Quote :

"Whatever it takes won't be much thanks to a steady supply that the private market has been dumping out there since the start of the recession."

You completely ignored what I said. Those eligible for government jobs are not unemployed as of the latest reading:
3.7% Unemployment Rate - Bachelor?s degree and higher
7.7% Unemployment Rate - High School Graduates
10.9% Unemployment Rate - Less than a High School Diploma

Quote :

"That is exactly what the theory is behind the stimulus, to replace the just lost private sector jobs with government jobs to support the velocity of the money."

But it does not. Lenders must do something with their money. All the stimulus does is change what they do with it: instead of investing it or spending it themselves, they lend it to the government to spend it. At best, all it does is reduce unemployment for the few qualified for bureau jobs, slowing the fall of wages and prolonging the recession. What is needed is a higher money supply, and borrowing it from those already eager to lend it does not do that. What it does do is drive up the cost of borrowing for private sector businesses and bid away capable managers.

Quote :

"Of course it hasn't fallen that much because the Fed has already been quietly trying to pump the hell out of it. The discussion about a liquidity trap in this case comes long before your discussion about the labor markets."

We are not in a liquidity trap. If we were in a true liquidity trap then no one could borrow, not even the Government. The presence of the Federal Reserve eliminates the posibility of a liquidity trap. What we have is a trust trap where only those institutions feared to be insolvent are unable to borrow.

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 12:30 PM. Reason : img]

1/28/2009 12:28:06 PM

Quote :

"We have deluded ourselves into the erroneous thinking that the gov't should be the main instrument of everyone's salvation."

agreed.

plus this bill will spend $275,000 per job to create the 3 million jobs promised by Obama. that doesnt make much sense at all, especially when you consider what the average wage of those 3 million jobs will be...~$50,000/year.

we are going to spend $275,000 to create a job to pay someone $50,000 to theoretically spend and put back into the economy. how it that consistent with a stimulus package designed to help now?

Quote :

"-- Renewable energy: $54 billion. -- Double production of alternative energy in the next three years. Weatherize low-income homes, modernize 75% of federal buildings and update the nation's electrical grid with a new, cost-efficient "smart" grid."

how is this consistent with a stimulus package designed to help now? it may be needed, but why is it being pushed under the guise of 'stimulus?'

1/28/2009 12:33:22 PM

Of course Republicans should be against this bill. We're about to spend $825 billion that we don't have. Nobody should vote for that. If the Blue Dogs vote for this they should just stop calling themselves Blue Dogs

So Obama says this $825 billion stimulus should create 3-4 million jobs. Want to get that money back into the hands of the people? Why don't we have a gov't lottery with 3 million winners.

$825,000,000,000 / 3,000,000 = $275,000/job. You win the lottery you get $275,000 to spend how you like, tada!


Seriously though, $83 billion of this "stimulus" is an earned income credit for people WHO DON'T EVEN PAY INCOME TAX. Socialist what?

1/28/2009 12:33:31 PM

Well it doesn't matter because on the economy, Republicans have zero credibility. Zero.
The Republicans, under the leadership of George Bush, destroyed the American economy. We're facing a depression staring us right in our face.

I mean all republicans have to offer is more heapings of the same shit we've been eating and proved so disastrous over the last eight years. "Tax cuts for businesses". It didn't help then, it won't help now.

Guess what, too? What the republicans want is the same bankrpupt policy that got TROUNCED in the election. It's not even what the people want so I don't expect any of you to be anything but completely opposed to anything resembling a "New Deal" type of change. But we have the votes with out you so you can be as petulant as you want.

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 12:47 PM. Reason : -]

1/28/2009 12:45:41 PM

Quote :

"You completely ignored what I said. Those eligible for government jobs are not unemployed as of the latest reading: 3.7% Unemployment Rate - Bachelor?s degree and higher 7.7% Unemployment Rate - High School Graduates 10.9% Unemployment Rate - Less than a High School Diploma"

God damnit, I hate having to go to your holy grail of BLS to correct your interpretation of the statistics.

December 2007 Unemployment
Less than a high school diploma = 8.2
High school graduates, no college = 4.7
Some college or associate degree = 3.7
Bachelor's degree and higher = 2.0


December 2008 Unemployment
Less than a high school diploma = 10.9
High school graduates, no college = 7.7
Some college or associate degree = 5.6
Bachelor's degree and higher = 3.7

Change from 2007 -> 2008
Less than a high school diploma = 32%
High school graduates, no college = 63%
Some college or associate degree = 51%
Bachelor's degree and higher = 85%

Now. Just how many managers does it take to manager those who will have presumably less education? The jump in layoffs of those with BS/BA and higher degrees is significantly more than those without a diploma, and reasonably more than those with or those with an associates. I think it is pretty safe to say that there are enough smart people around to be employed by Uncle Sam to run projects and programs.


I'll get to the rest of your stuff when I get motivated.

1/28/2009 1:03:20 PM

Btw, I'm away from CSPAN, are they voting on this bill in the house yet? When is it scheduled.

1/28/2009 1:08:57 PM

^^^Im convinced that if GWB and the neoconservatives were still in power they would be trying to pass the exact same bill (just substitute homeland security spending for the environmental stuff).

To me its not a republican vs democrat decision

its a deficit spending vs. fiscal responsibility thing.

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM. Reason : arrows]

1/28/2009 1:10:06 PM

lol at Kainen

you go on and on about partisan politics and you're the TWW expert on the "State of the Republican Party" because that's all you fucking seem to talk about


and then with your comments, you're just as partisan as the people you're criticizing

Quote :

"The Republicans, under the leadership of George Bush, destroyed the American economy."

RAWR RAWR BUSH IS THE DEVIL

1/28/2009 1:14:12 PM

Nice attempt to get under my skin. Fail. Proofs in the numbers aimorris. Proof is in the numbers.

1/28/2009 1:15:59 PM

Quote :

"Im convinced that if GWB and the neoconservatives were still in power they would be trying to pass the exact same bill (just substitute homeland security spending for the environmental stuff). To me its not a republican vs democrat decision its a deficit spending vs. fiscal responsibility thing."

I dont necessarily disagree, although the earmarks would be decidedly different but probably there. Bush is the one who force fed us the first "stimulus" package.

Quote :

"Well it doesn't matter because on the economy, Republicans have zero credibility. Zero. The Republicans, under the leadership of George Bush, destroyed the American economy. We're facing a depression staring us right in our face. I mean all republicans have to offer is more heapings of the same shit we've been eating and proved so disastrous over the last eight years. "Tax cuts for businesses". It didn't help then, it won't help now."

this is pretty trivial. we also had a huge period of economic growth and prosperity under W, after a catastrophic event in 9/11. focusing on Bush now does about as much good as the 'pubs talking shit about Slick Willy when he left office. it means nothing. further, your argument rings pretty hollow when you consider that the congress has been in a Democratic majority the past few years.

capitalistic economies will always peak and valley regardless of who is in charge. its part of the game and how it regulates itself. political parties give themselves too much credit and receive too much grief over the economy.

1/28/2009 2:09:43 PM

The blame falls on everyone, but I'd like to especially point my finger at Barny Frank and Chris Dodd, who said everything was fine with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac but when it went to shit blamed it on lack of regulation in the free market.

1/28/2009 2:41:56 PM

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya, that you would point a finger at a small piece of a perfect storm of problems that resulted in this mess on some Democrats.

This is so unlike you. Where is this partisan bullshit coming from that you usually don't exhibit?

1/28/2009 2:51:54 PM

I dunno, maybe its b/c they've been so outspoken about whats happened and where to place blame when they themselves are very responsible and know it.

But yes I do realize its everyone in the government's fault.

1/28/2009 3:05:55 PM

can someone explain to me again how this plan addresses the credit problem in our country now? isnt that at the crux of the problem?

1/28/2009 4:53:50 PM

It does not and could not. But politicians want to seem important, so doing something is better than doing nothing, even if doing nothing would be helpful.

1/28/2009 4:59:23 PM

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/01/tarp-is-fiscal-straitjacket.html

1/28/2009 6:28:23 PM

after a little research, I'm a fan of the bad bank idealogy. Buy up those toxic funds!

1/28/2009 6:43:54 PM

$44 million for construction, repair and improvements at U.S. Department of Agriculture facilities;
$209 million for work on deferred maintenance at Agricultural Research Service facilities;
$245 million for maintaining and modernizing the IT system of the Farm Service Agency;
$50 million for "watershed rehabilitation";
$2.7 billion for rural-water and waste-disposal direct loans;
$1 billion for "periodic censuses and programs";
$650 million for digital-to-analog converter box program;
$624 million for Navy operation and maintenance; and
$79 billion in education funds for states.

hoo-ya for navy operation and maintenance

but the rest of it...will stimulate the economy?

1/28/2009 9:31:16 PM

Quote :

"$650 million for digital-to-analog converter box program;"

I can't wait for the government to convert my digital signal to analog!

1/28/2009 9:34:03 PM

Quote :

"$650 million for digital-to-analog converter box program "

that will either save or create a couple hundred thousand jobs right there. LOL

Kudos for the repubs for voting against this, I think the WSJ is doing an article tommorrow showing the breakdown of this bill and showing how little is actually going towards creating jobs.

Im really not surprised this came out of pelosi's house and regardless of your politics we all should not stand for this bunch of bs. They did this shit with the first bailout. Its needed NOW dont read it or debate it, just pass it and or we will go into a recession and if you pass it everything will be dandy... well not so much.

1/28/2009 9:37:36 PM

Maybe this foolishness will teach the Obamabots that elections have consequences. Everyone knew that this sort of stuff would happen when they voted in those clowns.

1/28/2009 10:10:34 PM

Way to Go GOP! Make the dems own this crummy bill.

Hey David Price...
Remember when Clinton rolled into office and forced congress to shove through that hugemongus tax increase? Remember not one republican voted for it either, and a few dems voted against it?

Sound familiar?

Remember the mid-term backlash? Clinton begging angry voters to "not vote their hate"?

Let me throw a name out to you... Fred Heinemann.

1/28/2009 10:22:02 PM

Earth, while I share in your feelings that they finally did something right but try not to gloat. Keep in mind these same people will prob vote for the "revised" bill in a couple weeks. But we can be thankful for NOW that it seems some in the house are thinking about the consquences of the bill including some dems.

1/28/2009 10:35:28 PM

^Maybe. But I thought the winners were the ones who gloated.

Do you think repubs will cave in as quickly on a revised bill this time, after getting stung by the first bailout disaster?

Pelosi gave everyone less than 3 days to read and then debate this 640 page mess.

Quote :

"Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or discipline, and too often focused on scoring political points instead of the problems they were sent here to solve. -- B. Obama"

1/28/2009 10:53:25 PM

I have little confidence in the vast majority of those in washington and thier ability to do what is right for the country first.. instead of what will help them politically esp in the shortterm.

and "we" didnt win, the bill still passed my friend.

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 11:03 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2009 11:01:44 PM

Quote :

"Way to Go GOP! Make the dems own this crummy bill. "

why did the Dems and Obama even bother to modify the bill to make it even more crummy in an attempt to get Repbulican votes if no republicans were going to vote for it anyway? They started with a Democratic bill, watered it down for "comprimise", got no republican support, then it passed anyway.

So the question is now - why should Obama and the Democrats even bother asking the Republicans what they want? Apart from a fillibuster, the dems can pass whatever they want without any other support.

1/28/2009 11:08:12 PM

^that's actually pretty obvious. The Dems tried to get the GOP on board so if the bill fails the Dems can share the blame, instead of having it rest on their shoulders. And since they didn't go along with the bill the Dems can blame the Repubs for not being bipartisan.

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM. Reason : blahhhhhhhhhh]

1/28/2009 11:08:29 PM

great map at NYT on vote
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/46

btw, WTH is up with NC District 12? Gerrymander much?

1/28/2009 11:36:26 PM

there was one congressperson who did not vote

and that one was mine...wtf?

Ginny Brown-Waite from FL's 5th district

1/28/2009 11:48:12 PM

update: I just emailed her with this:

Quote :

"Congresswoman Brown-Waite, I must admit I am completely befuddled by your lack of vote on H.R.1. Your website has a speech you gave on the House floor opposing it, yet you didn't vote? I am stationed in Hawaii in the Navy. As a naval officer, I am often in the situation where I must make difficult decisions. I cannot retreat simply by voting "present," as President Obama did on numerous occasions while serving in the Illinois State Senate. It seems to me that the two of you now have something in common. The American people expect me to do my job daily to protect their rights and liberties as citizens of this country. I expect my Representative to do the same."

1/28/2009 11:56:02 PM

Quote :

"why should Obama and the Democrats even bother asking the Republicans what they want? "

They shouldn't. The dems should pass all the crap they want so they can take their lumps over the next two years. No one but them to blame.

And since 11 dems voted against this bill, you could say there was some bipartisan support against the pork bill and only pure partisan support for it.

Great e-mail Kdawg.

1/28/2009 11:59:50 PM

You guys realize two important premises:

1) Cutting government spending in a recession is a terrible idea in that not only does it actually fuel economic contraction, but the negative outlook on the economy is increased and this further dries up investment in anything that's all but guaranteed. A good portion of our money supply is based on perception.

2) US infrastructure actually does need an overhaul.

Now, arts spending and increasing funding for planned parenthood obviously isn't going to stimulate the economy and hence shouldn't be in this bill, but if you're going to have an intelligent discourse on this topic then you need to discuss whats actually needed vs what isn't.

Also, cutting corporate taxes isn't going to make corporations retain workers they don't need. Employment isn't necessarily directly related profit, but rather productive capacity.

1/29/2009 12:55:16 AM

I am all for infrastructure spending. I also dont have a problem upgrading government facilities that need repair.

What I do have a problem with is what boils down to welfare spending disguised as a "stimulus" package. If the Dems want to make laws with that spending, fine. Just do it in another bill instead of cramming it down everyone's throats as this B.S.

Food stamps, carbon capture, distance education and solar research is not going to stimulate the economy.

Tax cuts FOR EVERY PERSON will....including the *gasp* rich people. Let people keep their money and they will spend it.

This bill should be solely about job creation and credit relief. PERIOD.

Here is the GOP proposal at about half the cost which would create, by some estimates, twice the jobs as Obama's:

Quote :

"(Reuters) - Following are details of an alternative proposal to boost the struggling U.S. economy that Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to offer during debate on Wednesday. The cost of their proposal is approximately $478 billion (336 billion pounds). * Cut the lowest two income tax rates for 2009 and 2010, from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 5 percent. * Extend through 2010 a patch to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally designed to ensure that wealthy people pay taxes, but instead would hit millions of middle-income families with higher taxes. * Expand the $7,500 first-time homebuyers tax credit for a principal residence to all homebuyers while limiting it to purchasers who can make a down payment of at least 5 percent of the purchase price. * Provide a tax deduction for small businesses with less than 500 employees equal to 20 percent of their income. * Offer new tax deduction for those who do not receive tax-preferred, employer-sponsored health care coverage. And provide assistance to the unemployed who do not qualify for a COBRA premium subsidy. * Give tax exemption on unemployment benefits and extend temporary federal unemployment benefits through 2009, phasing it out through mid-2010. * Allow companies to write off current losses against previous tax years for up to five years. Companies now can only "carry back" losses for two years. The tax break would not be available to banks and other companies receiving help from the $700 billion bailout package. * Extend through 2009 a break for small businesses that allows them to immediately write off up certain capital expenditures."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE50R71P20090128

1/29/2009 8:55:02 AM

A lot of you people forget that economics does not always work as something you can map with nice little numbers and your favorite supply v demand graphs. A huge aspect of it is psychological. If the gov't acts, regardless of providing real benefits to the economy, people get hope that things will be better and this psychological effect is beneficial for the economic health of the country. Its kind of like the placebo effect which is much better than the gov't doing nothing and people continuing their pessimistic outlook.

Quote :

"increasing funding for planned parenthood obviously isn't going to stimulate the economy"

You understanding of society is about as shallow as my bird bath if you do not understand the economic value of planned parenthood. While not a short term bet it is a long term investment. Less single welfare moms, allowing couples to plan and put themselves in good financial situation before having children, and a new decrease in crime are all good benefits in my mind.

Quote :

"I am all for infrastructure spending."

agreed

Quote :

"Food stamps, carbon capture, distance education and solar research is not going to stimulate the economy. "

I don't mind the education bit but we can scrap the rest. Gov't spending on education should be seen as an investment as long
as the system has integrity standards.

[Edited on January 29, 2009 at 9:12 AM. Reason : a]

1/29/2009 9:05:20 AM

Quote :

"You understanding of society is about as shallow as my bird bath if you do not understand the economic value of planned parenthood. While not a short term bet it is a long term investment. Less single welfare moms, allowing couples to plan and put themselves in good financial situation before having children, and a new decrease in crime are all good benefits in my mind."

your hypothesis could be correct but it is not absolute. the benefits you claim will not be realized overnight; likely it would be years before anyone could know or test if that infusion of money did anything to curb the epidemic of single welfare moms. however, thats not the point. the point is how is that going to stimulate the economy now? thats the beef here. planned parenthood should be separate legislation, not labeled as "stimulus" just to get it passed. its essentially earmark money. it has no place in this.

1/29/2009 9:14:57 AM

chill out dude, this bill isn't even close to what it will finally look like until it gets through the senate. everyone knows that, it's how this works. The house committees tack on a bunch of shit hoping some of it sticks when it's all done.

if the finished signed bill is a cooked burger, at this point all we have is raw meat exiting the grinder.....the senate will drastically change the bill to an actual workable patty. There will be hopefully far more cohesive infrastructure spending than there is right now.

1/29/2009 9:27:15 AM

haha ok. we will see what the final product is. due to the Dem majority and the general sentiment in Washington right now I dont see much being trimmed from it. I could be wrong.

1/29/2009 9:29:12 AM

Quote :

"A lot of you people forget that economics does not always work as something you can map with nice little numbers and your favorite supply v demand graphs. A huge aspect of it is psychological. If the gov't acts, regardless of providing real benefits to the economy, people get hope that things will be better and this psychological effect is beneficial for the economic health of the country. Its kind of like the placebo effect which is much better than the gov't doing nothing and people continuing their pessimistic outlook."

By that logic I should go out and buy everything I want, maxing out my credit cards. All that spending clearly shows that I have confidence in the economy. However I'm fucking myself with all the interest I have to pay on those credit cards. Seems to me that's what the gov't is trying to do right now.

1/29/2009 9:39:36 AM

Quote :

"people get hope"

And change?

1/29/2009 9:52:53 AM

and several generations get a bill... fun times

1/29/2009 10:21:07 AM

this is like going to circuit city and spending all your money to try and save them

1/29/2009 11:12:56 AM

Quote :

"By that logic I should go out and buy everything I want, maxing out my credit cards. All that spending clearly shows that I have confidence in the economy."

Game Theory answers this.

1/29/2009 12:51:22 PM

I love how republicans claim to be the party of small government but has taken a total national debt of 1 trillion dollars at the start of the Reagan administration and added a total of 9.5 trillion dollars to it at the end of W's administration.

KEEP IN MIND the only balanced budget in that entire period was submitted by Bill Clinton.

What a laugh, they are not the party of small government and fiscal responsibility but are the party of tax breaks to the wealthy while increasing spending.

1/29/2009 1:03:36 PM

Once again ladies and gentlemen, the TWW Republican Party Expert.

1/29/2009 1:05:40 PM

And the democrats are just all about tax breaks for the wealthy and increasing spending by a trillion dollars in one year, on top of the current trillion dollar deficit.

Third party, anyone?

1/29/2009 1:08:52 PM

funny, i thought clinton had a republican congress (which controls the checkbook)

I also seem to remember clinton pushing national healthcare too, think you could still claim the balanced budget with that in there?

And both bushs dealt with wars. (not that that totally forgives their bs spending.)

1/29/2009 1:35:14 PM

Quote :

"i thought clinton had a republican congress "

funny i thought Bush had a republican congress, six of the eight years, while he was in office.

A congress that acted like nothing but a short circuit to rather some unconservative spending, government expansion, and civil rights trampling by the president.

Actually if you look back Clinton had a democrat congress his first two years. I am not saying democrats are not just as if not more guilty at spending than repubs. Nonetheless by whining that Clinton only was a thrifty president b.c on a republican congress is not really correct. At the end of the day all we got is a pot calling a kettle black; as far as finger pointing goes for which party are the big spenders. At least on paper though the last 20 years Republicans have been fiscal conservatives by "talk" only. On the other hand Dems must worked more though actions instead of words.

Each party has just different priorities to which they waste your tax money.

[Edited on January 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM. Reason : a]

1/29/2009 2:24:26 PM

and i put blame on bush for that AND the congress, notice spending got worse in 2006?

Bush was far from a conservative, and why ive said several times if he was a democrat, other than the war and gay marriage, he would have been loved.. he spent more domestically, expanded entitlements, wanted amnesty for illegals, cut taxes.

1/29/2009 3:00:24 PM

^ I get your point, but I can't see any circumstance for bush being loved as a democrat. He took a far too anti-intellectual approach to things, he's better suited to being a republican.

1/29/2009 3:07:38 PM

yes because Republicans are dumb

1/29/2009 3:10:25 PM