Obamanomics

[Wotan31]

Yes, Obamanomics. Specifically, the rather controversial (and suggestively named :D ) "Stimulus Package".

So one of Obama's selling points months ago, for pushing this stimulus package through so quickly, was unemployment. Specifically, that unemployment was nearly 8% at the time, and he rather ominously stated that if Congress doesn't approve this stimulus package, that unemployment would rise further, maybe even reaching 9%. As we well know, unemployment is closing in on 10% now - quite a lot more than Obama's "if you don't approve this" selling point prediction.

Secondly, Obama said it would be "weeks to months" before the positive effects of this stimulus package could be seen. It has now been "months", yet no tangible improvement can be seen.

Obama promised no new taxes - income, capital gains, etc. - NONE at all - for households earning less than $250k per year. I.e. the "Middle Class". That promise has already been broken.

Obama promised to allow people to make early withdrawals from 401k plans, free of any penalties. This was conveniently omitted from the approved stimulus bill. As was the tax benefits for seniors and small business owners that he promised.

Lets not forget that the US is the most in-debt nation in the world (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html), and Obama's solution to this crisis is to *triple* that debt amount? That alone should beg a huge "WTF?" from anyone with half a brain.

Since even before the day Obama took office, economists have been warning that this economic situation could end up being worse than the Great Depression. And yet we have Joe Biden admitting now that this administration has "underestimated" the situation! Um... understatement of the decade perhaps?

My question to you, is at what point to we give Obama's plan a great big FAIL? Because that's what it's looking like more and more each day. And all of us are the ones who are quite literally "paying" the consequences. :mad:

[Ugg]

Which whacked out wingnut have you been listening to?

You better limit your daily intake of hate and misinformation or your blood pressure is going to go through the roof.

[Zombie Acorn]

How much of the stimulus has even been spent? The recovery site shows somewhere around $50B being spent. I am not a believer in stimulus plans like this one, but I would at least expect the money to be allocated a little quicker, especially since its rallying call was to stop unemployment by having us build "infrastructure" and we were told there were plenty of "shovel ready" jobs waiting to get started.

[Wotan31]

Which whacked out wingnut have you been listening to?

You better limit your daily intake of hate and misinformation or your blood pressure is going to go through the roof.
LMAO! :D Thanks for the laughs, but sticking your head in the sand isn't going to make this problem go away.

Don't worry, I'd feel pretty let down too, if I was one of those people who voted him into office.

[erickkoch]

My question to you, is at what point to we give Obama's plan a great big FAIL? Because that's what it's looking like more and more each day. And all of us are the ones who are quite literally "paying" the consequences. :mad:

I don't think it's going to be that simple. It's just like The Great Depression. Many credit FDR's policy's with getting us out, other economists say that government programs prolonged it and made it worse (austrian economics), and yet others credit WWII with ending it.

Whatever happens, even if his policies fail he will simply say that, "things would have been worse if we didn't do this or that." Some economists will agree and some won't. Final judgement will be made Nov '12.

[Wotan31]

I am not a believer in stimulus plans like this one, but I would at least expect the money to be allocated a little quicker, especially since its rallying call was to stop unemployment by having us build "infrastructure" and we were told there were plenty of "shovel ready" jobs waiting to get started.
Unemployment was indeed its rallying call, and on that point it has completely failed to deliver.

Anyone else notice how these Auto exec's awarded themselves LARGE bonuses, just after receiving the stimulus money, but just before declaring bankruptcy? And yet no one is calling them out on this blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars? Just another bullet point on the FAIL list for this stimulus bill.

[Zombie Acorn]

We must also keep in mind though that we still have it pretty good. I have talked to my great grandma who lived up and through the depression (she is 100 now). From her stories we haven't seen anything like it, in fact booming times were probably worse than our generation has seen from the stories I have heard.

[blackfox]

Wotan - I won't pretend to be an expert in the relevant matters, but I don't think that anything this large and complicated (economy) turns on a dime and/or is immediately susceptible to political decisions/policy.

Obama has been President for five months. The stimulus package (at least the one under his administration) is not even that old. Money hasn't even been allocated yet.

So I think it is too soon to judge by far. Maybe next year, or even 2011. Economic trends take time to be influenced by any factor. Economic decisions by Carter weren't felt till Reagan - Reagan's not until GHWB - GHWB not till Clinton.

If things are moving too slow for you, by all means blame the bureaucracy, or the lobbyists, or the Congress - but even then you'd like the process for doling out that some of money to take longer than shorter - if only for the hope of wise deliberation.

Obama has in some ways been a disappointment - but it's a difficult time. Also, the Democrats are hardly helping - they are a much bigger disappointment.

I heard the opinion the other day that the Democrats are now the new Republicans - and that the Republican Party has just gone insane.

Such is the state of modern politics.

[bobber205]

Unemployment was indeed its rallying call, and on that point it has completely failed to deliver.

Anyone else notice how these Auto exec's awarded themselves LARGE bonuses, just after receiving the stimulus money, but just before declaring bankruptcy? And yet no one is calling them out on this blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars? Just another bullet point on the FAIL list for this stimulus bill.

:rolleyes:
Tons of people have. Just look for it.

[luminosity]

I predicted many months ago that unemployment would peak at about 10.5-11%. Looks like we're still headed that way.

A basic understanding of economics is always helpful: The unemployment rate is a lagging indicator, and one of the last things to show improvement, even if an economy is well into a recovery, just as it's unwise to look at the unemployment rate to determine whether there's a recession or not.

[designgeek]

I predicted many months ago that unemployment would peak at about 10.5-11%. Looks like we're still headed that way.

A basic understanding of economics is always helpful: The unemployment rate is a lagging indicator, and one of the last things to show improvement, even if an economy is well into a recovery, just as it's unwise to look at the unemployment rate to determine whether there's a recession or not.

Exactly!

@OP: Fox News is not a great place to get ALL of your news and I know that's where the term "Obamanomics" started. Many economists have suggested that the Stimulus Package is not spending enough. Of course we have only spent some 10% (last I heard) and we're still going but we'll see in the coming months. What's very important is to NOT repeat the same mistakes the Hoover administration made. Sen. John Boehner (R-OH) has suggested a spending freeze but that would plunge the economy into depression and nobody wants that.

[mgguy]

We still have massive government spending on universal health care to look forward to. That should help get the economy moving again. :rolleyes:

[hulugu]

How much of the stimulus has even been spent? The recovery site shows somewhere around $50B being spent. I am not a believer in stimulus plans like this one, but I would at least expect the money to be allocated a little quicker, especially since its rallying call was to stop unemployment by having us build "infrastructure" and we were told there were plenty of "shovel ready" jobs waiting to get started.

The last figure I saw was ~10%. I'm really not sure what the primary holdup is, although I have some ideas.

We still have massive government spending on universal health care to look forward to. That should help get the economy moving again. :rolleyes:

In the short-term, I don't expect a revised health care plan to help the economy, but a good plan has the potential to make our companies and workers more agile in the future.
I'm still not sure about the current plans moving through Congress, but our current system needs a vast overhaul; it's a hidden cost that is hurting our ability to compete in the world marketplace.

[designgeek]

In the short-term, I don't expect a revised health care plan to help the economy, but a good plan has the potential to make our companies and workers more agile in the future.

I'm a huge fan of this sentence. I'm hoping that the plan will make the corporations more competitive mostly because I'm about four months away from not having health insurance and I can't afford it on my own.

I'm still not sure about the current plans moving through Congress, but our current system needs a vast overhaul; it's a hidden cost that is hurting our ability to compete in the world marketplace.

Plans moving through Congress typically are measured in geologic time. Even with the "Super Majority" I think the Dems will fail to accomplish much (I'm a liberal but don't much like the dems btw.). I totally with you on the hidden cost thing, it's really holding us back. I think it's crazy that in the most powerful country in the world still uses such a crappy healthcare system.

[Ugg]

In the short-term, I don't expect a revised health care plan to help the economy, but a good plan has the potential to make our companies and workers more agile in the future.
I'm still not sure about the current plans moving through Congress, but our current system needs a vast overhaul; it's a hidden cost that is hurting our ability to compete in the world marketplace.

There was an interesting article in the NYT about how France's centralized government has proved to be way more efficient in stimulating the economy. Also, a lot of their stimulus money is going to refurbish their patrimony. Way too much of ours is going to build new highways...

I agree with you that much of America's lack of competitive muscle is due to outrageous capitalist health care premiums. The health care industry has gotten way too much corporate welfare.

[hulugu]

There was an interesting article in the NYT about how France's centralized government has proved to be way more efficient in stimulating the economy. Also, a lot of their stimulus money is going to refurbish their patrimony. Way too much of ours is going to build new highways...

I agree with you that much of America's lack of competitive muscle is due to outrageous capitalist health care premiums. The health care industry has gotten way too much corporate welfare.

I think it's illustrative that both Walmart and GM have both supported some version of universal health care. The current system gives a pseudo-monopoly to a few companies with a severe barrier to entry for newer entities, costs the GDP of several smaller, but prosperous countries and fails at several metrics for success. Employers don't like it, employees don't like it and I'd argue that this system, reliant on the early-20th century model of employee and employer will ultimately make workers hesitate to move from company to company as they see fit.

I've had the experience of being a freelancer, working for the government, and working for a company and I can say that being a freelancer was great, but the cost for my health insurance was crippling. And, since I've moved quickly from job to job, I often was between coverage and I ended up paying out of pocket.

I'll look for the NYT article.

[Ugg]

I think it's illustrative that both Walmart and GM have both supported some version of universal health care. The current system gives a pseudo-monopoly to a few companies with a severe barrier to entry for newer entities, costs the GDP of several smaller, but prosperous countries and fails at several metrics for success. Employers don't like it, employees don't like it and I'd argue that this system, reliant on the early-20th century model of employee and employer will ultimately make workers hesitate to move from company to company as they see fit.

.

I think it would be wrong to exempt employers from contributing to the cost. Employers really shouldn't have anything to do with the administration of their employees' health care. But, they should be contributing financially. I like the idea of 50% employee, 50% employer contributions. That would lessen the tax burden on everyone, free business from having to administer health care and spread the cost more evenly in society. I'm leery of singly payer. The insurance companies have proved that it's dangerous to let one entity have total control.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/business/global/07stimulus.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Silencio]

Annoy a liberal: Use facts and logic.


What a great way to stimulate civilized conversation. :rolleyes:

[Zombie Acorn]

In the short-term, I don't expect a revised health care plan to help the economy, but a good plan has the potential to make our companies and workers more agile in the future.
I'm still not sure about the current plans moving through Congress, but our current system needs a vast overhaul; it's a hidden cost that is hurting our ability to compete in the world marketplace.

From what I have seen the health changes would just be a shift that taxes would have to support. Companies will probably dump their employees on a default public plan and then end up paying for it on the backside anyways through raised taxes.

[Shivetya]

How much of the stimulus has even been spent? The recovery site shows somewhere around $50B being spent. I am not a believer in stimulus plans like this one, but I would at least expect the money to be allocated a little quicker, especially since its rallying call was to stop unemployment by having us build "infrastructure" and we were told there were plenty of "shovel ready" jobs waiting to get started.

So how many excuses do we need to come up with?


The only shovel ready project is Michael Jackson

[Zombie Acorn]

So how many excuses do we need to come up with?


The only shovel ready project is Michael Jackson

I would probably be a better person if I hadn't just busted out laughing at that last line. :eek:

[leekohler]

What a great way to stimulate civilized conversation. :rolleyes:

I would welcome facts and logic from a conservative. Unfortunately- they don't know the definition of either.

[leekohler]

Unemployment was indeed its rallying call, and on that point it has completely failed to deliver.

Anyone else notice how these Auto exec's awarded themselves LARGE bonuses, just after receiving the stimulus money, but just before declaring bankruptcy? And yet no one is calling them out on this blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars? Just another bullet point on the FAIL list for this stimulus bill.

Hmm...did you call out the bank executives when they took our cash? Just wondering. I called out both.

[Shivetya]

http://townhall.com/Columnists/NealBoortz/2009/07/06/hows_the_stimulus_working_for_you_so_far

I don't normally agree with guy all the time, but page two is so true its painful

[zioxide]

My question to you, is at what point to we give Obama's plan a great big FAIL? Because that's what it's looking like more and more each day. And all of us are the ones who are quite literally "paying" the consequences. :mad:

Dude, it takes at least 2 years for most economic policy changes to actually have an effect. Have some ****ing patience and stop saying everything is a failure after only a few months.

[Desertrat]

leekohler, would you say that it's not factual that the buying power of the US dollar has declined during these last seventy years?

Would you say that it's not a fact that as you print more and more fiat money, its buying power declines?

Would you say that loading up on public debt unto third and fourth generations of taxpayers is NOT what's being done?

It's fact that back some eight or nine months ago, I said here that Obama's monetary policies would be a continuation of Bush's. I further said that it would not end the economic hard times that we are now entering.

You cannot spend your way out of this mess when it was excessive spending which brought us here. Excess credit, loose money. Remember that I used those terms, several times last year?

The Keynesian idea is for the central bank to inflate the money supply by 2% to 3% per year in order to maximize employment. That's the publicly stated intent. I can but note that any inflation of the money supply deflates the buying power of the currency, which is exactly what has been happening for some seventy years, now. (Hey, where's the coffee for which I once paid a nickel, lo those many decades ago?)

What is known as fact is that wages have not kept up with prices, since at least the 1970s.

So the man who promised to reduce deficits has done a 180 and implicitly stated that Cheney was right, "Deficits don't matter," as he is creating the largest deficits in the history of the world--and which will continue for years. And that's a fact.

More facts: The commercial real estate collapse of mortgages is just now underway. AltA loans are resetting, with a high percentage expected to default. Credit card debt is another arena of defaults. All defaults have a negative effect upon the economy, and that's a fact.

Consumers insofar as possible are now saving instead of spending--which is part of why retail stores are closing and malls are going into bankruptcy. And that's leading to more unemployment. "Consumer economy", remember?

Another fact: A fly in the Carbon Tax ointment is that it calls for "Buy American" which if passed by the Senate could lead to a trade war. We already know as fact what the effect of Smoot/Hawley was.

Further facts: Political instability, overseas, can easily lead to a dramatic jump in the price of crude oil--which we cannot afford. Yet, it's fact that Congress is regularly passing legislation which reduces our access to this and other forms of lifeblood-energy sources.

Another happy little fact for you: In the last eighteen or so months, the paper losses for assets such as homes and stocks have accumulated to some $13 trillion--and that's just in the U.S. Worldwide, it's around $30 trillion.

Okay, there ya go, leekohler: Some facts from a conservative. (There are bunches more, and few of them are happifying.) Note that in all my past posts on this subject that I have never gotten into the liberal-vs-conservative deal. I suggest that you consider doing the same, since you haven't shown much more than personal opinion.

There's a lot of talk about "Green Shoots". Sorry; it's less actual growth than it is fertilizer.

'Rat

[Shivetya]

I think it would be wrong to exempt employers from contributing to the cost. Employers really shouldn't have anything to do with the administration of their employees' health care. But, they should be contributing financially. I like the idea of 50% employee, 50% employer contributions. That would lessen the tax burden on everyone, free business from having to administer health care and spread the cost more evenly in society. I'm leery of singly payer. The insurance companies have proved that it's dangerous to let one entity have total control.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/business/global/07stimulus.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

You do understand that they are not contributing to your health care, you are. Only you. The difference is you don't have a choice.

All this talk about corporations contributing their fair share or what not is stupidity in action. HELLO. Employers look at health care costs as part of your total pay. So in other words, by their electing to pay part of it they have removed the ability of you to decide if you want health coverage let alone through who.

Honestly, do schools just make people stupid these days? Whats next? Claiming corporations actually pay tax?

[Shivetya]

Dude, it takes at least 2 years for most economic policy changes to actually have an effect. Have some ****ing patience and stop saying everything is a failure after only a few months.

Sorry, but the Gimp claimed it would take effect earlier. When it didn't suddenly they kept moving the line in the sand. So now you want to move it two years out.

and when its not better then, how far out will you move it.


The fact is, the flagrant and irresponsible debt load he is crushing us will do more damage to us in one year than what Bush did in eight.

[leekohler]

leekohler, would you say that it's not factual that the buying power of the US dollar has declined during these last seventy years?

Would you say that it's not a fact that as you print more and more fiat money, its buying power declines?

Would you say that loading up on public debt unto third and fourth generations of taxpayers is NOT what's being done?

It's fact that back some eight or nine months ago, I said here that Obama's monetary policies would be a continuation of Bush's. I further said that it would not end the economic hard times that we are now entering.

You cannot spend your way out of this mess when it was excessive spending which brought us here. Excess credit, loose money. Remember that I used those terms, several times last year?

The Keynesian idea is for the central bank to inflate the money supply by 2% to 3% per year in order to maximize employment. That's the publicly stated intent. I can but note that any inflation of the money supply deflates the buying power of the currency, which is exactly what has been happening for some seventy years, now. (Hey, where's the coffee for which I once paid a nickel, lo those many decades ago?)

What is known as fact is that wages have not kept up with prices, since at least the 1970s.

So the man who promised to reduce deficits has done a 180 and implicitly stated that Cheney was right, "Deficits don't matter," as he is creating the largest deficits in the history of the world--and which will continue for years. And that's a fact.

More facts: The commercial real estate collapse of mortgages is just now underway. AltA loans are resetting, with a high percentage expected to default. Credit card debt is another arena of defaults. All defaults have a negative effect upon the economy, and that's a fact.

Consumers insofar as possible are now saving instead of spending--which is part of why retail stores are closing and malls are going into bankruptcy. And that's leading to more unemployment. "Consumer economy", remember?

Another fact: A fly in the Carbon Tax ointment is that it calls for "Buy American" which if passed by the Senate could lead to a trade war. We already know as fact what the effect of Smoot/Hawley was.

Further facts: Political instability, overseas, can easily lead to a dramatic jump in the price of crude oil--which we cannot afford. Yet, it's fact that Congress is regularly passing legislation which reduces our access to this and other forms of lifeblood-energy sources.

Another happy little fact for you: In the last eighteen or so months, the paper losses for assets such as homes and stocks have accumulated to some $13 trillion--and that's just in the U.S. Worldwide, it's around $30 trillion.

Okay, there ya go, leekohler: Some facts from a conservative. (There are bunches more, and few of them are happifying.) Note that in all my past posts on this subject that I have never gotten into the liberal-vs-conservative deal. I suggest that you consider doing the same, since you haven't shown much more than personal opinion.

There's a lot of talk about "Green Shoots". Sorry; it's less actual growth than it is fertilizer.

'Rat

Look- here's the thing: where have I ever said that I am in favor of all of this? Nowhere. I have consistently been against any bailouts- for anyone. What I am not against is money for infrastructure- especially when that infrastructure promotes the development of alternative fuel sources. So there are certain things here I like and dislike.

And how are individuals' mortgages and credit card debt Obama's responsibility? I thought you were all about "personal responsibility".

So- I'm open to suggestions, which so far, no conservative here or anywhere, has offered. I also have yet to hear any of you criticize Bush for spending us into an unnecessary war and record debt, to the point where no one really knows what to do about it. Bush had 8 years to destroy the economy. You honestly expect it to get better in 5 months? Do I like what's happening so far? No. But to sit here and blame it all on Obama, when you can't even offer a reasonable alternative, is unbelievable.

[hulugu]

...
Honestly, do schools just make people stupid these days? Whats next? Claiming corporations actually pay tax?

It's entirely possible to make your point known without resorting to calling people stupid. Please follow the forum rules.

Look- here's the thing: where have I ever said that I am in favor of all of this? Nowhere. I have consistently been against any bailouts- for anyone. What I am not against is money for infrastructure- especially when that infrastructure promotes the development of alternative fuel sources. So there are certain things here I like and dislike.

And how are individuals' mortgages and credit card debt Obama's responsibility? I thought you were all about "personal responsibility".

So- I'm open to suggestions, which so far, no conservative here or anywhere, has offered. I also have yet to hear any of you criticize Bush for spending us into an unnecessary war and record debt, to the point where no one really knows what to do about it. Bush had 8 years to destroy the economy. You honestly expect it to get better in 5 months? Do I like what's happening so far? No. But to sit here and blame it all on Obama, when you can't even offer a reasonable alternative, is unbelievable.

That's actually my biggest problem with conservatives and their criticism of the current administration, there seem to be very few serious attempts to formulate a better mousetrap.

Desertrat is an exception because he at least provides data on what's happening according to sources at hand. Of course, we're always screwed sideways according to such data, but that doesn't mean his information is bad. (Although I sometimes want to crawl under my desk with the last vestiges of my wealth after reading some of his posts).

Has anyone read of a conservative plan to right the economy and solve some of our current and future problems? If so, please share links, book titles, articles, etc. I'd love to read it.

[leekohler]

It's entirely possible to make your point known without resorting to calling people stupid. Please follow the forum rules.


I reported it. I'm getting really tired of it too.

[Eraserhead]

^^ Its also ironic of him to say "use facts and logic to annoy a Liberal" when he takes the word of Faux News.

[Desertrat]

Well, somewhere or another I'm on record for decrying Bush's stimulus notion, and TARP. As well as grumping at the Congress for voting on it--and we know which party has controlled Congress since the 2006 elections.

IOW, bi-partisan idiocy.

But, since Obama and his advisors have seen fit to continue Bush's stupidity, it's now their baby and they gotta rock it. Obama has made it his fault, just as way last year I said he would.

Given the way Pelosi and Reid and other sycophants were slobbering and drooling over the upcoming coronation of their Messiah, last November, his influence immediately after the election could have had Congress setting up to do right by cutting spending instead of eagerly doing wrong.

A moment of cynicism: From a news article, "Vice President Joe Biden said the Obama administration "misread how bad the economy was"..." That's what happens when you elect dyslexics who flunked Remedial Reading.

Uncynically: Don't believe the hired hands at CNBC or MSNBC when it comes to reading the economy. Apparently Bush did and Obama has.

[leekohler]

I agree that no additional bailout should have occurred. However, infrastructure spending is important. I would like to also see Iraq over much sooner than scheduled. That would help cut spending quite a bit. That's our biggest drain at the moment.

[Eraserhead]

That would help cut spending quite a bit. That's our biggest drain at the moment.

Unless the Iraq war is costing you over $1 trillion/year your biggest drain is healthcare.

[Eraserhead]

Uncynically: Don't believe the hired hands at CNBC or MSNBC when it comes to reading the economy. Apparently Bush did and Obama has.

I suspect Obama reads the Economist on the economy...

[leekohler]

Unless the Iraq war is costing you over $1 trillion/year your biggest drain is healthcare.

Which is also politically charged. That's going to take some time to work out.

[Eraserhead]

Which is also politically charged.

I'm actually slightly surprised the Republicans aren't pro-Universal healthcare as it'll reduce expenditure significantly and that even private care will come down in price to compete with the government offering making it cheaper even for the rich...

[leekohler]

I'm actually slightly surprised the Republicans aren't pro-Universal healthcare as it'll reduce expenditure significantly and that even private care will come down in price to compete with the government offering making it cheaper even for the rich...

Their position is not based on reality or even practicality, but on ideals. That's the main problem in American politics these days.

[Desertrat]

Y'all are falling behind the curve on Iraq and on healthcare. Obama's seen that Bush's surge worked in Iraq, so while there's a drawdown going on in Iraq, as previously planned, he's doing the surge thing in Afghanistan.

And Rahm Emanuel, today, stated that the three-year "trigger" for health insurance companies to bring down costs is still operative--much to Congressional Democrats' dismay. Sort of a copy of what the Republicans have been talking about.

Never a dull moment...

'Rat

[hulugu]

Y'all are falling behind the curve on Iraq and on healthcare. Obama's seen that Bush's surge worked in Iraq, so while there's a drawdown going on in Iraq, as previously planned, he's doing the surge thing in Afghanistan....

I remember catching a lot of flak for thinking the "surge" (a goofy phrase) would be helpful in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, one of my main critiques of the Bush administration was their Attention-Deficit Disorder with regard to Afghanistan once the Iraq War rolled around. More importantly is Obama is paying attention to General Petraeus and his counter-insurgency tactics.

If Thomas Ricks is correct in his book The Gamble , the tactics and larger strategy worked. Remember, Rumsfeld fought hard against such a movement and it took his dismissal—something Bush also held fast against—to actually create the opportunity.

Of course, the "surge" could be more successful (many political goals still haven't been met), but the strategy appears sound—although several 19th century British calvary officers already described what it took us from 2003-2007 to discover.

If Obama is following a successful system than it seems his being pragmatic and mature in continuing such a program rather than tearing it down so he could announce his own and thereby losing whatever progress we've made.
Afghanistan needed an influx of US and NATO troops since 2002.

...And Rahm Emanuel, today, stated that the three-year "trigger" for health insurance companies to bring down costs is still operative--much to Congressional Democrats' dismay. Sort of a copy of what the Republicans have been talking about....

Well, I have to ask, what was the McCain-Palin program again? I'm not happy about the current giveaway....I mean negotiation, but I don't think we'd be getting something better.

[Ugg]

would you say that it's not factual that the buying power of the US dollar has declined during these last seventy years?



Pick any date and it's really arbitrary. Much less the fact that massive changes in the global economy have shifted the value of the dollar as much as anything our government does or doesn't do.

All I can say is that when my two great-great aunts traveled to Paris and London in 1935, they were reduced to eating cheese sandwiches because the dollar was worth almost nothing.

It goes up and it goes down. So far, the world has decided that for right now, the dollar is the best bet in town.

[luminosity]

I think it's clear that Rahm's comment was mainly a trial ballon to see how such a sentiment would be received, and it was met in scathing fashion from just about every liberal (including me).

The "trigger" would never happen. Health care reform without a public plan is no reform at all. Insurance companies will always screw the individual whenever the choice is between the individual and profit.

[SactoGuy18]

In short, I think in the end if we do get health care reform the system will NOT be based on the British NHS model, given all the complaints about that system!

We'll end up with something akin to the French model, one that actually works considering it is a quasi-government operation. :) (Say what you want about the French, but at least from the middle 1980's on developed things like the world's second-best high-speed rail system (after the Japanese), the only country with a really viable nuclear power generation network, probably the best ADSL broadband network in the world, and created the first really viable competitor to Boeing (A330 problems notwithstanding!).)

[fivepoint]

Their position is not based on reality or even practicality, but on ideals. That's the main problem in American politics these days.

Another brilliant quote from Lee! ;) That really is the problem with America today, too many damn ideals. People should start caring less and sticking to their guns less often. If only people has more loosely defined morals and just went with the flow, with the thoughts and ideas that were popular at the moment!

If only!



Pick any date and it's really arbitrary. Much less the fact that massive changes in the global economy have shifted the value of the dollar as much as anything our government does or doesn't do.

All I can say is that when my two great-great aunts traveled to Paris and London in 1935, they were reduced to eating cheese sandwiches because the dollar was worth almost nothing.

It goes up and it goes down. So far, the world has decided that for right now, the dollar is the best bet in town.

Imagine that... they were reduced to eating chesse sandwiches during FDR's massive inflation of the nanny state. When he was essentially doing exactly what Obama is doing now. :)

I think you made the Desert's point rather well. :)

[leekohler]

Another brilliant quote from Lee! ;) That really is the problem with America today, too many damn ideals. People should start caring less and sticking to their guns less often. If only people has more loosely defined morals and just went with the flow, with the thoughts and ideas that were popular at the moment!

If only!

Wrong. People need to start looking at practical and realistic long-term solutions to existing problems, even if they don't fit their ideals. Idealism is not realism. That you and many others don't understand this is why we have such a mess on our hands. People need to start looking at the truth, not what they want the truth to be. Nice try on twisting my words. :rolleyes: Another brilliant and telling quote from you.

Y'all are falling behind the curve on Iraq and on healthcare. Obama's seen that Bush's surge worked in Iraq, so while there's a drawdown going on in Iraq, as previously planned, he's doing the surge thing in Afghanistan.

And Rahm Emanuel, today, stated that the three-year "trigger" for health insurance companies to bring down costs is still operative--much to Congressional Democrats' dismay. Sort of a copy of what the Republicans have been talking about.

Never a dull moment...

'Rat

I have never been against the Afghanistan effort- not when Bush did it, and not now.

[Badandy]

(Say what you want about the French, but at least from the middle 1980's on developed things like the world's second-best high-speed rail system (after the Japanese),

Population density.

the only country with a really viable nuclear power generation network

Environmentalists.

, probably the best ADSL broadband network in the world

Population density.

, and created the first really viable competitor to Boeing (A330 problems notwithstanding!).)

Created a competitor to an already established American product.

What's your point? You've named two things that can't be done as efficiently in America because of popoulation density, bragged that they might be catching up to an American company in an airplane design, and then talked about a usable electricity-"generation" method that is always stymied or discredited in America by the same people who say "we have to stop our addiction to oil....man".

[Iscariot]

"we have to stop our addiction to oil....man".

"We taught a lion to eat tofu!"

[SydneyDev]

So one of Obama's selling points months ago, for pushing this stimulus package through so quickly, was unemployment.

Perhaps some legislation to make it easier/cheaper to hire people would have been more effective than just throwing money around. But you can't expect politicians to try cheap, targeted solutions when there's largesse to be had.

[hulugu]

...That really is the problem with America today, too many damn ideals. People should start caring less and sticking to their guns less often. If only people has more loosely defined morals and just went with the flow, with the thoughts and ideas that were popular at the moment!...

I dare say Lee was referring to ideology rather than ideals. Accepting pragmatic solutions that serve our ideals is what we want, fighting over dogmatic strictures is a waste of time.

I wish you'd stop blowing the hysteria horn and running around like your hair's on fire.

Imagine that... they were reduced to eating chesse sandwiches during FDR's massive inflation of the nanny state. When he was essentially doing exactly what Obama is doing now. :)

I think you made the Desert's point rather well. :)

Well, actually the buying power of the dollar increased from $4.11 (equivalent buying power to 1776 dollar) in 1920 to $5.87 in 1940. From 1970 to 1990, the buying power of the dollar dropped by 70%. A similar reading would indicate that FDR's "nanny state" actually increased the value of the dollar, but that Nixon and Reagan (not to mention Carter and Ford) actually destroyed the dollar's value.

Of course, I think we'd be careful to make such easy claims when there's probably one or two other factors in effect.

Perhaps some legislation to make it easier/cheaper to hire people would have been more effective than just throwing money around. But you can't expect politicians to try cheap, targeted solutions when there's largesse to be had.

What kind of legislation do you mean?

[leekohler]

I dare say Lee was referring to ideology rather than ideals. Accepting pragmatic solutions that serve our ideals is what we want, fighting over dogmatic strictures is a waste of time.

I wish you'd stop blowing the hysteria horn and running around like your hair's on fire.

Thank you.

[Eraserhead]

In short, I think in the end if we do get health care reform the system will NOT be based on the British NHS model, given all the complaints about that system!

Given the cost our system is absolutely excellent. Its also improved a lot over the past 10 years.

[Eraserhead]

Population density.

As the British have a far higher population density than the French why don't we have faster ADSL?

[Badandy]

As the British have a far higher population density than the French why don't we have faster ADSL?

I was just speaking on the lack of population density in the U.S. as compared to France on why we don't have superfast ADSL. It's a lot more costly to implement. There could be a number of reasons that you don't, I don't know.

We're about 1/3 as population dense as France. It makes things such as high-speed trains and better cell phone towers very costly (or at least less economical) to roll out.

[SactoGuy18]

Given the cost our system is absolutely excellent. Its also improved a lot over the past 10 years.

I think the stigma of "rationed care" (whatever that means!) and the fact too many Brits were doing surgery outside the UK probably forced the NHS to do a lot of massive improvements in recent years.

I still think if the USA does get universal care it will be based on the French model, though.

[Desertrat]

hulugu, no trend is a smooth line. Your comment, "Well, actually the buying power of the dollar increased from $4.11 (equivalent buying power to 1776 dollar) in 1920 to $5.87 in 1940. From 1970 to 1990, the buying power of the dollar dropped by 70%. A similar reading would indicate that FDR's "nanny state" actually increased the value of the dollar, but that Nixon and Reagan (not to mention Carter and Ford) actually destroyed the dollar's value." is irrelevant to the long-term degradation which has occurred with the inflation of the money supply.

As far as losses during any single presidency, Carter's was the worst--but it was the culmination of Johnson's guns'n'butter policy.

The decline has continued on through post-Carter presidencies. The present wrong-headedness is leading to what will likely become the worst we've ever known.

For many analysts, the only argument is "when".

There were a few who predicted some variant of this mess as far back as 2002. By 2005 there were numerous people trying to get it through to TPTB that we were getting into deep doo-doo. When Bush & Congress first came up with the stimulus and TARP, the chorus increased in volume and became more specific. As the Obamanites have continued these fallacious efforts, only the timing remains in doubt.

About all we have left is a printing press--which is heading us toward a behavior pattern not much different from that of Zimbabwe. You can't monetize debt without creating a financial trainwreck.

'Rat

[hulugu]

hulugu, no trend is a smooth line. Your comment... is irrelevant to the long-term degradation which has occurred with the inflation of the money supply.

As far as losses during any single presidency, Carter's was the worst--but it was the culmination of Johnson's guns'n'butter policy.

The decline has continued on through post-Carter presidencies. The present wrong-headedness is leading to what will likely become the worst we've ever known.

For many analysts, the only argument is "when".

There were a few who predicted some variant of this mess as far back as 2002. By 2005 there were numerous people trying to get it through to TPTB that we were getting into deep doo-doo. When Bush & Congress first came up with the stimulus and TARP, the chorus increased in volume and became more specific. As the Obamanites have continued these fallacious efforts, only the timing remains in doubt.

About all we have left is a printing press--which is heading us toward a behavior pattern not much different from that of Zimbabwe. You can't monetize debt without creating a financial trainwreck.

'Rat

I don't think you understood my point, using the decline of the dollar's buying power alone is just one metric, but doesn't describe the economy completely. In 1776, the dollar was worth $10.53 to today's $.38. In 1900, there was a second peak of $10.12.

On the other hand, the GDP per capita has risen from under $1,000 to $42,000 from 1776 to 1990. While each individual dollar buys less in the equivalent goods, we make so much more money that it doesn't mean a linear relationship.

This is not to say that the dramatic decline of the dollar's value from 1965 until today is not worrisome, or that we're not about to enjoy "interesting times" but rather that I thought fivepoint was incorrect to use the purchasing power of food in Paris/London in 1932 as a good argument that FDR destroyed the dollar's value.

As you said, it took LBJ's actions which we're feeling today, indicating that complex and long-term relationships exist.

[Eraserhead]

I think the stigma of "rationed care" (whatever that means!) and the fact too many Brits were doing surgery outside the UK probably forced the NHS to do a lot of massive improvements in recent years.

Well, really it was the Conservatives (who had under-invested in the NHS for 20 years) getting un-elected by the Labour party.

[dukebound85]

Which whacked out wingnut have you been listening to?

You better limit your daily intake of hate and misinformation or your blood pressure is going to go through the roof.

first response and why doesnt this surprise me from this liberal board?

i agree op, it's getting out of hand

[leekohler]

first response and why doesnt this surprise me from this liberal board?

i agree op, it's getting out of hand

Sorry duke- the OP was raving and hysterical.

[Ugg]

I was just speaking on the lack of population density in the U.S. as compared to France on why we don't have superfast ADSL. It's a lot more costly to implement. There could be a number of reasons that you don't, I don't know.

We're about 1/3 as population dense as France. It makes things such as high-speed trains and better cell phone towers very costly (or at least less economical) to roll out.


Your argument only makes sense on a national scale. I've never heard that high speed rail has to be national in scope to succeed or high speed internet either. The NE US should have had high speed rail two decades ago. There's absolutely no excuse for it not to happen.

[Badandy]

Your argument only makes sense on a national scale. I've never heard that high speed rail has to be national in scope to succeed or high speed internet either. The NE US should have had high speed rail two decades ago. There's absolutely no excuse for it not to happen.

Well, there's a good reason for not building high speed trains now: It's costs a lot of money.

And for internet, there are smaller geographical areas in the U.S. that have really fast internet.

[Ugg]

Well, there's a good reason for not building high speed trains now: It's costs a lot of money.

And for internet, there are smaller geographical areas in the U.S. that have really fast internet.

That argument just cracks me up. So, we're going to stop building all transportation infrastructure? No more bridges, highways, runways? In other words it's simply an argument against the future, not for anything. Highway expansion/repair is getting to the point where in many parts of the US it's more expensive than rail expansion. I'm beginning to think there's a new Luddite movement afoot.

As far as the really fast internet, it's really only available at places like the googleplex or major tech firms.

[Badandy]

That argument just cracks me up. So, we're going to stop building all transportation infrastructure?

No, but we could cut back the scale of it until we have money. We're out of money, we're going to have to print money to repay the debt at some point. If a person goes into debt they cut down on expenditures that, while possibly helpful and needed, are expensive and would plunge them even further into debt. Hell, the state I life in, California, is in a HUGE crisis. That doesn't stop people from saying "Well, it would be kinda nice having a high-speed train to San Francisco. Sure, I'll vote for it."

As far as the really fast internet, it's really only available at places like the googleplex or major tech firms.

Why do you think it's not more widely available? If it will make money for whoever builds it (meaning there needs to be demand and the ability to supply at a price to satiate that demand), then someone will build it. Why hasn't it happened?

[pdham]

Why do you think it's not more widely available? If it will make money for whoever builds it (meaning there needs to be demand and the ability to supply at a price to satiate that demand), then someone will build it. Why hasn't it happened?

Telecommunications infrastructure is a good example of where the market is not always the best vehicle for supplying a good. Becasue, as you pointed out, if it was always in the best interest of the private sector to build telecom infrastructure we would have a better network. However, high-speed internet, especially fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP), is a huge asset to a community looking to attract, retain and cultivate businesses. In other words, a public investment in communications infrastructure could pay huge dividends in generating private economic growth.

[Eraserhead]

Well, there's a good reason for not building high speed trains now: It's costs a lot of money.

It cost a lot of money in the past too. and it costs the Chinese/Japanese/Spanish a lot of money now - and they're all building new high speed rail lines (the Japanese are building a maglev line at the moment to connect Tokyo and Osaka in 1 hour).

[Badandy]

It cost a lot of money in the past too. and it costs the Chinese/Japanese/Spanish a lot of money now - and they're all building new high speed rail lines (the Japanese are building a maglev line at the moment to connect Tokyo and Osaka in 1 hour).

Touche, haha. I meant in terms of costing money with our current budget situation. How about we try to stablize *little* bit before we put billions into trains?

[LizKat]

"We taught a lion to eat tofu!"

Nope. Too late. Now we're getting ready to ban tofu. Gotta stick the soy beans in the gas tank so can still drive those big ol' SUVs.

I too love the arguments about high speed trains cost too much. They will cost more than that next year, and the next year after that. Could have built them ten times by now from when Moynihan started talking about high speed rail to upstate New York...

[Badandy]

Nope. Too late. Now we're getting ready to ban tofu. Gotta stick the soy beans in the gas tank so can still drive those big ol' SUVs.

I too love the arguments about high speed trains cost too much. They will cost more than that next year, and the next year after that. Could have built them ten times by now from when Moynihan started talking about high speed rail to upstate New York...

But we're massively in debt and are going to have to print boatloads of money which will lead to currency devaluation. You really think we should fund every single thing that the state wants to do in the current budget situation? Because if so, there are a ton of people lobbying for a ton of money. How about we just double the funding of everything!

[hulugu]

But we're massively in debt and are going to have to print boatloads of money which will lead to currency devaluation. You really think we should fund every single thing that the state wants to do in the current budget situation? Because if so, there are a ton of people lobbying for a ton of money. How about we just double the funding of everything!

Well, ideally—and I'm aware that this falls flat once reality sets in—we'd spend the money on specific projects that create short-term construction jobs, but also create long-term value such as the previously mentioned FTTP and high-speed trains. It's an investment.

The problem with the stimulus is two-fold: first, everyone asked for money and nearly everyone got something, and second, it's taking far too long to get the money into people's hands and starting work. It's worth noting that only 10% of the stimulus money has actually gone out.

We shouldn't continue to print money without requiring that something of specific and concrete values comes from it. We've lent billions to keep banks afloat, billions more to save auto-companies and other entities, and yet we're now balking at actually building something? I think our priorities might be completely out-of-order.

The important question might be, after we retrench and state's are able to meet the budgets for this year, what's keeping this situation from repeating itself next year and the next? How do we re-energize this economy?

That's an important question I'd really love to hear answered by conservatives.

[Badandy]

That's an important question I'd really love to hear answered by conservatives.

I'd also like to hear it answered by democrats, because throwing trillions of dollars at the problem and expecting no currency repercussions is unrealistic. How would you answer it?

[Ugg]

But we're massively in debt and are going to have to print boatloads of money which will lead to currency devaluation. You really think we should fund every single thing that the state wants to do in the current budget situation? Because if so, there are a ton of people lobbying for a ton of money. How about we just double the funding of everything!

Why don't we simply do the intelligent thing. Not spend money on new highways and take the money that's in the budget and start building HSR. We have to start somewhere.

[hulugu]

I'd also like to hear it answered by democrats, because throwing trillions of dollars at the problem and expecting no currency repercussions is unrealistic. How would you answer it?

What are you a therapist?

"What should I do Doc?" asks the patient.
"What do you think you do?"
"..."

Does my question come across as facetious in some way? I've asked it in several threads and AFAIK I haven't gotten an answer.

I'm honestly asking if conservatives (Libertarians, NeoCons, Republicans and little 'r' republicans, etc.) have a competing plan. I'm asking this because I haven't heard it before. Variations of "whatever you do, don't touch that button" but not a plan.

[Badandy]

Does my question come across as facetious in some way? I've asked it in several threads and AFAIK I haven't gotten an answer.

It's not facetious. The democrats have no plan either, just a policy of constituent appeasement by throwing the kitchen sink at the problem to tell the voting population, "Hey, we're trying!". You've got to be nuts if you think that printing more and more money will result in anything other than extreme currency devaluation.

As a fiscal conservative? Ride it out (I know, what a novel idea), maintain tax rates where they are (certainly no increase), and cut spending on everything besides police, fire, and defense. I know, it's pretty vague, but I truly think that doing nothing is better than what we're doing now.

[Gelfin]

As a fiscal conservative? Ride it out (I know, what a novel idea), maintain tax rates where they are (certainly no increase), and cut spending on everything besides police, fire, and defense. I know, it's pretty vague, but I truly think that doing nothing is better than what we're doing now.

Police and fire, I can see. Fires are no respecter of economic conditions, and crime actually goes up in down times. Why is defense a sacred cow?

[Ugg]

Police and fire, I can see. Fires are no respecter of economic conditions, and crime actually goes up in down times. Why is defense a sacred cow?

Defense spending is what will bring this country down just like it brought Britain down as well as the Roman Empire. What is it, 30% of federal spending? that simply isn't sustainable.

[rhsgolfer33]

I'm honestly asking if conservatives (Libertarians, NeoCons, Republicans and little 'r' republicans, etc.) have a competing plan. I'm asking this because I haven't heard it before. Variations of "whatever you do, don't touch that button" but not a plan.

A competing plan to the somewhat Keynesian economic policies that have been used thus far in managing the downturn? I think many would argue (especially people of Classical economic principles, although most people probably wouldn't know them if they had them) that it would have been better to do nothing and let the economy self correct over time, instead of implementing a stimulus that is so slow to move that by the time its actually applied in earnest the economy could have already started to turn around. In economics doing nothing is generally consider to be a plan.

The main issue I have with applications of government spending to turn an economy around is that the other half of Keynesian economics, tempering an economy in up times, is never actually applied in earnest. Counter-cyclical fiscal policies in economic up times have never really been put in place in earnest, IMO (and they probably never will be, they would likely prove extremely unpopular among voters and Americans in general).

Another issue that has me a little unnerved is the talk of increase enforcement of corporate taxation and increased forms and amounts of individual taxation. I don't think even Keynes would say that a rather significant economic downturn would be the right time for the government to suddenly enforce taxes more stringently and increase taxes, even to pay for a program.

Sometimes I also wonder whether Keynesian economic theory of increased government deficit spending to move an economy back towards equilibrium actually applies in an economy where government deficit spending is already extremely high most of the time. I don't know the answer to this question, perhaps it would be something interesting to study.

I think anyone with an understanding of basic economics can clearly see that elements of both Keynesian economic theory and Classical economic theory prove true in our dynamic economy. Personally, I don't feel that any of our leaders, in down or up times, have ever hit the nail on the head when applying a correct mix of both theories. Again, speaking out of personal opinion, I think this likely has more to do with pressures from voters, lobbyists, etc, rather than direct lack of knowledge as to what to a more ideal solution would be (though as someone who has limited economic knowledge, I'm unsure of the most ideal solution).

[hulugu]

A competing plan to the somewhat Keynesian economic policies that have been used thus far in managing the downturn? I think many would argue (especially people of Classical economic principles, although most people probably wouldn't know them if they had them) that it would have been better to do nothing and let the economy self correct over time, instead of implementing a stimulus that is so slow to move that by the time its actually applied in earnest the economy could have already started to turn around. In economics doing nothing is generally consider to be a plan.

The main issue I have with applications of government spending to turn an economy around is that the other half of Keynesian economics, tempering an economy in up times, is never actually applied in earnest. Counter-cyclical fiscal policies in economic up times have never really been put in place in earnest, IMO (and they probably never will be, they would likely prove extremely unpopular among voters and Americans in general).

Another issue that has me a little unnerved is the talk of increase enforcement of corporate taxation and increased forms and amounts of individual taxation. I don't think even Keynes would say that a rather significant economic downturn would be the right time for the government to suddenly enforce taxes more stringently and increase taxes, even to pay for a program.

Sometimes I also wonder whether Keynesian economic theory of increased government deficit spending to move an economy back towards equilibrium actually applies in an economy where government deficit spending is already extremely high most of the time. I don't know the answer to this question, perhaps it would be something interesting to study.

I think anyone with an understanding of basic economics can clearly see that elements of both Keynesian economic theory and Classical economic theory prove true in our dynamic economy. Personally, I don't feel that any of our leaders, in down or up times, have ever hit the nail on the head when applying a correct mix of both theories. Again, speaking out of personal opinion, I think this likely has more to do with pressures from voters, lobbyists, etc, rather than direct lack of knowledge as to what to a more ideal solution would be (though as someone who has limited economic knowledge, I'm unsure of the most ideal solution).

An interesting post, especially your statement "...In economics doing nothing is generally consider to be a plan."

I also agree with your last paragraph, first I'm becoming more and more aware of my lack of knowledge regarding economics (actually, as I get older the number of things I don't know seems to be growing at an exponential rate compared to the things I do know), but secondly, I've also considered that the right mix of both theories might actually be what we need.

I'm honestly not sure, which is why I enjoy these threads and have been reading at much as I can about the subject.

[rhsgolfer33]

An interesting post, especially your statement "...In economics doing nothing is generally consider to be a plan."

It is a rather interesting concept and one held by many Classical economists. Since "believers" (which isn't a term I hesitate to use, since in modern times it seems like economic principles have almost become a religion for some) in Say's Law and Classical economics in general, would hold that the economy would self correct and return to equilibrium supply and demand levels and employment, their plan or course of action would probably be to do little to nothing. Of course this is a pretty simple interpretation; quite frankly, trying to wrap my head around the complexities of even just Say's law and it interpretations gives me a headache.

I'd love to study economics seriously, but I lack the math abilities. I have, however, been lucky enough to study some basic to intermediate economics with a moderate to slightly Keynesian economist who has worked for the UN, foreign nations, etc. Its really opened my eyes to the reality of the marketplace and has made me realize that economic policies and the economy are not as black and white as they are often assumed by many on the Keynesian and Classical sides.

I also agree with your last paragraph, first I'm becoming more and more aware of my lack of knowledge regarding economics (actually, as I get older the number of things I don't know seems to be growing at an exponential rate compared to the things I do know), but secondly, I've also considered that the right mix of both theories might actually be what we need.

I'm honestly not sure, which is why I enjoy these threads and have been reading at much as I can about the subject.

Tell me about it, the more I think the more I realize what I don't know which leads me to want to know more, but then I realize I don't have time to learn all that I want to know and I get bummed out.

Like many things, economics is best viewed on a scale. I don't think a full Keynesian approach is entirely the answer (though, as the German Chancellor Merkel suggested recently, if we're going to spend such large amounts in down times, it might be prudent to try more effective measures to temper growth in the up times). Ultimately, what you want is a nice flat upward slopping growth line, both Keynes and Classical economists think their approach is the best at obtaining this. I don't think its quite so black and white. A good mix of Classical and Keynesian, regulation and free market, government and consumer spending, etc. is probably what is really necessary. I doubt the right mixture will ever be found and applied, but its nice to dream.

Reading these threads is a great insight into what others think and the knowledge they have to offer. I think we get a good mix of opinions on most subjects, which is hard to find in most forums. Of course, sometimes times opinions are uniformed (I've offered more than my fair share of crackpot opinions), but there is alway something to be learned from the discussion that results.

Now I think I'm going to go find something to do that requires less brain function. :)