Thread: History and the stimulus package.

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. 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!

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!

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

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?

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

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 . It's a major reason he's referred to in some circles as "Republican-Lite."