daveakl Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 You want to provide links to these direct quotes? sure: 1st quote: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-only-government-can-fix-economy "At this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe," 2nd quote was from his news conference today at the white house. I'll get a link once it's on transcript somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 It would be a mistake to think of "free market" as a solution in itself. In order for us to enjoy fruits of the free market, the free market has to be properly regulated and it needs to have proper infrastructure to operate on. Electric grid, highway system, etc. Incorrect. As soon as a form of infrastructure becomes profitable, private companies leap at the chance to build it. Just look at the Internet. The electric grid isn't built or maintained by the government - local governments simply award pork-laden contracts to private companies while simultaneously making it illegal for other companies to build/maintain the grid in that same area. That's not the free market. That's the polar opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Why don't you show me the actual numbers you are talking about? A lot of people seem to focus on pointing out a number of bad sounding things that all add up to >$1B of a $800B+ bill. "There’s $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There’s even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons. As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more." http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/28/the-democratic-porkfest-bill-of-2009/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 153 billion of this will just vanish. There are Columbian Drug Czars that just sit back and golf clap in admiration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think very honestly none of us are thoroughly informed enough to spout such ignorance as "Let the market correct itself". You cannot compare this economic situation to anything post Great Depression so you may have to put your ideology aside for a moment....Even Republicans are proposing a massive stim bill here also, let us not forget that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think very honestly none of us are thoroughly informed enough to spout such ignorance as "Let the market correct itself". You cannot compare this economic situation to anything post Great Depression so you may have to put your ideology aside for a moment....Even Republicans are proposing a massive stim bill here also, let us not forget that. Thats because they dont want to be the party NOT offering the taxpayers money back to them. Its bad politics. Let us also not forget that the Democrats bill includes tax cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think very honestly none of us are thoroughly informed enough to spout such ignorance as "Let the market correct itself". You cannot compare this economic situation to anything post Great Depression so you may have to put your ideology aside for a moment....Even Republicans are proposing a massive stim bill here also, let us not forget that. Agreed, I think the main difference is where the money should go. Tax cuts to people that do not pay taxes is not even a tax cut, it should be called what it is. The whole plan is a way to pass a bunch of spending bills under the guise of stimulating the economy. How does spending $65 B on the education system stimulate the economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Accordng to Fortune Magazine: Most economists support the emphasis on spending, saying government expenditure does more to boost gross domestic product, a key indicator of fiscal health. In other words, spending delivers more bang for the buck because each dollar paid to a worker building a wind turbine, for example, is then re-spent on groceries or clothing, causing a fiscal ripple-effect. Conversely, a worker might save a third of the money he is given in a tax cut, with some of the spending going toward imports, which would also reduce the stimulus to GDP. According to a Jan. 6 study by Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, GDP grows by $1.59 for every dollar spent on infrastructure, while the increase from a corporate tax cut is only $0.30. "The mix between spending increases and tax cuts is roughly right," Zandi says. "Spending packs a bigger economic punch, but tax cuts are helpful because even though they're not as economically efficacious, they do work more quickly." Based on Zandi's study, some of the most efficient ways to spend government money are temporarily increasing food stamps (a $1.73 GDP increase per dollar), extending unemployment benefits ($1.63), increasing infrastructure spending ($1.59) and upping direct aid to financially strapped states ($1.38). http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/16/news/economy/stimulus_howto.fortune/index.htm However, tax cuts are also useful, and are much more politically popular with the right side of the spectrum, so they should be included too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Thats because they dont want to be the party NOT offering the taxpayers money back to them. Its bad politics.Let us also not forget that the Democrats bill includes tax cuts. As it should..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 Incorrect. As soon as a form of infrastructure becomes profitable, private companies leap at the chance to build it. Just look at the Internet. Yeah and now let's talk about what happens before it becomes profitable, or if there is a significant initial investment, or if there is significant risk, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I just don't have any confidence in giving the money directly to businesses and then hoping they create jobs with it....We need to make direct "investments" in insuring the jobs are created... I don't like the 200mil for "contraceptives" etc that is thrown into it, but every damn bill has that crap. Their really are some very good investment choices in Obama's plan in regards to energy,infrastructure, and health care, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Accordng to Fortune Magazine:http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/16/news/economy/stimulus_howto.fortune/index.htm However, tax cuts are also useful, and are much more politically popular with the right side of the spectrum, so they should be included too. I'd like to see the ratio of debt to income of the US Government compared to the people. I would not be shocked at all if the ratios were similar. Of course the US Government is allowed to get away with higher debt based on the fact that they don't answer to anyone really, other then the collective. I guess my point is that we elect these officials and the government workers are just a product of this country. The Government is shaped by the people still to this day. It's not the Government's fault, it's ours. We need to look in the mirror and decide to change. Once that's accomplished, our Government will follow suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Accordng to Fortune Magazine:... Kudos on that quote, Predicto. Definitely the most useful piece of information I've seen in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I'd like to see the ratio of debt to income of the US Government compared to the people.I would not be shocked at all if the ratios were similar. Of course the US Government is allowed to get away with higher debt based on the fact that they don't answer to anyone really, other then the collective. I guess my point is that we elect these officials and the government workers are just a product of this country. The Government is shaped by the people still to this day. It's not the Government's fault, it's ours. We need to look in the mirror and decide to change. Once that's accomplished, our Government will follow suit. It's easier to just blame people that arent like you and to think that the government is all powerful and will just fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Accordng to Fortune Magazine: http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/16/news/economy/stimulus_howto.fortune/index.htm However, tax cuts are also useful, and are much more politically popular with the right side of the spectrum, so they should be included too. Tax cuts get you elected, govt spending actually affects the economy. IN THEORY. Because we know how inefficient our govt is. If the govt took the $850B and reinvested it in the countries infrastructure (Huckabee, anyone?), the spending multiplier alone turns that into $1.6T. And it creates millions of jobs. The only probelm is, this govt would not be able to do that. If you committed $850B to infrastructure, after all the BS and pork added, only $850M gets spent on the infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Tax cuts get you elected, govt spending actually affects the economy. IN THEORY. Because we know how inefficient our govt is. If the govt took the $850B and reinvested it in the countries infrastructure (Huckabee, anyone?), the spending multiplier alone turns that into $1.6T. And it creates millions of jobs. The only probelm is, this govt would not be able to do that. If you committed $850B to infrastructure, after all the BS and pork added, only $850M gets spent on the infrastructure. Eh, that goes both ways. Telling people "The Government" is going to pay for your health care, college education, and keep your house from getting foreclosed on is a nice thing to tell people too. Especially since a lot of people either A. dont connect the fact that the money the government is spending is THEIR money, or B. they dont pay income taxes. I see both sides. The Gment can get it done in a more orderly way, but they will be incredibly inefficient with the money. You can bet that there WILL be stories of the government being unable to account for tens of billions of dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yeah and now let's talk about what happens before it becomes profitable, or if there is a significant initial investment, or if there is significant risk, etc. Well, it seems that total financial collapse happens: Everyone seems to have forgotten that just three years ago, in August 2005, Congress enacted the biggest federal public works program in American history, spending a massive $286.4 billion on the 2005 highway bill. At that time, President Bush and congressional leaders from both parties told us that the new highway bill would fix our infrastructure problems. Linkedy-link-link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Tax cuts get you elected, govt spending actually affects the economy. IN THEORY. Because we know how inefficient our govt is. If the govt took the $850B and reinvested it in the countries infrastructure (Huckabee, anyone?), the spending multiplier alone turns that into $1.6T. And it creates millions of jobs. The only probelm is, this govt would not be able to do that. If you committed $850B to infrastructure, after all the BS and pork added, only $850M gets spent on the infrastructure. Does it matter who's spending it? A corporation spending $35K on a toilet, the government spending $35K on a toilet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Why not just give every American their share of this money? Just write out checks to each and every one of us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Eh, that goes both ways. Telling people "The Government" is going to pay for your health care, college education, and keep your house from getting foreclosed on is a nice thing to tell people too. Especially since a lot of people either A. dont connect the fact that the money the government is spending is THEIR money, or B. they dont pay income taxes. B consists of about 58% of the country. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Does it matter who's spending it?A corporation spending $35K on a toilet, the government spending $35K on a toilet. ???It has been proven that the spending multiplier is greater in effect than the tax multiplier. That is my gist. But only in an efficient govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 B consists of about 58% of the country. :doh: I know, thats why its such a sweet political move. Every one of those 58% has a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Why not just give every American their share of this money?Just write out checks to each and every one of us Then the hookers would rule the world. :party: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html Just call us France-West Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.