BHO's Legacy

[Koolaid]

Don't blame your inability to converse and debate all on Jeff!!



rk

...Irony...

[road kill]

...Irony...

It's a joke genius....there is your irony!!!




rk

[Goose]

What is kg's prognostication? A return to republican control of the congress?
That will change things,.... how?
The clock is ticking...indeed, but what plan do you and yours put forward?

Nothing.

JD

I'll take a stab at your question.

Number one...this country is broke and bankrupt and if you don't see that you're delusional.

So the first thing we do is hire fiscal conservatives to office. That means getting rid of all the democrats, all the keynesians and 90% of the republicans. Democrats have proven over the last 50 years to be the party of spend, spend and spend and they are the primary reason this country is ruined. But the RINO's have done a good job catching up with the democrats and we need to get rid of them, too. And throw them all in jail...especially the keynesians.

Secondly, blow up social security. Let the people keep their hard earned money rather than forcing them to flush it down this crap hole.

Thirdly, bring our soldiers home and let's downsize our military. A broke country can no longer be the world's police force. We simply don't have the money.

Fourth, audit the FED...now! And after the audit blow up the Fed, too.

Fifth, force all the banks and financial institutions to come clean with what the own (mortgage backed securities) and let's get an honest appraisal of what this crap-on-a-stick is worth. Mark this stuff to market and deal with it.


How about that for a start. I could go on but I sense you lefties are getting dizzy

We live in Cuba now.

[YardleyLabs]

Of course it does.... Throwing taxpayer's money at problems can solve most all problems on paper...

What will your story be when a TON of these "jobs" go away when the "stimulus package" runs out? The clock is ticking....

k g

Keith,

I actually agree, as I noted in my earlier post where I said "The fact is, that 6% growth probably would only have been 4% without the stimulus plan and there will be some natural slowdown as stimulus funds dry up." The irony, of course, is that the right has been maintaining vociferously that no jobs have been created by the stimulus package. It will be funny (but sad) as they then begin to complain about the loss of jobs as the stimulus funds dry up. I think it's valuable to ask, as one is criticizing something, if your criticisms would be the same if the "villains" and the "friends" in the story swapped places, but the results were still the exact ones you are complaining about. There can be no solutions, compromises, or progress in a world where results are judged solely based on ideological consistency and not on their own merits.

[road kill]

Keith,

I actually agree, as I noted in my earlier post where I said "The fact is, that 6% growth probably would only have been 4% without the stimulus plan and there will be some natural slowdown as stimulus funds dry up." The irony, of course, is that the right has been maintaining vociferously that no jobs have been created by the stimulus package. It will be funny (but sad) as they then begin to complain about the loss of jobs as the stimulus funds dry up. I think it's valuable to ask, as one is criticizing something, if your criticisms would be the same if the "villains" and the "friends" in the story swapped places, but the results were still the exact ones you are complaining about. There can be no solutions, compromises, or progress in a world where results are judged solely based on ideological consistency and not on their own merits.

I opposed ALL of the stimulus packages, not just the most recent one.

HUGE mistake by Bush.

I would like to see capital investment tax breaks for small business ($50mm or less).
Incentive for small business growth.
A loosening of credit to small businesses that have traditionally borrowed against a/r for cash flow but now can't.

Tax breaks for the "Fat Cats."
The people who have the MONEY need to spend (invest) it so we can get it!!
I am not talking millionaires here, I am talking people with MONEY who are not spending or investing right now.

Small efforts, but could get some things moving.



rk

[Koolaid]

I opposed ALL of the stimulus packages, not just the most recent one.

HUGE mistake by Bush.


rk

There you go blaming it all on Bush again

[Gerry Clinchy]

In fact, under GWB, the US had the most anemic job growth it has experienced in any period since WWII with average annual growth of 0.28% vs nine times that rate under Clinton and seven times that rate under Reagan. Unfortunately, I suspect that we may have turned a corner in which economic growth is more effective at generating returns on capital in the US while generating jobs in other countries. I hope not. However, in prior recoveries, there has generally been a significant lag of 3-6 months between the beginnings of GDP growth and the beginnings of employment growth. If that holds true this time, we would expect to begin seeing significant job growth in the second and third quarters with or without a new job stimulus program.

I think it is important to remember that with our huge economy, the true effects are always in delay ... momentum takes time to build; and it takes time for momentum to be slowed down. And I think it takes more than three or four years for the trends to show results.

With such a concept in mind it is reasonable to say that the economy that Clinton inherited from Reagan was a benefit that Clinton reaped. The economy could already have been cycling when Clinton was 1/2 way through his term(s). Then the Bush years started with the blow of 9/11 and later endured the economic impact of Katrina. It is time for the economy to start another cycle of recovery, but one would not expect it to be "sudden".

The housing industry is one fine example. Inextricably tied to the financial mess. Right now the govt is shoring up the housing industry. Expect a tumble when the buyer incentives expire. The housing market has not yet found its own bottom. That should occur when the incentives expire. People without jobs cannot buy homes. They can't rent decent housing either!

I suspect that the single most important action we can take to stimulate job growth is to have a national health insurance program that does not rely on employer financed benefits. In other countries, businesses do not generally contribute to either pension programs or health insurance. As a consequence these do not act as a barrier to employment. It would be much better to shift business funding for these programs from labor costs to general tax costs than to preserve the current system of financing which disadvantages American companies in global competition and disadvantages American labor as well.

Seems much simpler to implement such a transition by giving everyone a tax credit for health insurance payments, and for the govt to truly investigate how cost controls can be implemented on the health care system. I still recall the Florida hospital that continued to provide dialysis to illegals because they could not send the people home, even if paying their way. The illegals' countries would not take them. The illegals didn't want to go home because they knew they couldn't get the care at home. The cost in Florida is hundreds of millions of dollars. One can pretty safely extrapolate that those free care costs are similar in other states with high %-ages of illegals. INS would not help. They were only interested in illegals with criminal records. A good start for INS, perhaps, but doesn't do much for hospital costs.

Then there is, of course, the tort reform. Those class action suits are another piece of junk. A class action suit against Verizon resulted in much bucks for the attorneys and some "coupons" for those who were part of the class. I just saw another ad for a suit against Tyson chicken products and Activia yogurt! Again, the consumer gets coupons for product ... while the attorneys get mucho buckos. When the victimized consumer gets so little in the result, I think that money should be put into a "fund" for something else that would be more useful ... like the deficit! (How many people kept their receipts for Activia yogurt from 2 years ago?)

[road kill]

There you go blaming it all on Bush again

I blame Bush's stimulus package on Bush.
Please man, step away from the BONG!!


I blame this mess on Janet Reno, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.



rk

[Koolaid]

The wonders of the internet...you have to explain that you were joking and I have to do the same...........

[YardleyLabs]

I think it is important to remember that with our huge economy, the true effects are always in delay ... momentum takes time to build; and it takes time for momentum to be slowed down. And I think it takes more than three or four years for the trends to show results.

With such a concept in mind it is reasonable to say that the economy that Clinton inherited from Reagan was a benefit that Clinton reaped. The economy could already have been cycling when Clinton was 1/2 way through his term(s). Then the Bush years started with the blow of 9/11 and later endured the economic impact of Katrina. It is time for the economy to start another cycle of recovery, but one would not expect it to be "sudden".

I think the delay part is correct. I think the timing is different for different things. Monetary policy -- increasing and decreasing liquidity in the economy through rate changes and the volume of money pumped in -- generally operates with a six month lag. However, the nature of the effect is dependent on perceived longer term trends. Thus, increasing liquidity for lenders, does not benefit other businesses if the lenders are concerned about long term risks to principal. Variability in economic responses makes timing for monetary intervention more of an art form than a science as the Fed tries to balance stimulating the economy against the potential of inflation. Unfortunately, while the stimulating effects of monetary policy may be delayed around six months, it seems that the inflationary effects may be delayed by as much as a year, depending in part on the condition of inventories during the transition.

Fiscal policy (e.g. tax rate changes or spending changes) has a similarly lagged effect as monetary changes. However, the lead time on implementing fiscal changes tends to be much longer. Thus, the Fed can change interest rates tomorrow.But even if Congress were to vote for tax cuts tomorrow, it takes week and months for those cuts to put money in consumer pockets. Once there, you immediately discover that consumers will either spend or save the extra money depending on how they view the future. That was a problem that undermined the effectiveness of tax rebates under Bush. A large percentage of the checks people received went to pay down credit card debt or to bolster savings because consumer confidence was low. While the money helped the consumers, it did not help stimulate the economy. Based on that experience, the Obama administration did an unusual thing when it implemented tax cuts as its first act in office. The cuts were rushed through it record time and hit paychecks within a few weeks. However, the cuts were intentionally done so that they represented only a small amount per week -- amounts so small that the money was spent immediately and provided immediate stimulus to the economy, beginning as early as April 2009. Politically, these cuts were a disaster because they went unnoticed. Few people in the country realized then or today that they had received a substantial tax cut. As RK noted in a quote from Reagan, it's amazing what good can be one when no one worries about who gets the credit.

Other economic trends take much, much longer to have an effect. Examples of these long term factors include the impacts of trade imbalances, budget deficits, loss of production base, financial strength of businesses, financial strength of consumers, and wide disparities in income distribution. Unfortunately, I believe that our biggest economic challenges today are direct results of such longer term factors.

The housing industry is one fine example. Inextricably tied to the financial mess. Right now the govt is shoring up the housing industry. Expect a tumble when the buyer incentives expire. The housing market has not yet found its own bottom. That should occur when the incentives expire. People without jobs cannot buy homes. They can't rent decent housing either!

Seems much simpler to implement such a transition by giving everyone a tax credit for health insurance payments, and for the govt to truly investigate how cost controls can be implemented on the health care system. ...

On paper, tax credits and cash grants are equivalent. The difference is that tax credits only help after the fact and consumers must finance the intiial cost in anticipation of recouping their expense later. That is an insurmountable barrier for the majority of the population tha is living pay check to pay check.

Then there is, of course, the tort reform. Those class action suits are another piece of junk. A class action suit against Verizon resulted in much bucks for the attorneys and some "coupons" for those who were part of the class. I just saw another ad for a suit against Tyson chicken products and Activia yogurt! Again, the consumer gets coupons for product ... while the attorneys get mucho buckos. When the victimized consumer gets so little in the result, I think that money should be put into a "fund" for something else that would be more useful ... like the deficit! (How many people kept their receipts for Activia yogurt from 2 years ago?)

I agree that there are a lot of issues with class action suits. They do very little for consumers injured by illegal activities, and they do a to benefit attorneys on both sides of the dispute. However, class action suits also provide some needed protection against companies that do outrageous things behind their shields of corporate immunity. Most efforts at "reform" have simply sought to cut litigation without addressing the problems that led to the litigation or to provide other, more effective means of redress. True reform needs to address both sides of the issue.