What does create or save 3-4 millions jobs mean?

[JBond]

I am really confused on this one. Maybe I am over thinking it. How exactly is something like that measured?

I could see Obama going ahead and hiring an additional 660,000 Federal bureaucrats, but what if the private sector looses more than that? Wouldn't that be a net loss?

So say we are sitting here two years from now and we have a net loss of a million jobs, can Obama say he was successful because he still saved 3 million jobs? Would he say it was only because of the massive supplemental spending bill that we only had loss a net of a million jobs?

This create or save thing seems ridiculous to me. Does anyone know how Obama plans to prove how many jobs he created or saved?

[MetalHead]

Nothing.

[Avaj]

Just getting people back to work that is all, no more no less

[sacase]

Sounds good but they are empty words.

[MetalHead]

Sounds good but they are empty words.

Empty suits yield emptiness.

[ThaBigP]

Nothing.

Second.

There's a reason the phrase is "create or save"...it's the same legalese as "you could lose up to 20lbs in as short as two weeks!". It literally means you could lose 0-20lbs in anywhere from 2-infinity weeks. Just as "save or create" means if no jobs are created, then they were "saved"! If jobs are lost, we would have lost 4 million more than we did!

Fact of the matter is, nobody can put figures on the number of jobs created (or honestly saved) no matter how sound and workable the solution. What you must do is boost the economy in the aggregate, causing economic activity to increase and businesses to expand (and be created).

They did keep working the number of jobs "saved or created" up from around 2mil to it's present 4mil. That's because if you divide the amount of stimulus (including interest it'll be around 1.3 trillion) by the number of jobs created, you quickly realize that these largely construction/refit/windmill/solarpanel jobs will cost almost $400,000 apiece. Tell me the private sector couldn't do better....

[JBond]

Tell me the private sector couldn't do better....

Don't you know. Those of us in the private sector are greedy SOB's. We can't be trusted with our own money.

[jrumann59]

From the things I have heard he is creating work not jobs.

[Mateo]

hes creating artificial jobs that have no business being there..

[JBond]

hes creating artificial jobs that have no business being there..

and in a couple of years those jobs will disappear but the debt will still be there.

[jrumann59]

Exactly he isn't creating jobs he is creating work.

[Kangaroo]

Exactly he isn't creating jobs he is creating work.


Sorry the current plan does not even do that we are creating the bankruptcy of the country period end of story in 4 years we are going to be looking like California today or worse instead of 15 billion short in the budget we will be like 2 trillion

hey but a 1million dollars may buy you a hamburger

[SuspectCorner]

Exactly he isn't creating jobs he is creating work.

That statement is absolutely asinine.

work = jobs


Republican logic just mystifies me.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Don't you know. Those of us in the private sector are greedy SOB's. We can't be trusted with our own money.

Like the auto industry? They are doing a bang up job. :D

[sacase]

That statement is absolutely asinine.

work = jobs


Republican logic just mystifies me.

Job = Long term

Work = Short term, no sustainability.

[BrAinPaiNt]

That statement is absolutely asinine.

work = jobs


Republican logic just mystifies me.

Agreed. They want the cake and eat it too and this instance it is goofy at best.

[ThaBigP]

Like the auto industry? They are doing a bang up job. :D

The point isn't that every single company that comes along is just wonderful...wonderful! But rather, those that screw up or don't provide a good product/service should fail... Propping them up with taxpayer money does two things that are bad a) Rewards/sustains/encourages the same bad business practice and b) crowds out companies who didn't need a government handout because they were doing things a little better, but who can no longer compete against a tax-subsidised competitor.

[ThaBigP]

That statement is absolutely asinine.

work = jobs


Republican logic just mystifies me.

No, not necessarily. What people mean when they say "this makes work, not jobs" is the fact that these are make-work programs. Dig a ditch, hand the shovel to another to fill it back in, both get a gub'ment check.

These are not long-term sustainable jobs...first, it requires a trillion dollars of money we don't have (by the way, these jobs will be paid in monopoly money, unless you haven't heard we were just printing the stuff the last few months with no backing). Imagine, on the other hand, a person working for Starbucks...their job is not dependent upon government life support...the market sustains their job naturally, without taxpayer (or printed) money.

[BrAinPaiNt]

No, not necessarily. What people mean when they say "this makes work, not jobs" is the fact that these are make-work programs. Dig a ditch, hand the shovel to another to fill it back in, both get a gub'ment check.

These are not long-term sustainable jobs...first, it requires a trillion dollars of money we don't have (by the way, these jobs will be paid in monopoly money, unless you haven't heard we were just printing the stuff the last few months with no backing). Imagine, on the other hand, a person working for Starbucks...their job is not dependent upon government life support...the market sustains their job naturally, without taxpayer (or printed) money.

Helping update the infrastructure of the us is not just Make work work.

It is not to dig a ditch and fill it back in and that explanation is silly at best.

It creates jobs, it fixes some situations, it stimulates the economy by selling and purchasing goods and services and again it helps fix infrastructure that in some cases have been LOOOONG over due.

Furthermore people says it does not create long term jobs. I say how do you know. Do you know how long it will take to fix X amount of roads or other projects. Do you know if some of those people will not be retained after a project is over?

Right now work and jobs are needed. People complain about some of the programs because they are "long term" fixes...they complain because they need work and stimulation NOW. Yet when they get those now jobs they complain because they say they are just NOW jobs.

People make up their minds. Or maybe they might get a little of both which in turns means they can complain out of both sides of their mouths instead of just one.

I know many people that would be happy to work with the state road or a private company to fix some roads and if they do a good job they know there is a chance they could get on and do a good enough job that they might wind up retiring working for the state road or a private company.

Meanwhile I know there are other companies that would love to be able to sell some products for the upgrade to the roads as it will help their company and employees.

But keep on complaining about short term jobs if you want and then complain about long term jobs if you want. I guess complaining about both will really help out those that have no jobs at all.

:D

[ThaBigP]

Helping update the infrastructure of the us is not just Make work work.

It is not to dig a ditch and fill it back in and that explanation is silly at best.

It creates jobs, it fixes some situations, it stimulates the economy by selling and purchasing goods and services and again it helps fix infrastructure that in some cases have been LOOOONG over due.

Furthermore people says it does not create long term jobs. I say how do you know. Do you know how long it will take to fix X amount of roads or other projects. Do you know if some of those people will not be retained after a project is over?

Right now work and jobs are needed. People complain about some of the programs because they are "long term" fixes...they complain because they need work and stimulation NOW. Yet when they get those now jobs they complain because they say they are just NOW jobs.

People make up their minds. Or maybe they might get a little of both which in turns means they can complain out of both sides of their mouths instead of just one.

I know many people that would be happy to work with the state road or a private company to fix some roads and if they do a good job they know there is a chance they could get on and do a good enough job that they might wind up retiring working for the state road or a private company.

Meanwhile I know there are other companies that would love to be able to sell some products for the upgrade to the roads as it will help their company and employees.

But keep on complaining about short term jobs if you want and then complain about long term jobs if you want. I guess complaining about both will really help out those that have no jobs at all.

:D

I don't complain about short-term OR long-term lobs...I complain about taxpayer funded make-work programs, which every bit of this is. Especially when THE MONEY DOES NOT exist. Get it through your head - THE MONEY DOES NOT exist. We're having to print money day and night just to keep up with the stupid bailouts and risk guarantees. If you think I'm just making this up, you are absolutely kidding youself. You're in denial.

[SuspectCorner]

No, not necessarily. What people mean when they say "this makes work, not jobs" is the fact that these are make-work programs. Dig a ditch, hand the shovel to another to fill it back in, both get a gub'ment check.

These are not long-term sustainable jobs...first, it requires a trillion dollars of money we don't have (by the way, these jobs will be paid in monopoly money, unless you haven't heard we were just printing the stuff the last few months with no backing). Imagine, on the other hand, a person working for Starbucks...their job is not dependent upon government life support...the market sustains their job naturally, without taxpayer (or printed) money.

There are no long term guarantees with Starbucks or most other jobs either. Just ask the 3.5 million people who've recently found themselves out of work.

The point to the stimulus is to get the big wheels of the macroeconomy turning again. With the engine running and at the point the government disengages, a stabilized economy can better absorb those projects workers at the completion of infrastructure programs.

[SuspectCorner]

I don't complain about short-term OR long-term lobs...I complain about taxpayer funded make-work programs, which every bit of this is. Especially when THE MONEY DOES NOT exist. Get it through your head - THE MONEY DOES NOT exist. We're having to print money day and night just to keep up with the stupid bailouts and risk guarantees. If you think I'm just making this up, you are absolutely kidding youself. You're in denial.

The alternative is to have the government sit on it's hands and wait for the economy to heal itself. And if it continues to spiral it will take an even larger goverment infusion to prime the pump.

It's like the old transmission repair commercial, "Pay me now... or pay me later". It's a tough situation - but it can sure get worse.

[BrAinPaiNt]

There are no long term guarantees with Starbucks or most other jobs either. Just ask the 3.5 million people who've recently found themselves out of work.

The point to the stimulus is to get the big wheels of the macroeconomy turning again. With the engine running and at the point the government disengages, a stabilized economy can better absorb those projects workers at the completion of infrastructure programs.

I think it flies over his head at this point. It appears he has a hard headed notion that the free market will just correct itself and everything will be peachy keen. That we are currently not in a bad way and nothing needs to be done.

[ThaBigP]

I think it flies over his head at this point. It appears he has a hard headed notion that the free market will just correct itself and everything will be peachy keen. That we are currently not in a bad way and nothing needs to be done.

http://myiq2xu.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/strawman.jpg

More "making up your opponent's argument so it's easier to refute"...I never said we're not in a mess. You are wrong in your assessment that government intervention will do anything but make it worse.

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://myiq2xu.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/strawman.jpg

More "making up your opponent's argument so it's easier to refute"...I never said we're not in a mess. You are wrong in your assessment that government intervention will do anything but make it worse.

So you admit we are in a mess but you don't want government to get involved.

And although many do not like the idea of government getting involved you
in essence want this mess to continue without doing anything.

Yes...I think that scarecrow fits you well.

[ThaBigP]

So you admit we are in a mess but you don't want government to get involved.

And although many do not like the idea of government getting involved you
in essence want this mess to continue without doing anything.

Yes...I think that scarecrow fits you well.

History, read it my friend. When we've had recessions, even ones that were worse than this one, and government did NOTHING, the recession ended and the economy recovered within 5-11 months. With government intervention, EVERY TIME it has lasted longer to the degree to which government interfered.

But I figure there's no convincing you (and I'll tell you now you're not going to convince me, especially when it flies in the face of basic economics 101 and historical examples). We'll just have to agree to think the other is completely fooling themselves.

[BrAinPaiNt]

History, read it my friend. When we've had recessions, even ones that were worse than this one, and government did NOTHING, the recession ended and the economy recovered within 5-11 months. With government intervention, EVERY TIME it has lasted longer to the degree to which government interfered.

But I figure there's no convincing you (and I'll tell you now you're not going to convince me, especially when it flies in the face of basic economics 101 and historical examples). We'll just have to agree to think the other is completely fooling themselves.

When was the last time we had a problem this big? But hey...at least people are admitting to a recession now. Heck it was only last year some would not admit to even a recession. So I guess that is some progress.

But let's just sit on our hands and do absolutely nothing. That should work out just fine. The big banks can fail, the auto industry can fail, the unemployment rate can continue to climb and sooner or later when all of the smoke is cleared we can have the best of everything in hoping that both the republicans and democrats will be voted out and we have some independent parties come in to take a stab at things...actually that last part does not sound too bad right now.

But for now I guess we can sing the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire and your philosophy would basically be let the mofo burn.

[JBond]

There are no long term guarantees with Starbucks or most other jobs either. Just ask the 3.5 million people who've recently found themselves out of work.

The point to the stimulus is to get the big wheels of the macroeconomy turning again. With the engine running and at the point the government disengages, a stabilized economy can better absorb those projects workers at the completion of infrastructure programs.

And that is accomplished by taking an additional 1.3 trillion from tax payers?

How is Obama going to pay for this spending bill?

[BrAinPaiNt]

And that is accomplished by taking an additional 1.3 trillion from tax payers?

How is Obama going to pay for this spending bill?

If this economy does not get going, if the unemployment rate keeps jumping, we are not going to be worrying about how we are going to pay for the bill...we will have bigger things to worry about.


Like how can you afford your anger management sessions with no work coming in.

[iceberg]

From the things I have heard he is creating work not jobs.

that's a good way to put it.

when they're done "greening" the gov buildings, then what?

[iceberg]

The alternative is to have the government sit on it's hands and wait for the economy to heal itself. And if it continues to spiral it will take an even larger goverment infusion to prime the pump.

It's like the old transmission repair commercial, "Pay me now... or pay me later". It's a tough situation - but it can sure get worse.

you and many tend to act like "if you don't agree with me you don't want to do anything...."

that's just ignorance and self-serving to your own wants.

[SuspectCorner]

History, read it my friend. When we've had recessions, even ones that were worse than this one, and government did NOTHING, the recession ended and the economy recovered within 5-11 months. With government intervention, EVERY TIME it has lasted longer to the degree to which government interfered.

But I figure there's no convincing you (and I'll tell you now you're not going to convince me, especially when it flies in the face of basic economics 101 and historical examples). We'll just have to agree to think the other is completely fooling themselves.

This has been characterized by many economists as the worst US economy since the Great Depression. And what direction did the country take to deal with THAT economic mess? There IS historical precedence.

Some basic economic principles at play here:


governments can sometimes improve market outcomes


people face trade-offs



people respond to incentives



a country's standard of living depends on it's ability to produce goods and services



society faces a short-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment

[BrAinPaiNt]

you and many tend to act like "if you don't agree with me you don't want to do anything...."

that's just ignorance and self-serving to your own wants.

Is it ...really?

I mean I keep hearing tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts.

Problem is we have had tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts and still here we are...furthermore the bill today 41-44% of that money is set for tax cuts. So it is not like it is just all going to projects, jobs or areas that everyone is saying is bad...just under half is designated for tax cuts.

Other parts of it have short term ideas to help stimulate the economy.

As I noted in another post. People, not saying you, but people have complained that some of these things are long term projects that will not help to stimulate the economy or create jobs now. But then they turn around and basically complain about those very projects that would indeed create jobs and simulate the economy now. So they complain about both. Hard to do much when someone is going to complain about both long and short term stimulus and it does seem like what it boils down to is not wanting to do anything at all other than cut taxes.

The republicans need to realize that there are tax cuts in the bill (as I noted) and that they are not in charge now. They can't just come up and say...here we just want tax cuts and when it does not go their way they just vote no and sit back on their hands trying to say...hey we tried.

They are taking just as big of a gamble as Obama in this thing. At least Obama has compromised with the idea of tax cuts and programs.

Here is the gamble. If this thing does help turn around the economy they, the republicans, are going to lose more seats than they have already lost and will be looked upon as doing nothing. If it does not work they can sit back and say...see we told you so and win some more seats down the road. But they are doing nothing more than hoping it does not work in order to secure party future.

I have heard time and time again them saying that they are not getting input...when in fact some of the programs they wanted cut HAS been cut. But that apparently is not enough. What they want is to have the whole thing changed to what they want. That is not going to happen. The american people, good or bad, has voted them out of power because they did not like the leadership that was in place when they had the power to do what they thought was best. But at least Obama is trying to work with them and have changed some things instead of saying....nope none for you. They however seem to be taking a different approach...we want it all our way or nothing at all.

It is a gamble but basically they are sitting on their hands and not really trying to hard to work with this thing.

[SuspectCorner]

you and many tend to act like "if you don't agree with me you don't want to do anything...."

that's just ignorance and self-serving to your own wants.

I get it iceberg... just throw some more tax-cuts at it!

[WoodysGirl]

Not sure about others, but I know that Houston constantly have construction going on on the highways here. They expanded I-10 from almost Sealey to 610 loop and that took about five years.

Putting that in perspective, that's alot of people who will be working and feeding their families for the next five years, barring injuries, death, or basic poor work performance. I'd love to think my job is guaranteed for the next five years, right now I simply think it's guaranteed through 2009.

I'm pretty sure that TxDot is lining up for their fair share of Federal aid for shoring up the state's infrastructure. With that, I'd hope some of the funding towards getting rail lines setup for the city and its surrounding areas. Houston has one of the worst mass transportation situations in the country for a major city.

[iceberg]

I get it iceberg... just throw some more tax-cuts at it!

thanks for proving my point.

did *I* say tax cuts?

no. i've said time and again i'm all for tax INCREASES if we use it to pay off the debt.

bp - same thing. you're assuming my point based on my my being against another point. if i'm not this i must be that.

by now ya'll realize i'm all the shades of gray i wanna look at in the "between" you and many gloss over to get to your own talking points about a topic.

like i said, if you hear someone disagree with you, it doesn't mean they're a diametric opposite and the instant "other" side to the argument that's usually there. to do so is "self serving" in that you can assume and aruge against crap i never said then get all upset i'm not who you thought then you spend time justifying your rant that never should have been there.

its like watching reruns these days.

[iceberg]

Is it ...really?

I mean I keep hearing tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts.

Problem is we have had tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts and still here we are...furthermore the bill today 41-44% of that money is set for tax cuts. So it is not like it is just all going to projects, jobs or areas that everyone is saying is bad...just under half is designated for tax cuts.

Other parts of it have short term ideas to help stimulate the economy.

As I noted in another post. People, not saying you, but people have complained that some of these things are long term projects that will not help to stimulate the economy or create jobs now. But then they turn around and basically complain about those very projects that would indeed create jobs and simulate the economy now. So they complain about both. Hard to do much when someone is going to complain about both long and short term stimulus and it does seem like what it boils down to is not wanting to do anything at all other than cut taxes.

The republicans need to realize that there are tax cuts in the bill (as I noted) and that they are not in charge now. They can't just come up and say...here we just want tax cuts and when it does not go their way they just vote no and sit back on their hands trying to say...hey we tried.

They are taking just as big of a gamble as Obama in this thing. At least Obama has compromised with the idea of tax cuts and programs.

Here is the gamble. If this thing does help turn around the economy they, the republicans, are going to lose more seats than they have already lost and will be looked upon as doing nothing. If it does not work they can sit back and say...see we told you so and win some more seats down the road. But they are doing nothing more than hoping it does not work in order to secure party future.

I have heard time and time again them saying that they are not getting input...when in fact some of the programs they wanted cut HAS been cut. But that apparently is not enough. What they want is to have the whole thing changed to what they want. That is not going to happen. The american people, good or bad, has voted them out of power because they did not like the leadership that was in place when they had the power to do what they thought was best. But at least Obama is trying to work with them and have changed some things instead of saying....nope none for you. They however seem to be taking a different approach...we want it all our way or nothing at all.

It is a gamble but basically they are sitting on their hands and not really trying to hard to work with this thing.

again. show me where i demanded tax cuts? i get tired of the "rich" being villianized so its ok to take from them, yes.

but i'll pay more taxes. gladly. but pay off the debt and past stupidity and quit diving deeper into what we need to crawl out of now.

i'm for a stimulus package that puts the focus where it needs to be and that's not just creating work, not jobs.

show me where in this bill jobs are specifically being created and i'll be happy. i'll support *that part* of the bill.

green'ing the whitehouse - creates work but why hire when i'm slow and suddenly got a job? i won't. i'll do the job, get it done, get paid, and keep looking for work for my job.

if we're to bail things out then i'd rather do it directly than through all my fun pet projects of resodding national malls. teaching kids sex unprotected can be dangerous (as if they don't know by now) - how is this creating jobs?

are we funding any sort of worker training session? are we doing anything to encourage the private sector to invest in themselves?

i'm listening. and i want this vast spending to work, sure. but i don't see how borrowing more money to give away is going to give us the ability to pay it back.

so don't throw the platform speaking points at me as if i agree and will fight to the end for all of them. i'm not burm. : ) and when i say i don't like obama's spending plan, don't assume i want tax cuts and to do nothing.

for someone who's trying to meet in the middle, he (obama) is sure talking in extremes.

[BrAinPaiNt]

again. show me where i demanded tax cuts? i get tired of the "rich" being villianized so its ok to take from them, yes.

but i'll pay more taxes. gladly. but pay off the debt and past stupidity and quit diving deeper into what we need to crawl out of now.

i'm for a stimulus package that puts the focus where it needs to be and that's not just creating work, not jobs.

show me where in this bill jobs are specifically being created and i'll be happy. i'll support *that part* of the bill.

green'ing the whitehouse - creates work but why hire when i'm slow and suddenly got a job? i won't. i'll do the job, get it done, get paid, and keep looking for work for my job.

if we're to bail things out then i'd rather do it directly than through all my fun pet projects of resodding national malls. teaching kids sex unprotected can be dangerous (as if they don't know by now) - how is this creating jobs?

are we funding any sort of worker training session? are we doing anything to encourage the private sector to invest in themselves?

i'm listening. and i want this vast spending to work, sure. but i don't see how borrowing more money to give away is going to give us the ability to pay it back.

so don't throw the platform speaking points at me as if i agree and will fight to the end for all of them. i'm not burm. : ) and when i say i don't like obama's spending plan, don't assume i want tax cuts and to do nothing.

for someone who's trying to meet in the middle, he (obama) is sure talking in extremes.

Must be feeling guilty.

Those seem to be the two big sticking points in this current bill. Hence I was talking about them.

One side saying tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts the other giving some tax cuts but not willing to do more.

So it would seem they are either tax cuts or bust and in doing so do seem to be sitting on their hands and doing nothing.

THAT was my point. Now if you feel guilty and want to lump yourself in that group...I can't control that.:D

[iceberg]

Must be feeling guilty.

Those seem to be the two big sticking points in this current bill. Hence I was talking about them.

One side saying tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts the other giving some tax cuts but not willing to do more.

So it would seem they are either tax cuts or bust and in doing so do seem to be sitting on their hands and doing nothing.

THAT was my point. Now if you feel guilty and want to lump yourself in that group...I can't control that.:D

sometimes yea, i do. this time i'm talking about specific parts of the bill and you and suspect bring up tax cuts?

i never did. so it does make it look like you're assuming i'm supporting that part of the bill. kinda odd to reply to someone in a manner not in which they were speaking and then wonder why they got confused about where you were going with that.

i know there's a segment out there wanting cuts. whoop. that doesn't mean if i don't like the bill i want cuts.

all i'm saying and i'll stop there. the rest of my "logic" just seems to cloud the issues.

[SuspectCorner]

thanks for proving my point.

did *I* say tax cuts?

no. i've said time and again i'm all for tax INCREASES if we use it to pay off the debt.

bp - same thing. you're assuming my point based on my my being against another point. if i'm not this i must be that.

by now ya'll realize i'm all the shades of gray i wanna look at in the "between" you and many gloss over to get to your own talking points about a topic.

like i said, if you hear someone disagree with you, it doesn't mean they're a diametric opposite and the instant "other" side to the argument that's usually there. to do so is "self serving" in that you can assume and aruge against crap i never said then get all upset i'm not who you thought then you spend time justifying your rant that never should have been there.

its like watching reruns these days.

I agree about paying down the debt and we all hope there will be another opportunity to tackle that issue. But it's starkly obvious that this isn't that time.

[JBond]

So you admit we are in a mess but you don't want government to get involved.

And although many do not like the idea of government getting involved you
in essence want this mess to continue without doing anything.

Yes...I think that scarecrow fits you well.

Of course government must be involved, because they had nothing to do with causing the problem and they obviously know how to fix it. They are a model of efficiency and the private sector would do well to learn how to budget as well as the Federal government does.;)

[iceberg]

I agree about paying down the debt and we all hope there will be another opportunity to tackle that issue. But it's starkly obvious that this isn't that time.

then we completely disagree.

printing more money devalues the money we have.
borrowing more money because we borrowed too much won't fix where we are.

maybe i am more closer to the "do nothing" than dig deeper if those are my only 2 options.

tax cuts? would that spawn companies to hire people? isn't that the goal? i'm not advocating tax cuts (yet) but tell me why if we're wanting to get businesses back on track and to hire more people, how giving them DIRECTLY the money to do it won't accomplish the goal?

goal - save/create 4 million jobs.

would tax cuts to businesses do that anymore than making the gov buildings green, resodding malls and teaching kids what their parents should be teaching them?

ok, i'll agree we need to do something, but i disagree that route 2 (spend spend spend) will do more than just not collecting the money *TO* spend and let businesses run their businesses.

so tell me how the spending proposal obama has right now will create / save jobs?

so far i just see creating work, but not sure about jobs.

wg brought up some projects could take years to complete - like highway construction. so how long would it take to green up the gov buildings?

teach kids sex-ed?

resodd the mall?

how long and will the money allocated go the distance or will these become standard departments vs. one offs as they're meant to be?

[BrAinPaiNt]

then we completely disagree.

printing more money devalues the money we have.
borrowing more money because we borrowed too much won't fix where we are.

maybe i am more closer to the "do nothing" than dig deeper if those are my only 2 options.

tax cuts? would that spawn companies to hire people? isn't that the goal? i'm not advocating tax cuts (yet) but tell me why if we're wanting to get businesses back on track and to hire more people, how giving them DIRECTLY the money to do it won't accomplish the goal?

goal - save/create 4 million jobs.

would tax cuts to businesses do that anymore than making the gov buildings green, resodding malls and teaching kids what their parents should be teaching them?

ok, i'll agree we need to do something, but i disagree that route 2 (spend spend spend) will do more than just not collecting the money *TO* spend and let businesses run their businesses.

so tell me how the spending proposal obama has right now will create / save jobs?

so far i just see creating work, but not sure about jobs.

wg brought up some projects could take years to complete - like highway construction. so how long would it take to green up the gov buildings?

teach kids sex-ed?

resodd the mall?

how long and will the money allocated go the distance or will these become standard departments vs. one offs as they're meant to be?

So let me ask you this...do you want Long term jobs or short term jobs or both?

Because you and others seem to agree that work, that creates jobs, are not really jobs, even though people will be doing the job to do the work?

Jobs that would, in some cases, not only have short term stimulus to the economy and employment but would also help in reducing spending down the road in some cases.

So I just gotta know...are you only for long term jobs...and if so what about stimulating the economy now.

Again...just curious because at this point you seem to be floundering around some.

[SuspectCorner]

then we completely disagree.

printing more money devalues the money we have.
borrowing more money because we borrowed too much won't fix where we are.

maybe i am more closer to the "do nothing" than dig deeper if those are my only 2 options.

tax cuts? would that spawn companies to hire people? isn't that the goal? i'm not advocating tax cuts (yet) but tell me why if we're wanting to get businesses back on track and to hire more people, how giving them DIRECTLY the money to do it won't accomplish the goal?

goal - save/create 4 million jobs.

would tax cuts to businesses do that anymore than making the gov buildings green, resodding malls and teaching kids what their parents should be teaching them?

ok, i'll agree we need to do something, but i disagree that route 2 (spend spend spend) will do more than just not collecting the money *TO* spend and let businesses run their businesses.

so tell me how the spending proposal obama has right now will create / save jobs?

so far i just see creating work, but not sure about jobs.

wg brought up some projects could take years to complete - like highway construction. so how long would it take to green up the gov buildings?

teach kids sex-ed?

resodd the mall?

how long and will the money allocated go the distance or will these become standard departments vs. one offs as they're meant to be?

Inflation is the baby brother of expansionary monetary policy - it's always following just a few steps behind.

I'm not against tax-cuts for business as long as they're directly tied to production and investment. If businesses are just going to sit on it or use it to pay down existing debt - forget it. That does nothing to alleviate the current conditions.

Why is it so difficult for some to see the obvious? - where there is work there are jobs. One necessitates the other as no job does itself. Tell me how you are able to separate the two.

And what's with all the selectivity and poo-pooing about jobs? If they serve a purpose and boost aggregate demand - how can they be bad? The government has many buildings and the longterm savings from energy efficiency represent icing on the cake.

[ThaBigP]

This has been characterized by many economists as the worst US economy since the Great Depression. And what direction did the country take to deal with THAT economic mess? There IS historical precedence.

Some basic economic principles at play here:

governments can sometimes improve market outcomes
people face trade-offs
people respond to incentives
a country's standard of living depends on it's ability to produce goods and services
society faces a short-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment

:laugh2: - except, contrary to your thrusting the New Deal forward as a defense of your position, it actually refutes it. The New Deal made the Depression (as it was called elsewhere) into the GREAT Depression here, lasting 10+ years until WWII. Furthermore, the legacy is a 56 trillion dollar unfunded liability hanging over our heads in the form of promised entitlement spending...

How about the Great Depression of 1920? Oh, that's right...the Fed and government didn't know WHAT to do, so they did nothing. By the time they decided to act, the recession was over and it was boom town again. Furthermore, the Great Depression was caused by what class? That's right...a credit bubble. Sound familiar?

[ThaBigP]

Furthermore, for anybody still buying into the nonsense that central planning creates jobs - consider two instances of circular logic you must buy into:

1) The bridge loans extended to GM/Chysler were to prevent them from filing bankruptcy...we were told that would be tragic! TRAGIC! So, after giving bridge loans, the government is moving to force bankruptcy on them...now that's prudent! PRUDENT!

2) The bridge loans were to save jobs at GM/Chrysler...and in order to get in line with government mandates regarding the bridge loans, GM is.....laying off employees. 10,000 of them. You know...to save jobs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aGW8lsLC7cJo

[ABQCOWBOY]

At the end of the day, you have to spend less then you make. That is a simple rule in business that can not be changed.

How does America do that once this Bill is passed?

That is the question that nobody will answer.

[Hostile]

To create that many jobs you need a new industry or an improved market.

Where I suspect it will happen (this is my construction bias talking) is green building. Solar power, wind power, etc.

There simply isn't enough of it in this country. We are too reliant upon electricity and natural gas. When there is a grass roots change in the mentality of the consumer there will be growth in the industry.

I am negotiating to buy a business right now. In my negotiations and inspections I am discussing my desire to solar power the business. I am finding tax breaks for this on top of the utility savings. However, in a state that is as solar efficient as mine, the amount of contractors is small.

Create a market, jobs will happen.

Can it equal 4 million jobs? I doubt it, but it would be a great start.

[ThaBigP]

At the end of the day, you have to spend less then you make. That is a simple rule in business that can not be changed.

How does America do that once this Bill is passed?

That is the question that nobody will answer.

Depends on if, by "make" you mean "print". heh.

[SuspectCorner]

:laugh2: - except, contrary to your thrusting the New Deal forward as a defense of your position, it actually refutes it. The New Deal made the Depression (as it was called elsewhere) into the GREAT Depression here, lasting 10+ years until WWII. Furthermore, the legacy is a 56 trillion dollar unfunded liability hanging over our heads in the form of promised entitlement spending...

How about the Great Depression of 1920? Oh, that's right...the Fed and government didn't know WHAT to do, so they did nothing. By the time they decided to act, the recession was over and it was boom town again. Furthermore, the Great Depression was caused by what class? That's right...a credit bubble. Sound familiar?

You're right about Wall Street being the culprit there, too - but the New Deal exacerbated the Depression? More Republican claptrap revisionist history.

Whatever you say, George Will:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/paul-krugman-schools-geor_n_144298.html

Yes, during WWII government spending quintupled from all the military spending. maybe that's how we should view the current situation - as a war on present economic conditions.

[ABQCOWBOY]

So let me ask you this...do you want Long term jobs or short term jobs or both?

Because you and others seem to agree that work, that creates jobs, are not really jobs, even though people will be doing the job to do the work?

Jobs that would, in some cases, not only have short term stimulus to the economy and employment but would also help in reducing spending down the road in some cases.

So I just gotta know...are you only for long term jobs...and if so what about stimulating the economy now.

Again...just curious because at this point you seem to be floundering around some.


Their are other, better ways to promote short term growth IMO. Having said this, I am for the both but not in a Stimulus Package such as the one being discussed now.

The simple truth of the matter is that Jobs created by the Private sector show a return on the dollar of .25% in most cases. Jobs created by our Government decrease investment on a dollar by -.42. Essentially, you make a quarter for every dollar when the Private sector creates jobs. With the government, every dollar you spend is worth only .58 when spent on labor costs.

[ThaBigP]

You're right about Wall Street being the culprit there, too - but the New Deal exacerbated the Depression? More Republican claptrap revisionist history.

Whatever you say, George Will:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/paul-krugman-schools-geor_n_144298.html

Yes, during WWII government spending quintupled from all the military spending.

It wasn't Wall St so much as the Fed, they control monitary policy here, and therefore have the power to create massive bubbles. They're now creating what amounts to a "money bubble" - the wild speculation on real estate and risky loans caused the value of that property to balloon, then collapse. We're doing the same with the dollar right now as I type this.

As for revisionist history, you have to go back to Roosevelt's own Treasury secretary, who in 1939 said (paraphrase) "We've spent more than we've ever spent before, and all we have to show for it is a lot more debt." Sorry, Suspect...the revisionist history is on YOUR side.

[JBond]

You're right about Wall Street being the culprit there, too - but the New Deal exacerbated the Depression? More Republican claptrap revisionist history.

Whatever you say, George Will:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/paul-krugman-schools-geor_n_144298.html

Yes, during WWII government spending quintupled from all the military spending. maybe that's how we should view the current situation - as a war on present economic conditions.

National defense and discretionary spending are two different things.

[ThaBigP]

FDR's Treas Sec's (Henry Morgenthau) actual quote: "We have tried spending money . . . and it does not work . . . we have just as much unemployment . . . and an enormous debt to boot."

[SuspectCorner]

FDR's Treas Sec's (Henry Morgenthau) actual quote: "We have tried spending money . . . and it does not work . . . we have just as much unemployment . . . and an enormous debt to boot."

Unemployment dropped about 10% from 1932-40. [Edit: Sorry... I meant about ten percentage points...]

[iceberg]

Inflation is the baby brother of expansionary monetary policy - it's always following just a few steps behind.

I'm not against tax-cuts for business as long as they're directly tied to production and investment. If businesses are just going to sit on it or use it to pay down existing debt - forget it. That does nothing to alleviate the current conditions.

Why is it so difficult for some to see the obvious? - where there is work there are jobs. One necessitates the other as no job does itself. Tell me how you are able to separate the two.

And what's with all the selectivity and poo-pooing about jobs? If they serve a purpose and boost aggregate demand - how can they be bad? The government has many buildings and the longterm savings from energy efficiency represent icing on the cake.

so if we disagree can i simply throw my hands up and say "why can't you see the obvious"?

maybe because our experiences say the obvious isn't the right answer?

if you're going to be that simple about it i'll just end this part of the convo. the point of talking differences, to me, is to find the common ground to build on. not to tell me i can't see the obvious when if it were obvious, we'd not be in this mess.

[SuspectCorner]

so if we disagree can i simply throw my hands up and say "why can't you see the obvious"?

maybe because our experiences say the obvious isn't the right answer?

if you're going to be that simple about it i'll just end this part of the convo. the point of talking differences, to me, is to find the common ground to build on. not to tell me i can't see the obvious when if it were obvious, we'd not be in this mess.

Sorry if I stepped on your toes, iceberg. Let me respectfully restate:

Hmmm... I really don't understand this lack of clarity regarding the relationship between "work" and "jobs"... it must be me... let me mull it over some more. Sir. ;)

[iceberg]

Sorry if I stepped on your toes, iceberg. Let me respectfully restate:

Hmmm... I really don't understand this lack of clarity regarding the relationship between "work" and "jobs"... it must be me... let me mull it over some more. Sir. ;)

oh good. sarcasm! another step between nothing and open conversation!

you don't need to dumb it down or make it PC for me - but when you say "why can't you see the obvious!" -maybe i do and you don't? still in the land of subjective that the digs simply won't help with.

like i said, i'll move on, you sit here and be frustrated people don't see what you do.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Their are other, better ways to promote short term growth IMO. Having said this, I am for the both but not in a Stimulus Package such as the one being discussed now.

The simple truth of the matter is that Jobs created by the Private sector show a return on the dollar of .25% in most cases. Jobs created by our Government decrease investment on a dollar by -.42. Essentially, you make a quarter for every dollar when the Private sector creates jobs. With the government, every dollar you spend is worth only .58 when spent on labor costs.

The government can help the private sector with tax cuts and like I said 41-44% of the current bill is tax cuts so they are addressing both areas.

However you also have to take into consideration that although the jobs themselves for some of these projects will be for government projects it also stimulates businesses in the private sector as well because they will be purchasing equipment and products from the private sector to do the jobs. Hence the reason some were upset about the only buy American clause in the bill...if it was only buy American from the government it would be different but it means buy American goods from private sector business.

So it still stimulates the private sector by buying goods/products from them and in turn that helps those private sectors with some jobs.


Just something to think about.:)

[iceberg]

The government can help the private sector with tax cuts and like I said 41-44% of the current bill is tax cuts so they are addressing both areas.

However you also have to take into consideration that although the jobs themselves for some of these projects will be for government projects it also stimulates businesses in the private sector as well because they will be purchasing equipment and products from the private sector to do the jobs. Hence the reason some were upset about the only buy American clause in the bill...if it was only buy American from the government it would be different but it means buy American goods from private sector business.

So it still stimulates the private sector by buying goods/products from them and in turn that helps those private sectors with some jobs.

Just something to think about.:)

this helps some bp. i'd like to see a breakdown of how the dems feel that this bill as is will result in jobs, but what i've heard so far is just fear and this wont work.

i'd rather see more direct ways of doing this and indirect. put money into education of our people. remove walls that make outsourcing IT jobs to india so attractive.

it does seem like it's full of pet projects the dems have been told no to for 8 years and wala, it's xmas now, so go for it all and do it now.

we'll see and i'll hope this does help out in the end.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The government can help the private sector with tax cuts and like I said 41-44% of the current bill is tax cuts so they are addressing both areas.

However you also have to take into consideration that although the jobs themselves for some of these projects will be for government projects it also stimulates businesses in the private sector as well because they will be purchasing equipment and products from the private sector to do the jobs. Hence the reason some were upset about the only buy American clause in the bill...if it was only buy American from the government it would be different but it means buy American goods from private sector business.

So it still stimulates the private sector by buying goods/products from them and in turn that helps those private sectors with some jobs.


Just something to think about.:)

As I understand it, the overwhelming majority of what is classified as tax cuts are essentially welfare checks and the like. Those are not tax cuts. If you have different information, I am happy to see it as I have not had opportunity to review the latest version of this Bill.

The President's plan to use Union Labor on all renovation and road/structural improvent jobs will also increase the cost of doing business three fold.

As I outlined earlier, directly employeed Government workers show, on average, almost 50% decrease in labor investment.

I don't see the value.

[WoodysGirl]

As I understand it, the overwhelming majority of what is classified as tax cuts are essentially welfare checks and the like. Those are not tax cuts. If you have different information, I am happy to see it as I have not had opportunity to review the latest version of this Bill. I haven't been able to find a complete list of tax cuts. The only cuts I've seen consistently seen are these:

One-year patch of the Alternative Minimum Tax - They do this every year.
Research and development tax credits - Don't know what that entails
Temporary tax credit for homebuyers - I've seen the effect of that. I do taxes in my spare time and the homebuyers got the $7500 credit, but they'll still need to pay it back in 15 years.

Payroll tax - I don't see this having an immediate impact. The less coming out of my paycheck, the better though.

Any others?

[TheCount]

As I understand it, the overwhelming majority of what is classified as tax cuts are essentially welfare checks and the like. Those are not tax cuts. If you have different information, I am happy to see it as I have not had opportunity to review the latest version of this Bill.

The President's plan to use Union Labor on all renovation and road/structural improvent jobs will also increase the cost of doing business three fold.

As I outlined earlier, directly employeed Government workers show, on average, almost 50% decrease in labor investment.

I don't see the value.


I'm still trying to figure out if you guys are against or for illegal immigrant workers ending up cashing checks paid for by bailout money.

[Jordan55]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon020909.gif

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm still trying to figure out if you guys are against or for illegal immigrant workers ending up cashing checks paid for by bailout money.


I will assume you are trying to inject a bit of humor into this discussion.

[TheCount]

I will assume you are trying to inject a bit of humor into this discussion.

Not really. Some of the republicans on the job have made their stance on illegal immigrant workers well know, so I would assume that the government work being done by unionized workers also means far less of the money will end up going to illegal immigrants, which would be a good thing. No?

If the money ends up going to them, wouldn't that also be considered a waste of the money as well?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Not really. Some of the republicans on the job have made their stance on illegal immigrant workers well know, so I would assume that the government work being done by unionized workers also means far less of the money will end up going to illegal immigrants, which would be a good thing. No?

If the money ends up going to them, wouldn't that also be considered a waste of the money as well?

Sending Stimulus checks and Unionized workers, with realation to Illegal Immigrants are two different question.

I will answer both as best I can.

I am completely against Illegal Immigrants receiving Stimulus checks. That money only finds it's way back to Mexico in most cases. Makes little sense to me why we would do this.

Theoretically, yes, in the question of Unions and Illegal Immigrants. The real question is, can you trust Unions? Unions, regardless of what they suggest, are in business to make money for unions. Do you believe that if given the opportunity, they will not charge the Tax Payers the highest allowable price while at the same time, find ways to use Illegals in their work force? That's the question.

[iceberg]

I'm still trying to figure out if you guys are against or for illegal immigrant workers ending up cashing checks paid for by bailout money.

i'm not even for them GETTING the checks, much less cashing them.

[BrAinPaiNt]

this helps some bp. i'd like to see a breakdown of how the dems feel that this bill as is will result in jobs, but what i've heard so far is just fear and this wont work.

i'd rather see more direct ways of doing this and indirect. put money into education of our people. remove walls that make outsourcing IT jobs to india so attractive.

it does seem like it's full of pet projects the dems have been told no to for 8 years and wala, it's xmas now, so go for it all and do it now.

we'll see and i'll hope this does help out in the end.

Yes but if you put money into education people complain it is not stimulating the economy and not providing jobs right now. See how this thing can go round and round.

As far as the pet projects. Many of the pet projects have been removed. Not All but I doubt we can find a bill with a great deal of spending in it for the last 10-15 years that had NO pet projects or earmarks of some sort in it. So sad to say...that's the way things work in DC.:(

As far as you talking about the resodding situation.

Don't know if you are aware of this or not but that was not the only part that was tagged for the national mall...normally that was the only thing reported because it sounds bad but there were other things that were a part of that section including fixing some retaining walls if I recall and some other thing about bacteria or something to do with making it healthier for workers.

Also note, again you may not be aware of it since you brought it up, that that stuff was one of those things that were removed from the bill because the Repubs did not like it. Now remember...the guys that have been screaming about this and having no say in it and making it out like being the victims and no bi-partisanship is going on....actually wanted some of this stuff removed but rarely tell us about it being removed. Just something to consider.

So there have been things changed to appease the republicans, they just don't want to talk about those areas and only want to keep harping on doing things the way they want them done. Bi-partisanship is one thing, complaining about not doing everything the way you (the repubs) want it done is another thing. So it is kind of like...hey we want this this and this changed...and they change it...so then they scream they are locked out and the dems are not working with them when they come up with a completely whole new bill.

So I get a kick out of the political game that is going on between the two right now.

It is neither good as the dems say nor is it as bad as the repubs but it seems clear that one side has made an attempt to change some things while the other side seems to keep acting like they have not.

I said it before and I said it again. The Repubs are taking a big gamble here and sadly they are hedging their bets that this makes America worse so they can win.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes but if you put money into education people complain it is not stimulating the economy and not providing jobs right now. See how this thing can go round and round.

As far as the pet projects. Many of the pet projects have been removed. Not All but I doubt we can find a bill with a great deal of spending in it for the last 10-15 years that had NO pet projects or earmarks of some sort in it. So sad to say...that's the way things work in DC.:(

As far as you talking about the resodding situation.

Don't know if you are aware of this or not but that was not the only part that was tagged for the national mall...normally that was the only thing reported because it sounds bad but there were other things that were a part of that section including fixing some retaining walls if I recall and some other thing about bacteria or something to do with making it healthier for workers.

Also note, again you may not be aware of it since you brought it up, that that stuff was one of those things that were removed from the bill because the Repubs did not like it. Now remember...the guys that have been screaming about this and having no say in it and making it out like being the victims and no bi-partisanship is going on....actually wanted some of this stuff removed but rarely tell us about it being removed. Just something to consider.

So there have been things changed to appease the republicans, they just don't want to talk about those areas and only want to keep harping on doing things the way they want them done. Bi-partisanship is one thing, complaining about not doing everything the way you (the repubs) want it done is another thing. So it is kind of like...hey we want this this and this changed...and they change it...so then they scream they are locked out and the dems are not working with them when they come up with a completely whole new bill.

So I get a kick out of the political game that is going on between the two right now.

It is neither good as the dems say nor is it as bad as the repubs but it seems clear that one side has made an attempt to change some things while the other side seems to keep acting like they have not.

I said it before and I said it again. The Repubs are taking a big gamble here and sadly they are hedging their bets that this makes America worse so they can win.

On the contrary. I see this as staying true to what being a Republican really means. We have not done that for several years now because we were trying to appease the Democratic side of the house. Their may be other reasons as to why we were Democrat Lite for so long, I don't know. I do know, however, that what is going on now is a conserted effort to distingish betweent he two parties. Call it what you will but I am in favor of it. Big shocker, I know.

Basiaclly, I believe that Stimulus should mean Stimulus. Steel said this on Monday. He said that the Democrats should get on with the business of passing this Bill and stop worrying about GOP support. He said that they have the votes, go pass the Bill. That is exactly what will happen apparently. Having said this, the differences in the parties are becoming clearer. Each stands for different things. You may believe, as you say, that the Republicans are taking a big chance here but I don't see it. If anything, I think it is the Democratic Party that is taking the chance. Their Bill must succeed or they are not going to stay in power. The damage will have been done if it fails but that doesn't help them in 2010 IMO.

It will be interesting to see what happens but my personal feeling is that I am happy to see the two parties begin to define themselves. I hope it continues.

[ThaBigP]

Unemployment dropped about 10% from 1932-40. [Edit: Sorry... I meant about ten percentage points...]

All.....the.....way....down....to...........20% or thereabouts.

[ThaBigP]

Sorry if I stepped on your toes, iceberg. Let me respectfully restate:

Hmmm... I really don't understand this lack of clarity regarding the relationship between "work" and "jobs"... it must be me... let me mull it over some more. Sir. ;)

I cleaned my apartment over the weekend. It was work. It was not a job. If the government took money from you to pay me to clean my apartment, that does not make it a "job". And the government would *have* to take money from you to pay me to do it, since nobody else would. Hence, the free market determines that it is not a venture worthy of expending capital against. It is to me, so I supply my own labor...my own "expense".

[iceberg]

I cleaned my apartment over the weekend. It was work. It was not a job. If the government took money from you to pay me to clean my apartment, that does not make it a "job". And the government would *have* to take money from you to pay me to do it, since nobody else would. Hence, the free market determines that it is not a venture worthy of expending capital against. It is to me, so I supply my own labor...my own "expense".

i've seen your apartment - like my house, it's at LEAST a job. : )

[ThaBigP]

i've seen your apartment - like my house, it's at LEAST a job. : )

:D More like a career. Honestly, though. Who would voluntarily pay me to perform my pet project, cleaning my apartment? What if I balked that nobody was paying me, so I ran to the government to demand that they take money from somebody...we'll start with Suspect's money...to pay me to do the work? And create a "job" in the process. If it was a job Suspect found worthy of being performed, then I would have no need to run to the government to *force* him to pay me...he would have done so already.

[ThaBigP]

Unemployment dropped about 10% from 1932-40. [Edit: Sorry... I meant about ten percentage points...]

One more bit I forgot to add...the unemployment figures *did not* finally start to come down from the stratusphere until the rollback of the disasterous Smoot-Howley Tariff Act. That act actually caused unemployment to spike dramatically after enactment in 1930. Not quite part of the New Deal, as it was Hoover's baby...but should help to illustrate that government meddling often causes far worse consequences. Furthermore, it created an artificial spike in unemployment...it's rollback resulted in a reduction of that spike, not the New Deal.

Edit: Starting in 1939, you must also include WWII into the employment equation...we began building armaments well ahead of our official entry into WWII. I would suggest you look up the term "Lend-Lease".

Edit2: scratch Lend-Lease: that started in '41, outside of your dates and 2 years after what I pulled from my memory (hence, my suggestion to "look it up" applies to me as well).

[SuspectCorner]

I cleaned my apartment over the weekend. It was work. It was not a job. If the government took money from you to pay me to clean my apartment, that does not make it a "job". And the government would *have* to take money from you to pay me to do it, since nobody else would. Hence, the free market determines that it is not a venture worthy of expending capital against. It is to me, so I supply my own labor...my own "expense".

Are you being serious? :confused:


:lmao:


You are the lone beneficiary of your newly clean apartment, hence nobody else paid you. However, you do owe yourself a pat on the back and a "cold one". Two if you vacuumed.

[SuspectCorner]

All.....the.....way....down....to...........20% or thereabouts.



Except from Democracy Now! interview of economist James Galbraith on 02/10/2009:


AMY GOODMAN: Professor James Galbraith, something I’ve noticed over these last weeks is this whole debate, sort of re-debating the New Deal and FDR and what it accomplished, and conservatives continually saying that it was not the New Deal that ended the Depression, it was World War II.


JAMES GALBRAITH: Well, first of all, there is a grave understatement in those arguments about what the New Deal actually did. And that understatement is typically because the unemployment figures that many people are accustomed to using for the 1930s don’t count people who actually worked for the New Deal. This is Michael Steele’s distinction between jobs and work. But people who were building the Lincoln Tunnel or the Triborough Bridge or the aircraft carrier Yorktown are counted as work relief and not as employed, and there were many millions of those. And when you put them into the figures, you find that the New Deal actually reduced unemployment from 25 percent in 1933 to about—to less than ten percent in 1936. It went up again in ’37 and then came back down again to about ten percent before the war. So, a major, major improvement in unemployment did occur under the New Deal.


It is true that the war made a major transformation in the economy. It drove unemployment to zero. But it also did something else. It gave the American family, the American household, a financial cushion, which was the war bonds that people accumulated during the war that formed the basis for the financial prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s. And that is what made the—made it possible for the private financial system, which collapsed in 1929, to recover in the 1950s and ’60s. And I think that point is very important, because what it shows you is that when the financial system goes down, as it seems to have gone down in the last couple of years, recovery requires a long time. And the precondition for recovery is not fixing the banks; it’s fixing the balance sheets of the households, the creditworthiness of the American family.


And the problem that we have here is the fall in housing prices, people who have mortgages that are worth much more than their houses, which is rendering the entire borrowing base of the American economy basically insolvent. And it will lead to make it extremely difficult for the mechanisms of credit to work again, until you’ve done enough basically to stabilize housing, to stabilize jobs and incomes, and then make it possible for banks—for any reasonable bank, even a solvent bank—to look at its borrowers and say, “Gee, this is a good credit risk,” and for that matter, for the borrowers themselves to feel, “Gee, this is a good time to come in and borrow and get that new car.” That’s the issue that they’re going to face. It’s going to take a long time and major change. And that’s why I say the whole package here is probably not adequate, but it’s a good—that said, what Roosevelt did in ’33 wasn’t adequate either. It was simply a start. And that’s where we are.

James Galbraith, economist and professor of public affairs and government at the University of Texas. His most recent book is The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too.




http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/10/economist_james_galbraith_bailed_out_banks

[trickblue]

Except from Democracy Now! interview of economist James Galbraith on 02/10/2009:

James Galbraith, economist and professor of public affairs and government at the University of Texas. His most recent book is The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/10/economist_james_galbraith_bailed_out_banks

Yes... a voice of reason... :rolleyes:

Galbraith is as liberal as they come and very critical of anyone that disagrees with him...

He hates the very ideas that afforded him his cushy job at UT...

[SuspectCorner]

Yes... a voice of reason... :rolleyes:

Galbraith is as liberal as they come and very critical of anyone that disagrees with him...

He hates the very ideas that afforded him his cushy job at UT...

Galbraith, the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, has economics in his blood and all the skins on the wall. You may not like his politics but you can't undercut his cred.

http://www.uscc.gov/bios/2005bios/05_05_19_20bios/galbraith_james.htm

[trickblue]

Galbraith, the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, has economics in his blood and all the skins on the wall. You may not like his politics but you can't undercut his cred.

http://www.uscc.gov/bios/2005bios/05_05_19_20bios/galbraith_james.htm

I'm not undercutting his "cred"... I'm questioning his politics...

You'll find few Keynesian's I care much for... it's not my cup of tea...

I abhor most anyone against the free market system...

[SuspectCorner]

I'm not undercutting his "cred"... I'm questioning his politics...

You'll find few Keynesian's I care much for... it's not my cup of tea...

I abhor most anyone against the free market system...

So do the bandits running the financial markets who've made this mess.

[trickblue]

So do the bandits running the financial markets who've made this mess.

Wow... talk about taking a freedom of ours and twisting it around...

I think you'll find the government is at the root of most of this mess and now we have people wanting to give them MORE power?

I would laugh if I wasn't crying... :cry2:

[SuspectCorner]

Wow... talk about taking a freedom of ours and twisting it around...

I think you'll find the government is at the root of most of this mess and now we have people wanting to give them MORE power?

I would laugh if I wasn't crying... :cry2:

Yeah, I think I can name this tune. I hear that ******* Hannity singin' it all the time.

Ooooh - those poor bankers were forced to make all those toxic loans by the bad ole Liberals. Those poor, poor banker guys.

Spare me.

[trickblue]

Yeah, I think I can name this tune. I hear that ******* Hannity singin' it all the time.

Ooooh - those poor bankers were forced to make all those toxic loans by the bad ole Liberals. Those poor, poor banker guys.

Spare me.

I never said anything about "poor bankers"... I think they're scum for the most part, but not near the scum our government is...

Funny how you don't blame people taking on too much debt (with government help) for a large part of our problem. Now they're gonna default on their loans and we are gonna help 'em out now...

I want a free house too, unfortunately I care about doing the right thing and owning up to my responsibilities...

[ThaBigP]

So do the bandits running the financial markets who've made this mess.

My God man now you got me agreeing with you once again....I just think you refuse to acknowledge that government has been right there with it's hand in the cookie jar as well.

[ThaBigP]

Yeah, I think I can name this tune. I hear that ******* Hannity singin' it all the time.

Ooooh - those poor bankers were forced to make all those toxic loans by the bad ole Liberals. Those poor, poor banker guys.

Spare me.

Then please, pray tell, why were lending institutions sued by activist groups and government for *not* making enough risky loans? And please, oh, please tell me why the government also tried to comfort them with the promises of taxpayer backing if the risky loans went bad? Why do you think Freddie/Fannie were created, and in fact their purpose expanded to absorb as much of the risky bets as possible, and why do you think they were granted exemption from collateralization standards? And why, oh, why were expansion and licensing requests routinely denied (for banks not directly under the CRA) on the basis of not granting enough risky loans?

Again, you correctly tar and feather business who went along with the program, and indeed any complaining ceased at once when the money began rolling in... BUT! As always, you deliberately refuse to see government's hand in this....

[SuspectCorner]

Then please, pray tell, why were lending institutions sued by activist groups and government for *not* making enough risky loans? And please, oh, please tell me why the government also tried to comfort them with the promises of taxpayer backing if the risky loans went bad? Why do you think Freddie/Fannie were created, and in fact their purpose expanded to absorb as much of the risky bets as possible, and why do you think they were granted exemption from collateralization standards? And why, oh, why were expansion and licensing requests routinely denied (for banks not directly under the CRA) on the basis of not granting enough risky loans?

Again, you correctly tar and feather business who went along with the program, and indeed any complaining ceased at once when the money began rolling in... BUT! As always, you deliberately refuse to see government's hand in this....

The Fannie, Freddie, and CRA theories were well debunked prior to the general election. Private sector greed was at the heart of the meltdown.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/10/community_reinv.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-harrop_03edi.State.Edition1.5160e26.html