$800 billion dollar TARP! - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cimarron29414 · 10-06-2010, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Who cares how they go about it(capital), so long as the money keeps flowing.

Perhaps you don't care, but I find this statement offensive, as it implies that those who have capital did so through ill-gotten means. This implication is made frequently in threads here. You and others will never stop using this implication because it is a means towards achieving your goal. However, I am going to call you out for using it. Most, and I mean almost all, Americans who have capital received that capital through honorable and moral means - unlike the politicians you are so fond of.

roachboy · 10-06-2010, 09:58 AM

how do you know that, cimmaron?
there's a perfectly legitimate view of capitalism that sees profit as presupposing exploitation of those who sell their labor power for a wage. the ethical alternative is to suppress the division between those who own the instruments of production and those who do the actual production. they call it revolution.

from that viewpoint, it is more or less impossible for capital to be generated without ethical problems.

this is more coherent than your position because it opens onto actually talking about how capitalism works. and it doesn't stop with some simplistic fetishism of property relations ("well, capitalist own factories and it's legit because the paper sez so.")

Baraka_Guru · 10-06-2010, 10:13 AM

One example of what I was talking about is how few people seemed to care about the money flowing through the sub-prime mortgages before the shit hit the fan.

And I'm sure there are many who see nothing wrong with it in principle even after the fact.

On a wider view, I'm also talking about capitalism beyond how most may perceive it, which is more along the lines of what roachboy is talking about. There are those who call for free markets, all the while forgetting what free markets tend to bring.

Don't make me reference robber barons again.

I don't think all capital is used unscrupulously. However, I also don't think capitalism has an inherent moral compass. I think it's amoral, which is why letting capitalism run amok (i.e. run societies) is insanity.

roachboy · 10-06-2010, 10:40 AM

something from the ny review of books that argues for a break with the reactionary "conventional wisdom" about deficits and for long-term state fiscal action/policy on a japanese model to address the structure-wobble within contemporary capitalism:

The Way Out of the Slump by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells | The New York Review of Books

dc_dux · 10-07-2010, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Yet another story about how Obama's giveaways haven't fixed much of anything.

Hasn't it yet occurred to these guys that since people have discovered that maxing out your credit card or your home equity is a stupid idea, that the economy has shrunk and is going to stay that way for a while? Obama trying to inflate the economy turned out to be a failure.

The comparisons to personal credit cards and home equity is baseless. The factors in making policy regarding the national economy is just not that simple.'

A growing consensus of economists are of the opinion that the full package (TARP, ARRA, Fed policies) prevented a further collapse of the economy and in fact were significant factors in its stabilization....added significant number of jobs to counter the loss of 8 million in the previous eight years and resulted in stead GDP growth as opposed to the negative growth in 07 and 08.

The TARP payback is a plus, but was expected.

And, the financial reform act passed this year does address, at least to some degree, the problems that got us into the mess. I agree it doesnt go far enough, but is better than no financial reform at all.

Lastly, to all your posts about Obama's spending, the CBO's estimate of the FY 10 (ended last week) budget deficit of $1.3 trillion is LESS than the previous year's record of $1.43 trillion...;and Obama's proposed FY 11 budget put a freeze on most discretionary spending.

But it will mean nothing and the deficits will soar if the Bush 01 and 03 tax cuts, particularly on the top bracket, are extended....add another $trillion to next year's deficit (and each subsequent year).

dogzilla · 10-07-2010, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The comparisons to personal credit cards and home equity is baseless. The factors in making policy regarding the national economy is just not that simple.'

Of course not. When the government runs out of money, it just prints more and that adds to inflation. Governments have to live within their means too.

If consumer demand doesn't come back because stupid people have learned their lesson than they shouldn't max out their credit then the government is supposed to spend trillions of dollars buying useless crap until Obama gets kicked out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Lastly, to all your posts about Obama's spending, the CBO's estimate of the FY 10 (ended last week) budget deficit of $1.3 trillion is LESS than the previous year's record of $1.43 trillion...;and Obama's proposed FY 11 budget put a freeze on most discretionary spending.

But it will mean nothing and the deficits will soar if the Bush 01 and 03 tax cuts, particularly on the top bracket, are extended....add another $trillion to next year's deficit (and each subsequent year).

If he's frozen discretionary spending, that's a small start. He still has deficits well above what Bush was running for every year except his last year in office. That's what I think has a lot of voters angry, not that he's running a deficit but that he's set a new standard for what is acceptable.

So he's still got plenty of room to cut. And that includes entitlements since those are not Constitutionally protected.

Tully Mars · 10-07-2010, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Of course not. When the government runs out of money, it just prints more and that adds to inflation. Governments have to live within their means too.

If that's how it works why did Bush spend all those years borrowing money from China. He should have just "printed more."

Baraka_Guru · 10-07-2010, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Of course not. When the government runs out of money, it just prints more and that adds to inflation. Governments have to live within their means too.

Well, considering the American economy is at a real risk of deflation, this might not be such a bad idea. Actually, maybe that's one of the main reasons why Bernanke might go through with the quantitative easing. It's preferable to have a modest inflation rather than problematic deflation.

dc_dux · 10-07-2010, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

....If he's frozen discretionary spending, that's a small start. He still has deficits well above what Bush was running for every year except his last year in office. That's what I think has a lot of voters angry, not that he's running a deficit but that he's set a new standard for what is acceptable.

Obama could have kept the Iraq/Afghanistan spending off budget like Bush did and pretend it didnt add to the deficit (nearly $1 trillion over six years off budget as if it didnt exist)...but he didnt.

Quote:

So he's still got plenty of room to cut. And that includes entitlements since those are not Constitutionally protected.

No one has suggested that entitlements are Constitutionally protected but that they are NOT unconstitutional as Tea Party crowd and libertarians insist...and the Supreme Court has affirmed that on more than one occasion.

So instead of complaining, if you want to see entitlement cut, how about offering a suggestion in a manner that wont adversely impact those in need.

IMO, core benefits shouldnt be cut; the programs should be made more cost-efficient. The health reform bill started the process for reforming Medicare by cutting nearly $1/2 trillion of over-payments to Medicare Advantage providers; forcing MA providers to compete and offer the core services at less than 15% above allowable limits (the overpayment).

Fix Social Security? Simple, you dont have to cut benefits...just raise the payroll tax on those making over $100 K, who pay $0 FICA taxes after the 6% on the first $100k

dogzilla · 10-07-2010, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Obama could have kept the Iraq/Afghanistan spending off budget like Bush did and pretend it didnt add to the deficit (nearly $1 trillion over six years off budget as if it didnt exist)...but he didnt.

Even if it was another trillion dollars over 6 years and Obama isn't playing simialr games with other budget items, Obama has doubled the deficit per year over that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

No one has suggested that entitlements are Constitutionally protected but that they are NOT unconstitutional as Tea Party crowd and libertarians insist...and the Supreme Court has affirmed that on more than one occasion.

So instead of complaining, if you want to see entitlement cut, how about offering a suggestion in a manner that wont adversely impact those in need.

Whether they affect people or not, they need to be cut. Entitlements are getting out of hand. Case in point being the increase in the food stamp programs over the past few years.

dc_dux · 10-07-2010, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Even if it was another trillion dollars over 6 years and Obama isn't playing simialr games with other budget items, Obama has doubled the deficit per year over that.

There has only been one year (FY 10) under an Obama administration budget and as I noted, the deficit was lower the previous year....so I dont where you get your numbers that Obama has doubled the deficit per year.

Quote:

Whether they affect people or not, they need to be cut. Entitlements are getting out of hand. Case in point being the increase in the food stamp programs over the past few years.

The SNAP program (food stamps) is probably one of the more stimulative programs.

A WSJ column explains it well.

Quote:

The president's stimulus plan has been aimed primarily at the top of the economy, pumping money into banks and car companies and state and city governments. But it also has put more money into the hands of the poorest Americans by boosting monthly food-stamp allocations. Starting in April, a family of four on food stamps received an average of $80 extra.

Money from the program -- officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- percolates quickly through the economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture calculates that for every $5 of food-stamp spending, there is $9.20 of total economic activity, as grocers and farmers pay their employees and suppliers, who in turn shop and pay their bills.

While other stimulus money has been slow to circulate, the food-stamp boost is almost immediate, with 80% of the benefits being redeemed within two weeks of receipt and 97% within a month, the USDA says.

Boost in Food-Stamp Funding Percolates Through Economy - WSJ.com

Or this from CNN - Moody's Economy.com:

Quote:

The industry research firm Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.

Tracking that single dollar spent through the economic chain shows what economists call the ripple effect, Zandi said. For example, that dollar spent at the grocery store in turn helps to pay the salaries of the grocery clerks, pays the truckers who haul the food and produce cross-country, and finally goes to the farmer who grows the crops.

The report pointed to expanding unemployment benefits as the program that gets the next biggest bang for the buck. That's because, although the unemployed are already getting checks, they need to spend the money. For every dollar spent here, the economy would see a return of $1.64, Zandi said.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news...ysis/index.htm

So you dont think people who become unemployed through no fault of their own should get temporary food assistance? even the kids? And no more unemployment insurance? Too bad if you're out of work and cant afford to pay your mortgage or feed your family?

Nearly 1/3 of the total stimulus package was for these type assistance programs...the most effective third...not only temporarily helping people in need, but providing the best stimulus as well.

And how would you cut Medicare? Or how will seniors otherwise get affordable health care from the private sector who has no interest or willingness to take on that highest risk group?

boink · 10-07-2010, 08:57 PM

let them all die, apparently our economy doesn't need em. if they protest, build more jails, ha ! employ them to build their own jails !!

dogzilla · 10-08-2010, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Well, considering the American economy is at a real risk of deflation, this might not be such a bad idea. Actually, maybe that's one of the main reasons why Bernanke might go through with the quantitative easing. It's preferable to have a modest inflation rather than problematic deflation.

See that's the problem when you start messing with the economy. First you have to rig the economy so that inflation doesn't go too high. Then you have to rig the economy so inflation doesn't go too low.

Tully Mars · 10-08-2010, 02:39 AM

You realize all your proposals here would "mess with the economy" too, right?

dogzilla · 10-08-2010, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

There has only been one year (FY 10) under an Obama administration budget and as I noted, the deficit was lower the previous year....so I dont where you get your numbers that Obama has doubled the deficit per year.

Bush's deficits were running in the $400-$500B per year range up to 2008. Obama's deficits are roughly double that and projections I've read are that the deficit doesn't get back to the $400B range until something like 2015, three years after Obama has been kicked out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The SNAP program (food stamps) is probably one of the more stimulative programs.

As I've posted before, no more stimulus programs. Let the economy sort itself out to the level that it will naturally run at. I don't think the kind of consumer demand we saw in the last decade or two is coming back for a long time since a whole bunch of stupid people found out the hard way that it's bad to max out your credit and not save any money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

So you dont think people who become unemployed through no fault of their own should get temporary food assistance? even the kids? And no more unemployment insurance? Too bad if you're out of work and cant afford to pay your mortgage or feed your family?

What were those people doing with their income before? Were they people who were maxing out their credit tying to live a higher lifestyle than their income could support? Were they even trying to save money for difficult time? If so, boo hoo. It's not my responsibility to support them. Any politician who thinks otherwise will lose my vote. I live within my means and have had zero debt for over 15 years. I have savings that will carry me across temporary unemployment. It's not unreasonable to expect others to do likewise, using debt only for major purchases.

Baraka_Guru · 10-08-2010, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

See that's the problem when you start messing with the economy. First you have to rig the economy so that inflation doesn't go too high. Then you have to rig the economy so inflation doesn't go too low.

The idea that the economy can fix itself is far more problematic. That's why no one tries it out by just leaving it alone.

---------- Post added at 08:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

What were those people doing with their income before? Were they people who were maxing out their credit tying to live a higher lifestyle than their income could support? Were they even trying to save money for difficult time? If so, boo hoo. It's not my responsibility to support them. Any politician who thinks otherwise will lose my vote. I live within my means and have had zero debt for over 15 years. I have savings that will carry me across temporary unemployment. It's not unreasonable to expect others to do likewise, using debt only for major purchases.

Could you cover your expenses with no income for six months? Do you think the average person can? Do you think this is easy to plan for on low wages and a high cost of living?

What are your thoughts on starvation and crimes related to poverty? Do you support the idea of debtors prisons?

Derwood · 10-08-2010, 05:37 AM

So we're back to the conservative meme of "the poor deserve to be poor".

Circle of life, Hakuna Matata

Baraka_Guru · 10-08-2010, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

So we're back to the conservative meme of "the poor deserve to be poor".

It's more than that; it's also the conservative mantra, "It's not my problem," as though the poor have no direct connection to the rest of society. It's as though being poor is a departure independent of anything else...except "my money."

dogzilla · 10-08-2010, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

[/COLOR]Could you cover your expenses with no income for six months? Do you think the average person can? Do you think this is easy to plan for on low wages and a high cost of living?

What are your thoughts on starvation and crimes related to poverty? Do you support the idea of debtors prisons?

I can cover my expenses for more than 6 months. If the average person made it a goal to put savings aside instead of spending their income and then possibly maxing out their credit buying stuff they wanted, possibly. It may mean not living the lifestyle you like. You might end up with roommates, etc.

If someone steals something of significant value (not petty theft), then poor or not, as far as I am concerned they go to jail.

And no, I don't believe in debtors prisons.

---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

So we're back to the conservative meme of "the poor deserve to be poor".

Circle of life, Hakuna Matata

Some do, some don't. I know a bright kid, 17 years old that's thinking about dropping out of his last year of high school. If he does, that's his problem.

Others don't. Stuff happens.

Regardless, the trillions the US government has spent on helping the poor over the last 40-50 years hasn't fixes the problem. Spending trillions more isn't going to fix it either.

Baraka_Guru · 10-08-2010, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

I can cover my expenses for more than 6 months. If the average person made it a goal to put savings aside instead of spending their income and then possibly maxing out their credit buying stuff they wanted, possibly. It may mean not living the lifestyle you like. You might end up with roommates, etc.

Okay, so you more or less take an anticonsumerist stance. How do you think this will affect the economy in the long run? I mean, you are basically advocating a drastically reduced economic activity, a kind of activity that is responsible for generating a bulk of the wealth in the United States. The demand shift would result in fewer imports, but it would also result in lowered domestic demand for goods. This also means lower tax revenue.

At this point in time, it would hobble the recovery. Actually, that's kind of what's going on right now, since people are reeling from their debt and high unemployment. Unemployment remains high largely because of suppressed spending.

Would you support regulations restricting the kind and amount of credit issued to borrowers based on income and other factors?

Maybe the crisis was more than just a mortgage bubble, maybe it was a consumerist bubble in general, where the economic strength of America was built too much on credit. What this means is that Americans seem more well off than they actually are, and this includes the middle class to a large extent. I think perhaps we're going to see a correction in the American economy where the GDP growth over the next decade will be dwarfed not just by BRIC but by much of the developed world too.

I think overall the quality of life in America is going to either stagnate or drop on average. Too much of the comfortable American lifestyle that everyone covets has been accomplished by artificial means, and now it's time to pay up. I guess these things are best left to the rich.

dogzilla · 10-08-2010, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Okay, so you more or less take an anticonsumerist stance. How do you think this will affect the economy in the long run? I mean, you are basically advocating a drastically reduced economic activity, a kind of activity that is responsible for generating a bulk of the wealth in the United States. The demand shift would result in fewer imports, but it would also result in lowered domestic demand for goods. This also means lower tax revenue.

Demand is going to settle at some honestly sustainable level. That means lowered revenue for businesses. But if there's not a Starbuck's on every corner and a Walmart in every neighborhood, I'm OK with that.

Less tax revenue means less government spending.

This also has the side effect of less damage to the environment since less perfectly good product gets thrown out to buy new. I drive a 16 year old sub-compact that is reliable transportation. I can easily replace it today but why should I waste the materials and energy used to build my current car before it's permanently broken?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Would you support regulations restricting the kind and amount of credit issued to borrowers based on income and other factors?

I'm not a fan of nanny state regulations, including current nanny state regulations demanding that banks make credit more available, which is part of how we got here.

I'd leave it to the banks with the penalty that if they screw up, the government doesn't bail them out. Smart bankers will wise up pretty quickly. Stupid ones will be out of business.

roachboy · 10-08-2010, 10:17 AM

Quote:

September 30, 2010

R.I.P, TANF EMERGENCY FUND.... Readers probably got tired of my reports on one of the most effective federal jobs programs in recent memory, but it was my hope the Senate would find a way to keep it alive. As usually happens when counting on the Senate, those hopes were in vain.

At issue is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency Fund, which should have been one of the most popular programs in Congress. A key component of the Recovery Act, the fund subsidizes jobs with private companies, nonprofits, and government agencies, and has single handedly put more than 240,000 unemployed people back to work in 32 states and the District of Columbia.

Governors, including Mississippi's Haley Barbour (R), have sung its praises, and urged its extension. In July, CNN called the TANF Emergency Fund "a stimulus program even a Republican can love."

Except, Republicans didn't love it. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) led the floor fight this week, and was even willing to accept a compromise: instead of a year-long extension that Democrats had requested, Durbin sought a three-month extension, at a cost of just $500 million, in order to keep the fund alive through the end of the year. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) refused to allow it.

"The majority has known this program was going to expire at the end of this month all year and has taken no steps to reauthorize this important social safety net program," said Enzi, who blocked Durbin's request for "unanimous consent" for a reauthorization.

Enzi either isn't very bright or he hasn't been paying attention. Dems first tried to reauthorize the TANF Emergency Fund in March, but Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) blocked it. Dems tried again earlier this month, but Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) blocked it. Dems tried again this week, but Enzi blocked it.

Regardless, what difference does it make when and how often it's come up? If Enzi agrees that this is an "important social safety net program," then why the hell did he feel it necessary to let it die?

This isn't some academic exercise -- by killing the measure, Republicans will force thousands of Americans out of work. The House approved an extension of the program (twice) but the Senate GOP just didn't care. As a result, the TANF Emergency Fund comes to an end tonight at midnight. Thousands of layoffs will begin quickly, and continue as we get closer to the holiday season.

And we'll once again face an ironic dynamic: Americans will get frustrated with Democrats over more job losses, instead of the Republicans responsible for killing an effective program that kept tens of thousands on the job.

Indeed, in a sane political world, the death of the TANF Emergency Fund would be a pretty big scandal, and Republicans would have been afraid to kill an effective jobs program with an unemployment rate near 10%. Instead, the GOP is counting on being rewarded by Americans for taking steps like these, and polls suggest that's exactly what's going to happen.

Republicans will keep asking, "Where are the jobs?" and no one seems inclined to answer, "Your party got rid of them."

The Washington Monthly

so what we have here from the nihilist right is an attempt to generate a problem for the obama administration by blocking extension of one of the more important aspects of the stimulus package that has, as the article above notes, put about 200,000 people back to work in order to then point at the administration and say "you didn't do anything."

this isn't really about the "be a dick" school of "thinking" about social problems that---god knows how---might actually be a matter of faith for folk like dogzilla.

this is about a craven attempt to exploit conservative media domination in order to generate a problem that the right can then spin with the idea in mind of getting the only thing that matters to conservatives, really---->power.

Baraka_Guru · 10-08-2010, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

I'm not a fan of nanny state regulations, including current nanny state regulations demanding that banks make credit more available, which is part of how we got here.

I'd leave it to the banks with the penalty that if they screw up, the government doesn't bail them out. Smart bankers will wise up pretty quickly. Stupid ones will be out of business.

You aren't a fan of "nanny state" regulations, or you aren't a fan of those you don't benefit from?

One benefit of a reasonable regulatory environment is a stable banking system. Failures are disruptive, and are largely preventable. This has been the case in the Canadian system, which hasn't seen a failure in decades. And with the exception of two small regional banks, there haven't been any bank failures since before the Depression.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to have a set of rules that banks must follow to avoid the kind of shit that happened in the U.S. beginning in 2008.

Call them "nanny state" regulations if you want, but they serve their purpose and they do it well. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

---------- Post added at 03:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

this is about a craven attempt to exploit conservative media domination in order to generate a problem that the right can then spin with the idea in mind of getting the only thing that matters to conservatives, really---->power.

Things are going to get interesting in November.

dogzilla · 10-08-2010, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

The Washington Monthly

so what we have here from the nihilist right is an attempt to generate a problem for the obama administration by blocking extension of one of the more important aspects of the stimulus package that has, as the article above notes, put about 200,000 people back to work in order to then point at the administration and say "you didn't do anything."

this isn't really about the "be a dick" school of "thinking" about social problems that---god knows how---might actually be a matter of faith for folk like dogzilla.

this is about a craven attempt to exploit conservative media domination in order to generate a problem that the right can then spin with the idea in mind of getting the only thing that matters to conservatives, really---->power.

So exactly what program was the Obama administration willing to cut in order to fund this program? Exactly how many of these 320,000 jobs were nothing more than busy work jobs or no-show that the government is fond of creating to give politician's buddies some spending money.

If the state of the economy is such that it can't support these jobs, just how long is this program supposed to exist? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? You do understand the concept of a temporary program, don't you?

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

You aren't a fan of "nanny state" regulations, or you aren't a fan of those you don't benefit from?

One benefit of a reasonable regulatory environment is a stable banking system. Failures are disruptive, and are largely preventable. This has been the case in the Canadian system, which hasn't seen a failure in decades. And with the exception of two small regional banks, there haven't been any bank failures since before the Depression.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to have a set of rules that banks must follow to avoid the kind of shit that happened in the U.S. beginning in 2008.

Call them "nanny state" regulations if you want, but they serve their purpose and they do it well. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

---------- Post added at 03:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 PM ----------

Things are going to get interesting in November.

I'm not fond of nanny state rules in general. There's ways to avoid the risk of a single investment going bust, by diversifying your investments in as many places as you can. For instance broad market based mutual funds.

And yeah, I could have done without the nanny state rules where the government encouraged banks (thanks to Barney Frank and others) banks to grant loans to people who had no business obtaining credit long before 2008.

Hope and change is finally coming in November

dc_dux · 10-08-2010, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

So exactly what program was the Obama administration willing to cut in order to fund this program? Exactly how many of these 320,000 jobs were nothing more than busy work jobs or no-show that the government is fond of creating to give politician's buddies some spending money.

busy work jobs?

Investing in rebuilding the infrastructure that is long overdue is busy work?

Investing in a national broadband network or clean energy technologies...areas that the US is whoafully behind Europe, China, India.....is busy work.

The 1/3 of the stimulus program that provided TEMPORARY assistance for those 8+ million who lost their jobs in the previous eight years..and puts money back into the economy faster than any other stimulus...is busy work?

How to pay for it...Ending the TEMPORARY Bush 01 annd 03 tax cuts on the top bracket would more than pay for it.

Quote:

And yeah, I could have done without the nanny state rules where the government encouraged banks (thanks to Barney Frank and others) banks to grant loans to people who had no business obtaining credit long before 2008.

Barney Frank was in the minority party between 1994 and 2006 and had little or no power in the Republican controlled House....and was one of the few who voted against the the financial reform act that led to the abuses.

The libertarian notion of "letting the economy sort itself out" is a recipe for both short and long term economic stagnation or worse. It has never worked and certainly wont in a global economy.

Baraka_Guru · 10-08-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

I'm not fond of nanny state rules in general. There's ways to avoid the risk of a single investment going bust, by diversifying your investments in as many places as you can. For instance broad market based mutual funds.

And yeah, I could have done without the nanny state rules where the government encouraged banks (thanks to Barney Frank and others) banks to grant loans to people who had no business obtaining credit long before 2008.

Well, the "nanny state" seems to have served America well so far. I don't see why you'd be so against the idea in general. Against specifics, I'd understand.

Quote:

Hope and change is finally coming in November.

I dunno. I think it'll be more along the lines of pessimism and obstruction.

dogzilla · 10-08-2010, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

busy work jobs?

Investing in rebuilding the infrastructure that is long overdue is busy work?

Investing in a national broadband network or clean energy technologies...areas that the US is whoafully behind Europe, China, India.....is busy work.

Depends on what you are rebuilding. There's a section of highway on my commute to work with perfectly good pavement, no potholes, no bumps to drive over, that somebody decided to be ripped up and repaved. There's no structural problems with the stone/gravel layers under the road because all they are doing is running one of those asphalt munching machines to tear up the old pavement and put in new asphalt. I can't find the project on the recovery.gov website or the NY State Dept of Transportation website so I can't figure out who is paying for that busywork boondoggle. I hope it's not Obama.

I don't think it's the government's business to be building a broadband network either. If one of the broadband companies see a business opportunity they will build one. They did here ten years ago, and this isn't exactly big city territory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

How to pay for it...Ending the TEMPORARY Bush 01 annd 03 tax cuts on the top bracket would more than pay for it.

Raising taxes to pay for another Obama giveaway program is not an acceptable option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The libertarian notion of "letting the economy sort itself out" is a recipe for both short and long term economic stagnation or worse. It has never worked and certainly wont in a global economy.

The liberal/socialist programs to redistribute income don't work either and can bankrupt the country. Taken to the extreme, there's no reason for anybody to work since the government will give you everything you need to live.

There's a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson that I like

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from
those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Tully Mars · 10-08-2010, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Raising taxes to pay for another Obama giveaway program is not an acceptable option.

But borrowing more money to pay for the Bush Jr. tax cuts is perfectly acceptable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

There's a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson that I like

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from
those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Can you tell me when he said that or where he wrote that?

You know why you can't?

Because he never said that... but it's great you're able to parrot the talking points. Nice work.

Baraka_Guru · 10-08-2010, 04:14 PM

Tyranny, as I was saying, is monarchy exercising the rule of a master over the political society; oligarchy is when men of property have the government in their hands; democracy, the opposite, when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.

--Aristotle, Politics, Book III

A proper democracy is a form of rule that comes from the people as a whole, not one particular class, whether it be politician or those in the upper ranks of wealth. This despite those who would prefer an oligarchy or, like Aristotle, an aristocracy.

The poor cannot be left as abject remnants of an overbearing capitalist system; this is because even the poor can vote, and so do their sympathizers, and together they vastly outnumber the rich.

10-06-2010, 09:58 AM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	how do you know that, cimmaron? there's a perfectly legitimate view of capitalism that sees profit as presupposing exploitation of those who sell their labor power for a wage. the ethical alternative is to suppress the division between those who own the instruments of production and those who do the actual production. they call it revolution. from that viewpoint, it is more or less impossible for capital to be generated without ethical problems. this is more coherent than your position because it opens onto actually talking about how capitalism works. and it doesn't stop with some simplistic fetishism of property relations ("well, capitalist own factories and it's legit because the paper sez so.") __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-06-2010, 10:13 AM	#43 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	One example of what I was talking about is how few people seemed to care about the money flowing through the sub-prime mortgages before the shit hit the fan. And I'm sure there are many who see nothing wrong with it in principle even after the fact. On a wider view, I'm also talking about capitalism beyond how most may perceive it, which is more along the lines of what roachboy is talking about. There are those who call for free markets, all the while forgetting what free markets tend to bring. Don't make me reference robber barons again. I don't think all capital is used unscrupulously. However, I also don't think capitalism has an inherent moral compass. I think it's amoral, which is why letting capitalism run amok (i.e. run societies) is insanity. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

10-06-2010, 10:40 AM	#44 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	something from the ny review of books that argues for a break with the reactionary "conventional wisdom" about deficits and for long-term state fiscal action/policy on a japanese model to address the structure-wobble within contemporary capitalism: The Way Out of the Slump by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells \| The New York Review of Books __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-07-2010, 08:57 PM	#52 (permalink)
boink Addict Location: Seattle	let them all die, apparently our economy doesn't need em. if they protest, build more jails, ha ! employ them to build their own jails !! __________________ when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

10-08-2010, 02:39 AM	#54 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	You realize all your proposals here would "mess with the economy" too, right? __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

10-08-2010, 05:37 AM	#57 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	So we're back to the conservative meme of "the poor deserve to be poor". Circle of life, Hakuna Matata __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

10-08-2010, 04:14 PM	#69 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Tyranny, as I was saying, is monarchy exercising the rule of a master over the political society; oligarchy is when men of property have the government in their hands; democracy, the opposite, when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers. --Aristotle, Politics, Book III A proper democracy is a form of rule that comes from the people as a whole, not one particular class, whether it be politician or those in the upper ranks of wealth. This despite those who would prefer an oligarchy or, like Aristotle, an aristocracy. The poor cannot be left as abject remnants of an overbearing capitalist system; this is because even the poor can vote, and so do their sympathizers, and together they vastly outnumber the rich. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 10-08-2010 at 04:16 PM..