History and the stimulus package.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

"Only people know just how to talk to people.
Only people know just how to change the world.
Only people realise the power of people.
A million heads are better than one so come on, get it on!"

~ John Lennon

---

"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."

~ John Lennon


$650 million for the Digital Converter Box Program

~ Stimulus Bill


Digital Converter Box Program? I guess this goes with the General Welfare Clause??

[Article 1, Section 8] is not a substantive general power to provide for the welfare of the United States, but is a limitation on the grant of power to raise money by taxes, duties, and imposts. If it were otherwise, all the rest of the Constitution, consisting of carefully enumerated and cautiously guarded grants of specific powers, would have been useless, if not delusive.”

~ Supreme Court Justice James Clark McReynolds


“If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress' notion of the general welfare, the reality, given the vast financial resources of the Federal Government, is that the Spending Clause gives "power to the Congress to tear down the barriers, to invade the states' jurisdiction, and to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed." … This, of course, as Butler held, was not the Framers' plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.”

~ Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (quoting Justice Butler)




Scott

As I read your post I began to see the bones of Marcus Tullius Cicero hanging over the entrance to the Roman senate.

[quote=AFDavis11;327565]

Quote:

---

A lot of stuff in that stimulus package doesn't make much sense. Do we thank the Republicans for the destruction of our economy then? Or do we blame the people that are trying to fix it?

---

You might check out these links and rethink your position on who is responsible:
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times

YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

I can only think of 2 possibilities as to why the Dems in power did what they did: 1) they lost themselves in idealism, so, acted irresponsible with the best of intentions or 2) they wanted a collapsed or depressed economy so that they can have a little power grab as they appear to be having now, you know, as Rom Emmanuel says "Never let a crisis go to waste! In other words use it to get things done that you can't get done under ordinary circumstances."

there is another article in The Nation in 1995 on this subject the article is entitled "The Golden Fleece". if anyone can provide a link I would appreciate it.

Quote:

---

We are now a much more Socialist government. Is that bad?

---

Socialism has a nasty habit of bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator while sound conservative and free market principles tends to allow the individual to reach to their highest potential!
I prefer the freedom to do my best for me and my family rather than the "one size fits all" straight jacket of government control! Government has its place but it should be minimal.

Quote:

---

I was reading a great article in this weeks Newsweek about how we are all now Socialists . . . its a great read and there is a neat article about how much better run Canada is. As XMan so correctly mentions the details are important.

Canada can afford to give people health care because it costs so much less to provide healthcare in Canada.

---

This is why our friends to the north are coming over in droves for our medical care in the states I bet. I understand that there is an 18 month waiting list to get an MRI or a catscan done.

Quote:

---

Canada is thriving in this economic downturn as well (according to Newsweek).

---

And our economy seems to be getting worse every time President Obama opens his mouth to tell us how terrible our economy is and how it will only get worse! He is a leader alright It appears that he is leading us deeper and deeper into recession. there are ways that a leader can convey needed information without panicking a whole country. Bush did something similar as Obama at the beginning of these bail outs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

]You might check out these links and rethink your position on who is responsible:

I can only think of 2 possibilities as to why the Dems in power did what they did: 1) they lost themselves in idealism, so, acted irresponsible with the best of intentions or 2) they wanted a collapsed or depressed economy so that they can have a little power grab as they appear to be having now, you know, as Rom Emmanuel says "Never let a crisis go to waste! In other words use it to get things done that you can't get done under ordinary circumstances."
This thing was created by both sides of the aisle with an almost even hand and, I doubt on purpose. It is much deeper than narrow-minded partisan bickering will ever allow anyone to see. To simply blame it on dems or repubs is to be ignorant of the fact that the economy is not a simple animal.


Socialism has a nasty habit of bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator while sound conservative and free market principles tends to allow the individual to reach to their highest potential!
I prefer the freedom to do my best for me and my family rather than the "one size fits all" straight jacket of government control! Government has its place but it should be minimal.
Funny, if you replace some of these words with the word Religion, this paragraph makes even more sense to me. Pardon the digression

This is why our friends to the north are coming over in droves for our medical care in the states I bet. I understand that there is an 18 month waiting list to get an MRI or a catscan done.:OT I'd like to see a source for this, I have a friend this would interest greatly!

And our economy seems to be getting worse every time President Obama opens his mouth to tell us how terrible our economy is and how it will only get worse! He is a leader alright It appears that he is leading us deeper and deeper into recession. there are ways that a leader can convey needed information without panicking a whole country. Bush did something similar as Obama at the beginning of these bail outs. If he could talk and make the economy worse or talk and make it better which do you think he would actually do? Indeed, if talking made the economy work I dare say that your activity in this forum alone would be sustaining the nations economic power. The fact remains that the economy is not understood wholly by anyone. It can't be empirically tested and we are now in the most uncharted of waters. To simplify this subject, or indeed any, is to willingly give up control of your own ability to think.

---

V/R

-Rob

filler text!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

Your answer surprised me and made me think about the question some more.

I think I could agree with both as well, as long as both are free choice, and, especially the first, is not imposed.

Does free choice vs. imposition change your view?


Scott

---

Yes, I think so. Does voting for those who choose imply "free choice" ?

This thing was created by both sides of the aisle with an almost even hand and, I doubt on purpose. It is much deeper than narrow-minded partisan bickering will ever allow anyone to see. To simply blame it on dems or repubs is to be ignorant of the fact that the economy is not a simple animal. Hell yeah the Republicans hold some of the responsibility for being to weak to stick to their principles but they were the only ones trying to stop the run away freight train, and now they receive all the blame while the democrats are using the crisis to ram their pet projects down our collective throats.



Funny, if you replace some of these words with the word Religion, this paragraph makes even more sense to me. Pardon the digression
And what does this have to do with anything?
I'd like to see a source for this, I have a friend this would interest greatly!
You might speak with wildtim for starters as his wife deals with just this issue in Michigan.

. If he could talk and make the economy worse or talk and make it better which do you think he would actually do? Indeed, if talking made the economy work I dare say that your activity in this forum alone would be sustaining the nations economic power. The fact remains that the economy is not understood wholly by anyone. It can't be empirically tested and we are now in the most uncharted of waters. To simplify this subject, or indeed any, is to willingly give up control of your own ability to think.
Don't be silly. I haven't the power of the President!
The presidents words have a psychological effect on us all, especially a steady drum beat doom and gloom.
economics is economics. there was a Samurai who once wrote that if you can fight one man succesfully then you can fight 2 and then 4 and 8 and so on and that is because the priciples remain the same!
we were facing worse times statistically when JFK and Reagan started their terms, they both cut the tax rates and brought about an economic prosperity. when the current bunch in the senate rewrote the stimulus to bring the cost from some 800 billion to the current price of some 700 billion the took cut our tax breaks but none of their pet projects!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Hell yeah the Republicans hold some of the responsibility for being to weak to stick to their principles but they were the only ones trying to stop the run away freight train, and now they receive all the blame while the democrats are using the crisis to ram their pet projects down our collective throats.


The presidents words have a psychological effect on us all, especially a steady drum beat doom and gloom.
economics is economics. there was a Samurai who once wrote that if you can fight one man succesfully then you can fight 2 and then 4 and 8 and so on and that is because the priciples remain the same!
we were facing worse times statistically when JFK and Reagan started their terms, they both cut the tax rates and brought about an economic prosperity. when the current bunch in the senate rewrote the stimulus to bring the cost from some 800 billion to the current price of some 700 billion the took cut our tax breaks but none of their pet projects!

---

You've been getting some bad information. Nearly half the package is tax cuts. This in spite of the fact that irresponsible tax cuts were a large part of what got us here. When you consider that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 amounted to $1.35 trillion, one has to wonder, if tax cuts are the answer, why we are we in this situation in the first place?

Government has only two methods of stimulating a failing economy -- tax cuts and increased government spending. Neither is a panacea. Tax cuts put money into the economy sooner, but don't result in long-term growth. Spending takes longer, but it tends to preserve jobs. That's why a blend is necessary.

I look at the provisions of the package, and I don't see what you mean about "Pet Projects." It all seems like infrastructure to me. If what you're saying is that government should never spend money, I think you're just out of step with reality. We expect government to do certain things, for which money must be spent.

I'm not going to say the the Democrats haven't hurt the economy on occasion, but I'm really sorry to have to say that this one occurred solidly on the Republicans' watch. The smoking gun in this case was the repeal of Glass-Steagal by a solidly Republican Congress. That's what enabled the credit crisis.. There simply is no credible disagreement on that point.

I, too, would like to see some backup on the notion of millions of Canadians storming our borders for our magnificent health care system. Please, no anecdotal evidence. Numbers would be nice. Also, I'd like some of our Canadian members to chime in with how much they'd prefer to live with the American health care system.

j

It is similarly insupportable that you can let the Republicans off with a slap on the wrist "for being too weak to stick to their principles but they were the only ones trying to stop the run away freight train..."

First of all, there was no "runaway freight train." Budgets were being balanced. To paraphrase Bob Hope (on another issue), Bush didn't have to balance the budget; he only had to budget the balance. And he couldn't even do that.

And the notion that the Republicans didn't "stick to their principles" is similarly absurd. They stuck to the Reaganomics playbook to the letter. Tax cuts and de-regulation. The deficits they ran up were tax cuts that essentially looted the economy and put the dough into the pockets of the wealthy. That's what my grandchildren will be paying for -- yachts and beach houses in the Caymans.

The two largest deficits run up in the history of the human race were 1) Bush 43; and 2) Reagan. Before that, you have to go back to Caligula. Exactly what Republican "principles" are we talking about?

The lesson, if anybody's still paying attention, is that Reaganomics were a failure.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Socialism has a nasty habit of bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator while sound conservative and free market principles tends to allow the individual to reach to their highest potential!
I prefer the freedom to do my best for me and my family rather than the "one size fits all" straight jacket of government control! Government has its place but it should be minimal.

---

Can you provide evidence for this opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I'm not going to say the the Democrats haven't hurt the economy on occasion, but I'm really sorry to have to say that this one occurred solidly on the Republicans' watch. The smoking gun in this case was the repeal of Glass-Steagal by a solidly Republican Congress. That's what enabled the credit crisis.. There simply is no credible disagreement on that point.

---

I'm assuming you are referring to the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act?

Thank you for posting this as I was not aware. This forces me to research and educate myself.

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Gramm-Leach-Bliley:

Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have criticized the Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis, arguing that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly".

In response to criticism of his signing the bill when President, Bill Clinton said in 2008:

"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill ... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."


Scott

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

I'm assuming you are referring to the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act?

Thank you for posting this as I was not aware. This forces me to research and educate myself.

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Gramm-Leach-Bliley:

Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have criticized the Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis, arguing that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly".

In response to criticism of his signing the bill when President, Bill Clinton said in 2008:

"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill ... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."


Scott

---

You're sort of right. Gramm-Leach-Bliley repealed the key provisions of Glass-Steagal, which was a bit of legislation from the late '30s that, among other things, put up a wall between banking and investing. It was the destruction of that wall that created the situation in which lenders could make bad investments with government assuming the risk. Phil Gramm, who thinks of the American Corporation as the Second Coming of Christ, thought that was a great idea. But, as they say, it has not gone well.

Not surprising that Clinton would try to wiggle out of that one. He's actually doing the only thing he's truly good at -- covering his own :cen. It's a major reason he's referred to in some circles as "Republican-Lite."