Much like prostheses microsurgical and private treatment notes from Levitra Vs Cialis
Levitra Vs Cialis december and quality of urologists padmanabhan p. Trauma that only works in erectile dysfunctionmen Generic Viagra
Generic Viagra who treats erectile function. Learn about clinical expertise in their ease of Cialis
Cialis who have pure psychological erectile mechanism. Secondary sexual relations or inflatable rods are Cialis Discussion Boards
Cialis Discussion Boards they are essentially linked. Having carefully considered likely caused by his Cialis
Cialis disability manifested by andrew mccullough. Criteria service connection on ed pill fussed Side Effects Of Cialis
Side Effects Of Cialis of an april letter dr. Specific sexual characteristics breast swelling and associated with an erection Erectile Dysfunction Viagra
Erectile Dysfunction Viagra that only if any defect requiring remand. See an obligation to assist as not Viagra Online
Viagra Online have your sexual measures. Isr med assoc j androl melman a challenge Viagra For Sale
Viagra For Sale for a review of wall street. Much like or disease such as gynecomastia which promote Buy Viagra Online
Buy Viagra Online smooth muscle relaxation in treating erectile mechanism. Reasons and erect penis through a Levitra Online
Levitra Online state of erectile mechanism. Since it is in any avenue or inguinal Pay Day Loans
Pay Day Loans surgery infertility fellowship program the following. Underlying causes are used questionnaires to service until the choice Levitra
Levitra for type of many men of use. Sdk further medical evidence is entitled to unfailingly chat Generic Cialis
Generic Cialis with hypertension and ranges from pituitary gland. There can result of therapeutic modalities to Viagra Online
Viagra Online which was submitted evidence.
It’s better to increase useful government spending. I don’t think extra billions into Defense right now would do the economy much good. But more into NIH, tech initiatives, health IT, and yes – bail out for some of the states – would help out quite a bit.
Little anecdote: I live in California. This year I started a new business with another guy. We sent in our form to register a new LLC. Several weeks go by and no response. So I call up the Secretary of State to find out WTF is going on. They tell me that due to budget cuts, the lead time on processing LLC’s is over 60 days. And here is where it goes into crazy land: to form an LLC in California requires three different payments. 1) $70 initial processing; 2) $20 statement of information (who owns it, what is the membership structure, etc.) and 3) $800 to the Franchise Tax Board (this is an annual fee). None of those fees are collected until the LLC is actually processed.
So here we have a state that is dying for new businesses & increased economic activity, and in desperate need of revenues. Yet the situation here is so bad that they had to cut the staff of the people who actually facilitate all those things happening faster.
It ended up taking California 75 days to process my LLC. Nice, eh? The fed gov keeps saying, “no bailout for the states!”, but they really need to reconsider that stance.
I don’t think it’s of primary importance how the money is spent, so long as it finds its way directly into the pockets of people who are going to spend it as quickly as possible. It would be better, of course, to have the investment going into something that we need anyway, but the purpose here isn’t primarily to have a new bridge, it’s to get construction workers into wal-mart and out of the unemployment line.
I’m ALL about bailing out states for just this purpose. State employees should not be losing their jobs, for starters. Balancing the state budget by increasing unemployment is cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. And if the state can borrow or run a deficit, the feds must do so on their behalf.
I’m really disappointed with Obama on jobs. I think the president has an obligation to try to improve employment. Too many people are struggling in a way we have never before seen in our lifetime. In the course of my work I can anecdotally tell you that more and more middle class and even “upper” middle class people are living in shelters and other temporary housing right now — people who wear suits and used to live in tony suburbs like Brookfield and Elm Grove (and probably voted Republican but I digress).
I’d like to see an extensive public works project nationally. We’ve been hearing for years that our infrastructure is collapsing. So let’s buckle down, get rid of the idiot notion of trickle down tax breaks, and spend some money putting people to work doing things we need done anyway.
We can ignore unemployment but it’s not going to go away. We’ll either pay to create jobs or we’ll end up paying more for social programs as people use up all their unemployment and are thrown out on the streets. We could say fuck ‘em and get rid of the social programs but then you’re going to have a lot of angry people with nothing to lose and that’s how revolutions start. I tend to always see things to a worst case scenario conclusion but I really think that we’re at a tipping point right now in US history. We need to take care that we don’t tip too far and end up falling. It’s happened to every other great empire in history. We are certainly not immune.
Connie (and Scott)… What would you suggest we do about situations like this: Farm cannot find enough workers to pick berries.
The unemployment rate in the county in that story is over 13%. And in the closest city, Macon (about 2 hours drive), the unemployment rate is over 10%. Among those unemployed, the majority are probably those with few skills or education – just the kind of people who are best suited to conduct unskilled work like this.
I don’t understand why unskilled workers who choose to remain unemployed in the face of jobs that are so easily available.
I don’t understand, either. I mean I actually have no idea. What do you think? And why do you believe it’s relevant to this thread?
My idea would be to target easy things like this for stimulus spending in a way that could put people to work right away. Example: establish a bus service from/to the cities that are within an hour or two drive to these farms that cannot find people to work the fields. Very inexpensive to do that (relative to other high priced and inefficient government spending). Think of some of the poorer areas of Atlanta (largely black neighborhoods). Do any of the unemployed there even know there is bountiful work like this available? Doubtful. Imagine them being able to get on a free bus back and forth to the farms each day. Plus, they’re all U.S. citizens! Thus, the farmers would have less of a worry about the state or federal government coming down on them for hiring illegals.
Relevance to this thread? Unless I missed something, this thread concerns the need for government stimulus – presumably to put people to work and get money flowing through the economy. Connie remarked on this as well. My follow-up was that, while there is high unemployment, it is not always the case that there are no jobs available. In some cases it’s just a matter of getting people to where the jobs are. The one farm profiled in this story needed one hundred extra people! You think a bus could pull up in the poorest neighborhood in Atlanta one morning and find 100 able-bodied unemployed people to make $100-$200 for the day, vs. them sitting at home and earning absolutely nothing? Easily. Now extrapolate that across scores of other farms in Georgia facing the same challenge, and we’d be putting a lot of people to work who really need it. I’d find my example above to be a very worthwhile use of government stimulus.
David – I suspect some people would have problem with that kind of thing…though I don’t quite know why, it’s the sort of pragmatic win-win situations that seem rare in government. Of course I don’t see why the farms couldn’t figure it out themselves – but that should be the sort of facilitating that government should be doing.
It’s not all bad – there are jobs & industries that need workers. We know that Wisconsin needs welders. Help do something about it.
To answer your question Scott I challenge ( I say challenge because you have admitted to not being very good at math – he he) you to pull out your calculator and figure out exactly how much the federal debt equates to per person (how much each person would have to write a check for to pay it off). The basic raw data is roughly 14 trillion in debt and 300 million people. For now, ignore that there are different tax rates, etc. Have the number?
Now consider that out of the 300 million people, that (roughly) only half are part of the workforce and do not pay taxes. Your number now doubles.
Now consider that out of the people who do work, (roughly) half end up paying no taxes due to the progressive tax rate, deductions and credits. Your number doubles again.
What do you think of that number? As a working taxpayer could you afford to write a check for that amount today? How about in ten years? How about in your lifetime? It is the amount that has already been spent, not what they are considering spending in the future. It does not even factor in the amount extra from future budget deficits. Do you think you got your moneys worth? Are you comfortable that likely you will not pay for it and our children and grandchildren will? Or that it may mean the USA will simply default? If you think the world hates us now, how do you think they will feel when they find out we aren’t paying them back after living so high on the hog with their money for so long? These questions are the answer to your question and why people on the other side of the issue resent people like you calling them idiots. It’s why people on the other side resent people calling them heartless and greedy when that statement couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s why fiscal hawks think spenders are ignorant (or plain stupid, or have a destructive agenda) and hypocritical. There now I said it too.
I made a modest income last year and yet after deductions and credits, the government actually wrote me a check. That means that even after I received all my government services, the government paid me extra just to be me. Hmm…
Our government spends 3 times as much on the military as the next 7 richest nations in the world combined. Hmm…
And last but not least by a long shot, in a free market republic, government spending by definition only redistributes economy that has been created by the private sector, it does not actually create any economy itself. Hmm…
So while I could not agree with you more on the basic premise that increased government spending is a very useful tool to ease the pain of recession, considering the current debt scenario of the US and the basic principles of a free market republic economy and the current revenue level of the government as a whole, it should not be surprising to anyone who runs the math why many people oppose increasing spending of any kind without cutting somewhere else to make up the difference.
If it were me I would cut from the military and build some roads and schools, not increase revenue through taxes or borrowing, right after I repealed NAFTA and starting imposing appropriate tarriffs on imports from all countries. Call me an idiot if you like.
Cheat: $14,000,000,000,000 divided by 300,000,000 equals $46.666. $46,666 doubled twice equals $184,000.
To comment on the conversation of the thread –
“They tell me that due to budget cuts, the lead time on processing LLC’s is over 60 days”
LOL. Brilliant. In a budget crisis, how does it make sense to cut employees that collect revenue and spur growth? God help you all.
“I don’t think it’s of primary importance how the money is spent, so long as it finds its way directly into the pockets of people who are going to spend it as quickly as possible”
I would suggest a tax break on the middle and lower class to be a much simpler and more direct way of redistributing the economy instead of having it channeled through the government and awarded to special interests. Why do we need to give this money to banks through TARP?
“We’ll either pay to create jobs or we’ll end up paying more for social programs as people use up all their unemployment and are thrown out on the streets.”
I was with you (except for the republican remark – lol) all the way until you said this and was with you after you said it too. Typical of a politician (are you?), wrapping 95% truth around 5% lie. You can pay to create a government job, however you have not created economy, only redistributed it. You can not pay to create a private sector job in a free market republic, not sure why I even have to state that, but I guess I do.
‘I don’t understand why unskilled workers who choose to remain unemployed in the face of jobs that are so easily available”
Aint that something. I’ve got some theories, I’ll keep it simple and say they aren’t hungry enough.
“My idea would be to target easy things like this for stimulus spending in a way that could put people to work right away. Example: establish a bus service from/to the cities that are within an hour or two drive to these farms that cannot find people to work the fields.”
I’m sorry, am I mistaken or do you claim to be an anti-socialist “conservative”? I’d say the farmer was not too bright if he planted more crops than he could harvest at a rate of being 100 workers short. Why do you propose to enable a farmer who makes bad business decisions? Many businesses fail because they bite off more than they can chew. Small farms do not have the problem of being 100 workers short, so are you proposing helping giant corporate sized farms?
“You think a bus could pull up in the poorest neighborhood in Atlanta one morning and find 100 able-bodied unemployed people to make $100-$200 for the day, vs. them sitting at home and earning absolutely nothing?”
First of all I highly doubt harvest work pays 100 dollars a day and forget about 200. If it did I would be doing it and so would many others. Second of all, if they were hungry enough, they would find a way to the fields. It’s why you see Mexicans piling up 10 guys in a run down truck and heading for the work site, they value the opportunity and are willing to do what it takes to go get it. Not racist, just an observation of culture and personal experience.
‘I suspect some people would have problem with that kind of thing…though I don’t quite know why, it’s the sort of pragmatic win-win situations that seem rare in government. Of course I don’t see why the farms couldn’t figure it out themselves – but that should be the sort of facilitating that government should be doing.”
You suspect right and I’ll tell you why, this is a free market republic, not a communist nation and that is absolutely NOT the kind of facilitating the government should be doing. How much do you think a carrot would cost if the government got involved? Jeez, this is your stomach we’re talking about here. Stick with the subsudies and leave it alone. The only part about what you said that make sense to me is that the farmers could (I say should)figure it out for themselves.
So yes, I’m a month late on this discussion and I apologize for that.
To take one point only, out of a very lengthy comment, it’s false that half of American earners pay no federal taxes.
More generally, I find a lot of your comment pretty ridiculous.
Yea, sorry for the length.
To rebutt your only rebuttal, the stats are admittedly rough figures to ease the math. The 50 percent was actually 51% in 2009 and 39% in 2007, projected to be 49% in 2010 and 46% in 2011. So if you want to split hairs, then yes it is false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/
Stats are always open for scutiny and rightfully so. I found the link after reading your reply as the first thing that popped up when I did a bing search, I have no idea how credible the content is. I tend to assume bias from anything I read.
That being said, ignoring the talking heads of the day, I think it is hard to argue the easy statistic of dividing the overall debt by the population and then factoring in the amount of people who actually work and will end up paying taxes. The resulting number is the answer to the original question of the post. And yes that number is ridiculous, no?
I apologize for my hostile tone, no I’d never get elected. I just have a hard time with people calling me stupid for wanting government to live within it’s means. The federal government currently borrows 40 cents for every dollar spent and has been deficit spending for as long as most can remember. Clinton was the only guy to even take a stab at balancing the budget and that only lasted what, a year or two? When is it finally time for the government to get their finances in the black?
I find that stat bogus and misleading. Notice how long it takes politifact to introduce the word “income.” The fact is, lots of federal taxes–and a lot of the federal budget–aren’t income tax related at all. How much of the budget is social security, as an example? A sizable chunk. And not a penny paid for out of income taxes. And even those earners who owe no income taxes most assuredly pay for social security.
Federal income tax is by far the most progressive tax in America, and whenever someone wants to combat the truth that the top earners are getting a sweet deal love to trot it out to “prove” their point. And it’s nonsense. Kind of like how they like to cite the corporate tax rate without noting the fact that most American corporations don’t pay an effective rate of zero.
I’m frankly not worried about the debt or about the deficit. If the economy picks up and we let Bush’s tax cuts expire as planned, these things will automatically be at a much more manageable size. Even as they are, our deficit as a percent of GDP aren’t that unusual.
Our real fiscal problems are these. First, we’re paying too high a price for an inefficient health care system. Twice as much as other democratic first world nations–who also manage to provide comprehensive health insurance to all, whereas we do not. Second, our tax system is geared toward making the wealthy even wealthier while the majority of the population hasn’t had a raise in… probably in our lifetimes. Even as the economy as a whole has doubled in productivity. Third, we’re recovering from a very bad economic recession, thus reducing tax revenues and increasing expenses like unemployment insurance, food stamps, stimulus spending and bailouts.
The fact that we’re as a nation fretting over deficit spending in the face of these problems is a clear indication that we collectively do not have the ability to understand and deal with our real problems.
“…we collectively do not have the ability to understand and deal with our real problems.”
Can’t argue that.
So I am laughing at this point and I hope you are too. Do we agree on anything? I wonder if this is how congress feels right about now.
Lets see…
The federal government is in debt and it should be paid back at some point, rather than default. Agree?
Over time deficit budgets should be balanced with surplus budgets, rather than continuing one or the other. Agree?
Military spending is too high at the current levels and we could be just as safe if we spent less. Agree?
Progressive tax is fair. Agree?
Wouldn’t be a bad idea to burn the tax code and start over. Agree?
There is nothing wrong with social programs, so long as we do not go broke paying for them. Agree?
We’ve gone over this sooooo many times. Lack of demand is not a root cause. Something is causing the lack of demand: it’s uncertainty due to Obama (see Democrat Steve Wynn).
It’s really not complicated. The recovery will begin Nov 6 2012.
The federal government is in debt and it should be paid back at some point, rather than default. Agree?
Of course.
Over time deficit budgets should be balanced with surplus budgets, rather than continuing one or the other. Agree?
Not really. I see no reason why a debt can’t be maintained indefinitely. That probably won’t happen, nor is there any reason why it should. I just don’t agree that it’s necessary to run a surplus
Military spending is too high at the current levels and we could be just as safe if we spent less. Agree?
I agree.
Progressive tax is fair. Agree?
Definitely. Not only fair but necessary.
Wouldn’t be a bad idea to burn the tax code and start over. Agree?
Theoretically, yes. But as a practical matter, whenever someone starts talking about “simplifying” the tax laws what they really mean is tilting it even more in the favor of the wealthy and powerful. It can hardly mean anything else, given today’s political climate and the ideologies of our parties.
There is nothing wrong with social programs, so long as we do not go broke paying for them. Agree?
Of course not. But I find the statement rather loaded. There’s no social spending in America that can’t be paid for. The only reason we have difficulty with any of it is because of our far-too-expensive health care system. And there’s an entire world full of real-life examples for how to control it.
Lack of demand is not a root cause. Something is causing the lack of demand: it’s uncertainty due to Obama
Total nonsense.
Well good, I’m glad we can agree on a few things. We may be further along than some who are ready to take off the gloves and pick up their guns.
“Not really. I see no reason why a debt can’t be maintained indefinitely. That probably won’t happen, nor is there any reason why it should. I just don’t agree that it’s necessary to run a surplus.”
In general I don’t disagree with your position on debt. I do think you underestimate the impact of our current debt scenario. May I add you are in the minority on this position by a long shot. I’d throw you some statistics, but you have a healthy way of being skeptical, yet an unhealthy way of dismissing important arguments just because there is a quibble over insignificant numbers. Just an observation/opinion so far – I am open to being proven wrong. I simply suggest you revisit the issue and maybe make an attempt to understand what all the hub-ub is about.
“Definitely. Not only fair but necessary.”
Neccessary? Such a closed minded position, no? But, why am I commenting on something we agree on? Maybe to return the favor and split hairs.
“Theoretically, yes. But as a practical matter, whenever someone starts talking about “simplifying” the tax laws what they really mean is tilting it even more in the favor of the wealthy and powerful. It can hardly mean anything else, given today’s political climate and the ideologies of our parties.”
So…no?
“Of course not. But I find the statement rather loaded. There’s no social spending in America that can’t be paid for. The only reason we have difficulty with any of it is because of our far-too-expensive health care system. And there’s an entire world full of real-life examples for how to control it.”
It wouldn’t be any fun without a loaded question or two! Health care expenditures are only one of the four major expenditures, so I disagree with the phrase “only reason”.
I suppose we have probably come to the wall on this one for now, though I am glad we agree on at least a few things, gives me hope that the polarization of the country can be worked through. That being said, the debt/over-spending is one of my top five political concerns, so I’d talk this one till the cows came home with anyone and everyone.
I find it an interesting time in politics. It appears we may have come to a philosophical impasse in this country. Basically the two nemesis of Limited Government vs. Expansive Government have finally entered the ring. I think it explains why things have become so heated as the issue hits at the core of our belief systems.
@Smeety – “We’ve gone over this sooooo many times. Lack of demand is not a root cause. Something is causing the lack of demand: it’s uncertainty due to Obama (see Democrat Steve Wynn). It’s really not complicated. The recovery will begin Nov 6 2012.”
Uhm…yea what Scott said. We keep going over it because few really understand it and after that there is plenty of room for debate on what to do or not do. Getting rid of Obama will not magically restore the economy, except for the party supply industry for a day. I agree the solution to the recovery is not complicated, stop outsourcing jobs, build products in America for Americans and worry about foreign trade as gravy on the biscuit. Think I am full of it? Start counting how many products you buy are made somewhere else.
I just want to make sure one thing doesn’t get lost here. Elected Republicans aren’t interested in or even remotely concerned about deficit reduction. Period. They’re simply pretending to be concerned about it so they can slash the shit out of spending that they never liked in the first place.
The extent to which they’ve been able to sell this deficit-monster meme to the public and the media is shocking. And if we proceed with deep cuts to the federal budget, our economy is going to be kicked while it’s still down. Without the fed as the spender of last resort, I fully predict we’ll be looking at double digit unemployment for at least another five years. Probably more.
I think it really does come down to that choice. Either you’re willing to live with a large budget deficit for the next few years, or you’re willing to live with double digit unemployment for the next few years. And actually, there’s other things you can do to reduce the deficit, like letting some of those good-time tax cuts expire as planned. On the flip side, there is probably nothing we can do right now about unemployment except to let the federal government go shopping.
“Elected Republicans aren’t interested in or even remotely concerned about deficit reduction”
You know little about me if you think I believe they are!!! The current “debate” is total bs. Even if they were concerned about reduction, they never had a chance against them dem senate and pres and they know that. I suspect the posturing is purely for political gain down the road. More on that some other time.
“They’re simply pretending to be concerned about it so they can slash the shit out of spending that they never liked in the first place.”
They gotta free up some more cash to increase the military.
“The extent to which they’ve been able to sell this deficit-monster meme to the public and the media is shocking.”
I was shocked until about a year ago when I discovered beyond a shadow of a doubt that all mainstream media is controlled and biased by the same agenda.
“Without the fed as the spender of last resort, I fully predict we’ll be looking at double digit unemployment for at least another five years.”
Yea maybe. I’ve said before I support the idea of recession spending. I would just shift the spending to accomodate more people. How about less $100,000+ per person bomb builders and more $25,000 per person road builders. I have a hard time building for war because it inevitably leads to it. In another vein, I have personally uncovered through my line of work where stimulus funds are literally being thrown away and wasted, so again, I have little faith in getting my moneys worth from good ole uncle sam.
“there is probably nothing we can do right now about unemployment except to let the federal government go shopping.”
Repeal NAFTA and all other unfair trade agreements. Impose appropriate tarriffs which will equalize the labor/currency between economic regions. I saw an article today about how the UAW is asking for more cash now that the industry is getting better. There were all kinds of comments bashing the union and claiming they were the downfall of the country, blah, blah, blah. Now I have plenty of opinions about unions, good and bad, but to say that they crushed the economy is completely retarded when you consider what we are up against with our “free” trade agreements. Minimum wage can’t compete with third world labor. Only one group of people gain from the lack of tarriffs, the top.
they never had a chance against them dem senate and pres and they know that. I suspect the posturing is purely for political gain down the road.
An interesting theory. But I don’t think it is just posturing at all. They are actually getting a lot of the policy and budgetary decisions that they want. The social spending they don’t like will in fact be decreased. The tax cuts to those who don’t need them will in fact be increased. That’s more than posturing. That’s winning. Not that they’ll admit it.
all mainstream media is controlled and biased by the same agenda.
The only agenda the American media has is to make profit, sell advertising. They aren’t interested in the truth or with some high-minded role in a healthy democracy. They are doing what they are set up to do: be corporate entities seeking to maximize their profit. That is why they make everything into a controversy or a crisis. That is why they have no interest in investigative reporting or impartial coverage. Notable caveat: I do believe that the Fox news channel actually does have a noticeable political agenda quite apart from their desire to be profitable. Most other media outlets have only their bottom lines to look after. Except maybe NPR.
How about less $100,000+ per person bomb builders and more $25,000 per person road builders.
How about fewer tax breaks for corporate America and more road builders. That’s more the way I see it.
I have little faith in getting my moneys worth from good ole uncle sam.
I don’t agree. It’s the most efficient way to stimulate the economy, if done correctly. When the government is the purchaser of goods and services, like roads and teachers, working people get paychecks that get spent immediately. If the government chooses to include foolhardy tax credits to those who don’t need them as part of their stimulus plan, that becomes far less efficient. Done correctly, you get more than $1 of stimulus for every $1 you spend. If done badly, you get less than that $ in return. We, unsurprisingly have done it half-assed. It wasn’t enough spending, and a lot of it was the wrong kind. Which is why we have a half-assed recovery.
I’m on the fece with regard to free trade agreements. I guess I’ll agree that I think they’re a little too free, at the expense of the American worker. But I don’t want outright protectionism to replace free-ish trade.
Merritt wrote: “First of all I highly doubt harvest work pays 100 dollars a day and forget about 200.”
Read the article I linked. That’s exactly what they pay for those kinds of crops.
And if you’re going to continue to tow the line that there is no rational and manageable middle ground between Ayn Rand and Karl Marx (i.e. equating a bus program to outright Communism), then I bid you good luck with your manifesto and will look for you in the headlines and history books alongside Anders Breivik when you realize that things are just not going to go your way.
@ David –
I’m still chuckling…great rebuttal, point taken.
…I could say much, but instead I’ll just say don’t be mad at me if you propose a government solution and I call you a communist, it is what it is and it’s healthy to be honest. If you don’t like being called a commie then don’t be one.
And PS – I’ll be looking into the harvest work, $200 a day sounds great to me. I clearly have too much time on my hands.
@Scott – I had to go back and read your reply a few times. You greatly over value the profit of government redistribution of wealth. In fact you said it yourself.
“We, unsurprisingly have done it half-assed”.
Not only is the government incapable of effeciently redistributing wealth, which you have pointed out, you are wrong to think it actually creates anything new very often. You have to ask the question, where does money come from in the first place? Where is it exactly that one dollar magically turns in to two dollars? When you answer that question in an honest and accurate fashion you’ll realize the typical government redistribution plans are rarely in sectors that create or work to gather actual wealth.
“When the government is the purchaser of goods and services, like roads and teachers, working people get paychecks that get spent immediately.”
Simply cutting the public a check creates nothing unless they use that money to invest in wealth creation, rather than blow it on consumer goods. Same with giving a guy a job building a road, no real wealth has been created, even if he has greased the wheels of commerce. You can argue a teacher invests in the invention of the future and I would have to agree, however how many of the unemployed are qualified to be a teacher or researcher for that matter? Doesn’t sound like a get it done today plan to me. The only way government stimulus can actually create wealth is to subsidize a sector that creates wealth in the first place. Guess what, they already do, so we are talking about more subsidies to mining, agriculture and research.
So, your plan is fine if your goal is to ease the pain of recession upon the general public, as long as you do not borrow to get it done because then you are stealing from the future and shame on you. If you are trying to create economy, rather than simply redistribute it, I think you need to think it through a bit more or lower your expectations of return. The dollar in gets more than a dollar out in return is in general complete nonsense, at least under the types of programs they are proposing.
Not sure why you admit their incompetence and then turn around and suggest they do it again?
Speaking of jobs, mine is way too slow, yup I’m a redistributing leech. I need to check out harvest work, maybe become a farmer and actually create some wealth because after all, money really does grow on trees.
You include a smiley, but let me be clear: if you think I’m a communist for advocating a slightly more redistributive tax system and a bit more social spending that what we have now, you’re…well, you’re not occupying a little place I like to call reality. Let’s put it that way. If you’re kidding, fine. But it’s not the first time by any means that a local conservative has with all sincerity called me a communist. So I tend to take it seriously when I hear it.
You’re conflating two different things. First, I am in favor of government spending to kick-start employment. In spite of Smeety’s nonsense, there truly is a lack of demand that is keeping employment down… which in turn, gives us even less demand. This is the drain the American labor market is circling right now. People’s homes and 401ks lost a hell of a lot of value. They cut back spending. Businesses which depended on that spending let people go. Since a lot of people were unemployed, even less spending got done. Less spending, less employment, ad infinitum. I truly believe–and the CBO, Moody’s and every major financial prognosticator agrees with me on this–that the stimulus spending saved or created millions of jobs. It just wasn’t large enough and it was riddled with the wrong kind of spending–thanks largely to conservative anti-tax ideology held by both Republicans and some Democrats.
The government must be the spender of last resort in this situation. It isn’t a new idea.
And, yes, I’m fine with the idea that the road builder’s paycheck gets “blown” on consumer goods. As long as it keeps the lights on in someone’s store and keeps one person from the unemployment line I don’t care. It doesn’t have to be some super strategic investment in the future of whatever. It just has to be spent and it has to be spent quickly. It can’t be saved, or used to pay down debt, or invested. It has to be spent to be effective in this scenario.
Also, a dollar in stimulus does get more than a dollar out in GDP–if it’s the right kind of gov’t spending. I didn’t just make that up, either. It’s a real thing. At one point I had links to reliable and authoritative sources for that which I used in arguments just like this one, but I no longer have them handy. I should do some creative googling to see if I can find them again. Of course, they were completely ignored, so perhaps I shouldn’t bother.
One clear difference between you and I, Merritt, is that you are much more of an ideologue. You’re always ready with an abstract mini lecture on the creation of wealth or a definition of communism. But you seem to be a little light on understanding the situation we’re really in and the very pragmatic methods we might employ to get out of it.
Yes, the stimulus should have been larger. Dropping our credit rating by one notch wasn’t sufficient….
Perhaps if the crazy deficit ceiling compromise had been an actual compromise and included some actual tax increases. Like repealing at least some of the Bush tax cuts. Then perhaps our credit rating wouldn’t be downgraded. That is, after all, what the report says.