I'm in no way endorsing Glenn Beck here, as I think he can go off the deep end at times (but he is more open minded than most pundits), but I have to say he hit the nail on the head with this one. The discussion between him and Dennis Kuscinich was a good one, and a healthy one.
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 02-03-2009 at 10:23 AM.
I want to bump this thread because yeah...155 federal programs. I think the stimulus package is kind of a joke. And I don't know much about politics especially in regards to taxes, but I agree that the best way to stimulate the economy is to let the people keep their money...and not increase taxes. This is frightening times for the US economy.
Location: Resident of Alfred.. Yes the town named after Batman's butler
Now Playing:
Posts: 10,317
Re: The Stimulus Package
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin
I want to bump this thread because yeah...155 federal programs. I think the stimulus package is kind of a joke. And I don't know much about politics especially in regards to taxes, but I agree that the best way to stimulate the economy is to let the people keep their money...and not increase taxes. This is frightening times for the US economy.
Here's the problem as the refunds last year proved and well the last few months have proven.
In a time of crisis, people are less likely to spend their money instead they either save it in the bank or pay off their bills. Neither of which helps to stimulate the economy.
And from what I gathered (I haven't been following this bill too closely) is that its a mix of what Democrats and Republicans want and its getting so half assed on both sides that it really won't help much.
And from what I gathered (I haven't been following this bill too closely) is that its a mix of what Democrats and Republicans want and its getting so half assed on both sides that it really won't help much.
I agree, it won't help at all. The main points that were made in the clip above were that while proponents are rushing this bill, most of the spending in the bill doesn't take place until 2010 or beyond.
Another issue I have with it is that it creates work, not necessarily business. Government replaces jobs, it doesn't create them, and from a tax view its a "loss leader" never taking in as much as it puts out. This was the same downfall of The New Deal. Government work programs in the 30's reduced unemployment from 30% to about 15-18%, but in the end when the work was done, there was NO BUSINESS left over to keep the existing jobs or create new ones. Unemployment went back up again, peaking at almost 20% after 8 years of The New Deal. Only a world war got us out of it.
The "Stimulus Package" is not what it claims to be, its an attempt to transform our economy and not kick start it, and if the proponents believe that the nature of our economy needs to be transformed we should have a discussion with the true intentions of both sides clear for all to understand.
The current bill is Machiavellian in the truest sense of the word, and a HUGE political mistake now that the thin veneer has been stripped from it.
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 02-03-2009 at 04:23 PM.
Location: Resident of Alfred.. Yes the town named after Batman's butler
Now Playing:
Posts: 10,317
Re: The Stimulus Package
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
I agree, it won't help at all. The main points that were made in the clip above were that while proponents are rushing this bill, most of the spending in the bill doesn't take place until 2010 or beyond.
Thats not stimulus, its an attempt at transformation, and if the proponents believe that the nature of our economy needs to be transformed we should have a discussion with the true intentions of both sides clear for all to understand.
The current bill is Machiavellian in the truest sense of the word, and a HUGE political mistake now that the thin veneer has been stripped from it.
So I am curious what do you recommend.
I only look at it in a small scale sense really since don't follow politics that much.
But I could see how focusing part of it on stuff like infracstructure creates instant jobs and helps us out over the long haul.
Investing money in education and alternative energy... I see the education but alternative energy only helps those researching it now unless there is some major breakthrough won't help many people in the immediate time.
Tax cuts... I could see why its wanted, but as this holiday season proved, it is difficult for people to spend as freely as they usually do when the country is in a bind. It also doesn't help that even after the bailout banks still are rather tight with their loaning.
They're reasoning is that its not an official report and it only analyzes about $300 Billion of $800 Billion, and its just a preliminary estimate based on computer models. Honestly, its $300 Billion of absolute shit scheduled for 2010, not 2009. Huffington is simply throwing up a red herring because of thsi report's inconvenience.
If anything, this goes to prove a point: Government is simply not responsive enough to handle immediate needs. This is why it can never replace the private sector and fails almost evey time it attempts to do so.
Location: Resident of Alfred.. Yes the town named after Batman's butler
Now Playing:
Posts: 10,317
Re: The Stimulus Package
One day I shall decipher the Professor's post and respond to it, but here is a bit more on the pre-Obama stimulus/bailout
Quote:
Among the new restrictions being considered is a $500,000 cap on salaries for executives at companies that receive a substantial amount of government aid, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Some within the Obama administration fear that curbing executive pay will discourage those companies from participating, delaying the financial-sector's recovery. Another faction in the administration believes that banks need to accept fairly punitive terms in exchange for getting government money.
Some banks have already turned down government cash because they worried about the increasing number of new conditions under consideration.
I think the salary cap is both good and bad as it in some ways doesn't encourage people to work harder if they know they are going to hit a glass ceiling. While on the other hand since the gov't is paying these companies it makes sense to have some regulations.
I think the salary cap is both good and bad as it in some ways doesn't encourage people to work harder if they know they are going to hit a glass ceiling. While on the other hand since the gov't is paying these companies it makes sense to have some regulations.
Another downside is that the companies that need the most help won't be able to compete for the best high level talent.
An interesting side note is that the same thing was tried during the Great Depression, and it didn't work then either. In fact, it's how employer based healthcare and other benefits were included as part of someone's compensation, because companies literally could not give raises. The more I hear of the plans for stimulus, the more I see us repeating bad policies based on anger and spire, not a wish for success, and those policies extended a previous pitiful economy in the 30's and again in the 70's.
I empathize with the outrage to these bonuses, but after thinking about it over the long haul, I think controlling executive compensation has the potential to do far more harm to these already damaged companies and ecomomy than good.
I think there needs to be oversight and regulation of companies that received government money, but it should be based on their ability to meet payment and peformance benchmarks, not whether they gave out performance bonuses. If these companies that are in dire straits always have inferior talent, they'll never dig themselves out of the hole.
The stimulus should be about learning from previous mistakes and rebuilding the economy, not punishing businesses because of perceived moral indescretions. If you want to punish these individuals, do it throught the legal system, and there are plenty of people who caused this mess that deserve to be prosecuted.
The top 1% of the Population in the United States has 40% of the countries wealth. We need to bring back the 70% tax bracket so we can spread this wealth around, and create more equality.
The top 1% of the Population in the United States has 40% of the countries wealth. We need to bring back the 70% tax bracket so we can spread this wealth around, and create more equality.
Question: We had 70% tax rates before (even higher, in fact) under FDR and Carter. How did those rates work out for the economy during their presidencies?
Question: We had 70% tax rates before (even higher, in fact) under FDR and Carter. How did those rates work out for the economy during their presidencies?
Not nearly as terrible as the Bush tax-cuts turned out now...maybe dont raise it right now, but after the economy recovers a little we need to spread this wealth around, instead of just letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Carter was an underrated president, he actually did a lot of good for our country.
Not nearly as terrible as the Bush tax-cuts turned out now...maybe dont raise it right now, but after the economy recovers a little we need to spread this wealth around, instead of just letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Not as bad as the Bush created economy? Really? Unemplyment under FDR never went below 14% and averaged well over 20% for all 8 years before WWII. Inflation rates under Carter were at double digits.
I'm not saying that Bush's toleration of harmful regulations and non-existant oversight were good in the end, but lets have some perspective.
Quote:
Carter was an underrated president, he actually did a lot of good for our country.
How so? (Honest question)
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 02-04-2009 at 10:04 PM.
The Stimulus Package
Hybrid Mode
