PDA

View Full Version : Obama, is he over his head?



subroc
02-04-2009, 07:12 PM
Now that the bloom is off the rose so to speak and we are starting to see this guy in action does he appear to be over his head? Misstep after misstep is giving the appearance of amateur hour. He can’t pick a cabinet member without a questionable past. “Everybody is a lobbyist. Does he even know enough honest people to put in these jobs? The stimulus package is really a democrat wish list of left wing programs that are nothing more than pork, in the worst political sense. He has the entire nation worrying that he is planning on nationalizing banking as well as other industries. He has already alienated our trading partners worldwide with his buy American provision in the stimulus package. I hope this is just his initial growing pains, although I really expect this is a portent of things to come.

I sure hope he does something, anything, right in the near future so even though I didn’t vote for him I can actually say to myself, things will be OK. Right now this administration looks like amateur hour.

Franco
02-04-2009, 07:22 PM
He's an empty suit, a prop of the radical left!

M Remington
02-04-2009, 07:30 PM
I voted for him and I am unhappy with many of his choices (tax issues, lobbyists, etc.).

Not a chance on being in over his head. That's the great thing about being President, you can surround yourself with people who are experts. Hell, you or I could be successful President with the experts that are out there.

A couple of questions/comments. . .

1. Didn't Bush begin the nationalization process? Let's give credit where credit is due. I am a firm believer that if you can't compete, you should fail. Apparently Bush and Obama don't believe in that.

2. While many American manufacturers produce goods that are inferior to those manufactured by the Asians, I would think that most conservatives are in favor of the buy America plan.

3. There is some pork in the stimulus bill, but some of it is rebuilding what had to be gutted because of the focus on war.

IowaBayDog
02-04-2009, 08:48 PM
1. Yes, and he lost the little support in his own party he already had, two wrongs don't make a right. Are you using the addage that if Bush did it, it must be OK cause I remember you having a slightly different opinion when he was in office.

2. Autos for a time were inferior, that gap closed several years ago still work to do. Hardly any other U.S. made products are inferior to imports, they not price competitive and our greed as consumers has ruined our manufacturing. Every consumer is to blame and the fix is in our power, unfortunetly the money isn't for most families.

3. Some pork! it is 80% pork, yes Frisbee Golf courses and condom distribution took a back seat to National Defense, how evil.

subroc
02-04-2009, 09:22 PM
M Remington

Is Bush still in office?

I thought the president was Obama. We are talking about Obama. It is OK if you slowly exhale and realize that Bush is no longer in office and Obama is president.

What Bush did or didn't do has nthing to do with the amateur, not ready for prime time incompetance of the Obama administration.

ErinsEdge
02-04-2009, 09:25 PM
He's an empty suit, a prop of the radical left!Pelosi's puppet

Patrick Johndrow
02-04-2009, 09:31 PM
Obama, is he over his head?

Does a bear crap in the woods?

Goose
02-04-2009, 09:45 PM
The left will continue to use Bush as an excuse when faced with Obama's many inadequacies and future failures. It will work for a while but not forever.

Is he in over his head? No doubt he is. This guy has a wafer-thin resume and was nothing more than a community rabble-rouser before he was elected to office. He's done nothing in his life.

His own party will abuse him for the next four years and we'll all suffer for it. And I've never seen a President display the arrogance this guy does with statements like "I won" and "I'll trump you". He has no leadership skills at all.

Lucky Seven
02-04-2009, 10:38 PM
The country elected a "freshman" to a "seniors" job.

How come nobody has talked about the 450,000 in Kentucky with out power ?? Where is FEMA ?? Has Spike Lee stated doing a doc. on the people in Kentucky freezing to death ?? Where is all the Federal funding ??? Does this lack of help mean Obama hates white people in the red state of Kentucky ?? Not even a fly over Kentucky by B. Hussin Obama ?????

Bush got destroyed by the media over Katrina...... why is the media not reporting on the Kentucky disaster ????? or reporting on the lack of concern by Obama ???

Hey Lib's ....please explain !!!!! :D

WindyCreek
02-05-2009, 07:03 AM
This post is spot on!


The country elected a "freshman" to a "seniors" job.

How come nobody has talked about the 450,000 in Kentucky with out power ?? Where is FEMA ?? Has Spike Lee stated doing a doc. on the people in Kentucky freezing to death ?? Where is all the Federal funding ??? Does this lack of help mean Obama hates white people in the red state of Kentucky ?? Not even a fly over Kentucky by B. Hussin Obama ?????

Bush got destroyed by the media over Katrina...... why is the media not reporting on the Kentucky disaster ????? or reporting on the lack of concern by Obama ???

Hey Lib's ....please explain !!!!! :D

Ken Newcomb
02-05-2009, 07:47 AM
the media doesn't talk about Kentucky because Kentuckians, unlike most of New Orleans residences, are tough resiliant people that are taking care of themselves and not sitting on the street corner waiting for the government free money truck to arrive. Kentuckians must be a lot like Iowans caught in floods.

Obama over his head? That man is drowning and he is trying to take us with him.


I think the reason most libs keep referring to Bush is that deep in their hearts they truely wish he was still their President.

Julie R.
02-05-2009, 08:07 AM
I voted for him and I am unhappy with many of his choices (tax issues, lobbyists, etc.).

Not a chance on being in over his head. That's the great thing about being President, you can surround yourself with people who are experts. Hell, you or I could be successful President with the experts that are out there.

While many American manufacturers produce goods that are inferior to those manufactured by the Asians, I would think that most conservatives are in favor of the buy America plan.



Marx,
the man is over his head off the Continental Shelf drowning. While you're correct that a President can surround himself with experts in any field, that's presuming he accept his limitations and is willing to do something about them. Obomo is a narcissist, pure and simple. He thinks he's magic and all-knowing, smarter than anyone he can hire, a self image that was fed and nurtured by the fawning media.

And you're right that most conservatives would rather buy American, but most conservatives balk at the higher U.S.-made prices driven up by inflated, labor-organized wages. Unions outlived their usefulness decades ago and now exist solely to promote leftist political agendas and bully management into abandoning a merit-based pay system.

K G
02-05-2009, 08:46 AM
Add to BHO's inexperience Nancy Pelosi's creative math and you've got a PAIR of jokers....."If this stimulus package is not passed, 500 million jobs are at stake...."

Hmmmm.....more jobs are at stake than their are people living in this country....gotta love it.....:rolleyes:

Put on the hip waders, we're in it deep regards,

kg

kb27_99
02-05-2009, 09:06 AM
Does a bear crap in the woods?

Not if it's in a zoo!

Couldn't pass it up.



Cheers,

Kevin

kb27_99
02-05-2009, 09:27 AM
I voted for him and I am unhappy with many of his choices (tax issues, lobbyists, etc.).

It takes big balls to admit that Mark. You gained a little respect with that one.


Not a chance on being in over his head. That's the great thing about being President, you can surround yourself with people who are experts. Hell, you or I could be successful President with the experts that are out there.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. He can surround himself with great people, but in the end people will look through the cloud and see what he really is. A nobody that talks a good talk but can't walk the walk.



1. Didn't Bush begin the nationalization process? Let's give credit where credit is due. I am a firm believer that if you can't compete, you should fail. Apparently Bush and Obama don't believe in that.

Again, Bush is in Crawford Texas, Obama is in the While House. But i will agree with you.


2. While many American manufacturers produce goods that are inferior to those manufactured by the Asians, I would think that most conservatives are in favor of the buy America plan.


This may be true, but when you get down to the nut cracking its all about the good old american dollar to most people. Where can we get the best deal is the question most people ask.


JMO,

Kevin

Bob Gutermuth
02-05-2009, 09:33 AM
America's 4 yr national nightmare has begun. Our national motto should be" God Help America" we are gonna need all the help we can get.

Raymond Little
02-05-2009, 10:57 AM
Definition of a "Liberal";
He thinks he's magic and all-knowing, smarter than anyone he can hire, a self image that was fed and nurtured by the fawning media.

That's how many people "Acorn" has registered to vote;
....."If this stimulus package is not passed, 500 million jobs are at stake...."


Websters Helper Regards

Captain Mike D
02-05-2009, 10:57 AM
And you're right that most conservatives would rather buy American, but most conservatives balk at the higher U.S.-made prices driven up by inflated, labor-organized wages.

While the labor costs are one reason for US goods to not be competative in markets at home and abroad, another reason would be the fact that US corporations pay the 2nd highest taxes in the world.
IF corporate tax was eliminated our products would be much more competative in GLOBAL and domestic markets. Elimination of those taxes would probably return us to a manufacturing base that would bring jobs back home from overseas.

zeus3925
02-05-2009, 11:24 AM
Bellyache, bellyache, bellyache. The man has been in office two weeks, for cripes sake. It is going to take a bit more time to correct more than eight years of screw up from the boys before.

Brevard Arndt
02-05-2009, 11:44 AM
Probably, but we are now seeing the results of the "backroom" deals that were made to line up the "United Democratic" party. Thus the old "Political Hacks" that are being appointed with little forethought about their "histories".

I get depressed thinking about our Govenment and its inept leaders, but I can't think of anywhere else I would rather live.

I guess I will just hope for the best, and that someone will gain some sanity while in office.

ErinsEdge
02-05-2009, 11:55 AM
Obomo is a narcissist, pure and simple. He thinks he's magic and all-knowing, smarter than anyone he can hire, a self image that was fed and nurtured by the fawning media.
Boy Julie, you sure nailed that one on the head-add arrogant and condescending to that, but then that's what most narcissists are by definition. He has scammed the voters and now is going to shove his agenda down our throats telling us all the time we have to do this to save ourselves. Now we have the attorney general nominee that is linked to porn-what next? It's ludicrous.

precisionlabradors
02-05-2009, 12:23 PM
1. Yes, and he lost the little support in his own party he already had, two wrongs don't make a right. Are you using the addage that if Bush did it, it must be OK cause I remember you having a slightly different opinion when he was in office.

2. Autos for a time were inferior, that gap closed several years ago still work to do. Hardly any other U.S. made products are inferior to imports, they not price competitive and our greed as consumers has ruined our manufacturing. Every consumer is to blame and the fix is in our power, unfortunetly the money isn't for most families.

3. Some pork! it is 80% pork, yes Frisbee Golf courses and condom distribution took a back seat to National Defense, how evil.

80%? i am not disagreeing. been trying to educate myself on the bailout. it confuses me. where are you getting that stat? how can i learn more about the bailout without the ambiguity of partisan opinions?
________
Full melt bubble hash (http://trichomes.org/hashish/full-melt-hash)

kjrice
02-05-2009, 01:02 PM
The only experts he has surrounding him are tax evasion specialists. :D

backpasture
02-05-2009, 03:42 PM
80%? where are you getting that stat?
Same place he gets all his data -- he pulled it out of his posterior.

Steve Amrein
02-05-2009, 03:57 PM
The country elected a "freshman" to a "seniors" job.

How come nobody has talked about the 450,000 in Kentucky with out power ?? Where is FEMA ?? Has Spike Lee stated doing a doc. on the people in Kentucky freezing to death ?? Where is all the Federal funding ??? Does this lack of help mean Obama hates white people in the red state of Kentucky ?? Not even a fly over Kentucky by B. Hussin Obama ?????

Bush got destroyed by the media over Katrina...... why is the media not reporting on the Kentucky disaster ????? or reporting on the lack of concern by Obama ???

Hey Lib's ....please explain !!!!! :D


They just send poison peanut butter......

K G
02-05-2009, 04:04 PM
Bellyache, bellyache, bellyache. The man has been in office two weeks, for cripes sake. It is going to take a bit more time to correct more than eight years of screw up from the boys before.

Son of Cronus and Rhea, if the last two weeks are any indication, he's not gonna need 8 months to make the previous 8 years look like an almost-decade at the beach....

kg

Ken Newcomb
02-05-2009, 04:36 PM
Same place he gets all his data -- he pulled it out of his posterior.


I assume the "he" in this statement is Obama. :D

Hew
02-05-2009, 04:45 PM
Bellyache, bellyache, bellyache. The man has been in office two weeks, for cripes sake. It is going to take a bit more time to correct more than eight years of screw up from the boys before.
You gave it the old college try, but the bulk of Obama's early mis-steps have been of his own doing and he's spent more time correcting his own mistakes; not correcting whatever mistakes you want to ascribe to Bush. I'm sure things will go smoother once he gets some (any?!?) sea legs under him, but even the most ardent Obama sychophant would have to admit he's gotten off to a weak start.

Uncle Bill
02-05-2009, 07:56 PM
....but even the most ardent Obama sychophant would have to admit he's gotten off to a weak start.




That's an amazing statement coming from you, my friend. 'Ardent' and 'sycophantic' isn't what these people are...they are sword swallowers.. the type that stands up on the circus stage, and have the Obamaites throw the swords at them. Never has the term "spear-chucker" been so spot on.:rolleyes:

UB

IowaBayDog
02-05-2009, 09:45 PM
80%? i am not disagreeing. been trying to educate myself on the bailout. it confuses me. where are you getting that stat? how can i learn more about the bailout without the ambiguity of partisan opinions?


80% is actually pretty generous. It is documented in many sources that only 26 - 27% of the "Stimulus" will even be spent by th end of 2010. So without even looking at the "what" you have 70% pork, if it is not being injected into the economy for almost 2 years how can it be stimulative to an immediate dire need that Obama keeps telling us about. So of the 27% that is being spent I gave him credit for 74% of that being NON-pork which is 20% of the original total. Based on what I have read so far I have probably been to generous to BHO.

If you look at all these "infrastructure" earmarks and Obama's call for shovel ready projects it is basically funding things communities have rejected to pay for themselves. Go to any of 1000s small town papers online and look at what projects they are putting up for this money. Mostly pet projects for local politicians that were rejected by their tax payers.

backpasture
02-05-2009, 09:59 PM
80% is actually pretty generous. It is documented in many sources that only 26 - 27% of the "Stimulus" will even be spent by th end of 2010.

Can we see some of those 'sources'?


Based on what I have read so far I have probably been to generous to BHO.
Read where?



If you look at all these "infrastructure" earmarks and Obama's call for shovel ready projects it is basically funding things communities have rejected to pay for themselves.

Citation?



Go to any of 1000s small town papers online and look at what projects they are putting up for this money. Mostly pet projects for local politicians that were rejected by their tax payers.

Can you show use a couple of those of those '1000s' of sources?

Do you really hear/read this fiction somewhere, or is it your own invention?

I would be interested to know where these fallacies originate.

IowaBayDog
02-05-2009, 10:27 PM
Can you show use a couple of those of those '1000s' of sources?

.


Yes I could but maybe some lazy spoon fed liberals should actually start doing some research on their own. That's what I did, read local newspapers here and in Michigan where I am from, saw a trend, started local in other places, the trend continued, looked further, etc.

You voted for a fallacy and it is rearing its ugly head and you have no answers I feel for you. Just don't say we didn't tell you so.

backpasture
02-05-2009, 11:24 PM
Can you show use a couple of those of those '1000s' of sources?

Yes I could ......

Great! Let's see a couple of them.

Julie R.
02-06-2009, 12:24 AM
Great! Let's see a couple of them.


Source URL: http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/top-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-stimulus (http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/top-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-stimulus)
Links:
[1] http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf (http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf)
[2] http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515 (http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515)
[3] http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx)
[4] http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html (http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html)
[5] http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html)
[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120902785.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120902785.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
[7] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-economy-gdp&date=1992 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-economy-gdp&date=1992)
[8] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html)
[9] http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-bill-treemap (http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-bill-treemap)
[10] http://www.readthestimulus.org (http://www.readthestimulus.org/)/
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_basketball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_basketball)
[12] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/)/
[13] http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/)
[14] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2242.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2242.cfm)
[15] http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf)
[16] http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html)
[17] http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0112/015.html (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0112/015.html)
[18] http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/stimulusskeptics.pdf (http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/stimulusskeptics.pdf)
[19] http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com (http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com/)/
[20] http://www.moneymuseum.com/standard_english/raeume/geld_machen/werkstatt/papiergeld/papierdruck/papierdruck_unten.html (http://www.moneymuseum.com/standard_english/raeume/geld_machen/werkstatt/papiergeld/papierdruck/papierdruck_unten.html)
[21] http://www.cat (http://www.cat/) o.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf
[22] http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/12/making-work-destroying-wealth/ (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/12/making-work-destroying-wealth/)
[23] http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed011509a.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed011509a.cfm)
[24] http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=109402 (http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=109402)
[25] http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_1208-51.pdf (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_1208-51.pdf)

backpasture
02-06-2009, 12:46 AM
Source URL: http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/top-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-stimulus (http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/top-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-stimulus)
Links:
[1] http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf (http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf)
[2] http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515 (http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515)
[3] http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx)
[4] http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html (http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html)
[5] http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html)
[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120902785.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120902785.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
[7] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-economy-gdp&date=1992 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-economy-gdp&date=1992)
[8] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html)
[9] http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-bill-treemap (http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-bill-treemap)
[10] http://www.readthestimulus.org (http://www.readthestimulus.org/)/
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_basketball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_basketball)
[12] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/)/
[13] http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/)
[14] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2242.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2242.cfm)
[15] http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf)
[16] http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html)
[17] http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0112/015.html (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0112/015.html)
[18] http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/stimulusskeptics.pdf (http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/stimulusskeptics.pdf)
[19] http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com (http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com/)/
[20] http://www.moneymuseum.com/standard_english/raeume/geld_machen/werkstatt/papiergeld/papierdruck/papierdruck_unten.html (http://www.moneymuseum.com/standard_english/raeume/geld_machen/werkstatt/papiergeld/papierdruck/papierdruck_unten.html)
[21] http://www.cat (http://www.cat/) o.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf
[22] http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/12/making-work-destroying-wealth/ (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/12/making-work-destroying-wealth/)
[23] http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed011509a.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed011509a.cfm)
[24] http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=109402 (http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=109402)
[25] http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_1208-51.pdf (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_1208-51.pdf)

Some of the founding members of the right wing-nuttery (Cato, Heritage, etc), and a bunch of obscure links to... Midnight Basketball? Rankings of GDP by country? Keynesian econmonic theory (which supports the idea of a massive stimulus!)?

Is this the 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****' approach?

luvmylabs23139
02-06-2009, 01:13 AM
Some of the founding members of the right wing-nuttery (Cato, Heritage, etc), and a bunch of obscure links to... Midnight Basketball? Rankings of GDP by country? Keynesian econmonic theory (which supports the idea of a massive stimulus!)?

Is this the 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****' approach?

Here's a link to the actual house bill. Start reading, you will find things like a local dog park, water slides in FL, a new 3 million dollar club house for a municiple golf course and the list goes on and on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/house-stimulus-bill-full_n_160569.html

Oh, new cars, PELL grants (welfare), Food stamps (welfare), and on and on.
Refundable tax credits (welfare).

precisionlabradors
02-06-2009, 01:14 AM
Yes I could but maybe some lazy spoon fed liberals should actually start doing some research on their own. That's what I did, read local newspapers here and in Michigan where I am from, saw a trend, started local in other places, the trend continued, looked further, etc.

You voted for a fallacy and it is rearing its ugly head and you have no answers I feel for you. Just don't say we didn't tell you so.

that response is pathetic.

if you have evidence or citations, throw them out so we can see. if not, stop stating things as fact. i really am interested in where you are getting your numbers from. not disagreeing like stated before, but have not seen anything to substantiate what you are saying is fact.
________
Steroid Rehab Forum (http://www.rehab-forum.com/steroid-rehab/)

subroc
02-06-2009, 01:28 AM
Backpasture

Interesting that what you focused on was a couple of your personal boogiemen in an attempt to discredit the entire list of links. The list contained links from a variety of sources both left, right .gov and .edu. It would have been just as easy to focus on the .gov. .edu, and left wing news sources.

I suppose if you don’t want to discuss the merits with her that is a great tactic.

Your bias is showing.



Some of the founding members of the right wing-nuttery (Cato, Heritage, etc), and a bunch of obscure links to... Midnight Basketball? Rankings of GDP by country? Keynesian econmonic theory (which supports the idea of a massive stimulus!)?

Is this the 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****' approach?

kjrice
02-06-2009, 02:14 AM
Way over...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/obama_guantanamo

kindakinky
02-06-2009, 02:16 AM
Ezackly.

Get rid of those welfare programs like giving $1,000 tax credits to people who have children. Why should people pay for other folks' children?

And free educations? PFFFFF--get rid of public schools. Why should taxpayers have to pay $6000 a year to educate some people's children?

Get rid of these welfare programs. Why do we have to pay for some woman having 8 kids in one shot? Or even pay for a person having one kid? Why do people who have kids get tax credits and free public education? If you have kids, that's your responsibility and none of us should have to pay for their education or anything else.

Ken Newcomb
02-06-2009, 06:41 AM
Ezackly.

Get rid of those welfare programs like giving $1,000 tax credits to people who have children. Why should people pay for other folks' children?

And free educations? PFFFFF--get rid of public schools. Why should taxpayers have to pay $6000 a year to educate some people's children?

Get rid of these welfare programs. Why do we have to pay for some woman having 8 kids in one shot? Or even pay for a person having one kid? Why do people who have kids get tax credits and free public education? If you have kids, that's your responsibility and none of us should have to pay for their education or anything else.

Surely you are kidding about educating children?? Educating of children benefits everyone.

Paul Rainbolt
02-06-2009, 07:36 AM
[

People on welfare should be on mandatory birth control until the can take care of themselves.

backpasture
02-06-2009, 07:48 AM
Backpasture

Interesting that what you focused on was a couple of your personal boogiemen in an attempt to discredit the entire list of links. The list contained links from a variety of sources both left, right .gov and .edu. It would have been just as easy to focus on the .gov. .edu, and left wing news sources.

I suppose if you don’t want to discuss the merits with her that is a great tactic.


The merits!? She posted a bunch of links (http://www.golfcourses.com/), that are either Heritage (http://www.heritage.org/) or Cato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kato_Kaelin) information, or information that goes against her arguments, or complete non-sequiturs (http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/). It has all the coherence of the arguments the House Republicans (http://i33.tinypic.com/nq73vq.jpg) have been making.

The arguments being made against the stimulus ignore basic economics, which I guess is par for the course for the Republicans, who have become the party of willful ignorance.

Jill Simmons
02-06-2009, 07:50 AM
Sour grapes from John McCain/Republican house and senate are so counter-productive. Hobbling Obama at every turn isn't going to help the economy recover. He's the president now, and all of Washington has a duty to help him help us. Stalling, naysaying, and theatrics in the press only worsen America's situation and overall level of political cynicism.

backpasture
02-06-2009, 07:50 AM
Oh, new cars, PELL grants (welfare), Food stamps (welfare), and on and on.
Refundable tax credits (welfare).

Only in Republican lala land are PELL grants welfare.

Julie R.
02-06-2009, 09:23 AM
Some of the founding members of the right wing-nuttery (Cato, Heritage, etc), and a bunch of obscure links to... Midnight Basketball? Rankings of GDP by country? Keynesian econmonic theory (which supports the idea of a massive stimulus!)?

Is this the 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****' approach?

I will type this very slowly, for those of you :::coughcoughbackpasturecough::: that move your lips when you read. Those links basically contain source materials that contain facts that back up the widely held opinion that the 'stimulus package' is a steaming crock of jenkem. A few might also contain facts that prove Obomo is, indeed over his head (the topic of this thread).

Although I don't know why any of us waste our time arguing with a troll that has NEVER posted on a dog, training or hunting thread. And probably wears a skirt, is the guardian of a chihuahua, lives a vegan lifestyle, dates marx remington and hates hunting......;-)

duckheads
02-06-2009, 09:23 AM
Sour grapes from John McCain/Republican house and senate are so counter-productive. Hobbling Obama at every turn isn't going to help the economy recover. He's the president now, and all of Washington has a duty to help him help us. Stalling, naysaying, and theatrics in the press only worsen America's situation and overall level of political cynicism.

give me a break. you can't be serious. what have the left been doing for the last eight years? the media isn't going to question the messiah on anything so we the people must!!

K G
02-06-2009, 09:41 AM
The arguments being made against the stimulus ignore basic economics, which I guess is par for the course for the Republicans, who have become the party of willful ignorance.

It is readily apparent that you have not read the contents of the soon-to-be $1 TRILLION dollar BHO stimulus package. Talk about ignoring basic economics.....:rolleyes:

Hope you've got lots of kids who'll make LOTS of grandkids....'cause that's who's gonna be responsible for paying for all of the PORK in this "necessary" package.....:cool:

kg

precisionlabradors
02-06-2009, 10:00 AM
is a steaming crock of jenkem.

hahahaah. nice.most people don't even know what that is. i work in the addictions field and have clients that will try anything to fool a UA. hahaha.
________
WHICH IS STRONGER DILAUDID OR DEMEROL (http://www.rehab-forum.com/dilaudid-rehab/)

precisionlabradors
02-06-2009, 10:02 AM
It is readily apparent that you have not read the contents of the soon-to-be $1 TRILLION dollar BHO stimulus package. Talk about ignoring basic economics.....:rolleyes:

Hope you've got lots of kids who'll make LOTS of grandkids....'cause that's who's gonna be responsible for paying for all of the PORK in this "necessary" package.....:cool:

kg

i haven't seen it either. do you have a link that outlines the beneficiaries of the stimulus package?
________
Expert Insurance (http://xpertinsurance.com/)

luvmylabs23139
02-06-2009, 10:16 AM
Only in Republican lala land are PELL grants welfare.

Yes it is. It gives free college education and living expenses to certain people. Why the heck should my husband and I pay for that crap?? We both put ourselves through college working full time and going to school at night, or at times working at night full time and taking daytime classes. I have no issue with student loans. Money that will be paid back.

zeus3925
02-06-2009, 11:08 AM
You're all boxing with a ghost. The stimulus package is still in bi-partisan discussions. The final bill put up for vote is likely to be quite a bit different when it emerges from committee. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent writing to your congressman than making personal attacks on these threads when people disagree with you.

Lucky Seven
02-06-2009, 12:11 PM
You're all boxing with a ghost. The stimulus package is still in bi-partisan discussions. The final bill put up for vote is likely to be quite a bit different when it emerges from committee. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent writing to your congressman than making personal attacks on these threads when people disagree with you.

I hope you dont honestly think that this "spending bill" I mean stimulous bill is going to help the country.

300 million for STD study ???

264 billion (32 percent) is new means-tested welfare spending. This represents about $6,700 in new welfare spending for every poor person in the U.S.

$523 billion in new welfare spending that is hidden by budgetary gimmicks. If the bill is enacted, the total 10-year extra welfare cost is likely to be $787 billion

Once the hidden welfare spending in the bill is counted, the total 10-year fiscal burden (added to the national debt) will not be $816 billion, as claimed, but $1.34 trillion. This amounts to $17,400 for each household paying income tax in the U.S.

Please explain to me how this is going to help ALL AMERICANS out ???

Franco
02-06-2009, 12:13 PM
You're all boxing with a ghost. The stimulus package is still in bi-partisan discussions. The final bill put up for vote is likely to be quite a bit different when it emerges from committee. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent writing to your congressman than making personal attacks on these threads when people disagree with you.

No matter how you try an disguise it, the bill that passed the House belongs to the Democrats and all of you should be ashamed of it!

Mike Noel
02-06-2009, 12:51 PM
As if we needed the CBO to tell us this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

Call me crazy but I would rather deal with short term pain that brings long term prosperity versus the alternative. The problem is, that isn't the American way anymore. Comfort now and don't worry about how much it costs!! That mentality helped get us in the position we are in today.

Henry V
02-06-2009, 12:59 PM
No matter how you try an disguise it, the bill that passed the House belongs to the Democrats and all of you should be ashamed of it!
Help me understand. Who should be ashamed for the $1.2 deficit that was a surplus 8 years ago and who should be ashamed of the $700 billion bailout to the banks with no accountability for overvalued resources?
The bill in the long run will change much from the house version. I have seen a couple republican governors publicly supporting a big stimulus bill too.

YardleyLabs
02-06-2009, 01:05 PM
As if we needed the CBO to tell us this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

Call me crazy but I would rather deal with short term pain that brings long term prosperity versus the alternative. The problem is, that isn't the American way anymore. Comfort now and don't worry about how much it costs!! That mentality helped get us in the position we are in today.

I would agree if nothing is done to reduce the deficit again.

The $1.6 trillion in tax cuts implemented in 2001 in combination with massive increases in spending are among the causes of the current problems. While additional short-term deficits make sense to try to stimulate a failing economy, we must return to fiscal discipline.

I assume, based on your concerns about a balanced budget, that you would oppose growing the deficit even further to finance an extension of the Bush tax cuts.:rolleyes: Remember, those tax cuts would have carried a price tag of almost $5 trillion if not scheduled since their adoption to expire once Bush left office.

Cody Covey
02-06-2009, 01:46 PM
I agree that some spending would be fine but what they are proposing is not some spending it is big spending and a lot of it have nothing to do with stimulating the ecomony. I heard Sen. Inoya (sp?) say today that there is absolutely no earmarks or pork in the bill...how can anyone say that there isn't any with a straight face is beyond me.

Mike Noel
02-06-2009, 02:10 PM
I would agree if nothing is done to reduce the deficit again.

The $1.6 trillion in tax cuts implemented in 2001 in combination with massive increases in spending are among the causes of the current problems. While additional short-term deficits make sense to try to stimulate a failing economy, we must return to fiscal discipline.

I assume, based on your concerns about a balanced budget, that you would oppose growing the deficit even further to finance an extension of the Bush tax cuts.:rolleyes: Remember, those tax cuts would have carried a price tag of almost $5 trillion if not scheduled since their adoption to expire once Bush left office.

I have told many folks that I would happily go back to Clinton level tax rates if it meant a balanced budget. I won't pay more to finance the Dems pent up demand for their pet projects. Note: I know there is Republican pork in there as well, it is just as distasteful as the Dem pork.

The long term negative effect on GDP brought about by this stimulus would in turn have the same effect on our tax base thus requiring much larger tax rates which would in turn crimp growth.....another nasty spiral down. Like the Fram filter man says, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later".

The level of employment and economic activity we enjoyed over the 6 years before the crap hit the fan was artificially supported by low interest rates and an over leveraged consumer and business community. Most of the jobs that have been lost over the last year probably should not have existed in the first place. I doubt if many of them come back soon, if ever, no matter how much the government spends.

YardleyLabs
02-06-2009, 02:57 PM
I have told many folks that I would happily go back to Clinton level tax rates if it meant a balanced budget. I won't pay more to finance the Dems pent up demand for their pet projects. Note: I know there is Republican pork in there as well, it is just as distasteful as the Dem pork.

The long term negative effect on GDP brought about by this stimulus would in turn have the same effect on our tax base thus requiring much larger tax rates which would in turn crimp growth.....another nasty spiral down. Like the Fram filter man says, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later".

The level of employment and economic activity we enjoyed over the 6 years before the crap hit the fan was artificially supported by low interest rates and an over leveraged consumer and business community. Most of the jobs that have been lost over the last year probably should not have existed in the first place. I doubt if many of them come back soon, if ever, no matter how much the government spends.

I understand and respect your position. A stimulus program, whether based on one time tax cuts or one time spending, is a risky proposition, although it is much better than a program based on recurring spending or tax cuts. I come down on the side of believing we need to try something, but it's close and there's a good chance that it will not work or not work well enough to justify the cost.

greg ye
02-06-2009, 03:35 PM
Remember, those tax cuts would have carried a price tag of almost $5 trillion if not scheduled since their adoption to expire once Bush left office.

Where do you come up with this stuff? In an "all things being equal" scenario? Tax cuts are not an "all things equal" scenario because the outcome is a calculation of increased investment based on targeted fiscal policy. I support government spending on public infrastructure, we all do, I think, but to ignore the private sector at this time in history is WRONG! Obama said it yesterday, to paraphrase, for the republicans to demand the same policies that got us here in the first place is unacceptable... This POTUS is way over his head. He can't handle his own team much less the opposition. He is immature as a leader. How are all you dems going to feel when our nation fails to thrive with the repubs on the side lines? Why was a trillion dollar deficit bad under W but triple that is OK under the messiah? God help us all.

backpasture
02-06-2009, 03:40 PM
Those links basically contain source materials that contain facts that back up the widely held opinion that the 'stimulus package' is a steaming crock of jenkem.

No, they don't. SOME of them are links to the same discredited arguments against the stimulus package that keep getting regurgitated. Others are links to completely irrelevant items (like Midnight Basketball, which has as much to do with stimulus as your grandmother's huckleberry jam recipe. Why not post that, too?). Others are links to information that directly contradicts your position (Keynesian economics).



Although I don't know why any of us waste our time arguing with a troll that has NEVER posted on a dog, training or hunting thread.


Another false statement that can be refuted with the smallest amount of research.



and probably wears a skirt, is the guardian of a chihuahua, lives a vegan lifestyle, dates marx remington and hates hunting......

That is a powerful closing argument. :rolleyes:

I'm still waiting for someone to provide something that backs up the claim that the bill is '80% pork', or that 'only 26-27%' will be spent by end of next year.

I know all about midnight basketball, though. Thanks!

K G
02-06-2009, 03:41 PM
i haven't seen it either. do you have a link that outlines the beneficiaries of the stimulus package?

First post on this thread....this was the first list of appropriation targets.


You're all boxing with a ghost. The stimulus package is still in bi-partisan discussions. The final bill put up for vote is likely to be quite a bit different when it emerges from committee. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent writing to your congressman than making personal attacks on these threads when people disagree with you.

Just like you have, eh son of Cronus and Rhea? ;-) Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight........

"Likely to be quite a bit different?" We'd better all pray it's a WHOLE lot different. Out of committee? There could be a vote this afternoon....I'd say it's out of committee.....I'm still reading on CNBC that it's going to be just over or just under $1 TRILLION.....sure seems to be easy to lay this debt on the backs of our children, our grandchildren, and THEIR children...

That is, of course, if we all make it past December 2012.........:cool:

Nostredamus regards,

kg

backpasture
02-06-2009, 03:45 PM
It is readily apparent that you have not read the contents of the soon-to-be $1 TRILLION dollar BHO stimulus package. Talk about ignoring basic economics.....:rolleyes:

Hope you've got lots of kids who'll make LOTS of grandkids....'cause that's who's gonna be responsible for paying for all of the PORK in this "necessary" package.....:cool:

kg


You can see the analysis of these bills as the CBO pulls them together:
http://www.cbo.gov/

Still waiting for someone to outline 'all of the PORK' that is in the bill, and get us up to that '80% Pork' number.

Also, you have to understand that the bill that came out of the House will NOT be the final bill. A lot of the crap is getting weeded out as we speak (although I'm sure that there will still be some that gets in). The final bill looks like it's going to be in the $800Billion range -- around half the cost of the war in Iraq (and I know everyone here is outraged at that waste of taxpayer dollars, right?;-))

backpasture
02-06-2009, 03:47 PM
How are all you dems going to feel when our nation fails to thrive with the repubs on the side lines?

Is that what we've been doing while the Republicans were NOT on the sidelines? I've had about enough 'thriving', thank you very much.

greg ye
02-06-2009, 03:58 PM
Well, I think Bush's legacy is going to be remembered as the greener backpasture by the time your man hoses everything up.

Steve
02-06-2009, 08:40 PM
Some of the founding members of the right wing-nuttery (Cato,

Cato Institute is Libertarian.

The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.

Yea, these are nutty ideas :rolleyes:

Steve
02-06-2009, 08:49 PM
Yes it is. It gives free college education and living expenses to certain people. Why the heck should my husband and I pay for that crap?? We both put ourselves through college working full time and going to school at night, or at times working at night full time and taking daytime classes. I have no issue with student loans. Money that will be paid back.

The government keeps coming up with ways to help people pay for college and colleges keep raising costs at 2X-3X the cost of inflation. Hmmmm??? connection???

Henry V
02-06-2009, 09:57 PM
The government keeps coming up with ways to help people pay for college and colleges keep raising costs at 2X-3X the cost of inflation. Hmmmm??? connection???
Kind of reminds me how the government keeps coming up with tax breaks for workers and even more subsidize to corporations and the average worker's pay has been flat or declined over the past 8 years while deficits have grown. Hmmmmmm. Connection??? Just where did that income get distributed? Isn't it great that we have increased our individual worker productivity and have nothing to show for it besides the pride in our increased production? A great system indeed.

Patrick Johndrow
02-06-2009, 10:28 PM
Is that what we've been doing while the Republicans were NOT on the sidelines? I've had about enough 'thriving', thank you very much.

Well Bush is gone so it is about time for your boy and his crew to put up or shut up...lets see what you all get done over the next four years.

I repeat...Bush IS GONE!!! Get busy liberals...so us how it's done!

Show us some of that "CHANGE"

Gun_Dog2002
02-06-2009, 11:20 PM
Is that what we've been doing while the Republicans were NOT on the sidelines? I've had about enough 'thriving', thank you very much.


Hey newsflash, the dems controlled congress. Enough with the excuses, take some responsibility. Oh wait, that ain't the liberal way.....

/Paul

kjrice
02-07-2009, 12:32 AM
Hey newsflash, the dems controlled congress. Enough with the excuses, take some responsibility. Oh wait, that ain't the liberal way.....

/Paul
Come on Paul it is all Bush's fault.

Steve
02-07-2009, 01:02 AM
Kind of reminds me how the government keeps coming up with tax breaks for workers and even more subsidize to corporations and the average worker's pay has been flat or declined over the past 8 years while deficits have grown. Hmmmmmm. Connection??? Just where did that income get distributed? Isn't it great that we have increased our individual worker productivity and have nothing to show for it besides the pride in our increased production? A great system indeed.

Income is not distributed. It is either earned or stolen.

I do agree with you that government is the problem and they should just stay out of the way instead of trying to control the economy.

Gerry Clinchy
02-07-2009, 06:55 AM
I understand and respect your position. A stimulus program, whether based on one time tax cuts or one time spending, is a risky proposition, although it is much better than a program based on recurring spending or tax cuts. I come down on the side of believing we need to try something, but it's close and there's a good chance that it will not work or not work well enough to justify the cost.

Nobody seems to have mentioned that tax revenues would likely be down in the next few years. If people are losing their jobs (and some of those jobs are those that are in the $75K to $100K levels), tax revenues from that tier of taxpayers will be down significantly. Added spending may produce an even larger deficit than anticipated.

I don't think that increasing the tax rate on very wealthy individuals will provide much solution. As we've recently seen, those individuals either have a mutlitude of tax loopholes or simply don't pay. When Treasury finally does catch up to them, the payment has been delayed for a considerable period ... and then Treasury will "negotiate" a payment of a lesser amount in order to collect "something". Makes one better understand why Trump would support Obama :-)

WindyCreek
02-07-2009, 07:34 AM
Bringing this hijacked thread back to original posting the answer is clearly YES and becomes more clear with each passing day.


Now that the bloom is off the rose so to speak and we are starting to see this guy in action does he appear to be over his head? Misstep after misstep is giving the appearance of amateur hour. He can’t pick a cabinet member without a questionable past. “Everybody is a lobbyist. Does he even know enough honest people to put in these jobs? The stimulus package is really a democrat wish list of left wing programs that are nothing more than pork, in the worst political sense. He has the entire nation worrying that he is planning on nationalizing banking as well as other industries. He has already alienated our trading partners worldwide with his buy American provision in the stimulus package. I hope this is just his initial growing pains, although I really expect this is a portent of things to come.

I sure hope he does something, anything, right in the near future so even though I didn’t vote for him I can actually say to myself, things will be OK. Right now this administration looks like amateur hour.

John Kelder
02-07-2009, 08:27 AM
I will type this very slowly, for those of you :::coughcoughbackpasturecough::: that move your lips when you read. Those links basically contain source materials that contain facts that back up the widely held opinion that the 'stimulus package' is a steaming crock of jenkem. A few might also contain facts that prove Obomo is, indeed over his head (the topic of this thread).

Although I don't know why any of us waste our time arguing with a troll that has NEVER posted on a dog, training or hunting thread. And probably wears a skirt, is the guardian of a chihuahua, lives a vegan lifestyle, dates marx remington and hates hunting......;-)

Julie , I have to come clean . I think I love you .

subroc
02-07-2009, 04:16 PM
It looks like the bloom is really of the rose and falling fast.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/obama_index_feb_7_2009/202937-1-eng-US/obama_index_feb_7_2009.jpg

YardleyLabs
02-07-2009, 05:04 PM
It looks like the bloom is really of the rose and falling fast.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/obama_index_feb_7_2009/202937-1-eng-US/obama_index_feb_7_2009.jpg

Since inauguration day, according to Gallup, Obama has dropped precipitously from an approval rating of 68% down to 65%. Wow! The Rasmussen is interesting because it shows some softening but it still shows a very high net strong approval rating. It's it's not exactly the "falling fast" scenario you claim. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx)

For what it's worth, Gallup also reports that a majority continue to support a stimulus plan of about $800 million and that slimming the plan down reduces the level of support. The level of support now is virtually identical to what it was before the House passed their version of the bill. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114184/Public-Support-Stimulus-Package-Unchanged.aspx)

tpaschal30
02-07-2009, 06:22 PM
Gallup does not have a good track record.
Although Idon't think there has been any huge shift yet. Too many unknowns and uninformed.


"The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
polls (as reported on pollster.com).
1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)"

Jay Dufour
02-07-2009, 06:43 PM
Already looks like a deer in the headlights!!!!!!

Gerry Clinchy
02-07-2009, 08:42 PM
Source URL: http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/top-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-stimulus (http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/top-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-stimulus)
Links:
[1] http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf (http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf)
[2] http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515 (http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515)
[3] http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx)
[4] http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html (http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html)
[5] http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html)
[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120902785.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120902785.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
[7] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-economy-gdp&date=1992 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-economy-gdp&date=1992)
[8] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html)
[9] http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-bill-treemap (http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-bill-treemap)
[10] http://www.readthestimulus.org (http://www.readthestimulus.org/)/
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_basketball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_basketball)
[12] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/)/
[13] http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/)
[14] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2242.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2242.cfm)
[15] http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf)
[16] http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html)
[17] http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0112/015.html (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0112/015.html)
[18] http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/stimulusskeptics.pdf (http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/stimulusskeptics.pdf)
[19] http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com (http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com/)/
[20] http://www.moneymuseum.com/standard_english/raeume/geld_machen/werkstatt/papiergeld/papierdruck/papierdruck_unten.html (http://www.moneymuseum.com/standard_english/raeume/geld_machen/werkstatt/papiergeld/papierdruck/papierdruck_unten.html)
[21] http://www.cat (http://www.cat/) o.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf
[22] http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/12/making-work-destroying-wealth/ (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/12/making-work-destroying-wealth/)
[23] http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed011509a.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed011509a.cfm)
[24] http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=109402 (http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=109402)
[25] http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_1208-51.pdf (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_1208-51.pdf)

I will admit I didn't read all of these, but I started at the top. Note the date is 1998.

When I hear the 20 yr olds speak up, boy, I feel old ... but not old enough to remember The Great Depression or even World War II. I remember hearing about The Depression when I was a kid, since my parents, aunts & uncles did live through it.

When I read the first link above, it was like deja vu! The scenario that presaged The Great Depression so much resembles what has gone on between 1998 and now! And FDR's "New Deal" bears a striking resemblance to the bail-out program in Congress now. Have we learned nothing from errors of the past? It would seem so.

BTW, evidently the Senate has passed a $15,000 tax credit for homebuyers. It will take the place of the $7,500 credit, and this $15,000 credit will NOT have to be paid back unless the home is sold in less than two years. And, like the $7500 previous interest-free loan (which would have to have been paid back over 15 years), the credit may be claimed on 2008 taxes.

I would imagine that means that many more people will be filing for "extensions" on their 2008 taxes if they plan on buying a home this year. In fact, (as a Realtor®) I am working with a young couple right now who plan on doing exactly that. The irony is that this young couple would have bought a home this summer regardless of whether this credit existed or not. They will use the tax windfall to make some improvements to the home, so that money will go back into the economy. These improvements to the home will create productive work for the people who do the work. The home will likely need a new furnace within a year or so (heavy industry); some carpet will be added; and some carpentry work in the kitchen, possibly one new appliance there as well.

Seems to me that de-taxing this young couple will, indeed, result in job creation that is worthwhile. As an added bonus, the newer furnace will be more energy efficient.

The downside: this couple is presently living in a newer, up-scale apartment complex which is having a higher-than-expected vacancy rate already. So, the owners of rental properties will see an adverse effect as more people try to make their home purchase in 2009.

Pete
02-08-2009, 11:08 AM
Lets keep all this inperspective

If on the birth day of our living lord and savior ,, approximately 3 BC you started spending a million dollars a day and continued that practice up until today Feb 8 2008 you will have spent less than what our little bailout will cost.
Politicians sicken me

We need to pull the ole monopoly game trick when your getting slaughtered,,,,Knock the board off the table,,,,,start all over or duke it out.

Pete

Pete
02-08-2009, 11:18 AM
and by the way

By the time the 4 years is over we will have welcomed another 20 million illegal alien voters in this country.( numbers made up by poster) They will be looking for all the free stuff the government is throwing out.
I see a liberal /socialist/fachist/commy pinko/--- future ahead for all of us.

I for one will continue to live exactly the same. exept I'll be really broke without a pot to piss in. I will use the white house lawn for that.

This country is becoming an incredable JOKE or bad sit com if you will.
I do have the answeres for change by the way if your interested

Pete

backpasture
02-09-2009, 04:27 PM
It looks like the bloom is really of the rose and falling fast.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/obama_index_feb_7_2009/202937-1-eng-US/obama_index_feb_7_2009.jpg

Ya. He has a 'horrible' approval rating of 65%. That's just awful. :rolleyes:

You might be interested in this, too:
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/spkmsc5sue2tgkahrvqrxq.gif


See the full results here. Not much good news in here for the Congressional Republicans.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114202/Obama-Upper-Hand-Stimulus-Fight.aspx

backpasture
02-09-2009, 04:27 PM
I do have the answeres for change by the way if your interested



Please do tell us.

Ken Newcomb
02-09-2009, 04:38 PM
Micheal Steele said it best...."...70% approval rating doesn't make it right..."

Tatyana
02-09-2009, 04:49 PM
Just wait till the next stimulus probably around fall of this year and another one in the spring on 2010 and the inflation that will hit us once the economy will start to recover, then I'll care about the approval ratings. Praying hard here for one-term presidency for BHO.

backpasture
02-09-2009, 05:04 PM
Micheal Steele said it best...."...70% approval rating doesn't make it right..."


And a 31% approval rating doesn't make the Congressional Republicans' position right, either.

I'm not sure what those Congressional Republicans rely on to determine what is 'right'. Apparently, it's not basic economic principles.

Gun_Dog2002
02-09-2009, 05:29 PM
And a 31% approval rating doesn't make the Congressional Republicans' position right, either.

I'm not sure what those Congressional Republicans rely on to determine what is 'right'. Apparently, it's not basic economic principles.

Hey, who cares what the republicans approval ratings are. They're not in control anymore. There at home hugging their guns remember.

/Paul

ps. If your out of work and hungry, there is a democrat across the street that doesn't have firearms....

greg ye
02-09-2009, 05:43 PM
I'm not sure what those Congressional Republicans rely on to determine what is 'right'. Apparently, it's not basic economic principles.

Oh, please tell us how government spending and high taxes brought us out of the Great Depression!

Bob Gutermuth
02-09-2009, 05:54 PM
Government spending did get us out of the Great Depression, but it was the spending by Adolf Hitler's government getting Germany on a war footing that caused it. The US had to gear up for WWII, it sure wasn't because of Roosevelts socialist programs that we got out of that one.

backpasture
02-09-2009, 06:13 PM
Government spending did get us out of the Great Depression, but it was the spending by Adolf Hitler's government getting Germany on a war footing that caused it. The US had to gear up for WWII, it sure wasn't because of Roosevelts socialist programs that we got out of that one.


So, government spending on the New Deal didn't get us out of the Depression, but government spending on the WAR did?

I'm glad at least that you understand and acknowledge that government spending can fuel an economic recovery.

Explain to me, though, how money spent on tanks, planes and ships is more stimulative than money spent on bridges, roads, damns, and utility infrastructure.

greg ye
02-09-2009, 06:41 PM
Because, during WWII, full employment was rather cheap and easy compared to today's job force numbers. Full employment in today's environment requires leverage of the private sector.

backpasture
02-09-2009, 07:44 PM
Because, during WWII, full employment was rather cheap and easy compared to today's job force numbers. Full employment in today's environment requires leverage of the private sector.


The question was:
"Explain to me, though, how money spent on tanks, planes and ships is more stimulative than money spent on bridges, roads, damns, and utility infrastructure. "

You seem to be arguing that government spending would work then, but not now. Full employment back then also required 'leverage of the private sector', though.

Gerry Clinchy
02-09-2009, 07:53 PM
backpasture,

This link from Julie gave a very good analysis of The Great Depression and the New Deal activities
http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf (http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf)

This link gives details on stimulus programs tried by Japan
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_1208-51.pdf

Whether a stimulus will be successful or not will depend on whether the funds focus on creating jobs that will continue to exist after stimulus funds are gone. While we do need maintenance and replacement of infrastructure, those jobs will disappear again when construction is over. They are temporary.

backpasture
02-09-2009, 08:13 PM
backpasture,

This link from Julie gave a very good analysis of The Great Depression and the New Deal activities
http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf (http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf)

This link gives details on stimulus programs tried by Japan
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_1208-51.pdf

Whether a stimulus will be successful or not will depend on whether the funds focus on creating jobs that will continue to exist after stimulus funds are gone. While we do need maintenance and replacement of infrastructure, those jobs will disappear again when construction is over. They are temporary.

That is the point. The idea is to give the economy a 'jump start' with temporary work projects. When the economy is functioning normally again, then private sector jobs will be added, and those 'temporary' work projects will give way to 'permanent' jobs in the private sector.

Left in the wake of those 'temporary' jobs is an infrastucture that we sorely need.

Patrick Johndrow
02-09-2009, 10:05 PM
Can someone be banned from RTF for delusional economics?

I think it should at least be considered. :)

backpasture
02-09-2009, 10:10 PM
Can someone be banned from RTF for delusional economics?

I think it should at least be considered. :)

I think a lot of you more economically illiterate folks know a hell of a lot about dogs, so it would be shame to lose you. ;)

Marvin S
02-09-2009, 10:24 PM
That is the point. The idea is to give the economy a 'jump start' with temporary work projects. When the economy is functioning normally again, then private sector jobs will be added, and those 'temporary' work projects will give way to 'permanent' jobs in the private sector.

Left in the wake of those 'temporary' jobs is an infrastucture that we sorely need.

Please explain how that happens in actuality rather than theory?

Patrick Johndrow
02-09-2009, 10:28 PM
Please explain how that happens in actuality rather than theory?

It is all theoretical Marvin...no practical experiance.

Community Organgrinder Regards.

backpasture
02-09-2009, 10:33 PM
Please explain how that happens in actuality rather than theory?

Well, it happened with the New Deal (despite the revisionist history some Republicans are trying to put out there these days).

Patrick Johndrow
02-09-2009, 10:37 PM
Well, it happened with the New Deal (despite the revisionist history some Republicans are trying to put out there these days).

WWII bailed us out of the GREAT DEPRESSION...talk about rewriting history.

backpasture
02-09-2009, 10:49 PM
WWII bailed us out of the GREAT DEPRESSION...talk about rewriting history.


Okay, then maybe you can answer the question I posed to Bob:

"Explain to me, though, how money spent on tanks, planes and ships is more stimulative than money spent on bridges, roads, damns, and utility infrastructure."

K G
02-09-2009, 11:25 PM
Okay, then maybe you can answer the question I posed to Bob:

"Explain to me, though, how money spent on tanks, planes and ships is more stimulative than money spent on bridges, roads, damns, and utility infrastructure."

I'll let Bob put up his own answer. Permit me if I may to post my take on the question....:)

Money spent on tanks, planes, and ships went into the pockets of folks working to bring an end to WWII. There was a collective, cohesive effort to defeat Axis powers and keep Nazism and Japanese Imperialism from making slaves out of a good part of the free world. Money spent on those tanks, planes, and ships kept our shores safe (after Dutch Harbor, Alaska, was invaded during the attack on Midway in April, 1942) and allowed the USA to grow into the world power that it is today. There were no Republicans and Democrats during WWII building those tanks, planes, and ships....only Americans. ALL Americans benefitted from the money spent on those tanks, planes, and ships. They helped save the world.

Money spent on bridges, roads, dams, and utility infrastructure stands to be spent according to lawmakers with personal agendas and political paybacks in mind. How will those dollars be allocated? To whom do we give the responsibility of picking the bridges, roads, dams, and utility infrastructure to be built/rebuilt and therefore affect the economy of the areas chosen? The financial benefit will be geographical, not national....and of course we haven't begun to hear the posturing of which blue states need the money most..........

JMHO regards,

kg

backpasture
02-09-2009, 11:38 PM
Money spent on tanks, planes, and ships went into the pockets of folks working to bring an end to WWII.


Money spent on bridges, roads, dams, and utility infrastructure stands to be spent according to lawmakers with personal agendas and political paybacks in mind. How will those dollars be allocated? To whom do we give the responsibility of picking the bridges, roads, dams, and utility infrastructure to be built/rebuilt and therefore affect the economy of the areas chosen? The financial benefit will be geographical, not national....and of course we haven't begun to hear the posturing of which blue states need the money most..........


No one is going to debate whether or not WWII was worth fighting. But, the question is how it was more stimulative to the economy than infrastructure projects. Your main argument is that the infrastructure improvements are not evenly dispersed across the country, and that that not everybody gets a piece of it. But, that also holds true for defense spending. Some areas certainly benefit more than others from defense spending.

Explain to me how defense spending puts more money in more pockets, and distributes that money more evenly and 'fairly' across the country than infrastructure spending.

K G
02-09-2009, 11:41 PM
I guess I can spell it out again for you....we ALL benefit from defense spending. Please don't tell me I have to explain how.

We don't ALL benefit from bridges, roads, dams, and utility infrastructure UNLESS they are spread out on a nationwide basis.

Not very likely regards,

kg

backpasture
02-09-2009, 11:46 PM
I guess I can spell it out again for you....we ALL benefit from defense spending. Please don't tell me I have to explain how.

We don't ALL benefit from bridges, roads, dams, and utility infrastructure UNLESS they are spread out on a nationwide basis.

Not very likely regards,



You appear to be arguing that defense spending is good because the army defends us, but that has nothing to do with the economic benefit of that spending.

We all benefit from both types of spending. They both put money into the economy, which people spend. They don't spend all their money at home, so money pumped into the economy, regardless of the source, is beneficial to the economy at large.

zeus3925
02-10-2009, 06:45 AM
We don't ALL benefit from bridges, roads, dams, and utility infrastructure UNLESS they are spread out on a nationwide basis.

Not very likely regards,

kg

Tell that to the folks that rode the I-35 bridge down into the Mississippi in Aug 2007.

Marvin S
02-10-2009, 10:24 AM
Well, it happened with the New Deal (despite the revisionist history some Republicans are trying to put out there these days).

Would that be for the concrete floors put in the outhouses?

Or would that be because everyone on the make work jobs had their own shovel to lean on?

Or would that be the price controls & ration coupons for food staples?

Or would that be the Commodity Relief Program that all private sector people received except those unwilling to accept a handout?

Or would that be that there was so little private investment that returning draftees had nothing to return to - that is, if they returned, as there are hundreds of thousands buried on foreign soil defending the freedoms of such as yourself.

As Patrick said, & KG & others have so eloquently stated, it only got better when WWII started. Trickle down didn't really begin until after the war ended, a couple of good crops & price controls expired.

I find little in FDR's legacy praiseworthy, & for your info, I saw it all happen. We weren't taught the truth about FDR & socialism even when I went to school.

PS - this is the last post you have made I will answer & only this one because you apparently don't come up for air often. You need to get your stuff together!

backpasture
02-10-2009, 11:07 AM
As Patrick said, & KG & others have so eloquently stated, it only got better when WWII started.

I know they said it. They can say the sky is red and the grass is purple, too, but without some empirical evidence it doesn't mean much. It's easy to say something, but it's much harder to prove a point when the facts are against you.

K G
02-10-2009, 12:21 PM
Tell that to the folks that rode the I-35 bridge down into the Mississippi in Aug 2007.

With all due respect to those that lost their lives in that tragedy, it wasn't the WHOLE COUNTRY. Keep on task if you can, son of Cronus and Rhea....


I know they said it. They can say the sky is red and the grass is purple, too, but without some empirical evidence it doesn't mean much. It's easy to say something, but it's much harder to prove a point when the facts are against you.

Sorta like the facts you've presented, huh BP.....:rolleyes:.....let me know when you've proved your point, 'cause it hasn't happened yet....

kg

Gerry Clinchy
02-10-2009, 12:41 PM
I know they said it. They can say the sky is red and the grass is purple, too, but without some empirical evidence it doesn't mean much. It's easy to say something, but it's much harder to prove a point when the facts are against you.

backpasture, please read the links provided.

And also read about what government intrusion on recession wrought for Japan even more recently.

It makes a great deal of difference where the infrastructure investment is made. The links will provide information & also some of the empirical evidence you request (statistics for unemployment, etc.)

You also missed my "today" example of how a tax refund windfall will impact many small businesses through the home purchase made by a young couple honestly qualified to purchase a home. Their tax windfall will go directly back into the economy, to benefit both large and small businesses, with a portion remaining for savings. It will also improve the value of the housing stock by making modernization improvements to the home.

The example I give of the young home purchasers would be totally trash if the banks were giving this mortgage loan to a buyer that was not well qualified to purchase a home in an appropriate price range. If the banks had not been as irresponsible in giving loans as they were during the housing "boom", we would not have had the inflated home market prices or have to bail the banks out now. This most recent banking fiasco I have witnessed first-hand.

In fact, right now, banks may also be using the anticipated bail-out to make things even worse. Banks are making short-sales so difficult in some cases, that the buyers of those distressed properties are withdrawing their offers. Are the banks stalling because they know that someone else (the taxpayers) will be there to offset their losses? In the end, the properties will sell for even less than the buyers are currently offering.

Before the banks could anticipate being bailed out of their "mistakes", they were much more pragmatic in their dealings with unloading such properties to minimize their losses. Until the properties are sold the banks have to maintain insurance on them and pay the taxes. Their loss grows the longer they retain the properties.

backpasture
02-10-2009, 01:15 PM
backpasture, please read the links provided.

And also read about what government intrusion on recession wrought for Japan even more recently.
.

I've read it. You should read this. It is the opinion held by the majority of reputable economists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01krugman.html

For the record, I think the home purchase credit you refer to is a decent idea. Anything that gets housing moving again will be helpful.

Gerry Clinchy
02-10-2009, 04:57 PM
I've read it. You should read this. It is the opinion held by the majority of reputable economists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01krugman.html


I did read your link, backpasture, but I don't get much confidence from it. This op-ed glossed over the fact that the programs that didn't work both cut back spending and increased taxes simultaneously. This bears resemblance to the new POTUS's plan.

This is only one economist, and there are many economists who might disagree with this analysis. I'm not sure the use of the term "majority" would be valid or not. I'm no economist, but feel the Cato link gives a better explanation of the sequence of how the problems developed.


For the record, I think the home purchase credit you refer to is a decent idea.

The tax credit for homebuyers is ONLY a good idea, if the banks don't mess it up by giving loans to UN-qualified buyers. This is what the banks did to create the artificial housing boom.

I will add that the builders were also greedy, raising prices on new construction simply based on "what the market will bear", making larger profit margins than one might imagine.

Most Realtors® with any experience simply shook their heads in disbelief as clients went nuts to purchase over-priced homes.

greg ye
02-10-2009, 05:23 PM
Just sold two houses and neither buyer had money down to amount to a hill of ...

Seems to me we aren't paying attention to recent history much less the past.

zeus3925
02-10-2009, 05:32 PM
With all due respect to those that lost their lives in that tragedy, it wasn't the WHOLE COUNTRY. Keep on task if you can, son of Cronus and Rhea....
kg

Yes it is the whole country. There are over 200,000 deficient bridges in the country. The commerce of the country flows over those bridges. That affects all of us.

Gerry Clinchy
02-10-2009, 06:03 PM
Just sold two houses and neither buyer had money down to amount to a hill of ...

Seems to me we aren't paying attention to recent history much less the past.

For the young buyers, down money is surely an obstacle. However, the buyer I spoke of has a good job, paid off her car ahead of time & her student loans, and has only one smaller credit card balance. The overall financial "profile" of this buyer is much better than many of the ones from the "boom" years.

Additionally, this buyer is buying below her means. A bank would likely qualify her for a larger mortgage, but she is smart enough to not go for that bait. Her new mortgage payment is not much higher than the rent she has been paying. During the boom people were stretching themselves too far.

The down money problem was pronounced even before ... that's how that cool 100% financing came about :-)

Here in PA the closing costs are high due to a 2% transfer tax (usually shared equally between buyer & seller). That's an extra $2000 for the buyer on a $200K house here.

T. Mac
02-10-2009, 06:09 PM
No one is going to debate whether or not WWII was worth fighting. But, the question is how it was more stimulative to the economy than infrastructure projects. Your main argument is that the infrastructure improvements are not evenly dispersed across the country, and that that not everybody gets a piece of it. But, that also holds true for defense spending. Some areas certainly benefit more than others from defense spending.

Explain to me how defense spending puts more money in more pockets, and distributes that money more evenly and 'fairly' across the country than infrastructure spending.

BP, There are several major differences in the New Deal programs of the 30's and the stimulus packages of today. At the time of the New Deal, unemployment was running over 20%. Some say it reached a high of 24%. The New Deal's two major works projects, WPA and CCC, were designed to get prople working to restore their self worth while providing them room and board. Be advised that the average income for WPA or CCC workers was about $45 per month, or about $700/month in todays dollars. The programs were design to put the maximum number of people to work for the money.

The stimulas plans of today include many infrastructure projects. However the federal rules for letting these contracts specify that the winning bider MUST pay prevailing wages to all its employees working on the project. Prevailing wages are nearly double what non-union worker earn doing comperable work and is still way above the minnimum wage not to mention the $700 (in comperable dollars) that the CCC or WPA workers earned in the 30's.

Despite the wide numbers of people invloved in these projects, the unemployment rate had only decreased tom around 17-19% when WWII broke out. The reason the war and war effort cured the depression was that many million men and women were removed from the work force by enlisting or being drafted into the military. During the war years, there was rationing of many items from gasoline and tires to fats and oils. The public were encouraged to save buying war bonds and also contributing by recycling cooking oils, fats, tallow as well as metal and other items. Coupled with the savings at home and all the soldiers whose military earnings were not being spent or being sent home to families, the inventory of domestic products plummetted.

The basis for todays recession/depression is the collapse of the housing industry which during its hayday of the late 90's and early 00's, promoted many millions of citizens to essentially live beyound their means. As housing prices escalated many people purchased or refinanced their homes based on the new inflated values. This was further escalated by the subprime mess where you had many people buying houses they simply could not afford. When the bubble burst and home values dropped to near half their highs (in some places), a huge number of home owners saw their investment value drop below their debt supporting their home. They now owe more for their home than it is worth. Remember that the rule of thumb is that the average persons changes homes every 7 years, so you can see that a huge number of Americans are affected by the housing collapse. This now affects those who had planned to use their home equity for future purchases; cars, boats, remodels; or activities; vacations, education, healthcare.

Then there is the further depression caused by the depreciation of the values of most stockmarket portfolios to upto 50% off their highs. This affects many of the retired and near retirement age citizens and many retirement funds. This is further complicated by the collapse of saving interest rates, MMF, CDs, treasuries, etc, such that retirees must now tap nest egg equities to support themselves, which decreases future income potential.

It is hard to understand how a stimulus program can correct any of this. Especially with the government attempting to get the citizenry to buy more when it was the buying that got us into this problem in the first place. While you might be able to elieviate the problems of a segment of total population, a very large subset will have their position worsened by this cure.

T. Mac

backpasture
02-10-2009, 06:42 PM
A well-reasoned, informed argument is pretty refreshing. My hat is off to you.

I have a couple quibbles with your numbers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs unemployment at 24.9% at the start of the New Deal (1933), and at 9.9% in 1941. That is a pretty substantial drop, and in of itself speaks to the accomplishments of the New Deal. There is no reason to believe that rate would not continue to decline had we not entered the war.

As you note, it dropped to virually nothing during the war, mainly because the labor force was employed as soldiers.

As for the new stimulus paying much higher wages than the WPA paid... isn't that a good thing?

And, of course the circumstances are different this time around. What is happening now is unprecendented. There is little evidence that doing nothing is going to work, the question is what 'something' is the appropriate way forward. I think the New Deal offers some pretty compelling lessons, and I think the arguments that it was the war, and not the New Deal, that helped us regain our footing are fairly weak.

K G
02-10-2009, 08:33 PM
Yes it is the whole country. There are over 200,000 deficient bridges in the country. The commerce of the country flows over those bridges. That affects all of us.


Where did that 200k number come from?

kg

Patrick Johndrow
02-10-2009, 08:55 PM
Where did that 200k number come from?

kg



I am thinking between his cheeks.... :)

zeus3925
02-10-2009, 10:19 PM
I am thinking between his cheeks.... :)

Pat --I consider that remark out of hand and personal. You don't know me and you have no call to make that kind of remark.

Patrick Johndrow
02-10-2009, 10:43 PM
Pat --I consider that remark out of hand and personal. You don't know me and you have no call to make that kind of remark.

Throwing around statics as fact without backing them up is “out of hand”… The practice has become way common place to “prove” an emotionally loaded point. I appreciate compassion and grief but when it starts clouding judgment then I am personally offended.

I do not know you but your facts appear to but pulled from somewhere other than a legitimate source.

John Schmidt
02-10-2009, 11:07 PM
Throwing around statics as fact without backing them up is “out of hand”… The practice has become way common place to “prove” an emotionally loaded point. I appreciate compassion and grief but when it starts clouding judgment then I am personally offended.

I do not know you but your facts appear to but pulled from somewhere other than a legitimate source.

Google deficient bridges and click on the first link you get (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Bridge/deficient.cfm). Click on the 2007 html page and then scroll down to the bottom and look over to the 4th column of numbers from the left and you will see a number. I don't see 200K as the number but we aren't talking about an order of magnitude difference. What did you base your incorrect number on?

John Schmidt

Henry V
02-10-2009, 11:52 PM
John,
Thanks for that link. Good to see that there are only 152,316 deficient bridges in this country. We should all feel much better now.

From this, we can clearly see that there is no need for this type of work, much less realize that bridge building peaked 50 years ago in the post- WWII era with most bridges having a 50 year life span.

T. Mac
02-11-2009, 12:04 AM
...
I have a couple quibbles with your numbers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs unemployment at 24.9% at the start of the New Deal (1933), and at 9.9% in 1941. That is a pretty substantial drop, and in of itself speaks to the accomplishments of the New Deal. There is no reason to believe that rate would not continue to decline had we not entered the war.

As you note, it dropped to virually nothing during the war, mainly because the labor force was employed as soldiers.



1941 was an interesting year. However if we look at the years immediately preceding we note that the unemployment rate was running around 17% in 1939. This was attributed to a mini recession within the depression caused by the industrial collapse of the late 1930's. After so many years of the nation essentially buying nothing but subsistence items, US industry nearly collapsed. This was scenario was radically altered in 1940-41 when the Axis alliance was formed and US industry began the mad conversion to war production with much of their products being funneled to the UK and France. Note that many thousand US men also enlisted in the foreign armies and began fighting WWII prior to the US actually becoming involved.

There are several things to bear in mind when looking at the New Deal programs. The WPA and CCC were in essence workfare programs. Unlike the dole which was more for women and infants, WPA and CCC were developed to provide the men with a way to earn subsistence without the "welfare" tag that was shameful to most in that era. It is also noted that in that era very few women worked or had the skills thought necessary for such infrastructure (construction) work. Further many of the CCC projects were essentially labor camps where the workers lived in tent cities and worked on some massive construction projects. There were many camps within the national park systems where the crews built the lodges, trials, and many of the roads. There is a stretch of California Hiway 1 that runs from Carmel south to Big Sur and San Luis Obispo. Much of this route was built during this time. If you ever travel this road, pay attention to all the dates on the bridges. In my city, the programs built water storage towers, high schools, fire stations, beautified some of the city parks with walkways and retaining walls, murals, etc.

Also of note is that not all unemployed chose to join the New Deal programs. The 1930's was the time of probably the largest mass migration of people within the US since the 1850s. It was nearly equivalent to the gold rush in terms of the migration of people from the east and central states to the west. Many came to homestead some of the vast tracts of land made available. Others came in search of work. Many metal workers and machinists came to Sacramento to work with the railroads who had massive shops in the area, my grandparents among them.


...As for the new stimulus paying much higher wages than the WPA paid... isn't that a good thing?

And, of course the circumstances are different this time around. What is happening now is unprecendented. There is little evidence that doing nothing is going to work, the question is what 'something' is the appropriate way forward. I think the New Deal offers some pretty compelling lessons, and I think the arguments that it was the war, and not the New Deal, that helped us regain our footing are fairly weak.


I guess a lot depends on how you look at it and what you visualize the stimulus' purpose to be. If these projects are to put people to work then no this is not a good deal as it favors just those unionized workers, actually a minority of the total workforce in the US. It also short changes the rest of the populace who are supporting this workforce at inflated wages by greatly limiting the amount of infrastructure projects that can be undertaken. If you reduce the wages paid from prevailing rate to customary rates, you will double the amount of the workforce. Each earning a livable wage and double the amount of projects that can be undertaken. If you reduce the level to subsistence levels (minimum wages) then you can triple or quadruple the amount of the workforce and the amount of projects undertaken. Of course if you reduce the salary levels to New Deal levels the amount of work that could be undertaken would be staggering.

Remember that at the start of the depression there was no such thing as unemployment insurance and welfare was virtually nonexistent. If you lump the current funds for these programs with that of the stimulus package, and used the WPA and CCC as your models but with minimum wage, we would not have any problems with our infrastructure as we would have the money and manpower to fix and build as needed. Of course we would again run the risk of an industrial collapse as at New Deal wages, there would not be enough income to support much in the way of luxury buying. But our citizenry would probably be healthier, one of the side benefits of the CCC programs. In short, the only similarity of the New Deal programs of the 1930 and the stimulus package of today is the federal red ink associated with these programs.

The real question though is how does the stimulus program correct the problems that caused this economic crisis in the first place? How do you rectify the lost retirement dollars of all those whose portfolios were cut in half? How do you reinflate the housing prices such that the equity that was lost during the collapse is replaced? How do you restore a living income to those who were living off the interest of their savings only to see interest rates cut by 60%? How do you remedy the situation where people who have no business owning a $500K house were sold a bill of goods and allowed to buy them only to find out that now the house is worth $250K and their mortgage is $450K. Most of the jobs funded through the stimulus plan are of relatively short duration. How and what do you propose we do in 2-3 years when this money runs out? How long can the US keep printing money until it becomes worthless? With this new stimulus package were are now well over $1.5T invested. That is over $5K per person in the US. Or probablt close to $15K for each taxpayer.

The basic problem is that most of populace of the US has been living beyound their means for the last decade. This has ramped up expectations from industry through retail as to what the US workforce can consume. How do you satisfy these expectations when the population realizes it can't afford to continue these practices? Does the average family really need and can it support 3.2 cars? Can we continue to support all the telecommunications devices? Can we continue being such a throwaway society? And what happens to industry and retail when we cut back?

My opinion is that we are in for a very rocky decade with or without the stimulus package, and that the stimulus package may actually make things worse as it does not solve the actual problems, but exacerbates them by throwing more unearned money at it.

T. Mac

Gun_Dog2002
02-11-2009, 12:29 AM
Throwing around statics as fact without backing them up is “out of hand”… The practice has become way common place to “prove” an emotionally loaded point. I appreciate compassion and grief but when it starts clouding judgment then I am personally offended.

I do not know you but your facts appear to but pulled from somewhere other than a legitimate source.

83% of the people doubt that 43% of the statistic posted are 92% correct.

/Paul

Patrick Johndrow
02-11-2009, 07:17 AM
Google deficient bridges and click on the first link you get (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Bridge/deficient.cfm). Click on the 2007 html page and then scroll down to the bottom and look over to the 4th column of numbers from the left and you will see a number. I don't see 200K as the number but we aren't talking about an order of magnitude difference. What did you base your incorrect number on?

John Schmidt

http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/index.php/2342/map-of-structurally-deficient-bridges-in-united-states/


I did not throw out a number that was 25% off a number that is easliy obtained...actually I didnt state a number at all... "Structurally-deficient bridges are not necessarily unsafe" per the study... stick to facts and save the drama for you mamma.


You whining crying libs crack me up...

Patrick Johndrow
02-11-2009, 07:18 AM
83% of the people doubt that 43% of the statistic posted are 92% correct.

/Paul

And most of the stats libs pulled directly from their butts.

K G
02-11-2009, 08:57 AM
At least now we know where SOME of the infrastructure money is going. I can't WAIT for the gridlock that is going to occur when we try to fix ALL of those "structurally deficient bridges" at the same time...and, of course, they're ALL in the same shape as the I-35 bridge in MSP, aren't they.....:rolleyes:

Now....where are the REST of those billions going? Even the creator of the plan doesn't know....but don't we all feel better that our Dem-controlled Congress has mortgaged our future beyond anyone's imagination and has no real PLAN on how to spend all that money?

All this from a guy who couldn't even do his own taxes correctly....can I see a show of hands from ANYONE who is surprised by this morass?

CHANGE, baby....it's all about the CHANGE....and POCKET CHANGE is all we're gonna have left when the gooberment's spending is done.....God help us all...:cool:

kg

Steve Amrein
02-11-2009, 09:13 AM
To keep pokin at the bridges with a stick aren't most bridges construction and up keep provided for by the state ? I know St. Louis is getting a new bridge and is being paid jointly by MO & IL . I understand the safe issue and remember how all the inspectors were out the following week and don't remember reading about a lot being closed. I like pork as much as the next guy but I want mine on a plate with a side of potato salad.

Speaking of pulling numbers out of butts I sure hope we dont lose the 500 million jobs a month Nacy was talking about.

zeus3925
02-11-2009, 10:23 AM
Here is some of the links that cite 200,000 deficient bridges:

scroll to pg. 50 on this one
http://books.google.com/books?id=CR_XbtxlA7gC&printsec=copyright&dq=200000+deficient+bridges


http://books.google.com/books?id=VvQRkAzT1h4C&pg=RA4-PA86&lpg=RA4-PA86&dq=200,000+deficient+bridges&source=web&ots=6G9iR06F3j&sig=R2t_kaqwvIwZ84hhQwSU5kfSwx8&hl=en&ei=cNCSSfGiHtCCtweclaTXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PRA4-PA86,M1


This is a link to maps of structurally deficient bridges in the National Highway System--non NHS bridges or functionally obsolete are not mapped.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/geographic_information_services/maps/structurally_deficient_bridges_on_the_national_hig hway_system/

Lets for a moment consider the 150,000+ deficient bridge number is correct, then that represents a burden on commerce in the form of delivery delays, load restrictions, and rerouting. Bridges like old cars get more expensive to maintain as they age.

John Schmidt
02-11-2009, 12:07 PM
http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/index.php/2342/map-of-structurally-deficient-bridges-in-united-states/


I did not throw out a number that was 25% off a number that is easliy obtained...actually I didnt state a number at all... "Structurally-deficient bridges are not necessarily unsafe" per the study... stick to facts and save the drama for you mamma.


You whining crying libs crack me up...

Implicit in your comment was a number you were unwilling to state explicitly. And sadly the structurally deficient bridge (per 1990 and 2005 designations) that was the impetus for the comments was clearly unsafe.

John Schmidt

Patrick Johndrow
02-11-2009, 10:26 PM
Implicit in your comment was a number you were unwilling to state explicitly. And sadly the structurally deficient bridge (per 1990 and 2005 designations) that was the impetus for the comments was clearly unsafe.

John Schmidt

I said what I said...was not hedging...was not inflating or deflating numbers to fit my emotionally loaded stance on an issue... Let me be very EXPLICIT...I don’t mix word EVER and I NEVER IMPLY anything…I say it. Hope clears things up for you Johnny.




this is only a guess but I figure you’re for someone that has spent a career in academia?