion issues... until the situation is critical... and has essentially become a crisis that can not be elluded.
This is why an efficient oversight by Government is mandated... by the market itself... to instill a pragmatic foresight that it is incapable of providing for itself... for the civilized results that no market has ever considered.
How many blind irridologists do you know?...;^)
Posted by ttr at 06/07/2009 @ 4:17pm
Posted by ttr at 06/07/2009 @ 4:17pm
Well, economic models are much like models of planetary climate change, a useful tool but one that can fail to account for variables that completely change the model - like the derivatives market.
Even though I think government is fundamentally evil, I do think it has a role to play, exactly for the reasons you indicate. Government has longer time horizons than business and is more concerned with long term social welfare, which really is more a commentary on our current economic organization that focuses on short-term profits than it is a recommendation for government. But, as the Buddhist say, you have to start where you are...
The main problem with government is that even though it has the capacity to plan for the long term - as was seen in the building of railroads, electrical power plants, telephone services and the Internet - it doesn't do so well when you are talking about entrenched business interests. So, discussions of alternative energy are going to be clouded by various discussions like: let's increase supply by drilling in the Gulf and Alaska, nuclear power and the possibility of fusion, clean coal, etc.
Real steps are not going to be taken until there is a real need and it becomes clear what's snake oil - and even then, there's obstacles galore. This is why I think that looking to the government to solve this problem or the incremental reduce your carbon footprint approach are both naive.
They are either not likely to happen or not a dramatic enough change. And that's where it sits and will remain - until there is a sea change in the culture of capitalism that puts a premium on conservative values like smallness, diversity, thrift, saving/investment in capital, reuse, localism and sustainability.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 5:04pm
Posted by snowball666 at 06/07/2009 @ 4:39pm
Dune might be the appropriate metaphor - but not in respect to the spice but in the Freman cultural values, particularly as they relate to water. It is these values, and not the spice, that eventually leads them to rule the Dune universe.
"God created Arrakis to train the faithful." - Princess Irulan
If it was mere possession, training wouldn't be necessary.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 5:13pm
-Real steps are not going to be taken until there is a real need and it becomes clear what's snake oil - and even then, there's obstacles galore. This is why I think that looking to the government to solve this problem or the incremental reduce your carbon footprint approach are both naive.-
by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 5:04pm...
The aversion of our global economic crisis was, however, avoidable... and it stands to reason that we 'ought' to have done something sooner to avoid our present situation. If we wait for economic pressures to goad us into every systemic improvement... we will always be playing 'catch up'... cleaning up the 'decisions' impersonally made by an arbitrary overseer... in a sense, living perpetually in response to the repercussions of our cultural distaste for bestowing upon our human condition the bio-centric motivations that most of us hint at daily but are seemingly powerless to do anything about.
We are not powerless.
We will all be better off...
Government is not the answer... it is the only tool available to us right now (besides righteousness... ) to help bring the 'lofty' concerns of human well being into the public arena with business as usual.
The pejorative use of the term 'big government' is often used as a tactic for maintaining 'status quo' conditions... and rightly so in some circumstances... but to intellectually dwell only within these negative illusions of the possibilities of righteous governing , obscures the sensible relationship we should have with our future.
Posted by ttr at 06/07/2009 @ 5:59pm
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 1:12pm
"133,333 x 140 acres = 1866620 acres or 2916 sq. miles or larger than Delaware or more than half the size of Connecticut. "
I'm sure the areas ruined forever by all forms of coal mining, gas and oil trilling, tar sands mining, uranium mining, nuclear plant and storage sites and coal power stations, all of which render their sites uninhabitable for basically eternity...already equal or exceed that amount of land. And the empty deserts of the Southwest are considerably larger than Delaware or Connecticut, and solar thermal is not the only renewable energy source around.
Posted by zmann at 06/07/2009 @ 6:43pm
Not to mention the wars, the pollution, the noise, and the possibility of spending the money in the US where it bolsters our economy to the tune of 'who knows how many multipliers'...
...that we postpone indefinitely by postponing macro-energy innovations.
Posted by ttr at 06/07/2009 @ 6:54pm
Posted by ttr at 06/07/2009 @ 5:59pm
It is amusing to be accused of "intellectually dwell[ing] only within these negative illusions" when my basic premise is that government rarely acts with foresight, particularly when it comes with a $13 trillion dollar price tag.
Posted by zmann at 06/07/2009 @ 6:43pm
But are they in sunny locations? How do solar plants hold up on superfund sites, strip mines or what not? And let's not forget about the $13 trillion capital investment - and that is just to cover current electricity usage and not transportation, home heating and the like.
I agree that spending money on wars, et al is a waste. But my point here is that incrementalism isn't going to work. What is needed is a complete change of lifestyle, and macro-energy innovations are band-aids that aren't going to solve the problem.
The funny thing is that you all know I'm right - but are still arguing that "at least we should do something". Hey, if it helps you feel better about the inevitable, knock yourself out. Just don't expect me to go along with the illusion that it means anything.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 7:10pm
New Stimulus, perhaps you should heed the words of Obama.
<SCULLY: Yet, it all takes money. You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?
OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.
So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.
So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit.>
http://www.c-span.org/pdf/obamainterview.pdf
Obama says "WE'RE OUT OF MONEY".
Posted by antisocialist at 06/07/2009 @ 8:30pm
by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 7:10pm...
Be amused...;^)
No accusations... just a reminder.
Posted by ttr at 06/07/2009 @ 9:45pm
So according to Global Warming Alarmists manmade CO2 is raising the temperature of the planet. So what will people do when the temps fall like they currently are? Pollute more?
Posted by abell12ct at 06/08/2009 @ 05:43am
Posted by abell12ct at 06/08/2009 @ 05:43am
Abell, didn't YOU vote for an "Alarmist" last November for President?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 08:26am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/07/2009 @ 8:30pm
He said we're out of money for now, due to short-term problems. He also said we will never end our deficits if we don't fix our long-term problems...which will cause more deficits in the short-term.
Posted by zmann at 06/08/2009 @ 08:33am
He said we're out of money for now, due to short-term problems. He also said we will never end our deficits if we don't fix our long-term problems...which will cause more deficits in the short-term.
Posted by zmann at 06/08/2009 @ 08:33am
And quadrupling our deficit as he's done is going to do what to free up money?
<House panel rejects Obama budget cutting plan
By ANDREW TAYLOR ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER>
http://tinyurl.com/l2un88
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 08:54am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 08:54am
Hey, Larry, maybe you answered and I missed it. On my "Is This A Stumper?" Question-
When EXACTLY did the "Reagan Recovery" begin in his first term?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 09:14am
Posted by abell12ct at 06/08/2009 @ 05:43am
Please feel free to discuss historical CO2 levels, how CO2 levels relate to temperature and how the current CO2 levels aren't man made.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 08:54am
"And quadrupling our deficit as he's done is going to do what to free up money?"
Last I checked, Bush left around a $10 trillion deficit. So, you cannot be talking about total debt. So, you must be talking about the current year budget.
However, when I look up the historical tables for the budget, I don't see a quadruple jump there - even when we don't account for the change from making most war appropriations off-budget that the Bush administration engaged in to moving that on-budget by the Obama administration.
Is this another one of those made-up Larryland facts?
Also, since Bush managed to move us from a single year budget surplus to a deficit - why didn't we ever hear any criticisms from you about that change?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 09:37am
Hey, Larry, maybe you answered and I missed it. On my "Is This A Stumper?" Question-
When EXACTLY did the "Reagan Recovery" begin in his first term?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 09:14am
1983 <Reagan's Running Recovery
By HP-Time.com;Alexander L. Taylor III Monday, Dec. 26, 1983
Statistics released by the Government last week confirmed the vigor of the recovery and the moderate pace of price increases. Industrial production in November jumped ahead .8%, the twelfth monthly increase in a row.
Meanwhile, producer prices actually fell in November by .2%. For the past year, inflation at the wholesale level has been less than 1%.
An upbeat mood about the economy could be seen in the results of a new public opinion poll conducted for TIME by Yankelovich, Skelly and White. While inflation and unemployment remain the uppermost economic problems in the minds of voters, Americans now give President Reagan credit for making progress on both issues. A strong 69% of those polled approved Reagan's handling of inflation, while 50% credited him with doing a good job dealing with unemployment.>
http://tinyurl.com/lp97r3
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 09:41am
Last I checked, Bush left around a $10 trillion deficit. So, you cannot be talking about total debt. So, you must be talking about the current year budget.
However, when I look up the historical tables for the budget, I don't see a quadruple jump there - even when we don't account for the change from making most war appropriations off-budget that the Bush administration engaged in to moving that on-budget by the Obama administration.
Is this another one of those made-up Larryland facts?
Also, since Bush managed to move us from a single year budget surplus to a deficit - why didn't we ever hear any criticisms from you about that change?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 09:37am
1. It was a 10 Trillion dollar debt, not deficit. And what was the leading factor in increasing the debt?
Medicare and Social Security
2. The deficit under Bush was approx 500 Billion. It is 2 Trillion this year under Obama. That is quadrupling.
3. Bush did not move us from surplus to deficit. That is leftist BS. We entered a recession in March of 2000, 8 months before Bush took office. Then a little incident called 9/11 occurred. those 2 facts, not anything that Bush did put us into deficits.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 09:48am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 08:54am
Show me a business that doesn't run on debt, and I'll consider your fact-less attack on deficit spending to have some merit. And after that, show me a business that has responsibilities, legal responsibilities, beyond making profit.
Posted by zmann at 06/08/2009 @ 09:54am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 09:41am
So almost TWO YEARS AFTER he was inaugurated?
How much time does Obama get?...or has gotten, I should say?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 10:05am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 09:48am
Debts are caused by deficits, are they not? How is it that debt went from $5.6 trillion (2000) to $9.7 trillion (2008)? Care to outline how many Presidents had a >73% increase in the national debt on their watch and what party they belong to and the leading factors that lead to that increase, e.g., war?
"And what was the leading factor in increasing the debt?"
The trillions spent on Iraq and Afghanistan (including hospital care for the wounded) don't figure in as a leading factor? Interesting.
Medicare/Social Security is an issue - partly due to demographics, partly due to management. It needs to be addressed, but let's not make it a scapegoat for all the fiscal problems in the US.
"Bush did not move us from surplus to deficit. That is leftist BS. We entered a recession in March of 2000, 8 months before Bush took office. Then a little incident called 9/11 occurred. those 2 facts, not anything that Bush did put us into deficits."
The numbers don't lie, LVL. There was a surplus, then there wasn't. It is indisputable. You are trying to get around this with a "yeah, but..."
The second interesting thing about this response is how you are letting Bush off the hook due to the recession of 2000. But, in a strange reversal of logic, this doesn't seem to apply to Obama who inherited a recession/depression on the scale that hasn't been seen since the 1930s. It seems you have a bit of a double standard.
You cannot hide beyond 9/11 either because if you believe it warranted deficit spending to conduct a "War on Terror" that doesn't change when Obama takes office. So, you are left with arguing that the recession in 2000 was somehow important. What about the other 6-7 years? What about the current recession? Crickets.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 10:57am
You cannot hide beyond 9/11 either because if you believe it warranted deficit spending to conduct a "War on Terror"....
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 10:57am
In the early years following 9/11, the War on Terror was NOT the main expenditure causing the deficits to rise. It was the 2001 Bush tax cuts that were sought immediately after he took office to combat the recession he inherited from Clinton.
In Clinton's own way, over 8 years, his busted `baggage' of over-hyped dot.com economy along with corp. frauds galore, he left damage to our economy that was arguable on the scale (though probably not quite) of the financial crisis, which was a product of the Dem's fondness for free money for marginal borrowers and demographics.
Of the increase to the Fed debt on Bush's watch, my guess is less than 1/3 can be attributed to War on Terror. And that 1/3 left something extremely tangible, a SAFE HOMELAND for the 7+ years of Bush's presidency after 9/11.
Need to set the record straight!
Bush did blow it badly by going with Democrat Hank Paulson's TARP plan to bail out his Wall St. buddies and where, I am certain, he held a huge portion of his personal wealth. I'll forgive Bush for extending some pocket change to keep Chrysler and GM alive until Magic took over.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 11:18am
causing the deficits to rise. It was the 2001 Bush tax cuts that were sought immediately after he took office to combat the recession he inherited from Clinton.----Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 11:18am
Just so we're clear, HAPP.....the President inherited a recession from his predecessor, and his policies to re-ignite the economy caused deficits.
That right?
You SURE you want to stick with that...and not suddenly come up with a WHOLE LOT of caveats and excemptions and rationalizations????
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 11:27am
Just so we're clear, HAPP.....the President inherited a recession from his predecessor, and his policies to re-ignite the economy caused deficits.
That right?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 11:27am
No question! But what the economy & employment does, is the point of deficit spending.
Your Messiah's `stimulus' is several multiples of Bush's tax cuts, and what the result so far? Is Unemployment trending up or down?
Any honesty on sale today?
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 11:45am
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 11:45am
Interesting. So first we admit that a President CAN inherit a recession, and then that if that President utilizes economic policies that cause deficits to alleviate that recession, it's "okay" with you.
Just a matter of political ideology and degrees of magnitude.
And again, why are you concerned with DEFICIT spending...but not DEFICIT tax cuts? Since it's obviously REALLY not about the "deficits" to you?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 12:32pm
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 11:18am
"In the early years following 9/11, the War on Terror was NOT the main expenditure causing the deficits to rise. It was the 2001 Bush tax cuts that were sought immediately after he took office to combat the recession he inherited from Clinton."
This is an excellent point, Happy. So, am I to conclude that cutting tax revenues to the point where the government moves from a budget surplus to deficit spending, particularly in the context of a "War on Terror", is somehow the appropriate response to recessions? Does this also apply to increasing deficit levels (a la Ronald Reagan?) Is so, what exactly should Obama be doing differently?
I suspect the answer is "tax cuts". Do you want to explain what the difference is between tax cuts (that presumably led to more spending and stimulating the economy) and government spending (to stimulate the economy)? Effectively, they are the same.
Now, I understand the appeal of the government taking less money from citizens and having them decide what to do with their own money. But, they may decide - as many have in the current market - to pay down their debt or do other things that do not stimulate the economy. So, I would like to know how you can argue tax cuts are better. Based on what criteria?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 1:25pm
And again, why are you concerned with DEFICIT spending...but not DEFICIT tax cuts? Since it's obviously REALLY not about the "deficits" to you?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 12:32pm |
Because contrary to leftist dogma, tax cuts CANNOT PRODUCE DEFICITS. EXCESS SPENDING PRODUCES DEFICITS.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 1:28pm
Because contrary to leftist dogma, tax cuts CANNOT PRODUCE DEFICITS.----Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 1:28pm
So even under the MINIMAL government that YOU, Larry/antisoc, would want...i.e. only NASA, the Highway System, and a $450 Billion defense budget....
if taxes were 0%....we wouldn't have a deficit?
(Psssst...here's where you start backpedalling from your blanket statement!)
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 1:41pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 1:28pm
Let me build off Mask.
Assume you are on the board of a small condo association. You have $50,000 of fixed costs, another $50,000 of discretionary costs and fees (tax income) of $100,000. You essentially have a balanced budget.
Let's assume that you want to give a break on fees because of the economy to all condo owners of 75%. You also cut all discretionary spending. Your budget now has fixed costs of $50,000, another $o of discretionary costs and fees (tax income) of $25,000. You have a -$25,000 deficit in your budget.
In this circumstance, what caused the -$25,000 deficit? Describe how this applies to the federal government.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 2:04pm
Because contrary to leftist dogma, tax cuts CANNOT PRODUCE DEFICITS.----Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 1:28pm
So even under the MINIMAL government that YOU, Larry/antisoc, would want...i.e. only NASA, the Highway System, and a $450 Billion defense budget....
if taxes were 0%....we wouldn't have a deficit?
(Psssst...here's where you start backpedalling from your blanket statement!)
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 1:41pm
That's so childish. I expect at least an adult argument.
Nowhere have I said Zero taxes. But taxcuts which is merely allowing people to keep more of their own money, cannot produce a deficit. It's when you plan to spend more than the revenue you know you will take in.
I have nothing to backpedal from. the only time that intentional deficit spending is legitimate is during time of war. Without a nation, surpluses mean nothing.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:12pm
Assume you are on the board of a small condo association. You have $50,000 of fixed costs, another $50,000 of discretionary costs and fees (tax income) of $100,000. You essentially have a balanced budget.
Let's assume that you want to give a break on fees because of the economy to all condo owners of 75%. You also cut all discretionary spending. Your budget now has fixed costs of $50,000, another $o of discretionary costs and fees (tax income) of $25,000. You have a -$25,000 deficit in your budget.
In this circumstance, what caused the -$25,000 deficit? Describe how this applies to the federal government.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 2:04pm
If you did that you would be acting stupidly as a business person and you should lose your business.
Your example has nothing to do with whether tax cuts produce deficits.
When govts properly give tax cuts, they need to also reduce spending.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:14pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 1:28pm
I'm starting to see a recurrent problem in your positions. To make your arguments, you mostly rely on special definitions: torture as organ failure, deficits as spending, Palestine as Jordan, etc.
The really interesting part is you encode these semantic tactics into attacks like, "...contrary to leftist dogma"...<insert my special right wing definition of term>. The definitions you use are not standard usage. People don't mean organ failure is torture, when they say torture. When they say deficit, they mean more money was spent than was earned. When they say Palestine, they aren't talking about League of Nation agreements - particularly ironic example in your case given your rejection of international governance.
It's precisely these tactics that has Republicans in a hole in the moment. It smells of deceit, and if conservatives think they can continue doing these kinds of tricks, your going to find that your political philosophy is going to remain in the desert, my friend.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 2:16pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:14pm
The fact that you cannot acknowledge that government has fixed costs and even costs that are discretionary that people do not want to dispense with (such as your "defense spending") - and the fact that tax cuts that reduce tax income below the levels necessary to pay for these costs cause deficits - well, let's just say it is dishonest.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 2:19pm
I'm starting to see a recurrent problem in your positions. To make your arguments, you mostly rely on special definitions: torture as organ failure, deficits as spending, Palestine as Jordan, etc.
The really interesting part is you encode these semantic tactics into attacks like, "...contrary to leftist dogma"...<insert my special right wing definition of term>. The definitions you use are not standard usage. People don't mean organ failure is torture, when they say torture. When they say deficit, they mean more money was spent than was earned. When they say Palestine, they aren't talking about League of Nation agreements - particularly ironic example in your case given your rejection of international governance.
It's precisely these tactics that has Republicans in a hole in the moment. It smells of deceit, and if conservatives think they can continue doing these kinds of tricks, your going to find that your political philosophy is going to remain in the desert, my friend.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 2:16pm
Interesting; rather than address the substance, you engage in a red herring. Other than the Jordan is Palestine (which is a fact), I've never said any of the other things you attempted to attribute to me.
So, I'll ask; How does allowing people to keep more of their own money create a deficit?
There is only one answer:
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:26pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:12pm
No, you SPECIFICALLY said "tax cuts CANNOT create deficits."
If I cut taxes to 0%...that IS a tax cut, is it not?
Your backpedalling occurred, when you started ADDING to that throwaway line and defended yourself....as I said.
Or even more reasonable if you like, how does a devout militarist like you PAY for the ever-increasing, never decreasing defense budget you want EVEN IN PEACE-TIME...if you can cut taxes to the bone and "somehow" not incur a deficit?
Or are you now in favor of defense budget cuts???
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 2:27pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:14pm
The fact that you cannot acknowledge that government has fixed costs and even costs that are discretionary that people do not want to dispense with (such as your "defense spending") - and the fact that tax cuts that reduce tax income below the levels necessary to pay for these costs cause deficits - well, let's just say it is dishonest.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 2:19pm
Two red herrings in a row! quite an accomplishment!
When have I ever posited that the govt should not generate enough revenue to cover fixed costs?
And discretionary costs are just that. And the people choosing which discretionary costs and how much to spend is why we have elections. Those of us who supported Bush and Reagan did so because we wanted less spending on discretionary costs other than defense which is designed to preserve the Republic (which is why I've always found it absurd to label it discretionary).
As to your last, it is a false conclusion that I've certainly never offerred. I have pushed for reducing Federal taxation and spending because so much of it is in contradiction to the constitution. Much of it belongs properly to be determined at the state level as the constitution calls for. Some of it is created out of nowhere simply because the power to tax is the power to destroy and to control.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:31pm
No examples of businesses that don't run on debt, anti? Thanks for conceding the point.
Posted by zmann at 06/08/2009 @ 3:06pm
No examples of businesses that don't run on debt, anti? Thanks for conceding the point.
Posted by zmann at 06/08/2009 @ 3:06pm
Sorry, got distracted. Of course there are, including a very successful company I'm currently involved with.
[Salt Lake City, UT] – November 10, 2008 – MonaVie (www.monavie.com), maker of the premier blend of the Brazilian acai berry, with significant sales success in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Puerto Rico, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, recently released a state of the company address delivered by MonaVie Chief Financial Officer, Devin D. Thorpe.
"Amid these troubled economic times, many people are worried about their jobs," says Thorpe. "MonaVie distributors, however, have no reason to worry about their MonaVie incomes, even as the troubled times bring turmoil to markets around the world. In fact, turbulence brings opportunity for distributors as more and more people are now looking to supplement or replace their incomes."
MonaVie continues to set records of unprecedented growth, offering a direct selling opportunity to individuals around the world. According to Thorpe, MonaVie offers a safe harbor during these times of economic storm.
"MonaVie is different because we don't need to borrow money to buy products or to pay distributors," says Thorpe.
"Instead MonaVie generates cash to fund all of its obligations, while still achieving profitability. MonaVie has no debt, and MonaVie distributors have nothing to worry about."
http://tinyurl.com/n3g4ew
Here's another one IDTI-tech co in San Jose CA with Zero Debt
http://www.idt.com/?id=3243&investorID=8
MSC Software, Ann Taylor Women's Clothing, both debt free. There are many more.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 3:21pm
Once in a while, hope arises that there are still pockets of our institutions that know a crisis is no excuse to screw people!
Supreme Court puts Chrysler sale on hold High court issues a stay of the sale of Chrysler to the Italian automaker, delaying Chrysler's exit from bankruptcy.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
June 8, 2009: 4:27 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Supreme Court threw a wrench into the plans to have a quick bankruptcy process at Chrysler LLC, delaying the company's combination with Italian automaker Fiat.
The bankruptcy judge overseeing the Chrysler case had given approval for the company's most valuable assets, such as plants, dealerships and contracts, to become part of a new company in which Fiat would hold a significant stake.
But the Supreme Court, in an order issued late Monday, granted a request for a delay of that approval sought by Indiana state pension funds, which had argued that they and other lenders deserved better treatment by the bankruptcy court.
The Obama administration has stated that Chrysler is no longer viable as a standalone company and that it must join with Fiat in order to justify additional federal tax dollars needed to keep the company alive.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 3:39pm
Larry, if you think my first point is silly, please answer the second...
Do you favor an increasing defense budget in peace-time or not?
If so...how would you pay for it, if tax hikes cannot be increased as well?
Also, are we in "peace-time" now? If so, then you have no problem with deficits now, do you?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 3:40pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 3:21pm
Nice to know some businesses can actually work without using the disgusting banking system we have. Now onto the other part of my question. Do these businesses have any real responsibilities besides turning a profit? The government deals with far more important things than money. And indeed, many businesses act as though their need to acquire profit is greater than their need to obey laws.
Posted by zmann at 06/08/2009 @ 3:42pm
....tax cuts (that presumably led to more spending and stimulating the economy) and government spending (to stimulate the economy)? Effectively, they are the same.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 1:25pm
I think you're halfway there as far as Obamanomic is concerned! But lets' see if you're a basketcase yet.....
IF tax cuts and gubber spending are the same, and tax cuts have revived recessions each and everytime tried in the past 30 years, why don't we try cutting taxes, which was what the Repubs proposed as an alternative to Prok spending. Recall my side's call to suspend payroll taxes for some period?
As I've said for half-a-year, and fully predicted what's going on now, time is conservatives' friend!
The youth vote took Magic over the top, I hope they are paying attention now......as I did with Carter when I was kinda Hopey/Changey too!
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 3:45pm
....they may decide - as many have in the current market - to pay down their debt or do other things that do not stimulate the economy. So, I would like to know how you can argue tax cuts are better. Based on what criteria?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 1:25pm
Even Obama is now forced to concede the recovery will take a little bit longer.......FACT!
So, even if consumers stick a good chunk of tax cuts into savings or paying down debts, that translate into higher savings and more return of liquidity to banks which then must loan that back out, or, they buy Treasuries which serve to finance the Gubber's debt while keeping interest rates just a bit lower....All of this will aid the recovery.
What you did not address, is how can the Gubbers encourage those of us who are NOT burdened by debt and already have substantial savings (surely yourself) to stimulate the economy either by spending or investing. From where I stand, HusseinO's policies are NOT where it's at!
I am liquidating most of my small caps with each mini-rally....just as venture capital firms are rapidly shrinking in number and investable capital. That's the Hopey and Changey realty.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 3:54pm
Do you favor an increasing defense budget in peace-time or not?
If so...how would you pay for it, if tax hikes cannot be increased as well?
Also, are we in "peace-time" now? If so, then you have no problem with deficits now, do you?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 3:40pm
The question cannot be accurately answered as posed. Too many variables are missing.
For instance, Carter and Clinton both decimated the military so that we were unprepared to defend the country as thoroughly and efficiently as possible.
What is the current readiness report at the time of budget considerations?
What trade-offs for obsolete or inefficient weapon systems, or base closures have been considered?
And I substantially answered your last question already today, except that we are not in peace-time currently. We are in a state of war.
<I have nothing to backpedal from. the only time that intentional deficit spending is legitimate is during time of war. Without a nation, surpluses mean nothing.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:12pm>
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 4:03pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:26pm
"Other than the Jordan is Palestine (which is a fact), I've never said any of the other things you attempted to attribute to me."
1. You've never argued that the United States has not engaged in torture, but merely harsh interrogation tactics? You've argued this point, and you've argued on Bybee's behalf. So, please let us know how your position on torture differs from his - now that you are drawing distinctions.
2. You aren't arguing now that deficits aren't caused by spending?
"How does allowing people to keep more of their own money create a deficit?"
Government services, such as "national defense", the judicial system, etc. are costs that need to be paid for. By providing those services and allowing people to not pay for them, what you call "keeping their own money", you have a situation that is EXACTLY like the condo association example I used above. You are running a deficit in order to allow people to not pay for the costs of government.
Tax revenues define the line between "excessive spending" and "necessary spending". You don't get to pretend that changing the line isn't causing "excessive spending". It is, and this argument is sophistry.
"When have I ever posited that the govt should not generate enough revenue to cover fixed costs?"
Let's flip the script. Tax cuts can only properly be offered from budget surpluses. No budget surplus, no tax cut. The weasel approach is to do tax cuts first, then pretend that budget deficits are the result of spending - and then further to pretend that your pet programs "War on Islam" aren't open for spending reduction.
It's days like these when you have a remarkably Ponti-like argumentation style that makes me wonder why I bother.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 4:12pm
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 3:45pm
"IF tax cuts and gubber spending are the same, and tax cuts have revived recessions each and everytime tried in the past 30 years..."
The problem is the "tax cuts have revived recessions each and everytime tried in the past 30 years". That's what they tell you on right wing radio. Unfortunately, it isn't true.
Just to take one example, large tax cuts were passed in the summer of 1981 - at the start of a recession, and not as a measure to spur growth. That recession lasted longer than any other recession, save the Great Depression and the current one. It was also viewed as being caused by tight monetary policy to control inflation, which has nothing to do with taxes. Most recessions also last less that a year so it is difficult to say how income tax cuts have any bearing on anything - you'd have to look at time and other factors.
I could go through and debunk the rest, but I think this gets the point across.
You know, the youth vote is going to be a problem for you guys for awhile. Obama, despite his faults, is a breath of fresh air for most people. And people tend to be shaped by the campaigns of their late teens early twenties. FiveThirtyEight has a great post on it, you should check it out.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 3:54pm
Let's imagine I spend all my disposable income each month paying off my mortgage. Given the glut of housing inventory, the limited number of people with 20% to put on a down payment on a house, and bank's bad balance sheets, how exactly does the money I pay back to the bank make itself back into the market (and generate multiplier effects)? It doesn't, which is exactly why the government has been handing money to banks and offering tax breaks to purchase homes.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 4:40pm
...how exactly does the money I pay back to the bank make itself back into the market (and generate multiplier effects)? It doesn't,...
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 4:40pm
So, effectively what you're saying is that the bank takes that excess payments you made, and stuff it under their mattress.....interesting, never thought of that alternative, but you could be right! People does that......paranoid people....so, why not paranoid banks!
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 4:45pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 4:03pm
"For instance, Carter and Clinton both decimated the military so that we were unprepared to defend the country as thoroughly and efficiently as possible."
Billions upon billions of dollars and more than a 1,000 foreign bases worldwide. I'm sure that's in the Constitution somewhere too. Can Justice Scalia tell me how the founders felt about a standing army or why my tax cuts don't come from military dollars?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 4:48pm
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 4:45pm
It's a basic understanding of cash flows and how banks work. Banks need reserves. They don't have them. What they have is a lot of paper and real assets with no liquidity. So, cash goes into the reserve. This should be a simple concept for you Happy. You've got to have change for the till.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 4:53pm
....the youth vote is going to be a problem for you guys for awhile. Obama, despite his faults, is a breath of fresh air for most people. And people tend to be shaped by the campaigns of their late teens early twenties.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 3:54pm
I repeat, time is our friend.....and youth do age. If they don't become conservative as they age and gain actual worldly experience, they have themselves to bear the cost of their idealism or Obamaism.
My generation did what we had to, and Reagan was there for us. IF Magic is where the country is and intend to stay, my blessings!
We get the Gubbers we deserve and I don't discount at all the possibility that America's days of supremacy have entered the twilight years.....and The Messiah is THE leader needed....the manchurian President with the perfect multi-racial/cultural background.....indeed, a breath of fresh air that stays fresh, so long as racial politics is your cup of tea.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 4:55pm
1.So, please let us know how your position on torture differs from his - now that you are drawing distinctions.
2. You aren't arguing now that deficits aren't caused by spending?
"How does allowing people to keep more of their own money create a deficit?"
Government services, such as "national defense", the judicial system, etc. are costs that need to be paid for.
Tax revenues define the line between "excessive spending" and "necessary spending". You don't get to pretend that changing the line isn't causing "excessive spending". It is, and this argument is sophistry.
"When have I ever posited that the govt should not generate enough revenue to cover fixed costs?"
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 4:12pm
Seems with you, Mask, and Snowball, there is an epidemic proportion of non-thinking being posted.
1. Torture is vaguely defined in international law. I agree with the position that the Bybee memo drew a line at which not to cross and liberals like yourself say that getting near that line is crossing it.
2. Again, I never said no govt expenditures. I've said we spend too much, and on things that are unconstitutional. By cutting taxes and holding Congress to what Art 1, Sect 8 authorizes, we would guarantee a leaner govt and let states decide on the other things.
Your definition of what is excess is mind boggling. Excess is beyond what the constitution authorizes and what revenues are projected.
And self defense is not a "pet project". The nation that ceases to defend itself from declared enemies will cease to exist or be conquered.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 4:58pm
Banks need reserves. They don't have them. What they have is a lot of paper and real assets with no liquidity. So, cash goes into the reserve.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 4:53pm
Very few banks have inadequate "reserves"....see TARP.
Our discussions is also under the `traditional' model of banks actually keeping the individual papers we call mortgages....some do, as my own Wells Fargo mortgage proves....
BTW, is it any surprise that WF is a healthy bank since it both underwrote and kept in-house, my mortgage?
Most banks are fine, as every one of the ones I have a relationship with (excluding credit cards since I have a Citi card) excepting some of the Biggies.
That said, you're in fact insisting that banks like WF, (let's assume it holds your mortgage too) just keeps adding your payments to its "reserves" regardless of regulatory levels....for the sake of even more liquidity........profitability (and bonuses) be damned?
That's like an individual, educated with MBAs and advised by PhD types, who keeps adding to his stash under his mattress after he's way past having 3~4 months' worth of "reserves"....to the point, there is a rather uncomfortable bulge he sleeps on.....LOL!
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 5:07pm
"For instance, Carter and Clinton both decimated the military so that we were unprepared to defend the country as thoroughly and efficiently as possible."
Billions upon billions of dollars and more than a 1,000 foreign bases worldwide. I'm sure that's in the Constitution somewhere too. Can Justice Scalia tell me how the founders felt about a standing army or why my tax cuts don't come from military dollars?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 4:48pm
I'd almost accept this as serious statement if I didn't already know that your had served in the military. As such you know about military preparedness and what it means if personnel don't have everything they need to be battle ready.
As Eisenhower said in the MIC address that liberals love to partially quote:
"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations."
In other words, the nature of the threats against our existence required a much larger standing military.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 5:14pm
Abell, didn't YOU vote for an "Alarmist" last November for President? Posted by Mask
What does that have to do with anything?
Posted by abell12ct at 06/08/2009 @ 6:09pm
More on today's stay issued by the SC on the Gubbers' attempt to screw secured bondholders...but rather than rehas what I pasted earlier from CNN.....take a look at "Consumer groups and individuals".....is anyone aware of that weasel play? How would you feel if you own a Chrysler car still in warranty? Does this `play' inspire you to go buy another new Chrysler car?
===========================
High court blocks Chrysler sale to Fiat
Jun 8 04:00 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday delayed Chrysler's sale of most of its assets to a group led by Italy's Fiat, but didn't say how long the deal will remain on hold....
Consumer groups and individuals with product-related lawsuits also are contesting a condition of the Chrysler sale that would release the company from product liability claims related to vehicles it sold before the "New Chrysler" partnered with Fiat is created.
Individuals with claims against "Old Chrysler" would have to seek compensation from the parts of the company not being sold to Fiat. But those assets have limited value and it's doubtful that there will be anything available to pay consumer claims....
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 6:15pm
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 4:55pm
Try this post:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/ bush-may-haunt-republicans-for.html
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 4:58pm
"Your definition of what is excess is mind boggling. Excess is beyond what the constitution authorizes and what revenues are projected."
My definition is based on what creates deficits - more spending than you take in. I'm not leaving off changes in income nor am I pretending that only my ideas of what are legitimate define spending. You, however, cannot say the same.
This is the standard definition. It applies to weight loss (eat less vs exercise more) just as it applies to budgets (more tax income vs less spending). It's something that's not terribly difficult to understand. You, on the other hand, have so many smuggled in assumptions it is difficult to even know what your talking about. What does the Constitution authorize, in your view, and how willing are you to pretend your ideas are somehow represenative of reality - which they aren't.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 5:07pm
"Recent tests by the Federal government revealed that Wells Fargo needs an additional 13.7 billion dollars in order to remain well captialized if the economy were to deteriorate further under stress test scenarios. On May 11, 2009 Wells Fargo announced an addtional stock offering which was completed on May 13, 2009 raising $8.6 billion in capital. The remaining $4.9 billion in capital is planned to be raised through earnings." From Wikipedia.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 7:18pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 5:14pm
Why is the U.S. the only country in the world with more than 1,000 foreign bases and "defense" spending that dwarfs everyone else? Or how does being the number 1 arms dealer in the world make us "safer"?
Your ideas of what is necessary, militarily, and mine are quite different. For example, care to discuss what the strategic value of aircraft carriers in a world where the Chinese have an antiship ballistic missile? We could add "tactical nuclear weapons", missile defense, outsourcing logistics to private companies and a whole host of other ill-conceived military programs to that list.
Since I have served in the military, I have a very good idea of the differences between operational readiness and out beyond DARPA fantasy land. We have a military overhead that is simply unsustainable and needs to be cut down and reflect an agenda of protecting our borders rather than being able to deploy and project American strength at a moment's notice anywhere around the world. We can't afford that approach anymore.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=1856
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 7:31pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 4:58pm
I notice you won't directly answer my question.
Do you favor an EVER-growing defense budget in peace-time?
Are we in peace-time?
If not, why do you oppose deficits, since you are fine with them in war-time?
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 9:14pm
"Recent tests by the Federal government revealed that Wells Fargo needs an additional 13.7 billion dollars in order to remain well captialized if the economy were to deteriorate further under stress test scenarios. On May 11, 2009 Wells Fargo announced an addtional stock offering which was completed on May 13, 2009 raising $8.6 billion in capital. The remaining $4.9 billion in capital is planned to be raised through earnings." From Wikipedia.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 7:18pm
Given the Magic's team of highly esteemed team of economists' perfect (that's sarcasm for less-endowed readers) forecasts since taking over, am I supposed to give some credibility to some "stress test scenarios" they conducted?
My preference, overwhelmingly, is to look at these banks' stock prices. I sold WF short at $30 and covered at $18....knowing that the banking bruhaha WILL bring it down...as solid as WF was/is, it had high exposure to its home state of CA......it's now in the mid-$20s' and apparently had no trouble "raising $8.6 billion in capital" and expects REAL earnings!
The problems with Libs, is you actually do think Gubbers are smarter than the (still much larger) private sector......guess that's what the `elite' universities cram into your heads and you actually, truly believe it!
The advantage--if you will--that I have over you theorists, is I often have money in the game, or on the sidelines.......no emotions over whatever the politically correct Kool-aid flavor is on specials and what sugery BS is coming out of Washington or Teleprompter One.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 9:58pm
We can't afford that approach anymore.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 7:31pm
Hogwash......if the Dems can afford $787 Billion of spending without reading the bill and without even creating meaningful jobs, we can afford the same approach we've had since 1946 militarily....that said, I personally would like us to abandon NATO and leave the *&%$ed energy geopolitics of the ME to them (or the Chinese)!
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 10:03pm
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 9:58pm
I went to state universities, Happy. They were less expensive.
The fact that your example, Wells Fargo, sold stock to build its reserve and plans to build up more reserve using earnings (remember that early mortgage payment we were talking about?), this simply proves my point.
Now, we can debate whether it is necessary - but it is empirical fact that banks are holding onto cash to replenish reserves, whether the government is directing them to do so or no.
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 10:03pm
I don't think we can afford any stimulus that rewards failing businesses. But, the stimulus package also had things in it like home buying incentives (effectively a targeted tax cut), modernizing medical record keeping systems, funding for food banks and so forth that we simply cannot label, "pork". Some of it was necessary. We can debate how much, but it's not all pork.
The time has come to put away the American imperialist dream. We should not pretend we are the policemen on the world, and we should do a better job at investing in ourselves and our country. Every dollar we spend on the military beyond protecting our immediate borders is waste.
If we had invested more military money in energy infrastructure, we would be more like Spain (who gets 50% of its power from wind energy) or France (which has robust nuclear power generation capabilities, and even though I don't care for nuclear power, it's a better position than what we are going to be in). But, we went with trying to control the oil - which will dry up and leave us with nothing in the long term. That's a bad play.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 10:33pm
Late night quiz for gullible Libs: Please spot the two parts of the ObamaSpeak that can NOT possibly be both true. Don't worry, I've made it pretty easy, take the challenge:
==========================
Obama repackages stimulus plans with old promises Email this Story
Jun 8, 9:40 PM (ET)
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and MATT APUZZO
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama assured the nation his recovery plan was on track Monday,......
Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress......
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 10:35pm
The Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats have sounded the death knell of the American economy and national pre-eminence of world nations.
This is the guy that was an "empty suit" of senseless rhetoric in campaign mode reeling in all the fools for the Demoncrats. Enjoy the fruits of your political labor!
Blame Bush who had NOTHING to do with all the banking and finance laws passed by Demoncrats that created this financial blackhole, yea thats the ticket!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/08/2009 @ 10:46pm
Posted by snowball666 at 06/09/2009 @ 09:51am
Forget it, snow...RIO doesn't even believe what HE says.
If he did, he'd be packing for Aruba or the Caymans or a bunker up in the Black Hills of the Dakotas...
but he's not.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 10:03am
"Recent tests by the Federal government revealed that Wells Fargo needs an additional 13.7 billion dollars in order to remain well captialized if the economy were to deteriorate further under stress test scenarios. On May 11, 2009 Wells Fargo announced an addtional stock offering which was completed on May 13, 2009 raising $8.6 billion in capital. The remaining $4.9 billion in capital is planned to be raised through earnings." From Wikipedia.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/08/2009 @ 7:18pm
Given the Magic's team of highly esteemed team of economists' perfect (that's sarcasm for less-endowed readers) forecasts since taking over, am I supposed to give some credibility to some "stress test scenarios" they conducted?
Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 9:58pm
================================
Flash Update for SRJ: The so-called "stress test" is being questioned....RETESTING (ie, Reset) proposed!
Now, can I have your vote of confidence on matters economic/financial?
See, I did NOT go to an elite Ivynomic U! There maybe hope for you yet.....fellow state U comrade!
Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 12:48pm
Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 12:48pm
Hey, HAPP...I know you're an "economics" and "history" buff...maybe you know the answer to this question-
What was the unemployment rate TWO YEARS AFTER the Reagan tax cuts? (1983) And what was it under Carter and before the tax cuts?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 12:50pm
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 12:50pm
Get your jollies from LVL.......I don't deal in spot economics.....hey, gold, 10-yr rate AND oil are all up today....our crisis is back ON!
Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 1:07pm
Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 1:07pm
Really? So everytime you listen to Rush and he talks about "the good ol' days of Reagan" and "getting back to Reaganism"....
never once crosses your mind to actually go back and see what was happening the first term of Saint Ronnie, and how much time HE was given by you guys to fix things....versus how much you give Obama???
No...of course not....it might ruin a good story...and quasi-religion.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 2:18pm
The usual fix of a stimulus can not work without a return to the Roosevelt reforms and regulations which Obama and the Congressional Democrats have shown little interest. Instead Obama seems to be pursuing "corporatism" which I doubt very many of his supporters (including myself) bargained for. It is time for the left to take another look at what Obama is really doing. Roosevelt should be the model, not Mussolini.
Posted by Perrydf at 06/10/2009 @ 08:43am
could you at least explain what this means?
"Our greatest deficit, after all, is our public investment deficit. "
this woman is a joke
Posted by WPP289 at 06/10/2009 @ 11:06am
I am a joke Posted by WPP289 at 06/10/2009 @ 11:06am | ignore this person | warn this person
I'll explain it to you. we have lagged in public investment of our infrastructure.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2009 @ 12:03pm