Stimulus for Who?

[fivepoint]

It's been entertaining, but more importantly... scary to watch this stimulus bill getting pushed through congress this past week. I'm reminded of George Bush's push towards war with Iraq when I hear President Obama speak of "catastrophe" which I would characterize simply as a scare tactic.

The only thing that perhaps bothers me more than that... is that he also seems determined to manipulate the public opinion through obvious falicies... like this little number: "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government,a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." Well Mr. President... that sir, is not true. (http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf)

It's been a struggle to hear the President label and belittle those who are trying to slam the brakes on these pork-barrel projects by labeling them as the "same worn-out ideas" that have failed in the past.

The majority of this bill is 'spending' and not 'stimulus'. Unless of course you're talking about the stimulus of the government... but I'll let Dr. Paul talk to that issue:

Stimulus for Who?
Dr. Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/apps/blog/tx14_paul/090126_2631.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dKAjBdRYR0

This week the House is expected to pass an $825 billion economic stimulus package. In reality, this bill is just an escalation of a government-created economic mess. As before, a sense of urgency and impending doom is being used to extract mountains of money from Congress with minimal debate. So much for change. This is déjà vu. We are again being promised that its passage will help employment, help homeowners, help the environment, etc. These promises are worthless. This time around especially, Congress should know better than to pass anything of this magnitude without first reading the fine print. There a many red flags that I have found in this bill.

At least $4 billion is allocated to expanding the police state and the war on drugs through Byrne grants, which even the Bush administration opposed, and the COPS program, both of which are corrupt and largely ineffective programs.

To help Big Brother keep a better eye on us and our children, $20 billion would go towards health information technology, which would create a national system of electronic medical records without adequate privacy protection. These records would instead be subject to the misnamed federal “medical privacy” rule, which allows government and state-favored special interests to see medical records at will. An additional $250 million is allocated for states to nationalize individual student data, expanding Federal control of education and eroding privacy.

$79 billion bails out states that haphazardly expanded their budgets during the bubble years, but refuse to retrench and cut back, as their taxpayers have had to, during recession years.

$200 million expands Americorps. $100 million goes to “faith-and-community” based organizations for social services, which will further insinuate the government into charity and community service. Private charities are much more efficient and effective because they are directly accountable to donors, while public programs tend to get rewarded for failure. With its money, the Federal Government brings its incompetence and its whims, while creating foolish dependence. This is sad to see.

Of course the bill is rife with central planning projects. $4 billion for job training, much of which will be used to direct workers into “green jobs”. $200 million to “encourage” electric cars, $2 billion to support US manufacturers of advanced batteries and battery systems, which is yet another function of government I can’t find in the Constitution. Not to mention $500 million for energy efficient manufacturing demonstration projects, $70 million for a Technology Innovation Program for “research in potentially revolutionary technologies” in which government, not supply and demand, will pick winners and losers. $746 million for afterschool snacks, $6.75 billion for the Department of Commerce, including $1 billion for a census.

This bill delivers an additional debt burden of $6,700 to every American man, woman and child.

There is a lot of stimulus and growth in this bill – that is, of government. Nothing in this bill stimulates the freedom and prosperity of the American people. Politician-directed spending is never as successful as market-driven investment. Instead of passing this bill, Congress should get out of the way by cutting taxes, cutting spending, and reining in the reckless monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.

[mkrishnan]

Dr. Paul may call me when he understands the difference between "who" and "whom." ;)

Maureen Dowd made (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/opinion/04dowd.html) a less partisan but no less impassioned claim herself, though... I do wonder about the new stimulus bill. I don't believe fascist-style "let's do nothing and it will fix itself" will work. But I'm also not particularly fond of using it for a governmental spending spree, particularly without taking the time to think about the programs that are being funded.

For now, I can be patient... but I think this is going to need a lot of tweaking, just as the previous bailout bill did.

[fivepoint]

For an opposing point of view:

On the Edge
Paul Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clichés about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.

It’s as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened — yet Democrats have, incredibly, been on the defensive. Even if a major stimulus bill does pass the Senate, there’s a real risk that important parts of the original plan, especially aid to state and local governments, will have been emasculated.

Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what’s at stake — of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.

It’s hard to exaggerate how much economic trouble we’re in. The crisis began with housing, but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble has set economic dominoes falling not just in the United States, but around the world.

Consumers, their wealth decimated and their optimism shattered by collapsing home prices and a sliding stock market, have cut back their spending and sharply increased their saving — a good thing in the long run, but a huge blow to the economy right now. Developers of commercial real estate, watching rents fall and financing costs soar, are slashing their investment plans. Businesses are canceling plans to expand capacity, since they aren’t selling enough to use the capacity they have. And exports, which were one of the U.S. economy’s few areas of strength over the past couple of years, are now plunging as the financial crisis hits our trading partners.

Meanwhile, our main line of defense against recessions — the Federal Reserve’s usual ability to support the economy by cutting interest rates — has already been overrun. The Fed has cut the rates it controls basically to zero, yet the economy is still in free fall.

It’s no wonder, then, that most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we’re headed for a deep, prolonged slump. Some private analysts predict double-digit unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office is slightly more sanguine, but its director, nonetheless, recently warned that “absent a change in fiscal policy ... the shortfall in the nation’s output relative to potential levels will be the largest — in duration and depth — since the Depression of the 1930s.”

Worst of all is the possibility that the economy will, as it did in the ’30s, end up stuck in a prolonged deflationary trap.

We’re already closer to outright deflation than at any point since the Great Depression. In particular, the private sector is experiencing widespread wage cuts for the first time since the 1930s, and there will be much more of that if the economy continues to weaken.

As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself. As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on.

And deflationary traps can go on for a long time. Japan experienced a “lost decade” of deflation and stagnation in the 1990s — and the only thing that let Japan escape from its trap was a global boom that boosted the nation’s exports. Who will rescue America from a similar trap now that the whole world is slumping at the same time?

Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won’t have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that’s why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective — to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts — are so destructive.

So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.

It’s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation’s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.


What it all boils down to I guess... Is whether or not you believe in Keysnian economics or Austrian economics. It depends on whether you think that the market is essentially better off with significant government intervention, or without it. Do you believe in Nationalization or in the Free Market? It depends on whether or not you think the free market auto-corrections that the government can/should control market swings, or that market corrections are inherently healthy for the long-term viability of the marketplace. It depends on whether you think that a few bankers at the Fed should be allowed to print money and decimate the dollar's value at will, or whether you think the market should determine the value of products and the interest rate used at any given time.

I know where I stand. How about you? Let's hear it, guys.

[mgguy]

Maureen Dowd made (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/opinion/04dowd.html) a less partisan but no less impassioned claim herself, though...

I've never read anything by Dowd that wasn't heavily partisan. Having just read her article that you reference in your post, I have to say that Paul's article wins hands down between the two in terms of being factual, informative, insightful, critical, and non-partisan.

[fivepoint]

Related Reading:

"Do You Austrians Have a Better Idea?"
Robert P. Murphy
http://www.mises.org/story/3316

[leekohler]

For an opposing point of view:

On the Edge
Paul Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion




What it all boils down to I guess... Is whether or not you believe in Keysnian economics or Austrian economics. It depends on whether you think that the market is essentially better off with significant government intervention, or without it. Do you believe in Nationalization or in the Free Market? It depends on whether or not you think the free market auto-corrections that the government can/should control market swings, or that market corrections are inherently healthy for the long-term viability of the marketplace. It depends on whether you think that a few bankers at the Fed should be allowed to print money and decimate the dollar's value at will, or whether you think the market should determine the value of products and the interest rate used at any given time.

I know where I stand. How about you? Let's hear it, guys.

Nothing is black and white- stop trying to make it so. It's not a "either you believe in nationalization or the free market" question. If you continue to frame the debate this way, we'll never get anywhere. If you really want to solve the problem, keep your mind open. Otherwise, there's no point in having a discussion. You're only interested in proving yourself "right" and not interested in solving the problem, which is the attitude that got us here in the first place.

[Iscariot]

I know where I stand. How about you? Let's hear it, guys.

It seems to me that if regulation was "bad" and deregulation "good", then this particular crisis would have begun in and been felt hardest by the more regulated economies, and trickled to and felt least by the less regulated economies. As it stands, we are seeing the exact opposite. We also see nations with more regulated economies providing a better standard of living and being more capable of dealing with climate change.

[mgguy]

We also see nations with more regulated economies providing a better standard of living and being more capable of dealing with climate change.

Which nations are you referring to? And what does dealing with alleged climate change have to do with this discussion?

[mkrishnan]

I've never read anything by Dowd that wasn't heavily partisan. Having just read her article that you reference in your post, I have to say that Paul's article wins hands down between the two in terms of being factual, informative, insightful, critical, and non-partisan.

What I meant, sorry, was that Dowd was a liberal attacking a liberal's stimulus plan, rather than being Ron Paul attacking a liberal's stimulus plan.

As for Ron Paul's analysis... it's strong on invective and relatively poor on detail. He makes a lot of claims that he doesn't make any effort to justify. I'm not saying they're incorrect, just that it's hard for me to imagine it into any form of insightful analysis.

[zap2]

Reading Paul's article really fast, the stuff he seems to talk about are the tiny parts of it.


He calls into question maybe 10 billion of the total spending? And while 10 billion is big money, that extra 800B+ seems key


And this big government vs small government while very interesting, it worthless to those with out jobs, put people back to work, with good wages. FDR solution with big government worked in the past....I'm fine with that again, if it works. Obama's plan looks much more worked out then Paul's "Market fix itself" junk

[Queso]

Which nations are you referring to?
Pick anywhere in Scandinavia and throw in Switzerland and Luxembourg for good measure.

[benthewraith]

Figured I should post this:

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2193853.stm
The government has repeatedly tried to stimulate the economy by spending money on public works.

The result has been some very well-equipped - if often unnecessary - regional infrastructure projects, but relatively little of the money spent reached those who have been made unemployed.

Much of it has in fact gone into the coffers of Japan's huge construction companies, which have very close links to ruling party politicians.

The spending has kept them afloat; without it many might already have gone bust. As it is, the first domino fell in December 2001, as Aoki Construction went under with debts totalling 522bn yen ($4bn).

And the massive outlay means government borrowing has reached 130% of GDP, higher than any other industrialised country.

This means that in the long run Japan will have to reduce its spending levels, at a time when it is facing increased pressures from an ageing population and the increased cost of health care.

[mgguy]

What I meant, sorry, was that Dowd was a liberal attacking a liberal's stimulus plan, rather than being Ron Paul attacking a liberal's stimulus plan.

As for Ron Paul's analysis... it's strong on invective and relatively poor on detail. He makes a lot of claims that he doesn't make any effort to justify. I'm not saying they're incorrect, just that it's hard for me to imagine it into any form of insightful analysis.

Fair enough. I said I thought that Paul's analysis was superior to Doud's, not that it was spectacular per se. However, my guess is that most if not all of what he said is probably factually correct.

[benthewraith]

Which nations are you referring to? And what does dealing with alleged climate change have to do with this discussion?

Those nations are doing alright mostly because they stayed out of the housing boom.

[yojitani]

Figured I should post this:

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2193853.stm

This really has nothing to do with the stimulus plan in the United States. Construction in Japan is a racket. What goes on there is not a moral lesson for anyone else in this instance.

[Thomas Veil]

I've never read anything by Dowd that wasn't heavily partisan. Partisan to whom? I started reading her column during the Clinton administration and was taken aback by how relentlessly she slammed him. I was ready to conclude she was just another Ann Coulter knockoff until Bush came in and she started bashing him.

I think she just enjoys using politicians as punching bags. :D

In re the arguments, Krugman seems to get it right from the overall perspective. Ron Paul seems to be nit-picking the "small" (note the quotation marks) stuff, and in some cases (faith-based initiatives) he's even correct.

I think one of the problems here is that no one on the Democratic side has adequately defined the parameters of a "stimulus" bill. The Republicans have succeeded in trying to define it as a jobs-creation-only bill, and has been laughing off the relief aspects, such as Medicaid funding, as "pork". Herein I think is the Dems', and Obama's, lesson: they let the other side dictate the situation.

And one could argue that there should've been a more laser-like approach to this bill. Concentrate solely on jobs creation/infrastructure, and leave the relief portions to a separate bill.

As far as the link to the Cato Institute, well...they're the Cato Institute. On a par, from a credibility standpoint, with the Heritage Foundation. ;)

[fivepoint]

The ridiculous fallacy that I think the keysnian economics that Obama and the Democratic party are currently undertaking (also unfortunately utilized by former president GW) is the working assumption that the government 'creates jobs' with our money... where we... apparently would do almost anything other than creating jobs with it, if we had it. They work under the assumption that the government can create jobs better/faster than the private sector, which is laughable at best. The government is a slow-moving inefficient behemoth of a bureaucracy which banks on printing fiat money and destroying the REAL value of the dollar in an attempt to prop up an economy that NEEDS to self-correct itself and relieve itself of poorly run companies through bankruptcy. What a concept!!!


Excellent description of the 'backwards' keysnian economics which basically states that you can SPEND your way to PROSPERITY:
A naughty boy breaks a store window with a rock, and an observer says this will help boost the economy, since the shopkeeper now needs to buy a new window, so the windowmaker will have money to buy new shoes, so the shoemaker will have more money to buy what he wants, and so the effect of the window destruction will ultimately be wealth creation.

This ignores, however, what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had his window not been broken. He could have bought something else, and he'd still have his window.

[Iscariot]

Those nations are doing alright mostly because they stayed out of the housing boom.

What caused them to stay out of the housing boom?

[mkrishnan]

Fair enough. I said I thought that Paul's analysis was superior to Doud's, not that it was spectacular per se. However, my guess is that most if not all of what he said is probably factually correct.

That's fair enough. But first I'd like to see a better argument for the correctness of his points than, "Because Ron Paul said so." I don't understand why people consider this too high a standard against which to measure him, as it is the standard against which everyone else is measured against. If Ron Paul deserves any credibility at all with respect to this issue, how about... *gasp* actually providing his estimate of the number of jobs created, the cost per job, the number of these jobs that are essentially tied to his claimed big government and cannot be sustained out in industry when the stimulus wears out, and a counterplan that would create more jobs. I'll listen to any and all of that from him, but I'm not aware that he has bothered to provide anything substantive.

Otherwise, he's just a physician, with a poor grasp of English grammar, who is practicing far afield from his realm of expertise.

Anyway, Paul critiques some $10-20B of the stimulus plan as poorly thought out without bothering to mention that this is about 2% of the whole stimulus plan. Dowd admits this wholeheartedly but attacks the Obama administration for not being principled enough to avoid the urge to tack on this 2% of poorly thought out expenditures. I agree with her -- I think it's important on principle but admittedly minor in actual ramification, unless it portends a trend in Obama administration behavior.

[Ugg]

What caused them to stay out of the housing boom?

France has low home ownership rates caused in part by fiscally conservative banks. Sarkozy's election platform included plans to increase home ownership. They were obviously derailed by the US financial meltdown.

Germany's tax laws favor renters over homeowners. After WWII, 40% of all residential buildings were uninhabitable. Capital was needed and it was decided the best way to do so was by creating rental property. The laws really haven't changed.

Scandinavia also has a long history of social housing schemes.

It's not really apt to say that the countries "stayed out" rather that they didn't have the mechanisms in place to encourage irresponsible behaviour.

Spain, Ireland, England are all paying a huge price for their lack of fiscal responsibility.

[Iscariot]

the countries "stayed out" rather that they didn't have the mechanisms in place to encourage irresponsible behaviour.

So some form of regulation curtailed irresponsible behaviour?

[fivepoint]

That's fair enough. But first I'd like to see a better argument for the correctness of his points than, "Because Ron Paul said so." I don't understand why people consider this too high a standard against which to measure him, as it is the standard against which everyone else is measured against. If Ron Paul deserves any credibility at all with respect to this issue, how about... *gasp* actually providing his estimate of the number of jobs created, the cost per job, the number of these jobs that are essentially tied to his claimed big government and cannot be sustained out in industry when the stimulus wears out, and a counterplan that would create more jobs. I'll listen to any and all of that from him, but I'm not aware that he has bothered to provide anything substantive.

Otherwise, he's just a physician, with a poor grasp of English grammar, who is practicing far afield from his realm of expertise.



Would you care to compare Ron Paul's knowledge of economic theory to any other congressmen? I'd wager a bit that he is easily one of the most knowledgeable in this field, hands down, vs his colleagues... although he's *gasp* actually humble about it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwHdSl1ASbA) They'd probably be the first to say so. Anyway, this small bit of text from Ron's "Texas Straight Talk" is but one extremely small bit of Ron Paul's complaints regarding the bailouts and the so called governmental stimulus. If you would do a small bit of research or heck, just visit YouTube, you'd understand this well.

Here's one or two to get you started...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k92fTDReHg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF7pzRsaIng

[zap2]

is the working assumption that the government 'creates jobs' with our money... where we... apparently would do almost anything other than creating jobs with it, if we had it.


No, the government thinks they can make jobs because they are spending (ideally) on things that put people back to work!
The market might do this, but I don't want to sit around and wait. Clearly if the market could do it as is, we'd wouldn't be losing all these jobs!

. They work under the assumption that the government can create jobs better/faster than the private sector, which is laughable at best. :

You say that, but you're not packing it up with anything. The goverment has show(during the great depression for one) that it can put people back to work faster then the market


an economy that NEEDS to self-correct itself and relieve itself of poorly run companies through bankruptcy.


:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Thats a wonderful idea, but we are clearly at a point where its not just company that are run poorly aren't doing well. When a big company(regardless of why) does poorly, people lose jobs, then have less money, so other companies lose money(less people are getting paid, so they have less money to spend elsewhere)

It becomes a cycle, the government stepping in can end that cycle, and get people back to work


A naughty boy breaks a store window with a rock, and an observer says this will help boost the economy, since the shopkeeper now needs to buy a new window, so the windowmaker will have money to buy new shoes, so the shoemaker will have more money to buy what he wants, and so the effect of the window destruction will ultimately be wealth creation.

This ignores, however, what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had his window not been broken. He could have bought something else, and he'd still have his window.

Clear that is a example with biased towards a non-keysnian approach, but I'll work with it

The shop keeper may have spent that money, he may not have, this way that money IS spent, the windowmaker then highers 2 workers to create this glass for the shopkeeper. These workers use their pay check to buy stuff from the shopkeeper, who gains more and more money, and can higher a worker. Who then spends more money at the windowshop, because with the new job he got, he is buying windows for his house. And it goes on in a cycle.

Clearly both your example and mine are idealistic in the way they work, but thats why only following one can be a problem.

[mactastic]

Tax cuts are the absolute worst way to stimulate anything. Government spending is much more efficient mechanism to pump money into the economy.

So what has the GOP done with this bill? Loaded it up with tax cuts for the wealthy. Which will do even less than contraceptive spending to stimulate the economy.

We've been giving tax cuts to the richest among us for 8 years now, and it has only brought us this current economy. It's time to stop listening to the Austrian school folks. They've had their chance, and their theories have failed miserably. If we let them dictate policy here, we're in for a very long, very deep recession.

[MacNut]

So how to we stimulate the economy with more debt? That doesn't make sense either.

[mactastic]

So how to we stimulate the economy with more debt? That doesn't make sense either.
Did you learn nothing from Dick Cheney? Deficits. Don't. Matter!

How do we stimulate the economy with more debt? Because when you borrow money and spend it, it creates jobs.

That's like asking "how do you expand your business by taking on more debt?"

[MacNut]

That is assuming the money goes where it is supposed to. How good has the government been at following the money trail the past 30 years.

[mactastic]

That is assuming the money goes where it is supposed to. How good has the government been at following the money trail the past 30 years.
I dunno, how good has the private sector been at doing the same thing? I'm sure you can point to as many examples of government waste as I can point to examples of corporate malfeasance.

[MacNut]

I dunno, how good has the private sector been at doing the same thing? I'm sure you can point to as many examples of government waste as I can point to examples of corporate malfeasance.I don't trust either, I still think it will be the status quo.

Until the underling problems are fixed this stimulus won't work.

[Peace]

Well it looks like the final Senate bill will be much better than the one the house passed.

[zap2]

I don't trust either

So then what do we do?

We have two ways to grow jobs

Private or Public

Private is for profit
Public is for the betterment of our society


I'll take the public, with some screw ups, over the private

[NT1440]

So how to we stimulate the economy with more debt? That doesn't make sense either.

What do you propose?

I think the best thing we can do right now is just create jobs and overhaul our infastructure. I wish a HELL of alot more money had gone to infastructure, say 300+ billion??

[MacNut]

The problem is public and private intertwine.

I would say as a start, get rid of everyone that was working the system. How do we know they won't continue to work it with this new bailout. The foundation is bad, the more money we throw on top will still collapse under the weight.

Until we overhaul the system the problems will still be there. This stimulus might mask it for a few years but unless we fix the real problems it will just repeat.

[Lord Blackadder]

I'm rather out of my depth in economics debates, but I feel that the GOP tax-cut proposals are pretty much an echo of the "do nothing" plan McCain trumpeted just after the primaries. I don't think our economy can afford to wait for some "trickle down" that may never come.

We need the government to inject money directly into programs that produce jobs.

[zap2]

The problem is public and private intertwine.
.
Wait do you mean the public officials and private interest paying them, or that the government is regulating the private ?



I would say as a start, get rid of everyone that was working the system. .

:rolleyes: That seem likely, and thats not the solution we need. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul aren't part of the problem(as far wasting money)


Your arguments are SO board..... you really lack an specifics(as far as I can see)

[MacNut]

We need the government to inject money directly into programs that produce jobs.Can anyone guarantee that this will happen.

I mean that private and public use each other for projects. So no matter what the money will change hands.

[dukebound85]

Wait do you mean the public officials and private interest paying them, or that the government is regulating the private ?



:rolleyes: That seem likely, and thats not the solution we need. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul aren't part of the problem(as far wasting money)


Your arguments are SO board..... you really lack an specifics(as far as I can see)

what about say utilities or defense and even schools for example? those are good areas of public and private intertwined

for instance, i work at a government lab contracted out to a private company

[MacNut]

What do you propose?

I think the best thing we can do right now is just create jobs and overhaul our infastructure. I wish a HELL of alot more money had gone to infastructure, say 300+ billion??And who will win these contracts to rebuild the roads, private business. So how much of that money will go to workers.

[zap2]

what about say utilities or defense and even schools for example? those are good areas of public and private intertwined


100%! I was saying public and private together is good(working together, etc)! But companies making money because the CEO is friends with the president is bad

[MacNut]

100%! I was saying public and private together is good(working together, etc)! But companies making money because the CEO is friends with the president is badCEO's are also friends with a lot of people in congress as well. How many behind the scenes kickbacks are in this stimulus that we don't know about.

[mactastic]

I don't trust either, I still think it will be the status quo.

Until the underling problems are fixed this stimulus won't work.
To what "underlying problems" do you refer? Corruption? Greed? If you attempt to fix those two problems, you'll be waiting an awfully long time before you even attempt to move on to stimulating the economy.

Of course, if you stimulated the economy, and then prosecuted those who abused the stimulus money harshly, perhaps next time around people will think twice before doing so.

CEO's are also friends with a lot of people in congress as well. How many behind the scenes kickbacks are in this stimulus that we don't know about.
See above. Let's find out who's making backroom deals, and put them in jail. In the meantime, even those handing out and taking kickbacks are putting people to work. But let's put the fear of prosecution in these white-collar criminals. It's been missing for a good long time now.

[zap2]

To what "underlying problems" do you refer? Corruption? Greed? If you attempt to fix those two problems, you'll be waiting an awfully long time before you even attempt to move on to stimulating the economy.

Of course, if you stimulated the economy, and then prosecuted those who abused the stimulus money harshly, perhaps next time around people will think twice before doing so.


See above. Let's find out who's making backroom deals, and put them in jail. In the meantime, even those handing out and taking kickbacks are putting people to work. But let's put the fear of prosecution in these white-collar criminals. It's been missing for a good long time now.


I agree...sitting around not nothing anything now because someone might abuse it, is silly.

Act now, anyone breaking laws with the money should be punished