Here is a consensus on the American Jobs Act.
President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan would help avoid a return to recession by maintaining growth and pushing down the unemployment rate next year, according to economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.
The legislation, submitted to Congress this month, would increase gross domestic product by 0.6 percent next year and add or keep 275,000 workers on payrolls, the median estimates in the survey of 34 economists showed. The program would also lower the jobless rate by 0.2 percentage point in 2012, economists said.
So, again, I must ask...which is more important: the economy or making the president a one termer?
48 comments:
If simply passing a bill lead to increased growth and lower unemployment, the first stimulus bill would have done the trick. Their projections were way off then - and these will be off as well. Of course GDP will go up - you were informed on here that government spending boosts GDP.
Notice the bill has only been "submitted to congress". Keep us informed when your party actually schedules a vote in the senate. I see they are taking a vacation first...the urgency is astounding.
Thumbs Down! - And Why.
If you feel like skipping the detailed analysis of this stupid bill, I will give you the conclusion.... it is crap just like almost everything else the democraps have proposed.
Did you check your source for bias, 6Kings? Government doing anything other than protecting us from bad guys=bad. Got it.
Last, the first stimulus bill did the trick...the trick of stopping job loss and turning it into job growth. GDP also grew because of the stimulus. These are indisputable facts. I've shown you the numbers. You don't like them. Oh well.
What the stimulus didn't do was return us to the era of the 1990s which, I think, is what some people expect. Our economy is sluggish largely due to the simple fact that we live in a global marketplace now with all its implications but that's a long and separate discussion which I'm happy to have, of course.
Their projections were way off because the initial estimate of the size of the recession was off. You know full well that it takes months after the initial reports are released for the propellerheads to really analyze the data.
And I'm really done with the Cult of Both Sides. The problem is Republican extremism, specifically the Tea Party fantasists. They have you guys by the balls right now because without them, the Democrats win every election. Anything the Democrats do has to be with their lunacy in mind.
Honestly, you should be happy. People's faith in government is at an all time low and it's exactly as Lofgren described in his piece. Mission accomplished, right? Now we can have the corporations do a better job of running everything.
Tsk tsk, same old M. Ever the speculation as fact in your fairy world. We continue to show you things contradicting your 'facts' and you still can't follow. Typical government shill. Keep the faith!
Did you check your source for bias, 6Kings?
You mean like you rigorously checked yours?
In the other thread, you said we are still operating under the bush tax cuts. Now here, you're saying that the stimulus led to job growth and an increase in GDP. Are things bad because of the tax cuts or good because of the stimulus?
The democrats don't win every election. You just lost in deep blue NYC and there was no tea party candidate there.
Under the proposed “Fair Employment Opportunity Act,” it would be illegal, and subject to penalty, for employers to discriminate against the unemployed, thus elevating the unemployed to a protected class such as sex, race, etc.
As an employer, knowing that you risk a potential lawsuit should you hire the employed candidate over the unemployed candidate, would you want to interview a prospective employee who is currently employed or unemployed? Does not simple risk management dictate that to mitigate the risk of lawsuits, you interview only employed candidates?
That's just what we need to spur job creation - more lawsuits! Right markadelphia?
Last, I'm saying (as I have many times) that the stimulus prevented another Depression. We had job growth and an increase in GDP out of the ditch we were in. That doesn't mean instant prosperity. We are sluggish now for a number of reasons and one of them is the Bush Tax Cuts. I know you don't like to hear this but the government is an integral part of our economy and with less revenue they aren't doing the things they used to do. As is usually the case, you are having difficulties understanding the grays of the world and are continuing with the usual childish taunts (eg "make your mind")
Andrew, clearly employers are discriminating based on employment status. So, what do you do? Nothing? I agree that this could open up some potential problems ( I read the National Review piece as well) but I guess I'm wondering what your solution is to this issue. Right now, it is illegal to hire or not hire based on sex or race. How many lawsuits do we see as a result of this? I don't actually know. I'm asking if you have a number or a source.
It's important to also note that this bill has not passed yet and likely will not in its current form. This provision will probably change to address some of your concerns.
I understand our economy well enough to know that simply stating that the stimulus bill led to job growth and the Bush tax cuts are slowing us down doesn't make it fact. Increasing money into the government does not mean the economy will get better. Any money the government gets comes out of the private sector.
I'm kind of glad the government isn't doing all it is capable of doing.
It's not a childing taunt to say that Democrats in the senate have not scheduled a vote on the bill and are taking a vacation before voting on the bill - that's a fact.
You don't care what our solution is. There probably isn't a solution. All I know is, suing the hell out of businesses isn't the solution and whoever the idiot is who put that provision in there should at least be named. Hell, we should probably ask you to explain it - your party proposed it and you voted for them and that means that you must support this proposal. That's how it operated on here when GWB was president.
simply stating that the stimulus bill led to job growth and the Bush tax cuts are slowing us down doesn't make it fact.
I didn't do that. I've put up things like this...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pUk0EHTIknE/TmuREFM0g3I/AAAAAAAABQI/UdRbO45Stz0/s1600/gdp_large%2B%25281%2529.gif
and this...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DplYAbgSTLA/TmpzOqF7wmI/AAAAAAAABP4/jymlolO5-1c/s1600/jobschart3.jpeg
and referenced things like this in comments.
http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/22480/FE_DA_PublicvPrivateJobsGraph.jpg
and this.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12385/08-24-ARRA.pdf
So, I don't know where else to go on this one. Are there any facts that I could present to you that would change your mind?
Any money the government gets comes out of the private sector.
So, the whole internet thing (invented by the government) really fucked up the private sector? Sheesh...
we should probably ask you to explain it
You mean how our country is based on the principle of equality? I guess I didn't think it's necessary to explain that one considering it's in the Constitution.
Who is "we" by the way? I thought you guys were all rugged individualists:)
You ask for No Right Wing Blogs and No Oil Company Shills, then you post a chart from The Office of the Democratic Leader without blinking an eye.
Those are biased sources and people don't have to pay attention to those. I learned that on here.
So there.
Where the hell did I say the internet wasn't useful? Who are you debating? I said any money the government spends comes out of the private sector first.
If you guarantee equality by suing the hell out of businesses every time they don't hire a particular individual, you'll have equality alright - everyone will be equally poor because businesses won't bother doing anything in this country if hundreds of thousands of dollars can be taken away from them by 1 rejected job candidate and their lawyer. Your sides intentions are on display.
You've said on here several times that "the American people blame Bush first, then Wall street, then Congress, then the president."
But with you, you credit the stimulus first, then Obama, then democrats.
Credit goes to your team and blame goes to the other team. Masterful work there - keep on trying to get people to accept that without question - your quest will never end.
http://wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2298499&spid
Democrat Dick Durbin said democrats don't have the votes int he senate to pass the bill. Keep telling people that the republicans are the reason. Dick Durbin says otherwise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/chu-takes-responsibility-for-a-loan-deal-that-put-more-taxpayer-money-at-risk-in-solyndra/2011/09/29/gIQArdYQ8K_story.html?hpid=z1
Energy Secretary Steven Chu acknowledged Thursday making the final decision to allow a struggling solar company to continue receiving taxpayer money after it had technically defaulted on a $535 million federal loan guaranteed by his agency.
Default on one loan, get more tax payer money from the administration! Sure does look like the government is able to do things they never used to do, like get away with something like this on markadelphia.blogspot. This used to be known as corruption but it's ok because their intentions were good.
then you post a chart from The Office of the Democratic Leader without blinking an eye.
Yes, because I checked the data.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
I also provided the same information from another news source (US News) for comparison. Here it is again.
http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/22480/FE_DA_PublicvPrivateJobsGraph.jpg
The problem I have is when people put up a link to an opinion column or a right wing blog and then don't bother to fact check it and support it with another source.
The facts back up the graph on jobs, last. I will ask you again...are there any facts that I can present to you that will change your mind regarding the stimulus?
Regarding the internet...it came from the government and it literally changed the entire private sector. So when you intimate that government spending coming out of the private sector is a bad thing, I have to wonder if you think that the money the government spent on the internet (taxpayer money) was bad. This is also a great example of the government creating jobs. Heck, this government program completely changed the global economy!
Credit goes to your team and blame goes to the other team
Yes, because that's what happened. I'm not going to pretend that the Bush Tax Cuts, the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Medicare D were all Democratic ideas. That's simply not reality. They originated from the Bush Administration and the GOP that went on a spending spree and are now blaming Obama for it. The problem here, last, is that you can't admit that you made a mistake (a common problem with the right) in your support for President Bush. If you look at only the facts, Obama has been a better president than Bush on just about everything.
Now, if you want me to say the Democrats are partly responsible for the collapse in 2008, no problem...because they were. That's what actually happened. With all of this, I think the time for conservatives taking advantage of liberal's fair mindedness is over.
RLD, but that just proves my point. Democrats don't vote as a monolith like you guys do most of the time. There are conservative Dems and liberal Dems that have problems with the AJA. At least their problems are substantive whereas the GOP's problem (It's Obama so we are against it because he must fail) isn't.
Regarding Chu, I think it shows what kind of a man he is that he would claim responsibility for what happened even if part of it wasn't his fault. I'm happy to continue talking about Solyndra as long as we also talk about the taxpayer money that goes to oil companies. Where was your outrage over the BP spill? Oil companies get BILLIONS in subsidies which make Solyndra's 500 million seem paltry. We should also discuss the impact of China's solar energy programs on Solyndra. It might not be a bad idea to have an overall discussion about the complexities of the global marketplace as well.
For every example you have of great government investments like the internet, I'll post 9 examples of things like $16 muffins, bridges to nowhere, Solyndra, the Big Dig, etc.
So our sources have to be in 2 places on the internet. Got it.
Nobody ever said or asked you to pretend that the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq war or medicare part D were democrat ideas. Nobody mentioned democrats being responsible for 2008. Who said that here today and who are you debating? What difference does it make if I admit voting for GWB was a mistake? GWB got elected mostly because of Gore and Kerry being bad candidates and running bad campaigns.
You're not happy to talk about things like Solyndra or Fast and Furious. If you wanted to talk about them, you'd explain your administrations actions, not stop at the character of Steven Chu.
When does Obamas agenda kick in? When you say it does?
When you say it does?
And not a day sooner or later!
For every example you have of great government investments like the internet, I'll post 9 examples of things like $16 muffins, bridges to nowhere, Solyndra, the Big Dig, etc
Challenge accepted. Here are my examples.
1. The Internet (which gives you the capability to post here and email me)
2. The National Highway System
3. NASA (putting a man on the moon, satellite technology that led to cel phones etc)
4. Nuclear Energy
5. Medical Research (Did you know that the Army is a leading and innovative researcher in breast cancer?)
6. Social Security (reduced poverty in the elderly by 40 percent since its inception)
7. Clean Water (this is a state and local issue as well)
8. Sewer Systems (so you can dispose of your poop)
9. FDA (you do want someone checking your beef and drugs, right?)
10. Public Education (This enabled YOU to get where you are today)
11. The National Weather Service
So, that's 11 which means I'd like to see a list of 99 examples of government waste that do the same level of bad that these do of good. Ah, what the heck, I'm feeling generous. How about just 30 that are on the same level and 69 that are small and meaningless.
Unfortunately, one of them can't be the $16 muffins. You really need to fact check your (childishly dishonest) claims.
http://travel.usatoday.com/hotels/post/2011/09/capital-hiltons-16-muffin-spurs-controversy/549233/1
$800 dollar hammers, of course, are fair game:)
If, for some reason, you don't want to accept this challenge, I'll give you an out. Initial this statement:
I, last in line, accept the fact that the government has been beneficial to my life in a number of ways and I would not have been as successful as I am in life without it.
And I'll talk about Solyndra all day long if you want. What are your thoughts on how China's solar energy program impacted Solyndra? How does the 500 million investment by the government in Solyndra compare to the 12 billion dollars of cash pallets that vanished in Iraq? What are the similarities to the Solyndra investment and the no bid contracts to Haliburton?
Slow down chief. I said “Any money the government gets comes out of the private sector.” And you responded to that by saying “So, the whole internet thing (invented by the government) really fucked up the private sector? Sheesh...”
What does one have to do with the other?
Where did I say in this discussion that all government programs are bad and worthless? I said that the money government has to spend is taken out of the private sector...that’s it...I didn’t pass judgement on any one program and you lept to some pretty far reaching conclusions. So that was a pretty powerful takedown—of a position that I do not hold. If you can find someone who thinks he does not live in community with other people, then you might be able to find someone to initial your little pledge. I don’t mind paying taxes for roads, cops, firemen, or schoolteachers. It’s the jillion other things government does, from the left and the right, that people object to.
Government has no money of its own. It takes resources from one group and gives them to another. That money has to come from somewhere. You can print money, but if there's no underlying activity going on associated with the movement of the money, it's worthless. Speaking for myself, I don’t know too many conservatives who think the government shouldn’t build and maintain roads. Perhaps what they object to is the grotesque waste and inefficiency inherent to public-works projects and government programs. Perhaps the reason Obama had to discover there’s no such thing as shovel-ready jobs isn’t because they don’t exist. It could be because there’s no such thing as shovel-ready government.
I guess this would be a standard response #12 for you – you intentionally mischaracterized your opponent's argument and then argued against your own mischaracterization as if it shows me to be wrong.
>I have to wonder if you think that the money the government spent on the internet (taxpayer money) was bad.
That’s a filter you have in your thinking. I’ve explained to you before that I see the attempted strategy here - if a large percentage of people in our society receive a benefit at some point in their lives courtesy of the government, even due to things out of their control like a national highway system that was built well before they was even born, and then accept criticism from only those who have never received a government benefit, then goverment handouts/programs can never be criticized! Nice strategy there.
Remember that we cannot opt out of many programs. It's not like folks can opt out of social security or medicare at a young age. Are you really pretending that somebody who believes a particular government service should be changed or reduced has a moral obligation to forgo the use of that service? I, you, and everyone else reading this are under no obligation to forgo government benefits. Speaking for myself, I am subject to the obligations and privileges that go along with citizenship of this country. Do you really believe that critics of government programs have an obligation to endure the liabilities attached to the programs while forgoing the benefits?
As an example of what I am talking about - Remember that Obama thinks that folks as rich as him should pay higher taxes yet he took nearly $400,000 of deductions on his 2010 taxes and reduced his tax liability by $150,000. Does that make him a hypocrite? No it doesn’t. He believes that the tax code should be other than it is — which is in no way incompatible with availing himself of the benefits of the tax code as it currently is. Nothing in the tax code forces anyone (including you and blk) to take deductions btw.
My argument against the expansion of government is that government is extended into areas where it shouldn't be and in many areas it is inefficient and bloated. That does not suggest that the private sector is all holy and without fault.
Regarding your 10 examples - if that's all our taxes paid for, I’d be pretty cool with that. If all the government did was build roads, get rid of poop, and provide for public order, it’d be a libertarian paradise almost up to the standards of Ron Paul. Does anyone else find it ironic that if the tax rate (local, state and federal) was based on paying ONLY for the things you’re talking about we may not even be having this discussion? Heck there may not even be a Tea Party for that matter.
Here’s 100 examples. Yeah, it’s from a Republican senator so you can rip the source but I’d like to see a dispute of the accuracy of the content of the link. He’s a primary source after all.
http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=774a6cca-18fa-4619-987b-a15eb44e7f18
In addition to all that crap, go ahead and assume that every program established by the government terminates when the bill's authorization expires. That’s not how government programs work. They don't come to an end, they become a part of next year's baseline budget, which means that if they don't increase by an arbitrary percentage, it's a "cut." So this years increase in federal spending for each program becomes next years baseline for budgeting. Super!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseline_(budgeting)
>that do the same level of bad that these do of good.
How nice of you to add that little stipulation in there but we’re in an area that is too subjective as the results of government programs are always in dispute. Who says the levels have to be equal? You’re trying to move the goal posts for some reason via language manipulation...no dice.
>The National Highway System
Try doing something that big today. See – Bostons Big Dig and the San Francisco bridge example I posted on here. Those trucks that were manufactured to lay the asphalt, or cement to make those roads - those trucks were made by the private sector.
>Public Education (This enabled YOU to get where you are today).
Talk about an inflated sense of self importance. For the record - I spent grades 1-8 in a private school. You’re familiar with private schools Mark – your parents sent you to one for your high school education. Speaking for myself, I’ve learned FAR more out in the real world about navigating through life via experiences and mistakes I have made than I ever did in a classroom.
>What are your thoughts on how China's solar energy program impacted Solyndra?
Who cares what I think because I’m not in charge of trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. Perhaps the investors in Solyndra (aka Obama campaign donors and bundlers) or Obamas Department of Energy should have thought about it before doling out millions of taxpayer dollars.
> How does the 500 million investment by the government in Solyndra compare to the 12 billion dollars of cash pallets that vanished in Iraq?
Buried in that question is an assumption that I am ok with govt waste as long as Republicans are in office...a position I do not hold. No need to keep railing against your misrepresentation.
> What are the similarities to the Solyndra investment and the no bid contracts to Haliburton?
I’ve already told you what I think of no-bid contracts several times on here. My view - unless you want soldiers in the field with no bullets or food you better get to love those no bid contracts. In federal procurement, contracts (especially large ones) can take months if not years to compete. Secondly, and this is especially true in war, the logistics contracts tell the suppliers where the army is supposed to be, at what times, and the armaments they will need to fight a battle. Want to give that information to the enemy since free and open bidding means anybody can get hands on that contract? Frankly, unless you want even higher body counts from allowing the enemy to get a logistics bid and seeing where we'll be, when we will be there, and what military hardware we're bringing, not to mention where it will be delivered enroute so you can sabotage it, then learn to love those contracts. But to each his own I guess.
So in conclusion - government built all those bridges, roads, and schools because individuals (in the form of businesses) provided jobs, that provided income, that allowed for taxation, that allowed government to exist. That’s my point.
Cart, horse, some assembly required Mark.
.I didn’t pass judgement on any one program and you lept to some pretty far reaching conclusions
Technically, that's true. But by simply making the statement, you intimate that it's a "bad" thing.
I don’t mind paying taxes for roads, cops, firemen, or schoolteachers.
Good to hear because they are all under attack by the right who wants them all privatized.
Perhaps what they object to is the grotesque waste and inefficiency inherent to public-works projects and government programs.
I agree as well. The problem is how you define such waste. I don't think of Medicare and Social Security as "entitlements." I think of them as earned benefits. Yet, this is where much of the waste is...along with defense spending. We always here a lot of moaning from the right about waste in the first two but not the last one. This is the very definition of the ongoing debate about the collective good-something that all successful societies must provide on some level.
Does anyone else find it ironic that if the tax rate (local, state and federal) was based on paying ONLY for the things you’re talking about we may not even be having this discussion?
I actually don't know why we are having the discussion to begin with because the overall tax burden is at its lowest level since 1958.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/us-tax-burden-lowest-level-58/story?id=13541330
People are complaining about something that isn't REAL for pete's sake!
Regarding Couburn's list, I don't have much doubt that they are real (even though I didn't bother to check for bias which surely would produce different "facts") but how much of a factor are these things in the overall pie? It seems like, once again, we aren't looking at the bigger slices and, instead, panic mongering again about gubmint.
His list also serves Lofgren's Theory quite well, right? Destroy faith in government by smearing the shit out of them and, thus, by default, the party that hates government can win more elections.
Regarding education, I have no problem with parents that send their kids to private school or home school. That shows me that they are invested in their children's future. We need more of that. My point was that you and I both benefited from government spending. We do every day in a myriad of ways. We benefit far less from the private sector.
Technically, that's true. But...
I love you, but... As soon as you add the "but" you invalidate whatever came before it. So, either what he said is true or it isn't, and doesn't require further qualification. What you just did is like apologizing - and then telling the person they were stupid to be offended in the first place.
Good to hear because they are all under attack by voices in my head [that I call the right] who wants them all privatized.
I'd love to see a link from a right-wing source that advocates privitazation of police services. No, you may not use an anarchist source as a substitute for the right.
I don't think of Medicare and Social Security as "entitlements." I think of them as earned benefits.
Well isn't that wonderful that you think so. That doesn't make it so. They are entitlements - not earned. Every dollar you have ever put into those programs paid for someone else, not to provide you with a damn thing.
either what he said is true or it isn't
No. That's not how the world works. But, please, keep trying to shove that square peg into the round hole.
He made the comment he made based on the bias he has about government.
a right-wing source that advocates privitazation of police services.
How about Kevin's site? I recall a conversation a while back in which the need for police was questioned and how people should just hire their own private security when needed. Actually, I think it has been several conversations.
They are entitlements - not earned.
So, the money that you work for...that's taken out of your check and sent to Medicare and Social Security...that's not earned? When you collect it after age 65, you are receiving a government hand out? Really?
RE: Tax burden. Even your own source cites the recession as one of the major causes of the tax burden slipping ever so slightly. When your income drops, so does your tax rate. State and local governments don't collect as much sales tax, either, because spending is throttled back. Notice from charts in this article how Tax Freedom Day correlates with recessions.
It doesn't take a genius to look at government spending to see that tax rates are going to have to increase painfully in the not-too-distant future (and as even Warren Buffet acknowledges, just taxing the rich can't possibly raise enough money), or the value of the dollar is going to be debauched like one of Fatty Arbuckle's dates. One way or another, we're getting it in the ass unless spending is throttled back.
As far as Kevin's site promoting privatization of police, I want to say, "what the fuck have you been smoking?", though I'll give you an opportunity to post a link first. Though I'm sure Kevin will be pleased to learn that his blog is now a "right-wing source".
M: So, the money that you work for...that's taken out of your check and sent to Medicare and Social Security...that's not earned?
What addled state of mind did that question come from? How in the world does that follow from juris' comment?
Mark, what happens to all the money you've paid into Social Security and Medicare if you die at age 61? It's gone. You can't pass it on to your heirs. Not to mention the fact that it's literally already gone in the first place, paid out to current collectors, or spent on other government spending and replaced with IOUs that may (or may not) be redeemed when they come due (depending on how boned the Treasury and economy are by then).
>So, the money that you work for...that's taken out of your check and sent to Medicare and Social Security...that's not earned? When you collect it after age 65, you are receiving a government hand out? Really?
Just to add to this - legally, the answer is clearly yes - you don't have a right to anything Social Security related, so sayeth the Supreme Court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
In other words, you receive Soc Sec benefits at the discretion of Congress, and nothing else.
No. That's not how the world works.
Really? Are you telling me that there are only sorta-truths, depending on circumstances? Is that how you are raising your children - to tell you something that may or may not be true, depending on how they feel about it? At least my son knows when he isn't telling the truth.
How about Kevin's site?
TSM runs very much libertarian to anarchist - which only a fool would characterize as "the right". Perhaps you don't really understand what you mean when you say "the right"?
When you collect it after age 65, you are receiving a government hand out? Really?
Yes. You didn't realize that? And you call yourself informed?
If it's not to his left, then it must be right. It doesn't matter if it's instead way up or down on the y-axis, or even out on the z-axis: if it ain't "left", then it must be "right". Unless you're just like him, then you're "center". And he accuses others of black-and-white thinking. Sheesh.
Obama's jobs plan is so bad, not even one Democrat has stepped up to co-sponsor the bill. Again, Crap legislation and everyone knows it - except you, M.
Now, if you want to cheer for something Obama has done right, let's tout the free trade agreements he is finally submitting to Congress. That is a good economic stimulus.
"U.S. businesses will have a fighting chance against competitors that have already signed free-trade deals. And our trading partners often prefer American goods over any other, as the U.S. envoys to Chile, Peru and Brazil told a Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce gathering last week — a significant competitive advantage."
That is how you create jobs, not spending taxpayer money on your cronies failing businesses or more government programs which suck the life out of the private sector.
I think that's a pretty broad brush to paint with, 6Kings. To say that his jobs plan is ALL bad simply isn't true as it contains an extension of the payroll tax cut as well as other things conservatives support. But it makes sense that you would say that...in the proving him wrong, winning the argument sort of way...
I take it that since you support free trade that you also support a mulitpolar world in which the United States shares power rather than acts as the sole power. Certainly there are pros and cons to both, but I guess I'm wondering what your thoughts are on hegemonic stability theory.
Sooner or later, we are going to have to deal with the inequality in this country. Consumer spending represents 70 percent of this economy, which means the middle class is the engine that drives it. More people with less money means a sluggish economy which is where we are at right now. If you don't want the government to redistribute money, fine. Who will then? Some how, some way some organization is going to have to do it if we are to remain an economic power in the world. We will continue to stagnate and be left behind in the global marketplace unless something is done.
Doing nothing is not an option. The banks of this country have socialized risk and privatized profits (Nicholas Kristof). They were able to do this because of a lack of regulation. Again, I have to ask, if the government isn't going to regulate this, what mechanism will? This isn't simply an issue of the markets not distributing money fairly. We're talking about efficiency here.
I think that's a pretty broad brush to paint with, 6Kings.
This from a person who routinely paints with brushes so broad they make push brooms look like delicate fine arts paintbrushes. And who thinks worrying about being right is a Bad Thing, and that Redistribution of wealth should the great goal of society. Good lord, Mark, why the hell aren't you sitting in Wall Street along with all the other economic ignoranuses on parade?
The banks of this country have socialized risk and privatized profits
Umm, no, that takes government. Without government bailouts, the banks simply go under.
BTW, ever find that link to something where Kevin promotes privatization of police forces, Mark? Or were you just outgassing again? If being right doesn't really matter, I guess you can't feel bad about flinging any kind of bullshit at all depending upon the needs of the moment.
The banks of this country have socialized risk and privatized profits (Nicholas Kristof). They were able to do this because of a lack of regulation.
Nope, they did it because the govt is all too willing to be an accomplice to crony-capitalism. And your party bears as much if not more blame for that than the Repubs.
I think that's a pretty broad brush to paint with, 6Kings.
I already pointed out a good article articulating why it is a bad bill - it doesn't address the problem, just a few bandaids that cost a fortune. The bill is a waste of money and more a political move to seem like something is being done. And Payroll Tax? From the article I linked to which you apparently didn't read: No rational employer will invest much in new jobs on the basis of short-term tax cuts. Employment will take place only when the gains from hiring exceed the transaction costs and taxes on the deal.
Yes, these Payroll Tax cuts are temporary measures and business knows it.
The AJA misfires because it starts from unsound economic premises.
Just like most of the Obama Administration's efforts - economically unsound and we have the results for all to see.
M Says: If you don't want the government to redistribute money, fine. Who will then?
OK Marx, Government is the least efficient and effective way to redistribute money. Your whole blog should be relabeled as a tribute to Karl Marx. In fact, this is a good opinion piece explaining how your concept of government is philosophically flawed.
Highlights:
On Government role in economy:
Government, as created by the founders, is there to enable and protect. But it isn’t there to “do” what is claimed by Jarrett. Because the founders knew that in order to “do” what Jarrett claims it would need much broader and intrusive powers. And they knew that a government with broad and intrusive powers would continue to grant itself even more broad and intrusive powers while the citizens of the country were slowly bled of their power and rights. Look around you – that’s precisely what has happened.
On blaming corps and rich:
Yet the shills and snake oil salesmen still push the myth and try to shift the blame to keep the belief that this situation [vast over spending] is viable if only those filthy rich and corporations would finally pay their “fair share”.
Ha, must be reading this blog. Yes, you have been called out as a dupe, shill, etc. on advocating poor economic policy. But we have been pointing that out for years.
, and that Redistribution of wealth should the great goal of society.
OK Marx...
Well, I guess the NFL is now a Marxist organization as well.
Neither one of you have accepted the fact that 70 percent of the economy is consumer spending. In other words, the middle class is the engine that drives it, not the wealthy. More and more people have less and less money which translates to a large problem if that's the backbone of our economy. I'd ask both of you again: if not the government, then who will correct this?
6Kings, that's an opinion piece that you linked and we're talking about facts here. Point me to an example in the history of the world where a "libertarian to anarchist stance" (copyright, juris imprudent) was effective. There are none. I, however, can point you to the post WWII days when we spent ridiculous amounts of money, accrued debt over our GDP, and created a boom. The stimulus of 2009 stopped the job implosion and has added private sector jobs as well as grown GDP.
Nope, they did it because the govt is all too willing to be an accomplice to crony-capitalism. And your party bears as much if not more blame for that than the Repubs.
True. So the answer is...less government? That makes no sense to me. How about simply putting people in jail who commit fraud? The problem was that the government looked the other way.
, why the hell aren't you sitting in Wall Street along with all the other economic ignoranuses on parade?
Because those people aren't looking at the bigger picture. In many ways, they remind me of the silliness of the WTO protesters. The market is now global and people are having a hard time accepting this fact. Free trade has done wonders for the world but caused growing pains at home. They also need to accept the fact that banks (when functioning properly) are needed in our culture. So, I don't agree with their anti-free market sentiment. Overall, things have gotten better because of multilateral trade agreements. That is a "liberal" mentality, no?
But I also don't agree with allowing the banks, the financial sector of this country, and the wealthy to behave like the mob and bust the joint out. You can't run an economy with a plutocracy. Sooner or later, the shit goes bad because the people revolt. This is why I say that people should be thanking the president for trying to save capitalism. Of course, he's not trying to save anarcho-capitalism and that's where I think some of you have a problem.
I have no problem with a stratified society and inequality. That's the very nature of capitalism so that's fine. My problem is qualitative....gross inequality to the point of unfairness (see my Reagan post today since I know you won't listen to me) which has led to our craptacular economy.
if only those filthy rich and corporations would finally pay their “fair share”.
See my post on Reagan today, 6Kings.
More and more people have less and less money
And the evidence for this is??? I'm just not interested in your articles of faith.
me to an example in the history of the world
Medieval Iceland for a "pure" example. The U.S. up until the Progressive era for an example that had many libertarian features (though hardly purely libertarian) - particularly at the federal level.
See the difference between those two points - mine gets substantiated and yours is a bunch of hand-waving.
I, however, can point you to the post WWII days when we spent ridiculous amounts of money, accrued debt over our GDP, and created a boom.
Ah, back to your mythical Golden Age. Funny how you fall back on that even after Manzi.
True. So the answer is...less government?
Yes, because then at least you won't have the govt bailing out their corporate pals. Your answer is MORE of the same govt - and yet you expect to get a different result. Helloooo, McFly? That is doubling down - which is usually considered a sucker bet.
I, however, can point you to the post WWII days when we spent ridiculous amounts of money, accrued debt over our GDP, and created a boom.
And we can again point out that your glorious golden age is the direct result of us bombing every other competing economy back into the stone age.
And the evidence for this is??? I'm just not interested in your articles of faith.
Seriously, are you kidding?
Medieval Iceland for a "pure" example.
So, you'd like to see the world return to medieval times? I supposed Iceland did try to return to that time when they deregulated the banks. How did that turn out?
mine gets substantiated and yours is a bunch of hand-waving.
Well, because you said so, it must be true:)
Ah, back to your mythical Golden Age. Funny how you fall back on that even after Manzi.
I'm simply pointing out that spending a lot of money and flooding the world with the dollar worked. It's why the world today is embracing free market ideals and a LIEO. This is what you wanted, right?
you won't have the govt bailing out their corporate pals. Your answer is MORE of the same govt -
That's a gross simplification. Wouldn't it have been great if we didn't bail any of those guys out? Oh wait, we had to because the right wing of this country decided that the free market could take care of itself.
GD, I'll ask you the same question I asked juris: don't you agree that the LIEO that resulted from Bretton Woods was a good thing?
Seriously, are you kidding?
Just toss me a couple of the links you must have bookmarked for reference.
So, you'd like to see the world return to medieval times?
Did I say that? Or are you pissed that you just got served? You asked for an example and I gave you one. I didn't say it was a good thing (because I don't believe so), nor did I say how it didn't last (which you might have picked up on instead of throwing off an absolutely stupid accusation about me). Stop being such an ass - if that is at all possible for you.
I'm simply pointing out that spending a lot of money and flooding the world with the dollar worked.
Sure - when the rest of the world economy was pretty much shattered due to the WW and ours was untouched. That's a pretty fucking significant qualifier, no? Think that will all work just the same today?
That's a gross simplification.
That should mean it was understandable to you - and yet it wasn't.
Oh wait, we had to because the right wing of this country decided that the free market could take care of itself.
What? And you can thank the "establishment" branch of the Republican party for that (as well as the Congressional Dem majority). It sure the fuck wasn't anyone with libertarian inclinations bailing out those corporations.
And what is an "LIEO" - I see nothing connected with Bretton Woods that abbreviates.
Just toss me a couple of the links you must have bookmarked for reference.
Before I do, I want to make certain that you are requesting what I think you are requesting. You want me to show you evidence that more and more people have less and less money. In other words, proof of growing inequality. Is this what you are saying and are you sure you want me to?
Think that will all work just the same today?
No. In fact, I don't think we can spend that much today but that wasn't my point. You guys blow bowel after bowel about spending yet it worked after WWII. It worked under Reagan. It worked under Clinton. What's happening now is a complete overreaction brought about by totally irrational people who should not be trusted running a lemonade stand given what they are espousing. We are going to have to spend some money and raise some taxes to recover from all of this. You might not like it but that's what has to happen.
LIEO stands for Liberal International Economic Order.
Is this what you are saying and are you sure you want me to?
I want data if you have it. If all you have is someone else saying the same shit you do, then you can skip it.
You guys blow bowel after bowel about spending yet it worked after WWII.
Just so we're clear here. You are talking about spending in the post WWII era - say 1948-58, right? When spending was under 20% of GDP? You do realize we have to cut our current spending to get down to that level? Oops!
LIEO - cute. I guess you made that up all by yourself. Are you saying that era represents everything you want in U.S. trade and foreign policy?
don't you agree that the LIEO that resulted from Bretton Woods was a good thing?
Well, since Bretton woods didn't actually take effect until 1958 I'm not sure what that has to do with this convo, but...
Yes, I'd agree that an international agreement that espouses free trade and aims regulate monetarism (in the absence of gold backed currency this is necessary) is a good thing.
But if you are trying to imply that the LIEO (hope you did well in your international relations class) is the reason the US did well economically in the post WWII years I'd have to disagree. As stated Breton Woods did not go into effect until 1958 when all the participants were finally able to have convertible currencies.
GD, The Bretton Woods agreement was ratified by 44 Allied Nations at the during July of 1944. The IMF and the IRBD (now the World Bank) started in 1945 with the IMF commencing financial operations in 1947. While it is true that Bretton Woods was not FULLY functional until 1958, when most currencies finally became convertible, there were other, immediate effects of the conference and that was what I was talking about above in regards to spending.
From 1947 to 1958, for example, we encouraged dollars going out and ran balance of payment deficits on purpose to flood the world with the US dollar. The intent was to provide liquidity to the newly reorganized international economy. The reasoning was that the dollar (backed by our vision of liberal economics) would set the standard and lead to a blossoming LIEO.
Juris, alright...I gave you a chance to save face. Sorry dude.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-americas-edge
Perhaps the best illustration of these pressures — to innovate and deregulate without coming apart at the seams — is found in widening economic inequalities. It has often been noted that American society has become increasingly unequal in economic terms over the past 30 years.
As Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke noted in a 2007 speech, "the share of income received by households in the top fifth of the income distribution, after taxes have been paid and government transfers have been received, rose from 42% in 1979 to 50% in 2004, while the share of income received by those in the bottom fifth of the distribution declined from 7% to 5%. The share of after-tax income garnered by the households in the top 1% of the income distribution increased from 8% in 1979 to 14% in 2004."
Please review the entire section titled "Inequality as a Symptom."
Further, take a look at pg. 11 of this report.
http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf
It's not surprising that you think the way you do. Most people have no fucking clue how disproportionate wealth distribution is in this country.
My central point (and one I have been trying get you to understand ad nauseum) is that our economy doesn't function well when you juxtapose our inequality with the bedrock of our financial system-consumer spending. It's not simply that resources aren't distributed fairly...they aren't distributed efficiently either.
Classic M - I ask for data and you point to an article I referred you to (like I wouldn't know what was in it), and an article lacking in data (other than polling) with the following "note"
We used Sweden’s income rather than wealth distribution because
it provided a clearer contrast to the other two wealth distribution
examples; although more equal than the United States’ wealth distribution,
Sweden’s wealth distribution is still extremely top heavy.
Do I even need to point how seriously that undermines the validity of their "study"? Sure you liked the pretty picture and the story they told, and that was all you needed. That isn't enough for me.
And how about we cut spending down to what it was in your Golden Age? You going to drop that line of nonsense now?
an article lacking in data
Well, let's see...there's the first sentence with citation
Most scholars agree that wealth inequality in the United States
is at historic highs, with some estimates suggesting that the top
1% of Americans hold nearly 50% of the wealth, topping even
the levels seen just before the Great Depression in the 1920
(Davies, Sandstrom, Shorrocks, & Wolff, 2009; Keister,
2000; Wolff, 2002)
It looks like you are having trouble understanding the reason for using Sweden: showing a median ideal. And I guess this needs to be repeated:
Figure 2 shows the actual wealth distribution in the United States at the time of the survey,
What part of "actual" don't you understand? I guess the 17 sources which back up this report also don't matter. You asked for data and I gave it to you with plenty of sources to back it up. Once again, we are at this point: are there any facts that I could present to you that would change your mind?
What part of DATA don't you understand? Hint - it is MORE than a couple of numbers (with zero to little context) and a chart or two.
Most scholars agree that
IS NOT FUCKING DATA you moron.
Post a Comment