The devalued prime minister

[TradeNurkicNow]

Just because Bush grew the government more than he should have, doesn't mean that Obama can't grow it even more. Which he is.

Some of you Obama supporters really need to stop using Bush as justification for Obama's screw-ups.

So let me get this straight. Obama's 700 billion stimulus package is a screw up? What was Bush's 700 billion stimulus package, then?

I still can't believe we're having this conversation considering he's trying to pull the country out of a giant financial hole, which I might add, "conservative" policies got us into.

How about this: if you disagree with his policies, get the fuck out. America, love it or leave it. Man, I've been waiting eight years to say that.

 

[blazerboy30]

So let me get this straight. Obama's 700 billion stimulus package is a screw up? What was Bush's 700 billion stimulus package, then?

I still can't believe we're having this conversation considering he's trying to pull the country out of a giant financial hole, which I might add, "conservative" policies got us into.

As you mentioned earlier, you clearly don't follow, care, or know anything about the economy. This is very clear in your incredibly ignorant response.

 

[Shooter]

Let me state this for the record: Bush expanded the size of the federal governement during his tenure, and I wasn't happy about it at all. Now Obama is outdoing even Bush, and it's mind-boggling. He's going to bankrupt this country or turn it into a massive welfare state that will drag us down to the mediocre level of the European socialist countries.

 

[maxiep]

So let me get this straight. Obama's 700 billion stimulus package is a screw up? What was Bush's 700 billion stimulus package, then?

I still can't believe we're having this conversation considering he's trying to pull the country out of a giant financial hole, which I might add, "conservative" policies got us into.

How about this: if you disagree with his policies, get the fuck out. America, love it or leave it. Man, I've been waiting eight years to say that.

One bill was a capital infusion to keep our financial system from completely collapsing and the other was used as a payoff for the people that elected the President and for Nancy Pelosi's pet projects. Hell, even the people that wrote the bill don't call it a "stimulus" package.

The full data isn't yet out there, but it appears our entire financial mechanism was on the verge of simply shutting down in the 4th quarter of 2008.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Let me state this for the record: Bush expanded the size of the federal governement during his tenure, and I wasn't happy about it at all. Now Obama is outdoing even Bush, and it's mind-boggling. He's going to bankrupt this country or turn it into a massive welfare state that will drag us down to the mediocre level of the European socialist countries.

Right. I remember you saying that. I just don't see how after Bush nearly doubled the size of the government after Clinton, we get all of our shit in a tissy about Obama's first 2 months. Especially in the midst of financial ruin. Maybe if this were the age of milk and honey and shit went sour, I could see your point. At least give the guy time get situated before you shit all over him.

Just to play devil's advocate: what's wrong with Europe, again?

One bill was a capital infusion to keep our financial system from completely collapsing and the other was used as a payoff for the people that elected the President and for Nancy Pelosi's pet projects.

That's a bit extreme, don't you think?

Hell, even the people that wrote the bill don't call it a "stimulus" package.

Well they certainly don't call it the Payoff for People that Elected the President package.

The full data isn't yet out there, but it appears our entire financial mechanism was on the verge of simply shutting down in the 4th quarter of 2008.

Right. So the "capital infusion" saved it? Okay. I can agree with that.


I'm confused about this: why is it that when Bush gives unimaginable amounts of money to a small number of mega-companies that failed, essentially rewarding their incompetence, that's fine? And why is it when Obama gives untold amounts of money to numerous programs and projects (pet or otherwise, they're still projects that theoretically do something), then OMFG HE IS RUNNING THE COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND?

I mean, I get it. It's about money, money and more money. But can anyone admit that maybe funding some of these things might make some progress, even if it's not *gasp* financial progress?

 

[blazerboy30]

It's about money, money and more money. But can anyone admit that maybe funding some of these things might make some progress, even if it's not *gasp* financial progress?

It might be nice to live in a dream world, but there isn't anything in our world that gets accomplished without money. You think we will get cures for cancer and AIDS without monetary incentive? Will we be able to provide food to the poor in our country and others without available financing?

I can understand you wishing that money and greed didn't drive human incentive, but it does, has and probably always will. The key is harnessing that greed and turning it into incentive to improve our world. Try all you want to eliminate greed, but that is a pretty endless path to go down.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

It might be nice to live in a dream world, but there isn't anything in our world that gets accomplished without money. You think we will get cures for cancer and AIDS without monetary incentive? Will we be able to provide food to the poor in our country and others without available financing?

I can understand you wishing that money and greed didn't drive human incentive, but it does, has and probably always will. The key is harnessing that greed and turning it into incentive to improve our world. Try all you want to eliminate greed, but that is a pretty endless path to go down.

I understand that it takes financial incentive to make any progress nowadays. However, this whole big to do is because we cannot accept a step backwards. Is there anyone here who thinks Americans haven't been living beyond their means for the past 30 years? Why is it seen as such a cardinal sin to downsize? There would still be financial motives for progress, but perhaps not everyone involved would get a luxury fucking yacht.

Sigh.

 

[blazerboy30]

I understand that it takes financial incentive to make any progress nowadays. However, this whole big to do is because we cannot accept a step backwards. Is there anyone here who thinks Americans haven't been living beyond their means for the past 30 years? Why is it seen as such a cardinal sin to downsize? There would still be financial motives for progress, but perhaps not everyone involved would get a luxury fucking yacht.

Sigh.

If you look at some of our responses ( I know for sure mine, and maxiep's) you will see that this is exactly what we WANT to see and why we DISAGREE with what Obama is doing.

We have definitely been living beyond our means in America. We WANT the bubble to "downsize" and prices to get back to sustainable levels. And for somebody that is pretty heavily in the real estate market, it seems weird that I would feel that way. But I am confident that with a real market, and realistic prices, I will be able to get back in a more sustainable market and have more good investments.

Obama is trying to throw money at a problem and create an artificial market, which will lead to a lot more of what you are referring to as "Americans living beyond their means".

The biggest problem is that Obama and this congress want to fund this "living beyond their means" by reducing the incentive for financial progress and investment by punishing the rich and best economic utilizers. This is not the right way to create a sustained increase in standard of living for our country and the world.

 

[barfo]

Yes, he is. When the U.S. government starts buying up banks, car companies, and insurance companies, it is expanding way beyond anything we have seen.

What would your preferred solution be?

barfo

 

[Shooter]

What would your preferred solution be?

There are at least two alternatives:

1) Let the companies crash and burn. That's the way it should work in a free market. If you invest foolishly, or you can't compete, you lose. Someone else who can do the job better takes your place. I reject any kind of government bailout for private business. It's just not the role of the federal government.

2) If you ARE going to give out massive amounts of money, give it to the American taxpayers. Let them spend it on mortgages, or flatscreen TVs, or new cars. All of that would stimulate the economy from the bottom up, and get businesses moving again.

 

[barfo]

There are at least two alternatives:

1) Let the companies crash and burn. That's the way it should work in a free market. If you invest foolishly, or you can't compete, you lose. Someone else who can do the job better takes your place. I reject any kind of government bailout for private business. It's just not the role of the federal government.

2) If you ARE going to give out massive amounts of money, give it to the American taxpayers. Let them spend it on mortgages, or flatscreen TVs, or new cars. All of that would stimulate the economy from the bottom up, and get businesses moving again.

Those are, in an important sense, the same alternative, since both involve letting the failing companies crash and burn.

I can understand the desire to let them fail. I share it.

What I am curious about is what happens after they fail. What effects on you and me do you see if the bailouts didn't happen?

barfo

P.S. the problem with giving it to the taxpayer is that we are of a mind to just save it, rather than spend it. So giving it to us might not stimulate the economy.

 

[blazerboy30]

P.S. the problem with giving it to the taxpayer is that we are of a mind to just save it, rather than spend it. So giving it to us might not stimulate the economy.

Doesn't the data show otherwise... that Americans have the lowest savings rate in the world?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

There are at least two alternatives:

1) Let the companies crash and burn. That's the way it should work in a free market. If you invest foolishly, or you can't compete, you lose. Someone else who can do the job better takes your place. I reject any kind of government bailout for private business. It's just not the role of the federal government.

2) If you ARE going to give out massive amounts of money, give it to the American taxpayers. Let them spend it on mortgages, or flatscreen TVs, or new cars. All of that would stimulate the economy from the bottom up, and get businesses moving again.

Congratulations, you have something in common with Jon Stewart. This is what he's been saying the ENTIRE time. He called it trickle-up economics.

 

[barfo]

Doesn't the data show otherwise... that Americans have the lowest savings rate in the world?

That's old data. A year ago, yes. Today, no. Things have changed.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Congratulations, you have something in common with Jon Stewart. This is what he's been saying the ENTIRE time. He called it trickle-up economics.

Yup. Jon Stewart suggested using the bail out money to wipe out all consumer debt, which I think would have been a good idea. Instead of just giving the cash straight to banks, capitalize them in a way that also gives Americans some breathing room to start spending again.

 

[blazerboy30]

Yup. Jon Stewart suggested using the bail out money to wipe out all consumer debt, which I think would have been a good idea. Instead of just giving the cash straight to banks, capitalize them in a way that also gives Americans some breathing room to start spending again.

Who do you give it to? When the last stimulus package went out, the people who got anything aren't the people that paid for it.

It also went to people who probably weren't going to utilize it very well, beyond just buying "stuff". IMO, it should go to people that will use it in a way that can have a larger effect that just buying a flatscreen.

For example, when somebody buys a house, that person can now greatly leverage their money into something that creates construction jobs, creates manufacturing jobs, and generates property tax revenue for the government. I don't feel that most of the people that received stimulus money were in the position to create this leveraging effect.

 

[Minstrel]

Who do you give it to? When the last stimulus package went out, the people who got anything aren't the people that paid for it.

The idea was to wipe out consumer debt, so the idea would be to "give it to" all citizens who have outstanding loans or credit card debt. I don't know if Jon Stewart was including home mortgages, though, because he said that it could have been done for the same cost as all the bail-outs, and I don't know if mortgages plus all other debt would come to that. I don't know the numbers.

As for "the people that paid for it," if you mean that the "rich" disproportionately paid for it in taxes, but got less than they paid, I'm sure that's true. These types of stimulus efforts tend to have some element of wealth redistributive effect. Hardly new to this country, we're a mix of capitalism and socialism, as is every other democracy in the world.

If that's not what you meant, could you explain that further?

It also went to people who probably weren't going to utilize it very well, beyond just buying "stuff". IMO, it should go to people that will use it in a way that can have a larger effect that just buying a flatscreen.

For example, when somebody buys a house, that person can now greatly leverage their money into something that creates construction jobs, creates manufacturing jobs, and generates property tax revenue for the government. I don't feel that most of the people that received stimulus money were in the position to create this leveraging effect.

Property tax revenue is a good point. I'm not sure how the other aspects are more "leverage." If a person buys a flat screen TV, don't they "create" (implicitly) the engineering and (explicitly) manufacturing jobs needed to produce flat screen TVs? Also, explicitly the product distribution jobs, the sales jobs, etc?

 

[blazerboy30]

As for "the people that paid for it," if you mean that the "rich" disproportionately paid for it in taxes, but got less than they paid, I'm sure that's true. These types of stimulus efforts tend to have some element of wealth redistributive effect. Hardly new to this country, we're a mix of capitalism and socialism, as is every other democracy in the world.

If that's not what you meant, could you explain that further?

What I meant was that people that make above $75k didn't get stimulus money. I'm sure you and I have different ideas of what "rich" is, but to me, making $75k doesn't make somebody rich. I don't remember the numbers, but I did some estimates that the time. I found that for the average person getting the stimulus money, they were getting over half of what they paid in taxes back in that stimulus check.

That obviously becomes a subjective conversation on what is "fair" that you and I will likely never agree on.

Property tax revenue is a good point. I'm not sure how the other aspects are more "leverage." If a person buys a flat screen TV, don't they "create" (implicitly) the engineering and (explicitly) manufacturing jobs needed to produce flat screen TVs? Also, explicitly the product distribution jobs, the sales jobs, etc?

Yes, buying a TV does those things. But it does so with the, say, $1000 you spend. Spend $1000 on a TV, the company gets $1000 to contribute to engineering, manufacturing, etc.

However, buying a house is one of the only ways (that I know of) a typical person can leverage their money so heavily. So they spent that $1000 now, but it instantly creates $5000 (assuming 20% down) worth of construction, manufacturing, taxable income, etc.

 

[MikeDC]

This thread, in all seriousness, makes me wonder if some sort of economic literacy exam shouldn't be some sort of requirement for both voting and holding political office. What would be the major arguments against something like that?

 

[Minstrel]

What I meant was that people that make above $75k didn't get stimulus money. I'm sure you and I have different ideas of what "rich" is, but to me, making $75k doesn't make somebody rich.

I agree, that isn't rich. Of course, if the idea is stimulus, it should disproportionately go to where it will be reinvested the most. The wealthier one is, the more likely one is to save the cash in a serious recession like this. The less wealthy one is, the more one is likely to feel that one "needs" to spend to maintain a solid lifestyle.

I don't know if it is "fair," but the idea is to try to effect economic recovery, which doesn't necessarily entail disbursing money in a directly fair way but to most quickly get the economy started again to the benefit of everyone. In general, I wouldn't be in favour of such massive stimulus spending, but I think doing it this way would be "fairer" and more effective than sending the money directly to failing banks.

However, buying a house is one of the only ways (that I know of) a typical person can leverage their money so heavily. So they spent that $1000 now, but it instantly creates $5000 (assuming 20% down) worth of construction, manufacturing, taxable income, etc.

Makes sense.

 

[barfo]

However, buying a house is one of the only ways (that I know of) a typical person can leverage their money so heavily. So they spent that $1000 now, but it instantly creates $5000 (assuming 20% down) worth of construction, manufacturing, taxable income, etc.

Easy. They buy the flat screen with their credit card and don't pay it off. Tremendous leverage, since the right-now cost is $0.

barfo