Third Party & Independents Archives

David:

Nice post. I agree in entirety with the following exception:

Some Republicans say there isn’t enough tax cuts for small business. Despite the fact that small business owners cannot create more business nor hire more employees with additional tax cuts because their business is shrinking as a result of reducing demand and customer orders.

What you say here is true, however there are some companies (trucking companies come to mind) that as a matter or routine need to update their fleet. Tax incentives can encourage these companies to buy now as opposed to later. I would consider this a positive, as it would increase demand on the short term. Admitedly reducing demand in the years to come, however should the economy revive this might not be an issue.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at January 28, 2009 04:56 PM

Craig Holmes, why didn’t trucking companies invest their enormous windfalls from 2003 through Summer of 2007 in their fleet or sock away for that future need?

OK. Let’s say they didn’t, and now need to update their fleet. WHY ON EARTH would that constitute an emergency economic stimulus spending need of the federal government? That is a long term capital investment and reinvestment objective.

And NOT one which should be added to the national debt; but instead paid for, if at all by government, with commensurate cuts in other spending or the raising of taxes on those who well afford to have them raised without decreasing their consumption needs and habits.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 28, 2009 05:02 PM

Remer writes; “The reason is simple. The legislation is not going through the normal budgetary process, is not to be paid for by current government revenues or compensatory spending cuts in other areas, and truly is a compilation of wish lists of various representatives, states, cities, lobbyists, and other vested interests in getting their hands on tax payer dollars without ever having to pay it back.”

As some of you may know, Remer and I seldom agree on anything political. I congratulate Mr. Remer on his post and the many parts of which we are in full agreement.

PO and congress should start all over and present something to the public that will help now without enabling new social agendas and caviar for the greedy.

It is far more important to get this stimulus plan right than to do it immediately and wrong.

Posted by: Jim M at January 28, 2009 05:06 PM

Jim M, thanks. Nice to know folks on opposite sides of the spectrum can agree when at least one of them is willing to be objective and rational. In this case, we both seem to be.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 28, 2009 05:15 PM

I echo the compliments on a thoughtful article. I would add, though, that what is being tried here is unprecedented in human history, let alone American history. It is people launching into an attempt to prove what liberals have said for several decades.

We can spend ourselves into prosperity.

Is it true? Only if we spend ourselves into PRODUCTIVITY.

Good luck, to all of us, on that.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at January 28, 2009 05:24 PM

What happened to change? What happened to our
citizens seat at the table? What happened to
the openness professed to occur? Where is the
stimulus to save our jobs, our homes? Where is
the new program for energy independence? It
will never happen until the American people get
fed up with the PORK, with the lobbyists and the special interests.
The democrats are in the process of paying off their friends who donated
so much to keep them in power. The republicans
are still using the same old contrarian playbook. Cut taxes.
You are so correct when you state that, tax cuts for businesses won’t work when
there business is contracting. I for one feel
this economic stimulus package is a disgrace.
Where are the supposed “brilliant minds” Obama
supposedly brought together. It seems to be
apparent that these folks came from sectors where
they each bring their own vested interest, and
it is not the interest of the American people
from where I sit. This is a disappointment to say the least. What next?

Posted by: Bob Henry at January 28, 2009 05:33 PM

I agree with you Henry. A disgrace is to kind. Just a cute way to put the taxpayers on the hook for another $3-4T of debt. Putting the middle class deep in debt will assure the globalization gang that wages can only go in one direction for the next 50 years.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 28, 2009 05:50 PM

Bob, well, if Obama is true to his word on wasteful, unaccounted for spending, he will veto this bill. How likely is that? Not!

Obama, I believe, has it in his mind, that he will make good on his promise against wasteful, unaccounted for spending when it comes to the regular appropriations process. Of course, his promise was universal, and this tact would be a major fudging on that promise.

There are certain political realities to being president. Since, not a single Republican voted for this package, it is clear Obama is going to have to rely on the Democrats even more than he calculated. Likely something Obama is taking into account.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 28, 2009 06:34 PM

Rodney Brown’s post in the blue column provided this information about the Economic Stimulus Package:

Infrastructure
Construction projects: $90 billion. Fund the rebuilding of crumbling roads and bridges, build clean water and flood control mechanisms and provide funding for mass transit systems.
Education: $142 billion. Rebuild thousands of schools by modernizing classrooms, labs and libraries. The plan would also increase funding for Pell Grants.
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.
Health care records: $20 billion. Modernize the health care system by computerizing all of the nations’ medical records in the next five years.
Science, research and technology: $16 billion. Invest in science facilities, research and instrumentation to create new industries, new jobs and medical breakthroughs. Expand broadband Internet access in rural and underserved areas.

State Relief
Medicaid: $87 billion. Increase Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage so states do not have to cut eligibility for Medicaid due to budget shortfalls.
Law enforcement: $4 billion for states and municipality funding for law enforcement.

Saftey Net
Unemployment benefits: $43 billion. Extend through December 2009 emergency unemployment insurance assistance to states. Increase weekly unemployment benefits by $25, and provide incentives for states to expand unemployment coverage.
Cobra: $39 billion. Tax credit for recently laid-off employees to help pay for discounted health care. Obama estimates the plan will help 8.5 million people who recently lost their jobs.
Feeding the hungry: $20 billion. Increase food stamp benefits by 13%, and provide support for food banks, school lunch programs and WIC.

Tax Cuts for Individuals
Middle-class tax cut: $145 billion. Tax cut amounting to $500 a year for individuals and $1,000 for couples. The full credit would be limited to those making $75,000 or less ($150,000 or less for workers filing joint returns).
Low-income tax cut: $5 billion. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a refundable credit for low-income workers. Furthermore, the Make Work Pay Credit would be refundable, meaning that even tax filers without any tax liability — typically very low-income workers — would receive one.
Child tax credit: $18 billion. Temporary increase in the amount of the child tax credit that would be refundable.

Tax Cuts for Businesses
Small business write-offs: Obama would increase the amount of expenses small businesses can write off to $250,000 in 2009 and 2010 from the current $125,000 level.
Tax cuts for companies suffering losses: $17 billion over 10 years. Obama would temporarily broaden the “net-operating loss carryback” to five years, up from two years currently. The provision would let companies apply their 2008 and 2009 losses to past and future tax bills so they can get money back on taxes they’ve already paid or would otherwise have to pay.

$322 billion for Infrastructure
$91 billion for State Relief
$102 billion for Saftey Net

$??? for Tax Cuts for Individuals
$??? for Tax Cuts for Businesses

$825 total - $515 spending leaves $310 tax cuts

I’m not quite sure how they come up with the total cost associated with the business and personal tax cuts. $515 billion in hard spending out of an $825 billion package leaves $310 billion associated with the tax cuts.

Is this acccurate? Will these tax cuts guarantee those targeted a $310 billion savings?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 28, 2009 06:39 PM

Actually, it is sometimes to ‘do something, do anything,’ than to pause and ponder and spend months ‘getting it right.’ Doing anything, anything at all, is a great idea. You read that correctly. Pork spending? By all means. Now is the time. Pork is a great idea. The idea is to pour money into the economy as a fiscal stimulus. Just as importantly, pouring money into the economy has the intangible quality of bolstering confidence. Consumer confidence is in the tank, and putting money into consumer hands in virtually any form will buck up consumption.

Now the banks, and mortgage derivatives… That is another problem. We’d be better off nationalizing the banks immediately, and declaring mortgage derivatives null and void by executive order.

Posted by: phx8 at January 28, 2009 06:57 PM

Mr. Remer writes; “Since, not a single Republican voted for this package, it is clear Obama is going to have to rely on the Democrats even more than he calculated.”

I am absolutely astounded that the entire Republican side of the house voted against the bill. There are some quite liberal and many moderate Republicans along with the conservatives. How they ever got together on this is a mystery to me. Could it be that “change” is taking place, at least on one side of the aisle.

Mr. Remer is correct, PO will have to rely upon the democrats even more than he imagined. And, it makes one wonder what kind of hostage demands they may make of him to get a bill passed that he can claim as a victory. I believe the story in the senate will be equally interesting.

Posted by: Jim M at January 28, 2009 07:02 PM

David,
Why I can understand your reserve about Americas’ Recovery and Reinvestment Plan I do believe that at least the Gouse Democrats realize that the passage of the Bill is the first step unlike their Republican counterparts. True, it does not put a #1,000,000.00 in every Americans pocket today nor should it. Nonetheless, it does reach across the spectrum in an attempt to help stabilize the falling economy.

Yes, I was shocked to see not one Republican Representative voted for the package even though the tax cuts in the package equal more than those given away in the Bush Adminastration first years in office. How will that square with the Red, White, and Blue Citizens they are elected to represent?

And why the House could have done a strip down model, I ask you which sector should have they supported. For why they could of done a $500-1,000.00 tax refund to individuals and small businesses and in six months give the economic a hiccup, they also could of took a page out of the Republican playbook and have the tax cuts take effect say in 2015.

No, the Democrats in the House of Representatives showed that they have learned from the Bailout Bill and took the first shot; however, seeing that the Republican Leadership and Party Members failed the American People by putting Party before Country I do believe that they should forfeit or refuse any funds that may be earmarked for their district if the really truely oppose the stimulus bill.

So, why we wait for the Senate version of the Bill to be voted on sometime in the next week or two. I do believe that a Grassroot Movement lead by a 3rd Political Party on how they would construct Americas’ Recovery and Reinvestment Bill could go a long way in helping them get their candidates elected in 2010 to the House of Representatives. For IMHO it is not should the Federal Government spend the $800 Billion, but limited in Power and Scope what should “We the People” allow Our Children’s Children Money on.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 28, 2009 07:53 PM

We need to be carefully threading the needle.
Instead, we’re gettin’ more pork-barrel and waste.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 28, 2009 11:38 PM

d.a.n.,
Why I realizing that educating the Learned of Society and Members of Congress about the benefits of building a Green Sustainable Civilized Society is an up hill battle at best. I do believe that having them pay $1.6 Trillion for a plan that at best will have their Children still dependent on foreign oil and needing a new infrastructure by 2012 is more ammunition for a 3rd Political Party.

Yes, the Democratic and Republican Leadership looks like they want to put the cart before the horse once again. For why Education, Health, and Tax Cuts programs may help them get today’s vote. I see nothing that represents the Change most average Americans know can be done by “We the People” over the next 2-4 years to make America Energy Independent.

However, look on the bright side. The more the Left and Right spend their Grandchildren’s Money on pork-barrel and waste in the name of prosperity the more ground VOIDNOW.org and other Independent Grassroot groups gain. So if or when Americas’ Recovery and Reinvestment Plan goes down the same path as the $700 Billion Bailout Plan maybe than the Voters will wake up to a 3rd Political Party that knows and understands America can and must lead the World in building a Sustainable Green Civilized Society in order to win the War of Ideology and Terror.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 29, 2009 12:36 AM

d.a.n.,
You have consistently commented on the threat debt and deficits represent, and past events have proven you right. Same goes for David. However, current events make the balanced budget approach and debt/deficit reduction inappropriate.

Having a balanced budget and avoiding debt are virtues in their own way, certainly on a personal and household level. Pardon the Cheneyesque snear, if you will, but these personal virtues do not translate into an effective approach on a national level, not at this time.

If you accept the validity of using fiscal policy to brake or stimulate an economy, then now more than any other time in our lifetime is the moment to apply an all out stimulus. Tax cuts are part of that equation, but even targeted tax cuts are less effective than spending.

The overall problem we face is asset deflation. Inflation is bad, but deflation is even more pernicious, and to be avoided at practically any cost.

Three main factors are contributing to the terrible situation. 1) asset deflation due to the falling real estate market, 2) the failure of the financial sector due to leveraging through derivatives, which magnifies drops in the housing market one hundred fold, and makes banks afraid to offer loans, and 3) the falling dominos resulting from (1) and (2), such as catastrophic job losses.

Shoveling buckets of money into the economy through government spending, in virtually any form, is a good idea. Ordinarily, this is not a good idea. The current situation is so exceptional that this is actually a good time to go crazy on government spending. The other two areas must still be addressed- the collapsing housing markets and the failure of the financial sector- and they need to be addressed soon. At least over-the-top spending will help somewhat, increase the velocity of money moving through the economy (more than tax reductions ever could), and partially restore consumer confidence.

Posted by: phx8 at January 29, 2009 01:14 AM

d.a.n
Do you think there are alternatives to this Economic Rescue Package?

Are those alternatives more related to a frame of mind and not to an actual dollar figure?
Mine are.
We need to quit bickering between one or another and abandon the idea we can only get our solutions from the federal government.

Local government, 100 mile feed line? Did I say that right? If we can’t afford to eat then we can’t afford a telephone or a computer or internet access. I’m talking about people who say they can’t afford to eat but they say it on the telephone and the computer and are convinced they can’t by listening to the news on the tv.

Do you think people who do not contribute should have a say in our government? Do you think people who accept government subsidies and do not earn any money should be an equal partner with the people who pay the bills in our government?

If you support the amendments that allow our government to create a dependent class then your answer will be “YES”.

Do you support those amendments?
Do you support the interpretation of the 14th amendment granting corporations equal rights to citizenship?
Do you agree the federal government is entitled to a portion of your earnings without your state’s agreement?
Do you agree the U.S senate is more responsive/transparent/productive being elected by the people and not by the state governments?
I’m just curious.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 29, 2009 01:14 AM

I have no problem with this plan whatsoever. The bill absolutely needed to address job creation and unemployment as well as provide immediate stimulus through tax cuts. This is a balanced plan that addresses some future needs that will quickly be immediate needs. Who here doesn’t think we will need jobs in 2010? Also, Pay as Go was a dream that could have only existed under a healthy economy. That dream is gone now, rightly.

The real issue is what to do about the FIRST stimulus program, the one that gave money to banks they are not using them to make loans. This was a complete 800 billion dollar waste of money. These companies’ CEOs talk openly about hoarding the money to take advantage of the future economic calamity. It is clear they incapable of acting in America’s interest. I don’t know what needs to be done, but it needs to be done now. If that means seizing (after all, we did pay enough to have bought them) those banks, so be it. I know very wealthy people right now, who can’t get financing.

Posted by: Max at January 29, 2009 11:10 AM

david

while i agree in most part with your post, i have to take exception with this.

“why didn’t trucking companies invest their enormous windfalls from 2003 through Summer of 2007 in their fleet or sock away for that future need?”

i’ve been involved in this business for the better part of 25 years, and windfall profits is not something i’de associate with this industry. if a trucking co is making 3 or 4cents on the dollar they’re doing pretty well. the profitability in that business has declined since it was deregulated several decades ago. operating costs along with more and more regulations, and increased competition have made the profit margins small if at all.

the cost of new equiptment is enormous, and the life of that equipt. is short lived because of the miles put on it.

Posted by: dbs at January 29, 2009 11:21 AM

David:

OK. Let’s say they didn’t, and now need to update their fleet. WHY ON EARTH would that constitute an emergency economic stimulus spending need of the federal government? That is a long term capital investment and reinvestment objective.

First of all, I am talking “theory” here. I am not advocating a tax cut for trucking but mearly making the point that tax cuts can and do stimulate when done correctly.

For instance a give away to taxpayers is only mildly stimulative. However, a tax credit to do certain things is stimulative because it stimulates demand. In the illustration I used above, obviously it takes people to build a truck and we as a society would prefer that the trucks be built now as opposed to later when the economy is healthy.

The same case can be made for individuals. If we give them $2000, they will only spend a small portion. Hoever if you give a person $2000 credit if they buy a new car, now you have a larger multiplying effect because they purchased something far greater than the $2000.

Tax cuts/credit can have a huge positive impact on the economy when in a recession.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at January 29, 2009 01:04 PM

Craig, theory loses much in the details and fails horribly and repeatedly in public policy.

Example: Let’s say small business (not conglomerate corporate truckers), are given a tax cut of let’s say 5% on capital investment expenditures. The marginal improvement on their discretionary cash for capital improvements would be what? Let’s say it is a small independent trucker making $175,000 profit in 2008. Increasing that tax cut from 5% to 10% is NOT, I repeat, NOT, going to make the difference between the owner/operator keeping their current rig or buying a new one.

In fact, if their current rig is nearly paid off, they will profit significantly more going forward by incurring maintenance costs on their current rig, than by assuming the increased overhead of new rig payments, even after trade-in (no market), tax cut, and lower interest rate taken into account.

It’s fine to talk theory. But, as always, the devil and unintended consequences are in the details. Small business tax cuts in a recessionary environment will NOT increase jobs or keep small businesses from laying off. Small business owners will hoard the savings like everyone else in anticipation of the potential of their small business going under if the recession deepens or continues.

Investing in the future is a risky act. People become risk averse in a recession. There is no getting by this fundamental economic psychology. Which is why the private sector will not halt today’s recession anymore than it did in the 1930’s.

It takes government to create jobs during a recession, both public sector jobs and private sector jobs by contracting with the private sector for public works projects. WWII created enough government jobs (expanding the military), to actually end the Great Depression. Everything in the way of government job creation before entry into WWII was too little too late to make an economic difference.

Which is what makes mandatory the need for government oversight and regulation designed to prevent large and deep recession’s from ever occurring in the first place, and what makes the Bush year’s so damning for having abrogated those responsibilities.

This recession was entirely preventable and avoidable. Political agendas in government allowed this recession to usher forward by becoming higher priorities than good and responsible governance.

The cost of salvaging a depression or recession is ALWAYS going to be higher than the preventive measures which should have been taken.

In this case, those preventive measures would have been:

1) Vetoing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or, passing additional legislation to reinstate the safeguards of the Glass-Steagle Act which prevented financial institutions from becoming too big to allow to fail.

2) Better and more pervasive regulation and oversight of the real estate contract market and conditions in favor of consumer and banking risk protections.

3) Oversight and regulation of the burgeoning and almost entirely unregulated hedge fund market place.

4) Addressing the known falling real wages of the middle class of the last 30 years, since it was well and entirely known that the soundness of our economy rests upon the consumption behaviors of the middle class. In other words, raising minimum wage standards on an inflation adjusted basis.

These 4 measures, each an obligation and responsibility of sound fiscal economic management, obvious and evident from the lessons of our economic history, were all that were necessary to prevent this devastation to our economy at this time.

In a very real sense, we are, as an ignorant democratic electorate and government, being forced to relearn the lessons of The Great Depression and principle’s of good governance. Entirely avoidable, save for the fact that our educational system remains primarily a disintegrated system designed to serve reelection through electorate ignorance and low wage vocation preparation, rather than the engine of social, political, economic, and creative technological improvement, and responsibility education (instilling the ability to respond appropriately).

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2009 02:07 PM

dbs, see my reply to Craig.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2009 02:08 PM

Max, I believe your assessment of this plan will be proven wrong.

Here’s why. The current need for infrastructure maintenance is 1.6 trillion dollars.

The current need for removing bad assets from financial institution’s balance sheets is from 1.6 to 4 trillion dollars.

The current need for jobs creation is a half-million per month.

The current need by states and municipalities exceeds 5 trillion dollars.

This bill provides 825 billion and with a sawed off shot gun approach, deepening our national debt without effectively addressing any single priority. In fact, that is the major flaw of this bill, it has no priorities, and treats all needs as equally important.

A $500 tax cut is not going to stimulate the economy nor save the financial fortunes of a family whose primary breadwinner was just laid off, and whose unemployment benefits are 60% of what they were taking home from the job.

This legislation will have some small overall positive effect on some American’s lives, but, its effectiveness in halting the loss of American jobs, and prompting consumers to spend instead of save to jump start the economy again, will prove negligible.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2009 02:23 PM

In the past 4 months the Congress has appropriated $700 bil for propping up the financial system in this country and $900 bil for jobs and stimulus. If they has asked for the $10 trilion that was needed up front to get us out of this financial crisis without deflation taking us down the path of another great depression what would have happened.

Many think this is but a recession that will be resolved on it’s own within a year. Others think the current price tag is to high and will not be effective. Many think this is just another pork package because dems like to spend tax money. And there are still others that think all that is needed is more tax cuts. So the result is we have a compromise.

The repubs didn’t get their way so en masse they voted the latest package down. Although nearly a year ago we had round 1 of a stimulus package that was meant to fend off the “recession” we are into now. We have seen it wasn’t enough. What if our representatives would have asked for the $800 bil then?

It is easy now to see why the great depression was so long and so severe, the response to it was a compromise and we are doing the same thing because we cannot agree on the problem let alone the solution today.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 29, 2009 03:13 PM

j2t2, your post goes to the heart of the matter. No one, or no group with the authority to address the problem really knows exactly what the problem is. The world’s so-called best economist all have differing assessments. Ditto for the financial guru’s. You suggest we sould have put up $10T to begin with. I suggest that no entity should be allowed to become too big to fail. I liken the recession to kids playing marbles on the playground. One set of kids ignores the rules of the game or proceeds to play with no rules and a few players just start grabbin marbles from his set of players. Other kids see what’s happening, become scared of losing their marbles and refuse to play. The kids won’t go back to playing marbles until they have gone home, talked to momma about it, figured out they still have their marbles and that if they play according to the rules of the game they can continue to have fun. In a few days it’s business as usual on the playground.
IMO the recession will pretty much take care of itself over time. But, something must be done about the rules of the game and the teachers that failed to patrol the playground. Doesn’t it strike the brain that we have these hiccups or bubbles every 10 years or so? And, they always seem to come right at the end of this administration or that one. Phil Gramm is going around saying he didn’t do anything with the Commodoties Futures Modernization Act of 2000 to cause energy contracts to be whipsawed giving us ENRON and $5/gal gas prices. McCain had him signed up to be his C/Economist. It appears Phil and folks like him are left to live happily everafter. Why? Because there is NO accountability in government. And, that’s just the way the government wants it. Why can we not have an investigation as to why ENRON was allowed to go crazi and why oil contracts were bumped up? Why and who? It’s right in the bill that hedgefund managers can operate with no oversight. Who put that in the bill. When, where, and how? Well, we will never know because there won’t be any questions asked beyond the corporate level with such deep investigative questioning as ‘were you a bad boy” etc. That’s the game, that’s the status quo.
One way we can hold politicians accountable is through a 3rd Party with a different political attitude. A Party whereby the membership provides oversight of members who are elected or appointed to political office. If an elected official strays to far from carrying out the Party’s agenda that are subject to being rejected from the Party by membership vote.
It seems senseless to continue ping ponging between the dem and rep parties.
What if we had two or three parties in contention that provided for members oversight of politicians? Then we could identify and get rid of the Phil Grams.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 29, 2009 04:38 PM

David:

You seem to be at odds with Obama on the issue of tax cuts:

Christina Romer, the new head of the Council of Economic Advisers, coauthored a paper in which the following was written about taxes: “Tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output. Since most of our exogenous tax changes are in fact reductions, the more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects.”

Posted by: Craig Holmes at January 29, 2009 05:13 PM

j2t2 said: “because we cannot agree on the problem let alone the solution today.”

Poppycock, depending on your definition of ‘we’. While it is true, Republicans can’t agree, they are irrelevant, save one vote in the Senate, and are not forcing any compromise in cause or remedy of this bill.

Democrats and a majority of Independents are largely agreed on the causes. They differ more on the remedy, and those differences lie between the Blue Dogs and the rest of the Democrats, and of course, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

But, the difference amongst Democrats as to remedy is primarily on what size stimulus is needed, many arguing that a broad based and targeting package like this one needs to be twice or three times as large to be effective, while others argue for this amount, the target must be very much more focused on jobs creation in the short term.

There is no disagreement on infrastructure spending needed, only on whether that should be included in this stimulus package. Nor disagreement on the need for stimulus of jobs creation. There is some disagreement on jobs focus vs. lost jobs and homes relief, and how much for each.

There is also some disagreement amongst Democrats over the effectiveness of tax cuts aimed at the middle class vs. only those unemployed and very poor and receiving Medicaid. It is not too difficult to see that those favoring broad middle class tax cuts are seeking reelection points, rather than sound economic policy for today’s ills. Since, it is obvious to anyone reviewing the last tax cut stimulus aimed at the middle class that it was largely a failure as a consumption stimulus and jobs creator for the economy, most of the middle class saving the tax cuts or paying down debt with it, which did not leverage and recirculate the dollar back through the economy as was hoped for.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2009 06:36 PM

“Poppycock, depending on your definition of ‘we’. While it is true, Republicans can’t agree, they are irrelevant, save one vote in the Senate, and are not forcing any compromise in cause or remedy of this bill.”

David the bill is not yet on the presidents desk. Many are disputing what will actually work to stimulate the economy. It is obvious from the WSJ editorial that the leading repub/conservative has kowtowed the repubs/conservatives in the USHOR to the point they were unable to agree with the bill. (When you have an elected representative kissing your ring because he criticized you in public you are the king, and all had better listen.)

“I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don’t believe his is a “stimulus plan” at all — I don’t think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This “porkulus” bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party’s power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party’s majority power for decades.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html

Well it seems our elected leaders on the right side of the aisle have caved in, in part due to Limbaugh and his divisiveness.

“The stimulus bill is certain to be altered in the Senate where Republicans will renew their efforts to remove what they have termed political “pork,” or spending they claim is not intended to stimulate the creation or the preservation of jobs.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Business/story?id=6757733&page=1

Posted by: j2t2 at January 29, 2009 07:25 PM

j2t2:

There are many many economists who believe this bill will do very little to stimulate the economy. In addition, we are currently half way through what most economists believe is the hardest part. This previous quarter and the current one are to be the worst part of the recession with the economy starting to turn around later this year or early 2010.

Right now there is enormous stimulus in the economy due to low interest rates, low energy prices, low taxes, deficit spending and increases in the money supply.

Just the energy costs being down add several hundred billion in “stimulus” though lower prices.

We are talking about adding upon a pile of stimulus more spending.

A great deal of spending in this bill is simply a democratic wish list that the democrats think they can get through because of the crisis. I think the Republicans are dead on the call Obama on taking advantage of this national crisis.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at January 29, 2009 10:27 PM

>>Here is a quote from Obama’s economics advisor that directly contradicts your thoughts on tax cuts:
Christina Romer, the new head of the Council of Economic Advisers, coauthored a paper in which the following was written about taxes: “Tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output. Since most of our exogenous tax changes are in fact reductions, the more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects.”
Posted by: Craig Holmes at January 28, 2009 02:26 PM

Craig,

If you are a proponent of ‘no stimulus’, your cite here might mean something. But, if you believe that something must be done to stimulate the economy, this cite means nothing. She wrote this during a time of normal economic flux. It cannot and does not have anything to do with the current situation. Tax cuts right now will exacerbate our financial melt-down, not help us out of it. There is no control over what happens to the money when taxes are cut. Every break businesses have gotten in the last thirty years, i.e., unions folding or capitulating, tax cuts, government relief or subsidy programs, have come back to bite us in the butt. Those monies were spent more for outsourcing, overseas manufacturing, goods importing, etc., than in giving jobs to Americans or modernizing factories, or…blah…blah…blah…

A stimulus is not business as usual, a stimulus is shooting up with a good drug…it needs to actually stimulate, or it is wasted effort. Tax cuts…bah!

Obama is giving tax cuts too much attention now because of the obstructionists on the right, and it may cause this stimulus package to fail. More money fed into infrastructure, i.e., communications, overloaded sewer systems, water works, levees, and bridges could work wonders. That 300+ billion dedicated to tax cuts should be diverted into those things I’ve listed…now, THAT would stimulate.
Posted by: Marysdude at January 29, 2009 10:28 PM

Craig,

Your entry from the left column and my response to it…if I find it in the right column, I’ll cut and paste it there too.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 29, 2009 10:42 PM

Graig,
I do believe that both the Democratic and Republican Leadership and Members in the House of Representatives are Losers. For what part of Recovery and Reinvestment does the bill address?

Yes, the Left can claim that spending money on social programs will create jobs and the Right can claim that tax cuts will put money in your hands; however, neither side can claim that the House version of Americas’ Recovery and Reinvestment Plan does anything to address the abuse and neglect created by the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s over the last 30 years.

For where is the big investment in Infrastructure and Transportation need by the American Consumer, Commerce, and Industry of the 21st Century?

Where is the huge investment needed to build an Electrical System that does not get knocked out ever time it rains or snows?

Where is the investment to encourage the Small Business and Home Owner to become Energy Independent?

And the list goes on and on. Yes, it seems that Americas’ Democratic and Republican Pundits would rather play politics as usual instead of stepping up to the plate and listening to “We the People” who want to build a Sustainable Green Civilized World. For that is Change and what President Obama and the Children of the 21st Century need to win the War of Ideology and Terror.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 29, 2009 10:57 PM

phx8 wrote: d.a.n., You have consistently commented on the threat debt and deficits represent, and past events have proven you right. Same goes for David.

Thanks. The new threat is inflation that can lead to a worse economic terror:

phx8 wrote: However, current events make the balanced budget approach and debt/deficit reduction inappropriate.

Not if the total federal debt is near (if not already) untenable.

Is it untenable?
I think so. Thus, growing it any larger is a slippery slope to hyperinflation.

If it is beyond untenable, then it won’t matter much in the coming years.
Doubling, tripling, or N-tupling the debt and money supply will create inflation
Year-to-year inflation has already been rising for years:

• 2002=1.59%
• 2003=2.27%


• 2004=2.68%


• 2005=3.39%


• 2006=3.24%


• 2007=2.85%


• 2008=3.85%


• 2009=??.??

The U.S. Dollar has been falling against many major international currencies: One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm

Now consider the $11 Trillion of foreign owned U.S. Dollars and the deteriorated manufacturing base in the U.S.

I’m not basing my opinion about hyperinflation merely on a hunch or other economists opinions (although several well known economists agree that hyperinflation is a threat).
I’m basing the threat of hyperinflaton on:

• some fairly simple math (see below);


• the largest federal debt-per-capita ever in U.S. history;


• the largest total $10.7 Trillion national debt per-capita ever in U.S. history ($35,082);


• the largest total federal debt ($23.5T federal debt = $10.7 national debt + $12.8T Social Security debt) as a percentage of GDP ever in U.S. history, the larges total nation-wide debt both per-capita and as a percentage of GDP ever in U.S. history (and if amortized, it would take centuries to pay down by merely 33% of the total);


• and numerous deteriorating economic conditions that have been growing dangerously in number and severity for several years;

• Year 1945: Federal National Debt in 2008 Dollars = $3.045 Trillon;


• Year 1945: Population = 140 Million;


• Year 1945: National Debt-per-capita in 2008 Dollars = $21,719 (record high as of year 1945);


• Year 1945: GDP = $2.633 Trillion in 2008 Dollars;


• Year 1945: National Debt-to-GDP = 116% (record high as of year 1945);


• Year 1945: Total nation-wide debt-to-GDP = ???% ; even if 200%, it is far less than the 483% of year 2008;


• Year 1956: Total nation-wide debt-to-GDP = 100% ;




• Year 2008: Federal National Debt in 2008 Dollars = $10.7 Trillion (about);


• Year 2008: GDP in 2008 Dollars = $13.86 Trillion (about);


• Year 2008: Population = 305 Million (about);


• Year 2008: $10.7 Trillion Federal Debt-per-capita in 2008 Dollars = $35,082 (61.9% higher than in year 1945);


• Year 2008: $10.7 Trillion National Debt-to-GDP = 77%


• Year 2008: Total Federal National Debt in 2008 Dollars (including $12.8 Trillion (www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html#2) borrowed from Social Security) = $23.5 Trillion (about);


• Year 2008: $23.5 Trillion Total Federal Debt-per-capita in 2008 Dollars = $77,049 (new record high of 355% higher more than $21,719 in year 1945);


• Year 2008: $23.5 Trillion Total Federal Debt Debt-to-GDP = 170% (new record high);


• Year 2008: Total $67 Trillion (One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#NationWideDebt) nation-wide debt-to-GDP = 483% (new record high; many times the 100% of nation-wide debt-to-GDP in year 1956);

The fact is, no one hear can prove that this $825+ Billion stimulus plan will help much, since the level of debt is so huge.
If all $825 Billion created jobs, it would only be enough to create 17.19 Million jobs for one year.
Unemployment is currently already 11.1-to-24.6 Million (say 17.85 Million on average).
More people are unemployed today than in the Great Depression (12.83 Million).
After one year, then what?
But that’s not all.
The infusion of that $825 Billion and the $3.2-to-$8.5 Trillion (www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-113008-fi-pricetag-g,0,5292528.graphic) used to bail out banks and Wall Street will cause inflation.
But that’s not all.
The federal government under-reports inflation, debt, and unemployment, and over-reports GDP (see: www.ShadowStats.com).

Spending on jobs that produce real benefits (both short-term and long-term), savings, and efficiency are OK.
But this stimulus BILL is full of pork-barrel (as usual).
As suspected, nothing much has changed in D.C.
Congress did not see this economic crisis approaching and Congress now does not realize how they are making it worse with wasteful spending.
Congress needs to be carefully threading the needle.
Instead, we’re gettin’ more pork-barrel and waste.
The 647-page stimulus BILL is a farce that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up spending urges of the last 40 years:

• There’s $1 Billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years.


• There’s $2 Billion for child-care subsidies.


• There’s $50 Million for National Endowment for the Arts.


• There’s $400 Million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects.


• There’s $650 Million to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.


• There’s a portion of $40 billion for broadband internet.


• There’s $600 Million for the federal government to buy new cars.


• There’s a portion of $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities and the Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; is that a job creator?


• There’s some $252 billion for income-transfer payments to some individuals for doing nothing at all.


• There’s $81 Billion for Medicaid (which millions of illegal aliens receive).


• There’s $36 Billion for expanded unemployment benefits (about $1463-to-$3243 for 11.1-to-24.6 Million unemployed).


• There’s $20 Billion for food stamps.


• There’s $83 Billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay any income tax (but some who do pay 7.65%/15.2% Social Security & Medicare taxes), which will help poorer Americans weather the recession, but won’t create jobs.


• There’s $54 Billion for federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits (e.g. the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more).


• There’s $66 Billion for education (with $6 Billion for university building projects).

I’m sure there will be more pork-barrel and waste before it’s all over.

Even if it created 2-to-4 Million jobs, there are 11.1-to-24.6 Million unemployed (and growing by over half-a-million per month).

Why doesn’t the federal government stop the H-1B Visa abuse?
That might create many hundreds of thousands of jobs that are being farmed out to cheap imported labor.

• www.youtube.com/programmersguild (fake job ads asking for the moon are used to justify avoiding hiring American citizens)


• www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx—jNQYNgA (law firms teach corporations how to avoid hiring qualified American citizens)


• www.programmersguild.org/docs/bill_gates_lies_about_h1b_wages.html (Bill Gates lies about wages)


• archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/31/92649.shtml (wage stagnation + cheap labor = BIG profits)

Why not:

• (01) Stop these abuses now.


• (02) Stop the dishonest, usurious, predatory, lending practices. Stop the Ponzi-scheme and the steep leveraging of debt-to-reserves (i.e. 9-to-1 fractional lending) by the Federal Reserve and the federal government; banks are loan-sharking, with ridiculously high interest rates (commonly up to 10%-to-20% and as high as 64%) and other predetory lending practices. Banks are preying on the young, poor, minorities, and financially naive.


• (03) Stop growing and eliminate all of the massive bloat and waste in the federal government now. We don’t need all of this bloat: www.akdart.com/gov1.html


• (04) Stop the war in Iraq;


• (05) Stop the war in Afghanistan too perhaps? Insist that other nations help or suffer the consequences of refusing to help in Afghanistan. The terrorists are now mostly in northern Pakistan.


• (06) Stop the U.S. presence in 134 nations around the world. That costs a LOT! Is all of that necessary? No. Reduce that presence significantly (if not totally), without becoming excessively protectionist.


• (07) Stop throwing money, subsidies, tax breaks, and welfare at failing banks, financial corporations, the wealthy, and Wall Street; stop rewarding failure;


• (08) Stop rampant corruption by increasing and enforcing more transparency and accountability;


• (09) Stop Constitutional violations; reduce lawlessness; enforce existing laws (e.g. Article V); stop illegal immigration and $70-to-$327 Billion in annual net losses due to illegal immigration;


• (10) Stop plundering Social Security surpluses; $12.8 Trillion has been borrowed and spent, leaving Social Security pay-as-you-go, with 77 Million baby-boomers approaching;


• (11) Stop regressive taxation: One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Taxes


• (12) Stop killing 195,000 per year due to preventable medical mistakes. Between 1999 and 2004, over 1.5 million people were killed by preventable medical mistakes. That is more than all the American soldiers killed in the American Revolution (4,435), the War of 1812 (2,260), the Indian Wars (1,000), the Mexican War (1,733), the Civil War (462,000), the Spanish American War (385), WWI (53,402), WWII (291,557), Vietnam War (58,209), Korean War (36,574), the Iraq Gulf War (529), and the current Iraq war Mar-2003-present (3,963), combined! Create a non-profit national health insurance system (get rid of the millions of unnecessary middlemen); build non-profit hospitals and clinics.


• (13) Stop Congress from rewarding itself with a raise almost every year (Congress recently gave itself the 10th raise in 12 years; the raises are actually automitic and a BILL is required to stop the automatic raise; must be nice, eh?). Is that necessary? No. What arrogance! ? ! Especially when U.S. Troops go without armor, adequate medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, or 4+ tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.


• (14) Stop pandering politicians who are virtually are FOR-SALE. Allow only equal public financing of elections. Otherwise, politicians will continue to sell-out most Americans.!


• (15) Stop pork-barrel; pass a ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL amendment;


• (16) Stop career politicians and judges; pass TERM LIMITS for all offices;


• (17) Stop the unfair incumbent advantages: One-Simple-Idea.com/FAQ.htm#UnfairAdvantages


• (18) Stop the deterioration of public education; eliminate the over-paid and incompetent adminstrative staff; More education solutions: One-Simple-Idea.com/Education.htm


• (19) Stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and/or corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates. Stop rewarding corruption, or suffer the painful consequences: One-Simple-Idea.com/NeverWorse.htm


• (20) Create jobs to research, develop, and implement better and renewable energy resources and rebuild and improve the nation’s infrastructure (which will create long-term savings and benefits);


• More Solutions: One-Simple-Idea.com/Solutions1.htm

Personally, I don’t think the stimulus BILL is well thought out … not even close.

Henry Schlatman wrote: I see nothing that represents the Change most average Americans know can be done by “We the People” over the next 2-4 years to make America Energy Independent.

Ditto. That should be one of the biggest goals … before gasoline returns to $4+ per gallon.

Henry Schlatman wrote: However, look on the bright side. The more the Left and Right spend their Grandchildren’s Money on pork-barrel and waste in the name of prosperity the more ground VOIDNOW.org and other Independent Grassroot groups gain.

That’s right. Eventually, pain and misery trumps fiscal and moral bankruptcy. Too bad we can’t learn sooner than later when it is more painful.

Weary Willie wrote: Do you think there are alternatives to this Economic Rescue Package?

Yes. I don’t think more deficit spending is wise if the debt is near (if not already) untenable.

I think we also need to eliminate wasteful spending and shift the revenues to help make the U.S. energy independent.
There are many other things Congress could do that don’t include spending, which would help many Americans.
But, unfortunately, those things (above) would probably make too much sense.
We don’t lack for good ideas and solutions.
The problem is that Congress is where good ideas and solutions go to die.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 29, 2009 11:05 PM

By the way, over 37 (or more) states have submitted over 104 (or more) Balanced-Budget/General-Call-for-an-Article-V-Convention amendments (more than the 2/3 required) since the 1980s, but Congress continues to violation Article V. Just think … perhaps if Congress had not violated Article V by refusing to call an Article V convention, and a balanced budget amendment was ratified, we may not be in this mess today.

With the irresponsible level of spending now, a balanced budget amendment may be what we need. Especially with the size of government growing and growing and growing ever larger (instead of more efficient).

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 29, 2009 11:24 PM

“There are many many economists who believe this bill will do very little to stimulate the economy. In addition, we are currently half way through what most economists believe is the hardest part. This previous quarter and the current one are to be the worst part of the recession with the economy starting to turn around later this year or early 2010.”

Craig I have heard of some of these guys but isn’t Ben Stein one of them? His track record is dismal and he lacks credibility now that he has been wrong on other issues. Do “most” economists think this? Or do some that think tax cuts are the answer to everything think this? Can these people legitimately say this when it appears we have not yet hit bottom? They base this on previous recessions but do they figure in the meltdown of the financial sector when they say this? Seems to me they are to busy exaggerating the cost per job of this bill to actually have analyzed the problem.

“Right now there is enormous stimulus in the economy due to low interest rates, low energy prices, low taxes, deficit spending and increases in the money supply.”

Enormous stimulus? Banks are cutting back on credit lines and loaning to business that have been customers for years without problems, Craig,even when they are getting 0% rates. Is this stimulus effective when the entire global financial system is on the verge of failing? When is the last time you got a credit card offer in the mail?
Oil prices are lower yet they are creeping back up. The difference in gasoline prices between this little town I am in and Denver is back to 0 when just a few months ago it was $.20 to .30 a gallon difference because the prices in Denver have risen that much. Natural gas prices are still high to the consumer this winter.
Again if you cannot or do not want to access the money supply as a consumer what kind of stimulus is that?

“A great deal of spending in this bill is simply a democratic wish list that the democrats think they can get through because of the crisis. I think the Republicans are dead on the call Obama on taking advantage of this national crisis.”

Is it? Or is this just suspicion/ propaganda by Limbaugh that has soured repubs/conservatives to divide us as a Country? If the plan is to get people spending money then who better to get it to than those that don’t have it for necessities? Increasing food stamps and unemployment will have an immediate effect on the economy and IMHO they haven’t added enough for these people. Getting insurance to people who need medical care but cannot afford it will increase spending immediately as they will then go to the Doctors/Clinic/Hospital/Pharmacist.

I believe the problem we have is that the private sector(specifically the large corporations) will not cooperate, due to unenlightened self interest as David would say, and will wait for a complete recovery before they will hire if they do then. We cannot count on corporate America like we did in the past.
We are in a global financial meltdown yet to hear those on the right it is a recession, but these same people denied we were in a recession for almost a year, what kind of credibility do they have on this issue? More realistic economist have said we are in a mini depression and they have been correct more often than not. Take a minute Craig and read Jim M.’s link, on another thread here, to the Davos meeting and what we hear is that we have a serious problem. What we don’t hear is these very same people propagated this mess and yet they take no responsibility for doing so.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2009 12:08 AM

Craig

“But even if it does, analysts say the recovery — when it comes — will likely be weak and slow.

The latest reading on the economy due out Friday is expected to show that the gross domestic product shrank at a rate of nearly 6 percent in the fourth quarter, which would be the worst result since 1982. That slide has spilled over into the new year, and there are signs it may be picking up speed.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28917922

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2009 12:31 AM

j2t2:

My point is that Obama is playing politics with the crisis. He and the Democratic party have filled this bill with all sorts of spending off of the Democratic wish list hoping to get it passed because of the crisis. It’s a bunch of BS. The only change I see so far is Democratic BS instead of Republican BS.

Strip the bill of everything not related to the crisis. Economist have disagreements over tax cuts verses spending. They also disagree over the size of the the stimulus needed. With today’s GDP report better than expected, there will be more disagreement.

We can debate tax cuts verses spending which is fun, but how about STD education? How about medical records that will take five years? Those issues are good ones to discus in normal times, but not now!!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at January 30, 2009 08:53 AM

“Strip the bill of everything not related to the crisis. Economist have disagreements over tax cuts verses spending. They also disagree over the size of the the stimulus needed. With today’s GDP report better than expected, there will be more disagreement.”

Which is my point Craig, we cannot agree on the problem let alone a solution. So do we go with the newly self appointed repub/conservative leader Rush Limbaugh and his divisiveness or with the economic team and newly elected President Barack Obama? If we continue to half step and compromise on this issue it will IMHO be a replay of the early ‘30’s.

“We can debate tax cuts verses spending which is fun, but how about STD education? How about medical records that will take five years? Those issues are good ones to discus in normal times, but not now!!!”

Does STD education put money into the economy immediately and put people to work or does it save tax dollars? If we start the medical records updating now will it lead to jobs in the health care industry? Or will it lead to national health care? Perhaps but is that in and of itself a valid reason to quash it now? Won’t it lead to money into the economy very soon? Is medical records the dividing line that once crossed puts us into a single payer health insurance system? What I am saying Craig is this “he is playing politics” wedge doesn’t help to solve the problem. Obama has done more in the past 2 months to bring both sides together than anyone else. It is time for elected repub/conservative leadership to step up and lead its followers. I say throw Limbaugh off the bus and get real leadership or stand back and let Obama’s team deal with this crisis.

What ideas have the repubs/conservatives developed and put on the table to stimulate the economy and provide jobs? All they seem to want to do is cut taxes and hope these companies will hire which will leave us to the wolves that put us into this position to begin with. Banks are consolidating and cutting jobs. Our(we the American people and big business) fate’s are not intertwined anymore and to trust them with the economy hasn’t proven to be successful in a while IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2009 10:06 AM

Craig,

I’m pretty sure the ‘tax cut’ vs. ‘stimulate’ argument is over. You can keep it going if you want, but it will be mostly in your and Lamebrain’s heads. You and he can argue about what percentage of the stimulus package should be in tax cuts, while the world continues to go around you.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 30, 2009 10:26 AM

Why do Republicans say this bill is full or pork?

First of all, all the items being complained about are peanuts next to the tax cuts and other major initiatives. Complaining about these items is like focusing your attention on where a dime of your ten dollar investment is being spent. Still though…

I realize it did include money for condoms, but… is anything more expensive than the state paying for the birth and care of an unwanted baby? Why is this playing politics? I thought conservatives wanted to help prevent abortions? When you forgo childcare, you put people in a position of permanent poverty where they will never find work, because they are taking care of their children. Do you seriously believe it is more important to create a job fixing a road than it is for this country to care for its children? The same applies to all kinds of assistance. You can’t find a new job without assistance of some kind whether it be training or a couple months of food stamps.

Why are we shelving universal healthcare? Universal healthcare would encourage companies to keep workers, make them more competitive and profitable, and encourage consumer spending far more than any tax cut. We could start this program with far less money than we are devoting to tax cuts. In fact, just do what New Hampshire did and immediately require insurance for all. It’s that easy… It’s a million times more expensive to treat someone who waits for their condition to become an emergency than to treat them preventively, and that applies to illegal immigrants as well. This program is working, very popular, and costs very little. Which would better ensure you spend in the near future - knowing you will have healthcare or $500?

Whatever the global warming solution is, implementing it will create a ton of jobs. This is the future, let’s get on it. Same with broadband implementation. This will create virtual jobs. Infrastructure is not just roads. Certainly people blogging on this board understand this… This applies doubly to modernizing the technical infrastructure of our government, so it can work more efficiently. The email and computer systems were completely out of date at the White House!

Jobs are the most important thing, but it’s not the only thing that’s needed to fix our economy.

Posted by: Max at January 30, 2009 11:42 AM

If you have suggestions (yes, even you tax-cut Republicans), please go to this site and submit them. It is a cite dedicated to our middle class and the salvaging of same:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/strongmiddleclass/

It can’t hurt and it might help…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 30, 2009 11:56 AM

Max said: “First of all, all the items being complained about are peanuts next to the tax cuts and other major initiatives. Complaining about these items is like focusing your attention on where a dime of your ten dollar investment is being spent.”

That is a very similar argument Republicans used when Democrats complained about all the pork in the Republican majority bills. Turnabout is NOT fair play.

This bill is laden with pork project spending and Democrats in the White House and Congress ran for office on fighting such waste, fraud, and abuse.

This is precisely why the Democrats are no better than the Republicans when it comes to governance. They say one thing to get elected and do quite the opposite when in office.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2009 12:04 PM

j2t2 said: “Which is my point Craig, we cannot agree on the problem let alone a solution.”

But, this does not mean the problem and solution are not KNOWN. Look this is simple. Jobs are being lost Primarily due to cutbacks in consumption. Consumers are cutting back primarily because they are concerned about keeping their jobs or have recently lost theirs.

Ergo, the solution is very clear. Restore confidence in job security and job prospects by funding projects that will cause hiring, and establish job retraining programs for those laid off. These measures will restore confidence in job security and create jobs to replace lost jobs.

Everything else should be secondary to this one herculean and massive effort. Where secondary priorities will enhance the primary objective, such additional spending measures can arguably be justified.

This is not rocket science. The Great Depression ended because the U.S. Government went on a massive hiring binge via the military to fight WWII, and payed the way for returning GI’s to educate and retrain to civilian jobs in demand. It worked then, and it will work now. The only thing standing in the way are politicians and their reelection campaign donors and lobbyists.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2009 12:13 PM

Craig said: “You seem to be at odds with Obama on the issue of tax cuts:”

Yes, inasmuch as tax cuts are NOT aimed at the poor, the newly unemployed, and the newly bankrupt. There is where the tax cuts will give the greatest amount of recirculatory bang and leverage for the buck of tax cut.

That said, Obama was elected on the pledge to provide a tax cut to the 95% of the middle class and below, and therefore, he is obliged to live up to that election promise. It would be self-torpedoing for the rest of his presidency if he pulled a George HW Bush and reneged on that promise.

My advice to Obama, keep the promise, but, keep the tax cut small, until the economy is on the verge of growing again, and then, provide an additional middle class tax cut to insure a solid consumer led kick start to the economy.

But there can be no consumer led kick start to the economy until confidence in the job market is being restored. Jobs are the number 1 priority for this economy and liquidity in the credit markets at the regional and local levels runs a very close second place.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2009 12:25 PM

Craig, the analysts may be proved wrong on the pace of the recovery. The reason is the enormous role consumer and employer confidence play in contracting the economy. Confidence can, and often does, turn around in a very short time if conditions are right.

A massive government effort to fight job losses and instill confidence in those losing jobs that they will be retrained and found new ones while receiving assistance during training, would be a measure that would turn consumer confidence around in a very short period of time, as few as several months after implementation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2009 12:28 PM

The Investment in Infrastructure in the 1930s paid dividends back later, The Investment in Infrastructure today for shovel and white collar would pay back dividends much quicker as we are a consuming nation today and most of the tax credits or rebates would not be necessary for most, Millions of workers paying back into the system and saving and buying cars and trucks making house payments and even Going to Wall-mart* , The business tax could have been cut way back for heavy duty and medium duty equipment and materials which are mostly made in the USA The Investment in our own backyard .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at January 30, 2009 12:53 PM

Who among us, bloggers, economists, advisors, etc, know for a fact what will fix the economy? What will have the best effect?

From everything I have read we are in uncharted territory economically. Funny thing is, supporting one or another theory, we may each be wrong. It may take a combination of those theories to work, and we don’t really know which ones or what combination.

I suggest we not write off what is being tried out of hand, no matter which side (or sides) you are on.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 30, 2009 01:11 PM

David:

Yes, inasmuch as tax cuts are NOT aimed at the poor, the newly unemployed, and the newly bankrupt. There is where the tax cuts will give the greatest amount of recirculatory bang and leverage for the buck of tax cut.

I agree with you if you are thinking of simple cash payments/cuts in taxes. However is they are leveraged in the sense of requiring something to happen, they I would disagree. Obviously if you simply send a check to the wealthy they will invest the money. If you give them a tax incentive to purchase a fuel efficient car or update their heating/cooling systems then I would disagree because of the multiplying effect.

A more precise term of what I would look to might be “tax incentive” rather than “tax cut” as one gives the impression of a rebate or tax rate reduction while the other gives the impression of tax wrie off for certain economic ventures taken.

Craig, the analysts may be proved wrong on the pace of the recovery. The reason is the enormous role consumer and employer confidence play in contracting the economy. Confidence can, and often does, turn around in a very short time if conditions are right.

I had the same thought in my response to you in the left column. My thought was that if Glass-steagall was reinstated it might increase investor confidence and thus the economy. Robert Shiller is an economist that would agree with your point. He has an very good article that he uses the phrase “animal spirits”. His point is that Obama’s stimulus package is to small as it will not return the economic trust between cosumers and lenders in order for the economy to rebound.

If you are not familiar with Dr.Shiller’s writings I would encourage you to read some of his ideas. He has some out of the box thinking, I think you would like. He believes times like these can be used to change the system so that we do not repeat history. He has some interesting ideas on what Mortgages of the future should look like. He has some notion of an extra fee being required on mortages so that should the value of the property go down, your mortgage goes down with it. His point is that with forclosures so high right now, it is the honorable who are upside down and still paying their mortgage that are being mistreated relative to those who “walk away”. He is pretty brainy.

Anyway he agrees with you on many points so he may not be a good read for you. It might be best to read those who disagree!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at January 30, 2009 01:39 PM

Craig I know Bernanke Took Quite a Big Hit on the Blame, But if i Recall almost a year ago he was asking for banks to reduce the principal owed on loans, which the administration was not willing to do.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at January 30, 2009 01:51 PM

Rodney:

I wouldn’t go there. The administration wanted to go there.

http://www.bucksright.com/bush-proposed-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-supervision-in-2003-1141

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

The unvarnished truth as I know it is that Presidents Clinton and Bush, and the Republican and Democratic Congress really messed this thing up.

For the flip side it was Clinton who signed the repeal of Glass Steagell that was pushed by a Republican Congress.

So I shoot four directions. Bullet one: Bill Clinton, Bullet two, George Bush, Bullet Three, Republican Congress Bullet four, Democratic Congress.

Bullet five is in the chamber, and it is aimed at the current Congress with this stupid bill they are forcing down our throats, that Obama would sign if passed. It looks like a very rough draft. We need to slow down and do it right lest we have even more unintended consequences.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at January 30, 2009 02:13 PM

Thanks Craig one Bullet left.Unless It’s a semi auto colt 45 ;^) That was a joke WM.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at January 30, 2009 03:15 PM

womanmarine said: “From everything I have read we are in uncharted territory economically.”

I have never been the Indian Ocean. To dump me in the Indian Ocean would mean dumping me into uncharted waters. However, swimming would work just as well in the Indian Ocean as my swimming pool in terms of keeping me afloat.

These references to uncharted waters refer to the confluence of events which challenge us today. This does not mean the math and cause and effect relationships of economics no longer have relevance or applicability.

Two economic challenges face us at this moment in the short term: falling consumer demand and less than desirable levels of liquidity in the credit markets. Neither of these are unknown scenarios in our economic history.

In other words, those who refer to this situation as uncharted waters are either 1) referring to the unique circumstances that brought us to this place, or 2) are deceptively using the term to justify their own brand of solution, or fighting known economic remedies which they find unpalatable.

Republicans use this term to now justify permanent tax cuts arguing they didn’t work to prevent this debacle, but, because these are uncharted waters, they will work now. Complete and total B.S. idiocy. Democrats wanting all the pork spending they have been denied for years now argue these ‘uncharted’ waters demand a scattergun approach attacking all weaknesses at once including their own pet pork project.

The economic answers to our current circumstances is straight forward, government spending to produce and create public and private sector jobs on a massive scale to offset the loss of consumer confidence in keeping their own jobs or finding a new one if they are laid off. And the other is to FORCE the big financial institutions to sell their bad assets to the Government at market cost. That cleans their balance sheets, allows them to lend again, and makes them lean and competitive again after suffering a couple of years of massive write off losses. In turn, the tax payer is all but guaranteed that the future price of those assets will be higher than the current market price, and thus, will not suffer a hit when the economy grows again and the government can unload those assets at the then higher market prices for them.

The only people standing between these simple economic solutions and their implementation are the wealthy special interests STILL controlling the politicians and working diligently to avoid the subsequent losses they would incur if the government DID take a straight arrow approach to ending this recession and solving the credit problem.

Economics hasn’t changed. Only the wealthy special interests who stand to lose or gain as a result of policy making have changed over the years and in this recession.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2009 03:39 PM

David,

“All you know is you throw everything at it and whether it’s more effective if you’re fighting a fire to be concentrating the water flow on this part or that part. You’re going to use every weapon you have in fighting it. And people, they do not know exactly what the effects are. Economists like to talk about it, but in the end they’ve been very, very wrong and most of them in recent years on this. We don’t know the perfect answers on it. What we do know is to stand by and do nothing is a terrible mistake or to follow Hoover-like policies would be a mistake and we don’t know how effective in the short run we don’t know how effective this will be and how quickly things will right themselves. We do know over time the American machine works wonderfully and it will work wonderfully again.” Warren Buffet.

We don’t really know what we are doing as far as fixing the economy goes. We’re guessing and hypothesizing, some of the hypotheses having been implemented before, but don’t suggest this is science. It’s not.

Historically, FDR was effective at combating the depression because he experimented. He did just what Warren said above, he used every weapon in his arsenal and then some. It still didn’t solve the Depression, that took WWII. Bush already put all our eggs into one basket giving money directly to the financial companies, and look how well that turned out. If not for a last minute clause added by an unknown advocate we would have been unable to bail out AIG using that money. I’m not saying you are wrong, by the way, about short term job creation being the most important thing, but they are not the only thing. Some suggest this bill should be tax cuts only, and then what would happen after the short term stimulus wears off and there are no jobs, no extension of unemployment, no food stamps? If you ask me, we should be spending MORE now, on EVERYTHING. I think I’m actually in agreement with Craig and some other conservatives on this.

Posted by: Max at January 30, 2009 04:05 PM

Shouldn’t we identify the problem? Alot of people are saying they don’t know what caused this. One will say one thing and another will disagree. We all end up talking about the fix and not what caused the problem.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 30, 2009 05:16 PM

For those interested in seeing what got us in this jam you need to check out the History Channel show “Crash: The Next Great Depression” that gives an account of this latest economic breakdown. I do believe that regardkess of your political stance that you will be shocked to learn what happened when the Media closed their eyes. Because can anyone explain how one goe from 1% to over a 120% in the blink of an eye?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 30, 2009 06:18 PM

Have you seen it? Can you elaborate on the problem that caused this?
What happened when the media closed their eyes?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 30, 2009 06:26 PM

Weary Willie,
Why I caught part of it you will have to excuse me for chaging channels in order to save my blood pressure. However, it seems that as early as 2001 the people in charge decided to increase the debt paper allowed in the market by well over 100% in order to keep the money flowing and continued the pratice for the next 7 years or so.

And why I am no economist I do believe that increasing debt while not insuring that you have the assets to cover the debt is a bad idea. So why it seems that the folks over at CNBC and FOX as well as the Wall Street Journal and other papers need to go back to school at best. Limited to a personal opinion, I do believe that a case could be made that almost every financial advisor during 2001 to current could be charged for misleading their clients. For wasn’t they saying to buy stock up to the day that President Bush walked up days before the election and said that the Market was broken?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 30, 2009 06:52 PM

Are you trying to identify the problem or are you trying to cast blame?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 30, 2009 07:15 PM

Is 825 billion dollars enough to save us? What about the cost of climate change?

Posted by: Tom at January 30, 2009 08:17 PM

Weary Willie,
Why the problem runs deeper than this Layman is allowed to say, part of the reason that I can speak out like I do is due to the fact that I have to be able to prove my personal point of view. So, let me ask you a question that will hit home.

On 9/10/01 the Market was to release the reports on the state of the economy which would have shown a Margin Call of over 2500 points along with other things that at best were questionable. However, as we all know 9/11 happened and the reports were lost in the news cycle or put off due to the DOW dropping to 7000 points. Yet, even than the price of a home did not drop, but continued to grow over the next 6 years. So how is it that at the end of President Bush term in Office the bottom fail out of the Housing Market?

Well, look back to the 2004 Election when President Bush and Mr. Snow paid for the War in Iraq without spending a dime and what they said. For why I cannot prove what happened and as a matter of National Security will not look up the parer trail. Do you not think it is funny that the price of homes even in stabilized communities have fallen in price during 2008?

No, this is not to cast blame, but a serious look at what happens when the Left and Right are so busy fighting each other that they forget to check the enemy within. For why Arrogance, Fear, and Ignorance are powerful opponents regardless of your political stance on an issue and ones that have been used throughout the Ages. I do believe that by exposing the problems that got us into this economic meltdown “We the People” can continue to keep Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders in line.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 30, 2009 08:20 PM

If you are sincere, why do you continue to bring up a “left” and a “right”?
Is this a stratagy? Were you hoping your posts, written often, would develope a cadence we should march to? Left, Left, LeftrightLeft! That actually sounds like our Democratics history throughout our nation’s history.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 30, 2009 08:40 PM

I have recently heard “someone” throw out the number $4 trillion will be needed in the next year to produce real stimulative effect.

In 1946 we had debt of 1.28 times GNP. I suspect we could carry more than that succesfully.
I didn’t find any current numbers, but think we are less than 1.0 somewhere in the 80% range.

I am bothered when David Walker in an article in the Houston Chronicle is quoted as saying we need to stimulate the economy, but be wary of growing debt that we cannot sustain without giving any guidance or perspective to the problems. This feeds the wrong headed idea that reducing the deficit is the correct order of business this year. It isn’t. This is the same kind Stupidity that prolonged the Depression.

While I appreciate Mr. Walker’s perspective, I wish articles relating to his speaking tour would be a little more down to earth, with honest pespective, rather than relating impending doom or the fall of Rome. If we fail to reinvigorate the economy and set a course for economic depression, we have more and bigger problems than just soaring debt.

Another curiosity to me is why there is no “Buy US Bonds” campagn going on like we had in WWII? Isn’t this emergency just as urgent? Where’s “The Boss” singing about buying US Bonds?

Posted by: gergle at January 30, 2009 08:46 PM

Weary Willie,
Probably because I hold an Independent Point of View that is unique to say the least. So why do I say Left and Right? To keep seperate the two points of view held by the Learned and Unlearned of Society. For they may have the bully pulpit of society; however, the Founding Fathers of America ibsisted on America staying Red, White, and Blue for a reason that can be found in History.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 30, 2009 08:54 PM

I waited 14 minutes for that?
gergle entertained me, thanks!
You’re drawing a distinction between a “Learned and Unlearned of Society.”?
Good luck with that, for why I say they may have and can be found in history.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 30, 2009 09:05 PM

gergle
China and other countries are buying our bonds.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 30, 2009 09:17 PM

We don’t have to buy bonds anymore. Our government has convinced the “Unlearned” to buy tv’s from japan and cars from asia, and to expect a check every so often from the government.

gergle
When these countries dump our dollar in favor of the Euro, when the world starts buying oil with the Euro, the dollar is done.

Good night, SweetHeart! It’s time to go! bumpbumpidybump

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 30, 2009 09:28 PM

Sorry, if the cause and solution are so well known and so simple that bloggers here know the answer, why are all the economists and experts not on the same page? There are almost as many theories and solutions as there are economists, seems to me.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 30, 2009 10:20 PM

How many young kids would stand in line to get a chance at… a chance at… going to the moon?

Alot of old kids would stand in line, but not in front of their youngin’s.

Governments around the world have been reaching into space. Shouldn’t we devote this economic stimulus package towards an outer space adventure? A colony on the moon? or sumthin’ like that?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 30, 2009 10:29 PM

WE CAN CONTROL OUR WEATHER!

Let’s build another moon on the other side of the world! No more tides! We’ll call it MARS!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 30, 2009 10:56 PM

That’s if the wheather will wheather the storm.
Wheather it is or Wheather it isn’t, is wheather it is or it isn’t. That’s wheather it’s better than nothing.

Take that! Henry Schlatman, Wheather you like it or not as if it’s for that’s that.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 30, 2009 11:58 PM

I’m sorry about that Henry.
I was making fun of the way way you form your sentences.
I apologise. That’s a word familiar to me. It’s what I do.
But, I do think I make a point when I say this is a manufactured “bubble” and it is a weapon used to “cull” the value off the top of our country.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 31, 2009 12:10 AM

Where is the gold? The gold from the World Trade Center? Where is it?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 31, 2009 12:22 AM

Wouldn’t the loss of gold reserves of that value make the news?

Was there really that much gold in the WTC or not?
Where did the gold go?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 31, 2009 12:59 AM

Womanmarine,
Why the problem and “A Solution” may be known by a 10-year-old Child, trying to work out the details and the other things (intended or not) is why America has Elected Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders.

For example; it is easy to say that a pill box on hill 3 is firing at you (problem) and that taking it out is easy (solution). As we all know getting it done in accordance to policy and procedure can be a living nightmare.

Sort of like Weary Willie making fun of me not answering the question completely. For like a 10-year-old I may believe that I am right; however, given the Argument of Mom and Dad can you prove it.

Thus, why it may be simple to say if America does X,Y, and Z we can become Energy Independent. Like playing a game of Chess until the last move of the game is played how do you know you can win without making the first move?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 31, 2009 01:13 AM

womanmarine, did it never occur to you that economists are hired by employers with their own profit motivated agendas? Especially the economists supported by organizations favoring the either the Democratic or Republican Parties?

There are many academic economists not employed by politically biased organizations who are on the business and news channels stating the obvious as I have done here.

Similar deal to global climate change scientists. There is an empirical and non-political scientific community opinion about civilization’s role in global climate change. Some folks just can’t get passed the hired hacks to get to those objective assessments.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 31, 2009 01:55 AM

Weary Willie said: “We’re guessing and hypothesizing, some of the hypotheses having been implemented before, but don’t suggest this is science.”

You are guessing. Yes, it is science. The science of probability and statistics. A very well honed science that has permitted the human race to leave agrarian nationalistic societies to become an international community with economic advances to support technological advances not dreamed of two hundred years ago.

You have to recognize that our institutions of higher learning teach two different scientific arenas of learning, social sciences and physical sciences. Empirical methodology is the same for both, but, probability and statistics and their strict rules for validity, reliability, are primarily relied upon for testing hypotheses in the social sciences. Also, since societies can’t be isolated in a laboratory to measure only a single variable while holding others constant, the social sciences including economics are absolutely dependent upon probability and statistical measures.

I should point out in the same breath, that the progress in psychology and sociology made in the last 75 years vastly exceeds progress in those areas in the previous 3000 years. Thanks to probability and statistical methodologies brought to bear on the Post Jung-Freud era.

The whole and entire international capitalist free market system in operation today globally rests on the risk assessment models based on probability and statistics. It is a science. Though, by definition, a science of probabilities, not exact and definable outcomes with no others possible. Actuarial charts for life insurance purposes is a perfect example. Very accurate at predicting specific groups mean life spans, despite its complete inability to predict your or my lifespan with any precision at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 31, 2009 02:15 AM

David,
Thanks for the clearing that up!

Posted by: Hemry Schlatman at January 31, 2009 05:08 AM

I couldn’t take it anymore so if you agree….

I think Pelosi and Reid should go along with pork and
corporate lobbyists…so I started a petition if you agree sign it!
visit GoPetition and sign to get rid of Pelosi and Reid
http://www.gopetition.com/online/24937.html

Posted by: Bobhenry at January 31, 2009 06:00 AM

My point exactly, Weary.

Yes, China and others are buying treasuries, but what’s wrong with a return to the idea of safe savings by buying bonds? It has two positive effects, it shores up national debt and pride, and a return to real savings ethos, rather than investing in a fund, hoping for a magic ride on the stock roller coaster. Many people would be better served by such a strategy. Thank goodness no one listened to Bush’s “privatize Social Security” message.

Posted by: gergle at January 31, 2009 09:23 AM

David:

Can you point me to some of the economists you mentioned? And isn’t it possible that even though they are not hired by political parties or entities with agendas, that they still have political leanings? Are you saying that they all agree?

I would really like to see what some of the ones you refer to say.

I’m trying hard to follow this, links to those folks would be very helpful to me.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 31, 2009 10:54 AM

womanmarine, 2 + 2 = 4. Republicans may try to make it 5, and Democrats may try to make it 3, but, the fact remains, 2 + 2 = 4.

In the same way that all economists worth their salt know that this recession is exacerbated and prolonged by curtailing consumerism. Domestic consumption makes up almost 3/4 of our entire economic GDP.

Now Republicans want to argue that small business tax breaks will stimulate consumerism. That is an attempt to make 2 + 2 = 5. It just isn’t true despite economists hired to make that case. Democrats want to argue that any government spending will stimulate consumerism. That is an attempt to make 2 + 2 3. It just isn’t valid.

As anyone without a biased agenda recognizes, the curtailing consumerism is a direct response to the fear and anxiety over keeping or losing jobs causing hoarding behavior with current resources. That is a fact demonstrated by a host of polling data now.

Therefore, the answer to the problem is restoring confidence to employees that they will keep their jobs, or be able to find new ones quickly if they lose theirs. Then, and only then, will hoarding cease on the part of consumers. This is the objective part of the economic situation, verifiable by statistical, economic, and polling data.

How to instill that confidence in employees about their jobs, is where the partisan debate and agendas try to make 2 + 2 = anything but 4.

But, there remains an objective straight-forward approach to the problem. Jobs are created in America by the private sector and the public sector. The private sector is laying off about a half million employees per month. Objective question: What can anyone do to cause an employer to keep an employee who is standing around doing nothing because of loss of consumer demand? Answer: nothing short of marrying that employee into the family and treating them as family instead of a dispensable overhead cost which is not producing a commensurate productive revenue.

If then, private sector IS NOT capable of creating or keeping jobs in this environment, the only other source for combating job losses is the public sector. Government can grow government jobs where there is a public demand for such services. But that is a very finite option, especially when the national debt is rising so rapidly.

The government can contract for services which it was going to have to contract for anywhere presently or in the near future, and create jobs that way. Additionally, the government can contract for projects which will facilitate whole new areas of economic activity in the future through innovation and development of current technological advancements whose entry price to the marketplace would otherwise preclude its accessibility to the consuming public after the recession ends. (In other words, invest in lowering the future price by subsidizing mass production development of these new technologies today when the price for doing so is very cheap).

I won’t list economists who are objective along these lines, because they are everywhere in economics text books. I suggest you pick one up which is in current curriculum usage by prominent universities.

This is very simple and elemental economics, whose rules of math and relationships don’t change with the politics of the day. Republicans have a vested interest in shoring up their funding base which has traditionally been rooted in business, ergo, their take on this situation is to send public tax dollars to businesses.

Democrats have a vested interest in keeping the middle and poor classes of people voting for them as saviors in desperate times, ergo, their take on this situation is transfer deficit dollars from future tax payers to those persons today who wish to ameliorate the effects of this recession upon their financial condition.

The objective response to this current situation is invest in and create jobs along a time line that begins today and extends out well past the turning point when GDP growth equals zero again instead of a negative number. That means government hiring where warranted and needed, contracting with private sectors for public works projects which would HAVE to have received money anyway, and investment future growth sectors of our economy that will enhance either our own self-reliance or international competitiveness.

2 + 2 = 4.

The rules of logic, math, and rational reason don’t change with political times. Answers to basic economic questions are not a mystery or particularly challenging, unless of course, one looks to politicians for an education in economics.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 31, 2009 03:24 PM

David:

Thanks, but I am in no position to pick up a text book as you describe. I want to learn about what you post. Surely there are some online somewhere? I don’t know how or what to search for. Not trying to be argumentative, trying to learn.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 31, 2009 03:49 PM

Womanmarine:

Economists are split on Tax cuts verses jobs programs. Job programs do very little to stimulate the economy. Tax cuts to small business and individuals that are leveraged can be stimulative, as in requiring certain purchases. We have used tax incentives for years. Liberals used to be for them.

Here is a link to a type of “tax cut” that has been on the books for a while:

http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2009011201&TYPE=V&CFID=1946031&CFTOKEN=11304162&bhcp=1

The purpose was of course to encourage more fuel efficient cars. So now to have Liberals opposed is a bit odd.

I don’t like this current plan at all. I think David has done a pretty good job of stating the reasons. It’s to quickly put together, it’s non stimulative in many ways and looks filled with boilerplate Democratic spending ideas. It looks to me like Democrats are using the crisis to pass some legislation they have wanted for some time, and are trying to increase the role of the federal government.

On the other hand, Obama came out today with a proposal that I fully support. They are talking about lower mortgage rates to 4%. I support this in concept because:

1. It attacks the cause of all of this mess, (falling home prices). By lowering interest rates, you lower the cost directly to own a home which will support home prices.

2. If successful this will remove fear for all kinds of other lending. (Fear among lenders), and will stimulate the economy.

3. Obama is looking at creating new jobs (fine) but this will prevent layoffs at the cause.

4. It is stimulative in that homeowners will find themselves with hundreds of dollars a month in additional cash flow.

As much as some don’t like Tax cuts, this works exactly like a tax cut in that it puts money into the hands of homeowners. It actually is better because a tax cut is usually temporary and can be fleeting depending on who is in office. A refinanced mortgage is forever.

Count me down as very much opposed to the current bill that has cleared the house. (Unless drastically rewritten). Also count me as a big supporter of lowering interest rates on Mortgages to 4%. That idea to me is a bulls eye.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at January 31, 2009 03:50 PM

David,
2+2 can equal more than 4. For say I have two large apples and two small apples. Now, some scholars will say I have four apples; however, as every good cook will tell you I can say I have 3 large aplles or 6 small apples by volume (cut up in pieces to fit into a cup). And to make things more fun one can say in the extreme that by weight I have 5.

So why economists and others can look at the same data and come up with several versions. Knowing that all most hold true to the fact that there are two large apples and two small apples to obtain the results they desire it is up to the reader or in politics the voter to look beyond the chatter and see how they came to their conclusion.

Womanmarine,
Why most of us are taught to deal with a weekly or monthly budget try looking an the economists doing the same thing with million and billion of dollars.

For example; As America uses 25% of the world oil supply today and “We the People” decide to cut our useage in half Common Sense tells us that America would than use only 12.5% minus any natural increase in useage over the same time period. However, by forecatsing that move (something that must be done) the Market (i.e. The Powers-that-Be) would be forced to decrease the world oil supply in order to maintain the current price or store the 12.5% supply and try to sell the higher price oil in a falling Market.

And why that may be hard to fllow. Look at it this way. Your local store knows that you come in every month and buy 100 can goods; however, in order to save money you decide to buy only 50. Now, should the store owner still order the 100 can goods in hope that you will returm to your regular buying habits or should the store decrease their order to reflect your current buying habits? Thus, this is why Society have economists and others give their opinion.

Graig,
Why you could give a business a tax cut in order to produce more goods and create a few jobs. Unless the Consumer buy those products the business in forced to warehouse them; thus, deepening the problem. So how is the tax cut helping the economy?

Yes, look at the last quarter of 08 and how much goods were warehoused in order to keep the GDP from falling even lower than 3.8%. Now, if those numbers remain the same over 2009 America may have warehouses full of goods, but with no buyers the Employer and Employees will find themselve in worse shape by 2010 true?

So why any tax cut may help you today, seeing that you are spending your Grandchildren Money how does warehousing products help them profit in the future? In fact, Ford and GM could build 16 million low mileage cars in 2009 and keep millions employeed through warehousing what they do not sell. And why on paper it would help the GDP, what happens to those resources and vehicles
when in 2010 the Detroit Bad Boys come out with electric/natural gas cars that get over 50 mpg?

What America needs is to find a plan that prevents the loss of resources not keep spending Bad Money in sreach of Bad Ideas.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 31, 2009 05:22 PM

Tom wrote: Is $825 billion dollars enough to save us? What about the cost of climate change?

If we mess up our environment, no amount of money will save us.

Tom wrote: Is $825 billion dollars enough to save us?

Good question.

It depends on whether the current debt is already untenable.

The total federal debt and total nation-wide debt are too big.

• __________ Nation-Wide Debt __________


• $67.5T |——————————————D (Debt=$67 T)


• $65.0T |—————————————-D-


• $62.5T |—————————————-D-


• $60.0T |—————————————-D-


• $57.5T |—————————————D—


• $55.0T |—————————————D—


• $52.5T |—————————————D—


• $50.0T |—————————————D—


• $47.5T |—————————————D—


• $45.0T |————————————-D—-


• $42.5T |————————————-D—-


• $40.0T |————————————-D—-


• $37.5T |————————————D——


• $35.0T |———————————-D——-


• $32.5T |———————————-D——-


• $30.0T |———————————D———


• $27.5T |——————————-D———-


• $25.0T |——————————D————


• $22.5T |—————————-D————-


• $20.0T |—————————D—————


• $17.5T |————————-D—————-


• $15.0T |————————D—————G-


• $12.5T |———————D—————G—G(GDP=$13.8 T)


• $10.0T |—————-D—————G———


• $07.5T |———-D————G——————


• $05.0T |-D———G——————————


• $02.5T |-G—————————————-


• $00.0T +(1956)———-(1982)———-(2008)YEAR

In fact, if the total federal debt and/or nation-wide debt are already untenable, how is growing it larger going to help?

The amounts of money needed to put a dent in so much debt will double, triple, or N-tuple the money suppy, which will most definitely lead to inflation.
Too much inflation could trigger the dumping of $11 Trillion foreign owned U.S. Dollars, which could trigger hyperinflation.
If the U.S. could manufacture and sell something for those U.S. Dollars, it would help.
However, Congress and greedy corporate management and owners have decimated the U.S. manufacturing base.
There are more people working in government than all manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
Therefore, if inflation leads to the dumping of those $11 Trillion foreign owned U.S. Dollars, the only thing we can do (for the most part) is to continue the liquidation of U.S. assets.

• __ Foreign Owned U.S. Dollars and U.S. Treasury Securities __
• $12T |———————————————
• $11T |——————————————oo
• $10T |—————————————-o—
• $09T |————————————-o——
• $08T |———————————-o———
• $07T |———————————o———-
• $06T |——————————o————-
• $05T |—————————o—————-
• $04T |———————-o———————
• $03T |——————o————————-
• $02T |———-o———————————
• $01T |o——————————————-
• $00T |(1985)————(1995)————(2005) YEAR

Inflation and devaluation of the U.S. Dollar has already resulted in a sell-off of over $20 Trillion of U.S. assets in the last decade (assets in the U.S. that are now foreign owned).

The liquidation has already begun. Foreign owned assets in the U.S. have quadrupled in the last decade.

• ____ Foreign Owned Assets in the U.S. ____


• $24T |———————————————


• $22T |——————————————-o


• $20T |——————————————o-


• $18T |—————————————-o—


• $16T |—————————————o—-


• $14T |————————————-o——


• $12T |————————————o——-


• $10T |———————————o———-


• $08T |——————————o————-


• $06T |————————o——————-


• $04T |————-o——————————


• $02T |o——————————————-


• $00T |(1987)————(1997)————(2007) YEAR

The U.S. is a debt junkie, and since it doesn’t have the manufacturing base it used to have, liquidation is the only thing left (as seen above).

We have (or had) a 70% consumer-driven economy and a deteriorated manufacturing base.
20% of the wealthiest do most of the spending, but they aren’t spending as much now.
We can’t all do each others’ laundry.
1% of the wealthiest Americans own 40% of all wealth in the U.S.
80% of Americans own only 17% of all wealth in the U.S.
The $67 Trillion nation-wide debt has never been larger in size, as a percentage of GDP, and per-capita (i.e. per person on average).
The total $23.5 Trillion federal debt ($10.7 Trillion National Debt + $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security) has never been larger in size, as a percentage of GDP, and per-capita.
The $10.7 Trillion National debt alone is the largest debt per-capita in U.S. history.
There’s still a lot of debt that must somehow unwind, and it won’t be painless.
It is very unlikely all of this debt will ever be repaid.
Younger generations are getting screwed big time with massive debt that will crush them for decades (perhaps centuries).
That $67 Trillion of debt (above) amortized at only 4.0% interest could take 433 years to pay down: One-Simple-Idea.com/67Trillion.gif
But that’s only if we had the discipline to pay $233.3 Billion per month (the amount needed to stop the debt from growing larger due to interest at only 4.0%).
But it’s worse.
We don’t only have a huge debt problem, but a perfect storm of numerous deteriorating economic conditions that have been allowed to grow in number and severity for decades.

And guess what.
None of that above even includes the $3.2 Trillion injected into the banks and Wall Street.

And what is the federal government doing about it?
Just as expected:

• (1) First, Congress gives itself its 10th raise in 12 years. Cha Ching!


• (2) Congress gives each member of Congress another $93,000 in petty cash. Cha Ching!


• (3) Congtress and the treasury bail out Wall Street so that greedy CEOs can give themselves fat multi-million dollars bonuses, throw parties, spend millions on private jets, etc., etc., etc. Cha Ching!


• (4) Create another huge stimulus BILL full of pork-barrel. Cha Ching!


• (5) Preserve the status quo and their power through the many ways they have rigged the system to ensure the security of their cu$hy incumbencies. Cha Ching!

It is fairly clear that the federal government’s, Federal Reserve’s solution is to create as much money out of thin air.
Neither had the smarts to keep this economic melt-down from occurring and neither are likely to do anything but make it worse by debauching the currency too, which has already been doing badly for many years: One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 31, 2009 07:49 PM

d.a.n.,
Why you may worry about America being $67 Trillion in Debt, owing another $11 Trillion to foreign governments, and the sell of $20 Trillion in assets over the last ten years. Have you ever looked at what would happen if “We the People” paid those bills off say in the next 4 years?

Yes, having a super strong dollar like our parents did in the Late 60’s and Early 70’s may sound like a good idea; however, considering that the World Bankers and Economists are having problems handling the limited funds that they have been given today. I do believe that why “We the People” should keep an eye on the problem. Having the money tied up in the manner that it is might be a saving grace.

Posted by: Henru Schlatman at February 1, 2009 05:43 AM

There’s more.

Banks sought foreign workers

Posted by: womanmarine at February 1, 2009 07:23 AM

Womanmarine,
If banks hiring foreign workers shocked you than you need to check out the article at http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/the-frosh-are-flush/?scp=1&sq=january%2030%202009%20new%20members%20of%20congress%20wealthier%20than%20old%20members&st=Search

For it seems that why the new Members of Congress are wealthier than the older members. It seems that most of their investments are in Banks, Financial, and Real Estate. And why I cannot say that is why the Stimulus Plan coming out of the House looks the way it does. I can wonder if the New Members of Congress on the Left and Right have the “Right Stuff” to lead America forward.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 1, 2009 08:02 AM

Disgusting …

The dozen banks receiving the biggest rescue packages, totaling more than $150 billion, requested visas for more than 21,800 foreign workers over the past six years for positions that included senior vice presidents, corporate lawyers, junior investment analysts and human resources specialists. The average annual salary for those jobs was $90,721, nearly twice the median income for all American households.

Voters (especially younger voters) should be outraged by the massive debt and problems being foisted upon them; growing dangerously in number and severity.

But they aren’t. Not yet, anyway. Too many voters are too busy wallowing in the partisan warfare … at least until that becomes too painful.

More examples of greed …

• www.youtube.com/programmersguild (fake job ads asking for the moon are used to justify avoiding hiring American citizens)


• Law firms teach corporations how to avoid hiring qualified American citizens.


• Bill Gates lies about wages while asking Congress to increase H-1B Visa limits.


• archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/31/92649.shtml (wage stagnation + cheap labor = BIG profits)

Too few voters want to believe that Congress is too corrupt, since most voters repeatedly reward Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates (86.9% on 4-NOV-2008).

Why should Congress do anything different when they are repeatedly rewarded for using and abusing most Americans via:

• a kleptocratic plutocracy;


• unfair and regressive taxation;


• constitutional violations;


• despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes; abuse of H-1B and H-2B Visa laws to import cheap labor;


• unnecessary wars;


• massive debt (the $10.7 Trillion National Debt is the largest per-capita debt in U.S. history and that doesn’t even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby boomer bubble approaching);


• false economic reporting on GDP, debt, inflation, and unemployment; see: www.ShadowStats.com


• corruption, graft, corporate welfare, welfare, tax breaks, and subsidies for the weatlhy; tax payer money to allow bankers to still receive multi-million dollar bonuses and salaries;


• a dishonest, usurious, inflationary monetary system that is nothing more than a Ponzi-scheme;


• eminent domain abuse and other forms of legal plunder;


• a healthhcare deathcare system that is not only increasingly unaffordable, but dangerous too! HealthGrades.com reported (27-July-2004) that “An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. Still, some people made a lot of money. Medicare fraud is rampant. Former Senator, Bill Frist’s HCA hospitals bilked Medicare for almost a Billion dollars, and had to agree to pay back about $631 Million: www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bill_Frist#HCA-Medicare_investigation).

It gets worse and worse because voters reward Congress for it, but too few voters see it that way.

Too few voters see themselves as part of the problem, despite 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress.

Too many voters care more about THEIR party than their country, and the results of that are all too obvious.
Blind partisan loyalties are nurtured and sustained to make the incumbent politicians cu$hy, coveted incumbencies more secure, while Congress and their puppeteers continue to fleece most Americans via a myriad of abuses (One-Simple-Idea.com/Abuses.htm). Many incumbent politicians are experts at controlling the voters by capitalizing on the voters’ laziness, greed, and blind loyalties. It is a very powerful and effective mechanism which pits voters against each other, Democrats against Republicans, while most (if not all) incumbent politicians in BOTH parties are busy fleecing America. But nothing lasts forever and greed always gets out of control. There will most likely be a reduction when enough Americans are jobless, homeless, broke, and hungry … perhaps in a few more years? Only pain and misery will finally (if ever) trump blind partisan loyalties, greed, laziness, and selfishness … when enough voters are finally motivated by enough pain and misery to realize that too much selfishness merely leads to more pain and misery.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 1, 2009 11:16 AM

Henry, the day people accept that 2 + 2 does not always equal 4 by definition, is the day all of civilization crashes. Civilization, even tribalism, arose and were built on a counting system that is never changing, absolute, and by definition, always the same. It is the very root of communication, in which what one says, is received and understood by another as it was said. You can’t build a road, a marketplace, or building, you cannot barter, trade, or invest, UNLESS 2 + 2 ALWAYS equals 4.

Do not fall for the sophistry of the politicians and lawyers whose job it is to convince people that 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. Deception and distortion are the tools of their trade. Common folk follow their lead at the peril of civilization itself.

George Orwell understood the issue of 2 + 2, and painted the essential necessity for it to always equal 4 in his book “1984”. If you can convince the public that 2 + 2 equals 5, you have the authoritarian state, lock, stock, and barrel.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2009 11:25 AM

Henry wrote: Having the money tied up in the manner that it is might be a saving grace.

How?

It’s not tied up. If inflation gets high enough, what do you think foreigners holding those $11 Trillion dollars will do? They will dump them, by trying to spend them and/or exchange them for other currencies. That will create more inflation, and could lead to hyperinflation. If that happens, a bad situation will become worse, by destroying all savings, pensions, wages, and entitlements, and you’ll need a truckload of dollars to buy a cup of coffee.

The falling U.S. Dollar …

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 1, 2009 11:29 AM

Regarding money that is tied up … 90%-to-95% of all money in existence in the U.S. (i.e. owned by Americans) exists as debt.

Much of that debt will never be paid back.

Nation-wide debt (compared to GDP) has almost quintupled since year 1956. Most money is created as debt (with a steep fractional banking system of 9-to-1 of debt-to-reserves; far too steep to weather a market correction such as the current real-estate bubble) Most Americans are deep in debt.
Also, it creates too much inflation, and we have had positive inflation for 52 consecutive years (which is why a 1950 Dollar is now worth on 10 cents).
Average savings rates have been negative since year 2005. Foreclosures are at record levels (10,000 per day as of Aug-2008), unemployment is climbing fast (7.2% as of Dec-2008), and since the U.S. manufacturing base has deteriorated for several decades, we won’t even be able compete with exports from the U.S. to get back some of those $11 Trillion foreign-owned U.S. Dollars.
The only choice many Americans will have is to continue the massive liquidation of assets in the U.S. (which has already almost quadrupled from $6 Trillion in 1997 to $22 Trillion in 2007).

We are in (somewhat) new territory.
Fiat money systems have been abused by many nations for many decades, and that couldn’t last forever, because eventually, the debt-pyramid will collapse when the majority of people don’t have the capacity to carry more debt, and the debt they already have is crushing them.
Yet, there are some who believe the old fundamentals and math won’t and shouldn’t apply today, and they believe they can toy with the monetary system, by doubling, tripling, quadrupling, or N-tupling the money-supply by more borrowing and the creation of new money out of thin air, without creating more inflation. Well, we’re about to find out. After all, there is some precedent. Dozens of other nations have already tried to money-print, borrow, and spend their way to prosperity, and it didn’t work.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 1, 2009 02:10 PM

d.a.n said: “Fiat money systems have been abused by many nations for many decades, and that couldn’t last forever, because eventually, the debt-pyramid will collapse when the majority of people don’t have the capacity to carry more debt, and the debt they already have is crushing them.”

That is the most truthful and accurate fact I have read in some time. And because this is true, I have to make the obvious observation that the debt pyramid has not yet collapsed and won’t for many years yet, if it does. Precisely because of the fact that debt doesn’t become a burden until it is due and payable.

The debt we are taking on today, is not due and payable for the most part for a few decades yet to come. The current tax payers can support and pay the interest on the current debt levels. Sure, it is causing privation to a growing minority in our country, but, revolution or civil disobedience over the issue is nowhere in sight.

When the tax payers by a near majority are forced into lower middle class and poverty status BY their taxes, then, is when the social upheaval occurs and civil disobedience in the form of mass evasion of taxation occurs, and then is when the debt pyramid collapses.

Now, whether that scenario plays out or not, depends on many variables, including: 1) Doing nothing to cut health care costs by 25% from current levels, 2) failure to reform both social security and medicare to the point that they become self-sustaining BEFORE the debt-pyramid collapses, 3) how America treats its foreign creditors and how they treat America’s debt and debt needs going forward, 4) whether applied political solutions can be maintained in their application long enough to bear fruit before being reversed by an opposition party, and 5) whether or not voters begin to hold their representatives reelection feet to the fire on election day for actual results instead of idle promises.

There are of course other variables like the path of interest rates, but, the above are the broadest and most basic variables coming into play that I can think of at the moment.

What you say above which I quote is dead on the money. And when what you say begins to become a reality, there will be overt and unmistakable signs that it is coming not the least of which will be a social upheaval reaction to the burden of taxation which forces 100 million people out of the middle and into lower classes by national and economic necessity.

Which is why it is imperative that Obama and Congress act NOW to avert such a reality from ever rearing its destructive head in our future.

Deficit spending today is absolutely essential to preventing a premature debt pyramid meltdown created by a decade of recessions. However, the deficit spending today absolutely MUST serve multiple ends spending needs smartly, or the deficits shall be nothing more than added weight to a sinking ship.

This is why I say Obama has no logical or rational choice but to VETO this current 825 Billion dollar stimulus bill. It does not serve the multiple objectives and returns on dollar spent that is needed and required by our darkening economic Event Horizon.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2009 03:02 PM

David,
Why I do not know if Civilization would fall apart, I do know that unless we accept the argument that 2+2=4 than teaching the Children would become impossible. For why one can clearly SEE that two large apples and two small apples equals a person having four apples. Knowing that the Devil is in the details and without abstract thinking we could not explain even the simplist of things. All a person has to do is look at a recipe calling for 4 apples and go to the Farmers Market to know and understand the difference bewteen a Granny Smith and a Green Apple. Yet, both can be used to make an Apple Pie.

Hence, why the economists and others may start with the same data and follow the same Learned Formulas to back up their results for their client. Like many of us found out in the 80’s and 90’s a lot of reports saying such things as eggs and milk was bad for you came from people using abstract numbers to prove their point.

So why Civilization may need to use 2+2=4 in order to teach Logic and Reason, that same Civilization better beware of how and why that same Logic and Reason is being used by the Charlatons and Vagabonds to fool our Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders.

d.a.n.,
Why we have to watch how low the dollar goes so that America can manage the debt, the fact that a lower dollar has helped control the American Consumer buying foreign products and raise their standard of living as well as provided their governments with money does work.

For example; oil going to over $100.00 per barrel flushed Russia and the Middle East with cash; however, if you drop that price back to $20.00 per barrel in order to maintain a strong dollar than doesn’t that hurt those citizens and governments? A tangled web indeed, but one that “We the People” must learn to deal with now and in the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 1, 2009 04:08 PM

Henry said: “So why Civilization may need to use 2+2=4 in order to teach Logic and Reason, that same Civilization better beware of how and why that same Logic and Reason is being used by the Charlatons and Vagabonds to fool our Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders.”

True enough, Henry. That is the difference between true education and sophistry. Education seeks to communicate the known and tested. Sophistry seeks to persuade away from the known for a particular sophist’s advantage. Our schools would do well to teach the young the difference. Assuming of course they are not being run by sophists.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2009 07:20 PM

David R. Remer wrote: … I have to make the obvious observation that the debt pyramid has not yet collapsed and won’t for many years yet, if it does.

It may not happen all at once.

It may be a process, evidenced by the current 9,000-to-10,000 foreclosures per day, 11.1-to-24.6 Million unemployed, the highest federal debt per capita ever, the highest nation-wide debt ever, the biggest wealth disparity gap since the Great Depression, and numerous other economic conditions which have never been worse ever, and/or since the Great Depression.

David R. Remer wrote: Precisely because of the fact that debt doesn’t become a burden until it is due and payable.

It is coming due for thousands of American families each day, with 9,000-to-10,000 foreclosures per day. Americans are liquidating, as evidenced by the jump from $6 Trillion in 1997 to $22 Trillion in 2007 of foreign owned assets in the U.S. That is to be expected with $67 Trillion nation-wide debt ($220,000 per person on average). Also, 80% of Americans own only 17% of all wealth in the U.S.

David R. Remer wrote: The debt we are taking on today, is not due and payable for the most part for a few decades yet to come.

The debt is just getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

We are screwing future generations.

There’s a limit to how much bigger the debt can grow.

I personally think we are now experiencing the many bad side effects of too much crushing debt.
We’ve been borrowing to pay the interest on the debt for 52 consecutive years. How much longer before we can’t borrow enough and have to start creating more money out of thin air (i.e. the Federal Reserve has been creating new money out of thin air for almost a century, which is why a 1913 Dollar is worth only 3 cents; the M3 Money Supply grew from $135 Billion in 1950 to $10.15 Trillion in 2005).

David R. Remer wrote: The current tax payers can support and pay the interest on the current debt levels.

That’s not really knowable at this point.

The debt may have been tenable in year 2008, but it soon may not be in 2009 after the federal debt is grown by several more trillion, and the money-supply is doubled, tripled, or N-tupled.

David R. Remer wrote: Sure, it is causing privation to a growing minority in our country, but, revolution or civil disobedience over the issue is nowhere in sight.

I agree that revolution is a long ways off (if ever). How unhappy can most Americans be if they choose to repeatedly reward incumbent politicians in Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

David R. Remer wrote: When the tax payers by a near majority are forced into lower middle class and poverty status BY their taxes, then, is when the social upheaval occurs and civil disobedience in the form of mass evasion of taxation occurs, and then is when the debt pyramid collapses.

Maybe. Civil wars and revolutions have started over much more minor things.

However, the greed and corruption is likely to continue to grow, and so will the pain and misery. Eventually, when enough Americans are jobless, broke, homeless, and hungry, they may do what unhappy voters did in year 1933, who voted out 206 members of Congress.

David R. Remer wrote: What you say above which I quote is dead on the money. And when what you say begins to become a reality, there will be overt and unmistakable signs that it is coming not the least of which will be a social upheaval reaction to the burden of taxation which forces 100 million people out of the middle and into lower classes by national and economic necessity.

I agree. However, it is probably a process. It took several years (about 4 after the stock market crash of Oct-1929) into the Great Depression before unhappy voters finally ousted a whopping 206 members of Congress in year 1933, which also ousted Herbert Hoover from office and FDR into office.

David R. Remer wrote: Which is why it is imperative that Obama and Congress act NOW to avert such a reality from ever rearing its destructive head in our future.

The amount of pork-barrel and waste in this current stimulus BILL isn’t too encouraging. We need to be careful that any spending produces some real jobs and benefits; not some more bureaucratic paper-pushing/red-tape jobs in D.C. Otherwise, that spending will be wasted and will help fuel inflation. I think there is a way through this mess, but it has to be done very carefully with smart spending, more efficiency, and cuts in waste and unnecessary spending. Realistically, that doesn’t seem likely. Not even close.

David R. Remer wrote: Deficit spending today is absolutely essential to preventing a premature debt pyramid meltdown created by a decade of recessions.

I’m not convinced of that, if the fedeal debt and nation-wide debt is hear (if not already) untenable. If the debt is already untenable (unlike during the Great Depression, in which there was room for more deficit spending and more debt, and the increased federal national debt even after World War II (in year 1945) was 62% lower than it is today). Also, in the Great Depression, there wasn’t the huge entitlements which are now pay-as-you-go due to decades of spending those funds on other things.

David R. Remer wrote: However, the deficit spending today absolutely MUST serve multiple ends spending needs smartly, or the deficits shall be nothing more than added weight to a sinking ship.

Yes. The spending, weather in-budget or deficit spending, must produce real jobs, benefits, and efficiency.

That doesn’t seem likely.
Congress is as corrupt as ever, having just given themselves their 10th raise in 12 years, and also a $93,000 increase in petty cash.
The 647 page Stimulus BILL (as expected) is full of pork-barrel:

• There’s $50 Million for National Endowment for the Arts.


• There’s $650 Million to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.


• There’s $81 Billion for Medicaid (which millions of illegal aliens also receive).


• There’s a portion of $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities and the Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; is that a job creator?


• There’s $1 Billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years.


• There’s $2 Billion for child-care subsidies.


• There’s $400 Million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects.


• There’s a portion of $40 billion for broadband internet.


• There’s $600 Million for the federal government to buy new cars.


• There’s some $252 billion for income-transfer payments to some individuals for doing nothing at all.


• There’s $36 Billion for expanded unemployment benefits (about $1463-to-$3243 for 11.1-to-24.6 Million unemployed).


• There’s $20 Billion for food stamps.


• There’s $83 Billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay any income tax (but some who do pay 7.65%/15.3% Social Security & Medicare taxes), which will help poorer Americans weather the recession, but won’t create jobs.


• There’s $54 Billion for federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits (e.g. the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more).


• There’s $66 Billion for education (with $6 Billion for university building projects).


• And there’s some money for condoms too.

David R. Remer wrote: This is why I say Obama has no logical or rational choice but to VETO this current 825 Billion dollar stimulus bill.

I will be amazed if that happens.

David R. Remer wrote: It does not serve the multiple objectives and returns on dollar spent that is needed and required by our darkening economic Event Horizon.

No, it doesn’t. It also does nothing to stop these 10 major abuses that have been hammering most Americans for decades.

There are also some things that the federal government could do that don’t cost much (if anything):

• (1) Something that could save Americans possibly hundreds of billions per year is a simplification of the tax system, which costs a lot of money each year in record keeping, storage, accounting software, legal expenses, tax evasion hidden by ridiculous complexity, etc., etc., etc.


• (2) Another thing that could save Americans many hundreds of billions per year is a non-profit health insurance system.

cSomething else that could be done is to reduce the U.S.’ military presence in 132 foreign nations.

• (3) Another thing that could save Americans many hundreds of billions per year is to pass and enforce laws against usury. Many banks today are no better than loan sharks.


• (4) Another thing that could be done to save an estimated $70-to-$327 Billion per year, and create jobs for Americans is to enforce eVerify and stop employing illegal aliens who are placing huge burdens on our hospitals, ERs, healthcare systems, welfare systems, schools, law enforcement systems (i.e. 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens), prosons, etc.

There are a LOT of things the federal government could do, but isn’t and probably won’t (not any time soon, if ever), because Congress is where good ideas and solutions go to die.

The only thing that comes out of Congress these days is pork-barrel, corporate welfare, welfare and subsidies for the wealthy, waste, and raises for Congress.
So it is no wonder I (and others) have little (if any) confidence in Congress and the federal government to accomplish much. If anything, they are likely to make things worse. It really appears that Congress is competent. Congress didn’t see this economic mess approaching, and now Congress does not appear to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Most likely, in the next few years, many more Americans will be sharing the opinion that Congress is incompetent. That’s not pessimism. That is based on Congress’ dismal track-record for several decades. I really wish Congress would prove me wrong once in a while. Instead, the greed, incompetence, and abuses grow worse.

Henry Schlatman wrote: d.a.n., Why we have to watch how low the dollar goes so that America can manage the debt, …

A 1913 Dollar is now worth 3 cents. A 1950 Dollar is now worth 10 cents. We have had 52 consecutive years of inflation, and it has already done a lot of damage. If you are saying a falling U.S. Dollar is a good thing, then I will have to disagree. Some will argue that it makes our exports more attractive to foreign buyers and imports to the U.S. cheaper, but that is only temporary and quickly reaches equilibrium. Also, we don’t manufacture much anymore. There are more jobs in government than all manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

Henry Schlatman wrote: … the fact that a lower dollar has helped control the American Consumer buying foreign products and raise their standard of living as well as provided their governments with money does work.

Sorry, but I do not see any overall benefits of an increasingly weaker U.S. currency: One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm

The major cause of the increasingly weaker U.S. currency is inflation from the excessive creation of new money.
Inflation is economically destabilizing.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 2, 2009 12:03 AM

David,
Why I will not credit Americas’ Education System and am Prevented from giving My Peers credit; however, the fact that Their Children understand 3 D Thinking is a good thing.

d.a.n.,
Well, knowing that you are not in the Import/Export Businesss I can understand your point of view; however, seeing that the importing of foreign goods have increased over the last 30 years. Someone is making money in America.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 2, 2009 12:24 AM

Henry Schlatman wrote: d.a.n., Well, knowing that you are not in the Import/Export Businesss I can understand your point of view; …

That’s not a very convincing dodge. A person doesn’t have to be in the import/export business to see that a huge and continuous inflow of cheap imports and a huge and continuous outflow of jobs (moving out of the U.S.) is bad for the U.S. Government knows this, but our government is FOR-SALE and puppets of their big-money corporate puppeteers who could care less about the long-term ramifications. The problem with greed is that it always leads to the demise of those that wallow in it.

Henry Schlatman wrote: d.a.n., … however, seeing that the importing of foreign goods have increased over the last 30 years. Someone is making money in America.

Whose making money?

How many Americans are making money from all of these cheap imports?
How much are Americans really saving from all of these cheap imports?
What is that doing to our manufacturing base?
It appears that only a very few people are making money from all of these cheap imports.
Likewise with greedy illegal employers of illegal aliens.
The profits are going to only a few Americans who could care less about jobs leaving the country. Jobs are leaving the country because of it.
Consumers seeking low prices don’t understand that they are shooting themselves in the foot.
And to make matters worse, the FOR-SALE Congress is selling out Americans every chance it gets by rewarding companies with subsidies and tax breaks for moving jobs offshore, making unfair trade deals, H-1B and H-2B Visa abuse, etc., etc., etc. This is corroborated by the wealthiest 1% of Americans which now own 40% of all wealth, falling median incomes for decades (especially when considering more workers per household, more regressive taxation, illegal immigration, more taxes of kinds, etc.).

The manufacturing base has been deteriorating for decades. There are more jobs in government than all manufacturing in the U.S.

So again, here’s a simple question:

• How is inflation and the falling U.S. dollar good (overall)?

Any increase in exports due to a weak U.S. dollar is temporary at best and bad overall. Inflation is economically destabilizing. Some people argue that inflation motivates investing, but I’ve never seen any proof of it. If anything, it has everyone running around like chickens with their head cut-off looking for someplace to put their money where it won’t erode away, which has led to a lot of risking investing, and fueling playing-with-money to make-money.

Importing cheap goods is not all it’s cracked up to be either. Not when that also reprresents a huge outflow of money from the U.S. economy too. So, who is making the most money from these cheap imports? And how long can that last if we import almost everything and build and export less and less each year?

It’s creating a huge service-only oriented economy. However, that can’t work forever. We can’t all do each others’ laundry. And we don’t need more cheap, unnecessary junk from other countries.

So, if so many imports and so few exports is such a good thing, why have economic conditions in the U.S. been deteriorating for decades.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 2, 2009 09:00 AM

d.a.n said: “There’s a limit to how much bigger the debt can grow.”

Yes, and that limit is either or a combination of, failure to pay the interest on the debt, and failure to borrow to pay the principal on previous debt. In very real and concrete terms, we are not there yet by many years. How many is unknowable and depends on many variables including China and Saudi Arabia’s forebearance in remaining our creditors.

There is a limit. We haven’t reached it, by years, yet. But, we are approaching that limit faster than at any other time in our history save for the Civil War and reconstruction period and the period between 1929 and 1945. I would argue faster than those, due to the possible condition that the resources to remove ourselves from debt are more limited today going forward than during the periods of Reconstruction and post WWII.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2009 04:36 PM

Weary Willie said: “We’re guessing and hypothesizing, some of the hypotheses having been implemented before, but don’t suggest this is science.”

Correction! David! That was: Posted by: Max at January 30, 2009 04:05 PM

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 2, 2009 07:55 PM

David R. Remer wrote:

• d.a.n said: “There’s a limit to how much bigger the debt can grow.”

Yes, and that limit is either or a combination of, failure to pay the interest on the debt, and failure to borrow to pay the principal on previous debt. In very real and concrete terms, we are not there yet by many years.

Maybe. But it is increasingly less a matter of “IF”, and more a matter of “WHEN”.

David R. Remer wrote: How many is unknowable and depends on many variables including China and Saudi Arabia’s forebearance in remaining our creditors.

Did you know Germnany has more exports (of about ($1.1 Trillion)) than the U.S. So does China (with about $1.3 Trillion) in exports. The U.S. is the biggest importer in the world. That, among many things, can’t last much longer.

David R. Remer wrote: There is a limit. We haven’t reached it, by years, yet.

Are you sure?

Of course, things could be worse (and probably will get that way in the next few years), but look at these 18+ economic conditions that are now already worse than ever, and/or since the Great Depression. And it will get worse if these abuses are allowed to continue.

David R. Remer wrote: But, we are approaching that limit faster than at any other time in our history save for the Civil War and reconstruction period and the period between 1929 and 1945. I would argue faster than those, due to the possible condition that the resources to remove ourselves from debt are more limited today going forward than during the periods of Reconstruction and post WWII.

Yes, I agree … the debt is growing both faster and larger today than after the Civil War and World War II.

The current $10.7 Trillion Naitonal Debt alone is 61.9% larger today (per capita) than after World War II in year 1945, and that doesn’t even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching.

What we have today is a perfect storm of dozens of detersiorating economic conditions.

• The debt bubble is fueling 9,000-to-10,000 foreclosures per day.
  
• We also didn’t have the unfunded liabiliites of today’s magnitude (possibly hundreds of trillions to a quadrillion).
  
• More people are unemployed (7.2%) today (11.1-to-245.6 Million) than the 12.83 Million (22%) unemployed in the Great Depression.
  
• Year-to-year inflation has been rising since year 2002:
  • ____INFLATION RATE_____
  
  
  • 4.00%|———————-
  
  
  • 3.75%|——————xxx 3.85% average for year 2008)
  
  
  • 3.50%|——————x— (2008 __ 3.85%)
  
  
  • 3.25%|————xxx-x— (2007 __ 2.85%)
  
  
  • 3.00%|————x-xxx— (2006 __ 3.24%)
  
  
  • 2.75%|——xxx-x——— (2005 __ 3.39%)
  
  
  • 2.50%|——x-xxx——— (2004 __ 2.68%)
  
  
  • 2.25%|—xxx————— (2003 __ 2.27%)
  
  
  • 2.00%|—x—————— (2002 __ 1.59%)
  
  
  • 1.70%|—x——————
  
  
  • 1.50%|xxx——————
  
  
  • 1.25%|__________________YEAR
  
  
  • _____ 2_2_2_2_2_2_2
  
  
  • _____ 0_0_0_0_0_0_0
  
  
  • _____ 0_0_0_0_0_0_0
  
  
  • _____ 2_3_4_5_6_7_8
• Nation-wide debt has almost quintupled from 100% of GDP in 1956 to 483% of GDP today.


• The federal government is allowing the importation of 1.5+ Million skilled workers per year (via H-1B and H-2B Visa abuse).


• The federal government refuses to enforce eVerigy and stop illegal immigration, costing Americans an estimated $70-to-$327 Billion per year in net losses.


• The tax system is regressive and unfair: One-Simple-Idea.com/Abuses.htm#Taxes


• The Federal Reserve and federal government created 52 consecutive years of inflation.


• The federal government has been deficit spending for 52 consecutive years.


• Incomes have been falling for years (especially when considering more workers per household, more regressive taxation, more regressive taxes of all kinds, etc.)


• Home equities have never been lower since year 1945.


• Global competition is stronger than ever. The U.S. is the biggest importer, while China and Germany are the biggest exporters.


• Healthcare is not only increasingly unaffordable, but dangerous too! HealthGrades.com reported (27-July-2004) that “An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records”


• Massive debt is causing a mass liquidation of U.S. assets (now foreign owned), which have grown from $6 Trillion to $22 Trillion between 1997 and 2007.


• 80% of Americans own only 17% of all wealth. 40% of Americans (on average) have ZERO net worth. 1% of the wealthiest Americans now own 40% of all wealth; the gap has never been larger since the Great Depression.

But guess what the 2 worst dangers are for the next few years (and/or decades) in this era of near total fiscal and moral bankruptcy:

• (1) A kleptocratic, plutocratic Congress that is so irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, corrupt, and greedy that it decided this year, in the midst of an economic crisis, to give itself its 10th raise in 12 years, and a $93,000 increase in petty cash.


• (2) And an electorate that cares more about THEIR party and wallowing in the partisan-warfare, than their country … at least until that eventually becomes too painful, at which time many years (if not decades) of pain and misery will already be unavoidable.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 2, 2009 09:50 PM

Weary Willie, thank you. Yes, I mis-attributed that quote and responded to the wrong person. My apology. Appreciate the feedback.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2009 10:35 PM

Yes, thank you d.a.n for the dark statistics and I hope you continue to publish them, because voters and bloggers and readers SERIOUSLY need to pay attention to those and act accordingly.

One of the greatest underminings of effective democracy is the idea of specialization of labor. Specialization of labor, more than any other conceptual notion, prevents American citizens from taking responsibility for the actions of their representatives, their government, and the nation’s future. We are all conditioned by the mindset that the government and nation’s future are in the hands of someone else hired specifically and by their expertise to look after such things.

Which, of course, is anathema to the very concept of democratic elections which posits that the power in government is beholding to and obligated to act responsibly toward the will of the citizenry and voters. Even in a democratic republic, it is the voters who are posited with the responsibility for the directions their government takes, overall, by choosing or not caring about the competence, character, experience, and commitment of those they elect.

Any society which holds democratic elections demands that the voters be informed, interested, motivated, and in relative constant contact with their representatives regarding policy direction and decisions. Specialization of labor even in our K-12 schools, undermines responsible government in our democratic republic.

As you have often said, improving our secular and civics educational system is the single most fundamental positive change America could possibly take toward its future prosperity and survival. Unfortunately, we are locked into a States Rights dysfunctional non-system of education in which each state and district is largely free to fashion its education of the young in accordance with local political needs and preferences. A nation will likely not long survive on such a fragmented approach to responsible citizenry for its future generations.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2009 10:50 PM

d.a.n.,
Yes, the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spooons of the 70’s have done a good job of changing America from an Industrial Based Economy to a Service Based Economy as they were mandated to do by “We the People” some 30 years ago. And why noy every American has made money or shared in the wealth, the numbers of the Elite rose as predicted.

And why I agree that the “Throw Away Society” built by My Democratic and Republican Peers lends itself to cheap imports of the same products that Americans use to produce. I do believe that they objected the idea of building American Products that would last a lifetime. Yet, that is water under the bridge and why it makes good coffee table reading. It will do nothing to help move America and Humanity forward in the 21st Century.

However, I would encourage you and others to take the numbers and the fact that Americas’ Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders have done a bad job at building the Mind-Set needed for a Service based Economy to prosper. For why America can (and in the terms of Savings are) return to a Cash Rich Nation by embrassing the Future. Asking the Elite or the Middle Class or the Poor to pay for it by themselve will not work.

In fact, America could return to taxing every Corporation doing business within our borders at 90% or increase the taxes paid by the Middle Class back to around 50% or increase the pay role taxes of the Working Poor to 30% and still never solve the problem of the National Debt.

Or we could increase the interest rate back up to 12% for the next 10 years to lower the money America owes at the risk of creating double digit unemployeement and the need for more social problems in order to keep people from taking to the streets.

However, if My Peers and Their Children are serious about addressing the Issues of Man created or not answered by the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s than you can use these same numbers to work out a solution that will restore the flow of credit, create the Service Jobs of the Future, and insure that America has the Infrastructure that will provide every American Citizen with their Basic Needs.

Yes, I suppose that I could make fun of some of the things that My Community Elders and Peers have done over the last 30 years out of Arrogrance, Fear, and Ignorance, but that would not help Their Children learn from their parents mistakes. Instead, I speak out in an attempt to help the Learned and Unlearned of Society see the Unlimited Opportunities that exist by raising the Political Bar of the Individual, Nation, and Society.

So why you say Americans get the government that they deserve, let me turn the table and ask you the question; “How does America get the Government and Society that “We the People” deserve knowing that we have to start with the numbers that you present?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 3, 2009 12:03 AM

http://www.thepolicyreport.net/2009/01/06/howard-jarvis-taxpayers-association-sues-to-block-majority-budget-bill/ raising property taxes while Millions are losing there houses and being in a Recession? And being Sneaky about it!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 3, 2009 01:39 PM

Excuse me this time State and other taxes >>>Proposition 13 — now Article 13A of the California Constitution — mandates that the imposition of new or increased state taxes receive a two-thirds vote from the members of each house of the Legislature. (The two-thirds vote to approve a state budget is a separate matter . What happened to We the people.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 3, 2009 02:35 PM

A tiny bit of Good News David and d.a.n. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pending-home-sales-post-apf-14235513.html

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 3, 2009 04:38 PM

Rodney, there is small amounts of good news on several fronts, including more lending by the financial institutions.

What many forget is that government economic stimulus’ and fixes take a considerable amount of time to become effective and percolate through the systems.

The first TARP lending funds are having a positive effect, though much less than anticipated, months after their deployment.

The monetary actions taken by the FED REserve, are also going to have positive effects, but, until this Spring or Summer at the earliest.

Some argue, and not without merit, that there may be no need for a stimulus bill as the Fed’s actions may be sufficient by Fall or next Winter. Others ask the obvious question, but, what if the Fed’s actions weren’t sufficient? There is the rub. Fiscal stimulus takes 6 to 9 months to have an effect. So, the debate continues.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2009 05:12 PM

More and more the recovery package looks like the Dem’s just threw everything, including the kitchen sink into this brew of bailout. Now they want to use borrowed money that the taxpayer will have to eventually pay back, to help each of us buy a new car. They plan to give a pittance of $1B to small business from which comes 80% of the jobs. Yet they have pumped $T’s into the Wall St. financials. They plan to give $4B to neighborhood stabilization, a useful acronym for ACORN.
Also, it looks like Obama has loaded his cabinet with NAFTA folks; Summars, Judd Gregg and others. Gregg is hard core ‘free trade’ and cheap labor. He voted to double the H1B number of temp worker visas and is big on outsourcing. Time is moving along and with the Davos thing just ended Obama will have to stake out a position on trade pretty soon. He has called for all this change, but we’ve seen nothing on trade yet.
Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Il.) and Rep. Don Manzuluo (R-Il) are pushing for the Senate recovery bill to specifically call out ‘Buy American.’ The CofC is staunchly against a ‘buy American’ provision.
Lou Dobb’s refers to all this as a ‘Revolution in Capital.’ I refer to it as the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world.
Folks seem willing to set on the sidelines and watch the impending train wreck. This whole thing is a continuation of the effort to dislodge the wealth from the middle class worker in getting us ready for the globalized economy. When you have a government supporting ‘too big to fail’ and ‘anti anti-trust law’ you have a government that is being run by multinationals. If left to run it’s course who knows where we will end up. But, it won’t be called a Republic.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 3, 2009 10:50 PM

Roy, small business does not need tax cuts, they need customers and orders.

Ergo, the small town car dealerships who maintain and repair and sell new and used vehicles spell jobs for rural communities and life to their small economies. Not to mention that inducements to consume autos in America addresses a pretty big segment of the jobs sector. I don’t think aid for auto loans is a very efficient method of addressing the jobs issue, however, and agree that it is a bad idea for that reason.

4 Billion to neighborhood stabilization is VITAL to key neighborhoods in Florida, Ca., and Nevada where housing values have plummeted up to 32% and stemming foreclosures in these areas will help stop that falling valuation by preventing foreclosures. This measure I agree with. Those living in Hyde Park may not agree, but, millions of working Americans living in these and other states where their own housing values are being dragged down by for sale and foreclosures signs in their neighborhood, literally have their life investment on the line here.

Obama will set Trade policy goals, not his cabinet. Obama is on record with the American voters to insure future trade negotiations are Fair, not just free for our trading partners. So, you comment about a NAFTA cabinet has no merit whatsoever. Gregg as Commerce Sec’y, will oversee Obama’s objectives, or Gregg won’t be in the position long.

You said: “He has called for all this change, but we’ve seen nothing on trade yet.”

Damn, Roy, give the man a bloody break. He has only been president for two weeks and is still negotiating a stimulus plan, reversing harmful Bush policies, and filling out his cabinet. The man has a lot on his plate, and only 2 weeks in office.

Even God took 6 days to create the whole world. Obama is just a man, and has only had 2 weeks to address a train wrecked economy and foreign policy debacle. Try, at least, to reach for a little realism with your critiques, and patience when it comes undoing 8 years of horrificly incompetent leadership and policy. They say it takes a generation to build a city and only a few minutes to reduce it to ashes. Let’s give Obama a bit of time to address our nation’s priorities. He is not a dictator, nor king, and must move on his agenda with the cooperation and consent of both the Congress, Judiciary, and American people.

Snapping his fingers won’t get it done. Time, persuasion, persistence, bartering, and cooperation just might. And that DEFINITELY will take far longer than 2 weeks.

You are right, for 8 years we got the government we deserved by our voting choices. The voters have changed the way they vote and have NOT elected another incompetent to president. They haven’t changed Congress that much, but, perhaps, enough to give a competent president the cooperation he will need to lead in a different and better direction.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2009 11:33 PM

Roy,
Why it is becoming clear that the Leadership of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress are having a problem grasping the idea of what can/should be done to solve the issues now facing America in the short (2-4 years) and long (5-10 years) term. I do believe that people like Senator Shellby calling for a fillabuster would do more harm to the Loyal Opposition (Republicans) of the bill than pasing a bill that would force the House of Representatives and Senate to a conference.

For why I could agree with the major bankers who say that cutting access to credit from all, but those who have a credit score of 750 plus will preserve future lose. I could also agree that the American Consumer and Small Business Owners need a financial institue that is willing to make those citizens lines of credit and loans who may not have perfect credit, but have a history of paying their bills on time.

However, in doing nothing the Congress allows Big Business to prosper while letting the Small Business Owner suffer. Yet, to force the major bankers to make loans to citizens that may or may not pay back their line of credit and loans adds to the uncertain in the Market while keeping the company and their stockholders at risk of losing eveything. But. besides tax cuts in the package where is the help for the American Consumer and Small Business Owner who is willing to work hard, pay their bils on time, and struggle to move ahead.

No, this is only one of the issues facing America and still it seems that both political pundits in the media cannot say how the $700 Billion in TARP to solve Americas’ Credit Problem. Thus, as an Independent Pundit may I suggest to a 3rd Political Party that a comperhensive approach from the Federal/Private Sector designed to use Local, and Regional Banks, Non-Profit Orgs., and Agencies to provide the American Consumer and Small Business Owners the types of line of credits and loans needed to stabilize their life.

Yes, the idea has been floated of a 4% loan for homeowners in trouble of losing their homes; however, by expanding that to include Small Businesses and dropping the interest rate to a fixed 3% 30 year loan for homes and a 3.5% short term (6 months to 2 years) loans for Small Business with the teeth to force the Market to refinance existing loans (especially AIMS) I do believe that both the Democrats and Republicans would have a hard time objecting on Logic and Reason.

Now, combine that idea with programs that encourage the Taxpayer to invest in “Green Enterprises and Products that” that work toward making America Economic, Energy, and Environmentally Independent in the stimulus package and you force a vote in Congress to support the Status Quo of the 20th Century or embrass The Vhange of the 21st Century needed to keep America a World Leader.

And though I cannot project the outcome of such a vote by “We the People” or the Members of Congress I am certain that it would send President Obama and the Powers-that-Be a clear message on what can be done in the short term. As well as move people off the sides lines and get them involved in the grassroot movement spreading across the Land. For even if the vote was to be cut along the lines of Generational Change, I do believe that groups like the Pickens Army and VOIDNOW.org would be better able to set their agenda and education programs over the next few years.

For if America does not have the government “We the People” deserve than is it not up to My Peers and Their Children to use Their Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights to build the Government and Society worthy of the American Spirit?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2009 12:09 AM

David,
Why you are fair to point out that “Specialized Training” has hurt America. In playing with the Devil, I could make the argument that “Specialized Employeement” has help “We the Corporation” cut the cost of doing business. For instead of spending money on training a person to understand how each piece fits together to make a product work. Not only does the company save money, but eliminates and protects certain knowledge. And though it makes it easier for both Labor and Management to excuse screwing up (Human Mistakes)I do believe that My Peers were told that the Cream would rise to the top.

However, like I told d.a.n. that is water under the bridge and will make good reading someday. Nonetheless, by allowing My Peers Children to teach Their Children about these politica flaws I agree that America can and should use the Education System to expand the Political and Societal Thinking of every America Citizen.

For why Specialized Employeement and Training has its benefits and flaws depending on which side of the Coin of Life you look at. Learning to keep the Best and Change the Rest in order to help America deal with an uncertain future has to be a JOB left up to My Community Elders, Peers, and Their Children to debate does it not?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2009 12:34 AM

Henry, specialization of labor as a productivity tool is one thing, and a good thing, in many areas of production.

Specialization of labor as a world view, and approach to all problem solving, is quite something else again. And like any attempt to view the world through a single paradigm, it is limited, imperfect, and WILL result in horrible unintended consequences.

Specialization has become America’s most basic philosophical approach to all problems, and is being adopted around the world, without even a passing examination of the horrible consequences of doing so.

Often, the worst person for a problem is a specialist who deals with those problems. Sometimes the best answer lies outside one’s area of specialty, or requires a solution found only outside the box of specialization.

This is where the world of creative art has much to teach the technical world of specialization, precisely because their philosophical approach is not specialization, but generalization and experimentation, synthesization and crossing fields of specialization.

Specialization of thinking and learning create automation of action and response, even if the problem has changed, requiring a different solution. Which leads to Einstein’s maxim, ‘insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result’.

Republicans insisting on ever lower tax cuts in good times and bad, is a primary example of which I speak. In perpetuity social spending programs which ignore changing times and circumstances is another. And these approaches come from Ph.D’s in their areas of specialization. It’s insane.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 4, 2009 01:13 PM

David, you know I have no affinity for the two major parties. And, I don’t think having a ‘King Obama’ will bring the kind of reform needed to restore the public trust and get government back on track. While Obama may change the tone in government, the underlying problems will largely remain intact. I don’t feel I am attacking Obama by stating that he will soon have to cut bait or fish on the issue of trade and immigration. It is clear his administration is loaded with free traders and NAFTA supporters.
The old adage, you can’t judge a book by it’s cover holds true here. For example, we know that the Agencies and Commissions are usually headed up by the revolving door folks who work government and big business as a career. Therefore, it behooves one in such a position to be an advocate for business interest as opposed to being an antagonist. The revolving door might swing closed for the antagonist. The SEC is a poster child at the moment. Several (more than two) sources spoke out on the Madoff situation but the SEC failed to take action. The major whistle blower was on cspan this morning and he suggested the SEC needs a whistle-blower position, knowledgeable in financial instruments and highly compensated. The reason for the high compensation is, once the whistle is blown on a commercial entity the revolving door closes shut for that person blowing the whistle. His education, experience, knowledge, etc. is all for naught as far as being successful in his chosen career field. Spread that scenario across government and you get some idea of the magnitude of business intrusion into government. That’s why brand name drugs stay brand name for so long. That’s why the FDA can’t find the rotten tomatoes. That’s why Consumer Affairs can’t get the lead out.
That’s why our VISIONUSA webpage at www.demreps.com calls for Agency/Commission heads that deal with consumer issues, FDA, Consumer Affairs, SEC, etc. to be filled from the ranks of senior civil service with assignments rotated every 4 years.
Henry, I see the bailout/recovery act as nothing more than a continued effort to break the back of the middle class worker in preparing us for globalization. Pretty strong evidence that the market has bottomed and recovery may be occurring as we speak. I’ve no interest in seeing the taxpayer take on more debt. Yet, even today, Obama is out there trying to scare the people into believeing that if we don’t bailout soon a disaster is pending. At the same time government is screwing the people through intellectual dishonesty, the people are asked to see the government as their (financial) savior.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 4, 2009 01:19 PM

Roy said: “It is clear his administration is loaded with free traders and NAFTA supporters.”

NO politician or public servant to fill a cabinet position could get elected or appointed if they OPPOSED the concept of free trade. Most Americans support free trade provided it is also FAIR trade for American workers and businesses. Fair is determined by the parties negotiating the agreement.

Pres. Obama has clearly stated NAFTA’s provisions need amending to become more fair. That is the policy, and his cabinet’s marching orders will be to make NAFTA more fair for American workers and businesses. Again, your presumption that Obama’s cabinet will superimpose their own policy directions over Obama’s is just plain illogical and not born out by the history of the relationship between a president and his/her cabinet.

I accept your premise that career public servants have a set way of seeing and handling things. That is a structural problem called group think and institutional memory. But, these are ALL under the executive branch of government, and the president and his cabinet set the goal posts and can relieve public servants who fail to achieve those milestone markers toward the President’s policy objectives. A president has enormous power in this regard, if they choose to exercise it appropriately.

Obama shows every sign of intending to exercise that power, and for the most part, he seems a person who will exercise it appropriately. Again, it is illogical after Obama being in office for two weeks to assume that because the nation and government haven’t yet changed course, it is not going to happen.

If you truly care about this issue, you will contact the White House and your representatives and request these changes be made. The more popular support Obama has in making these structural and climatic changes in government, the more successful he will be in bringing them about.

We do have the government we deserve by our silence. We also have the power to change it by speaking up loudly, and frequently, and withholding our vote for those who fail to implement the changes we request for our nation’s benefit and future prospects.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 4, 2009 02:09 PM

David,
Why I agree that specialized training of the 20th Century has created more problems than it has solved. And that the Republicans chant for tax cuts is a prime example of it. What is the alternative since teaching of the Whole of Human Knowledge is still politically unacceptable?

Roy,
The Bailout and Recovery Plan is a perfect vessel for a 3rd Party to put forth their political agenda for making America Economic, Energy, and Environmentally Independent. For why I agree that the extreme Left and Right are caught up in the debate of Spending and Tax Cuts. Still here after voicing My Personal Opinion to President Obamas’ Transition Team and spoke out for the Pickens Plan I am sure that the Main Stream Media would be shocked if a 3rd Political Party was to speak out and show President Obama and his Loyal Opposition that they do have a plan that will put people back to work, unlock the credit marlet, and lead America to Energy Independent using less or the same amount of funds.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2009 03:44 PM

David, I’ve seen no survey/poll that indicates the American public supports a free trade policy. Most people understand we have run a trade deficit for 50 some years along with a budget deficit as well. Many understand they can’t afford healthcare or educate their children. Many understand that for the first time in US history the younger generation will fare less well than their parents. My dad was a sole bread winner and he bought a new car every four years, we had insurance, lived knee high on the hog.
Let’s go back to this intellectual dishonesty thing. Unfortunately for the administration, some rogue legislator’s got a ‘buy American’ clause put in the House bill. The media is asking the administration if they will support such a clause in the Senate bill. Their answer is like well, we will support whatever is required for recovery but we must be sensitive to our trading partners, nothing can be done without considering the effect it will have globally, etc.” They can’t say “no, we won’t support a buy American clause.” You might call that good politics, posturing before a known outcome, etc. I call it intellectual dishonesty. So, what we will get is more push for globalization and amnesty with the intellectual dishonesty veiled as ‘change’. Obama wants to ‘change’ free trade to be more fair. Yet, his desired outcome is the same - globalization and amnesty which have served the transnationals well, but, not so much with ‘We The People’. He gets a lot of help from the media. Today the Senate passed a bill to include more children under the insurance umbrella. The National Alliance for Hispanic Health estimated that more than one-third of the children added to the program will be Hispanics who currently have no health insurance.
The SCHIP bill passed to Senate today which will spend about $33B to provide healthcare for another 7M children, bringing the total to about 11M. Being sensitive as to how and where are money is being spent these days you have to wonder if these funds will be used to cover illegal aliens. A Yahoo article states: “The National Alliance for Hispanic Health estimated that more than one-third of the children added to the program will be Hispanics who currently have no health insurance.
Health officials project that there are about 9 million uninsured children in the U.S. “ That’s about what you will get from any media outlet To me this represents intellectual dishonesty. Reason being is that many folks are sensitive to the phrase ‘spending money’ and ‘illegal aliens’ used co-jointly in any way. Most have a suspicion that many of the recovery/bailout dollars will be used to carry illegal aliens through the winter and/or through the recession. Same thing with the $4B Neighborhood Stablization thing. You won’t read a thing through any media outlet, other than Lou Dobb’s, that much of these funds will go to support a favorite of Obama’s, the ACORN group. What doesn’t get said often speaks louder than what does get said. Intellectual dishonesty IMO.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 4, 2009 04:04 PM

Roy, have you looked at polls on the topic?

Check this one out: showing a majority wanting to renegotiate NAFTA, which indicates Americans are still for free trade agreements, but, want those agreements to be negotiated in a way as to be FAIR also to American workers and business, which is PRECISELY what I said in my previous comment.

Americans don’t oppose free trade, they just insist that free trade be fair trade as well. In other words, our trading partner benefits and American consumers and workers benefit as well.

America DEPENDS on foreign imports for its economic activity, Roy. OF COURSE we need to be sensitive to our trading partners. Ever see an addict cut off from their supply? It’s not a pretty sight.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 4, 2009 04:33 PM

Henry asked: “What is the alternative since teaching of the Whole of Human Knowledge is still politically unacceptable?”

Excellent question. Answer, the right tool for the right job. Specialization is vital to mass productivity. Creativity is vital to creative solutions. Creativity does not come from copying the knowledge and experience of specialists.

Though, a few specialists are able to cut through the limits in their specialty, generalists working with specialists on problems is a far more productive use of talent in problem solving. Cross disciplinary solutions are best achieved by cross trained persons in multiple disciplines.

Education should focus on this cross disciplinary approach for problem solvers, and wherever cross disciplinary challenges exist, a philosopher should be included in the team. For every broad specialization of labor, there are philosophers examining the foundations of that specialization.

We have in our universities courses like, Philosophy of economics, philosophy of science, philosophy of human sciences, philosophy of political systems, philosophy of art. The problem with specialists is they are almost NEVER educated in the philosophical questions underlying their area of specialization. Hence, they are not trained to examine the assumptions of their discipline to determine if failure may be resulting from those assumptions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 4, 2009 04:46 PM

David, you wrote: “Pres. Obama has clearly stated NAFTA’s provisions need amending to become more fair. That is the policy, and his cabinet’s marching orders will be to make NAFTA more fair for American workers and businesses.”

It’s clear to me that Obama is taking the lemons and trying to make lemonade.
The following is a list of ‘lemons’ he is dealing with.

Here is the cusp of what I read at the site you provided. “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken Monday night finds that 56% of voters support renegotiation while 39% say U.S. free trade agreements in general have directly impacted their families. Of that latter group, 73% say the impact has been a bad one, as opposed to 14% who say it was beneficial.

Only 16% of respondents favor NAFTA - a pact which came into being in 1994 and lowers nearly all trade barriers between the U.S., Canada and Mexico — as is, with 28% undecided… Perhaps most importantly, 71% say negotiation of trade agreements is important to them in terms of how they will vote. Only 20% say it is not important.

Here is a link, first one at the top of the page, when googling for ‘free trade polls’.

http://www.pollingreport.com/trade.htm

Just check out a few headliners

Results 1 - 10 of about 13,000,000 for free trade polls. (0.28 seconds)
Search Results
1. International Trade
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. May 1-8, 2008. N=2208 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . “Generally speaking, do you believe that free international trade has …
www.pollingreport.com/trade.htm - 296k - Cached - Similar pages
2. Poll: Majority against free trade - CNN.com
As Sen. John McCain prepares to promote free trade during a high-profile trip to Colombia and Mexico, a poll out Tuesday suggests the issue may be a …
www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/01/cnn.poll/index.html - 76k - Cached - Similar pages
3. Eyes on Trade: Poll roundup: Americans want to renegotiate NAFTA
Jun 20, 2008 … The same Pew poll also shows that 61 percent of Americans believe free trade costs U.S. jobs, and 56 percent believe it lowers wages. …
citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2008/06/poll-roundup-am.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages
4. USATODAY.com - Poll: Free trade loses backers
Feb 23, 2004 … High-income Americans have lost much of their enthusiasm for free trade as they perceive their own jobs threatened by white-collar workers …
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-23-free-trade_x.htm - 53k - Cached - Similar pages
5. The backlash against free trade is growing - Jan. 18, 2008
Economic anxiety has inspired a backlash against free trade, as a new Fortune poll shows, giving Democratic candidates a potent issue. …
money.cnn.com/2008/01/18/news/economy/worldgoaway.fortune/ - 65k - Cached - Similar pages
6. [PDF]
Media should report Facts —Not Just Opinion Polls— About Free Trade
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
president.” It also says that “six in 10 Repub-. licans in the poll agreed with a statement that. free trade has been bad for the U.S.” …
www.insideronline.org/archives/2008/winter/chap4.pdf - Similar pages
7. Bill Moyers Journal: Poll: Free Trade
May 17, 2007 … The only people who benefit from “Free Trade” are those who have always benefited from slavery. In the 21st Century the labor is not …
www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2007/05/poll_free_trade.html - 122k - Cached - Similar pages
8. 3/3 Poll: NAFTA: North American Free Trade Agreement …
“Free Trade” has so much of a downside because the term “free” is simply a euphemism for unregulated. On top of that, we cannot ask for reasonable …
forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=1561 - 81k - Cached - Similar pages
9. polls
online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119144942897748150.html - Similar pages
10. Poll: Republican Voters Cool to Free Trade : NPR
Oct 9, 2007 … A new poll shows that a sizable majority of Republicans believe free trade is bad for the US economy. By reputation, the GOP is the party of …
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15110980 - Similar pages

Obama is going to add some sugar and try to sweeten the deal so it will be acceptable to the voter/taxpayer. His effort will fall far short of Fair Trade. You mentioned he strive to make NAFTA for fair for workers and business.

What about:
Human rights and dignity and fair wages for foreign workers
Offshore tax havens
Cutting deals with corrupt governments
Pitting the workers of developed countries against the cheapest labor in the world
Subverting the Constitution to a higher court, WTO
Contracting war fighting materials to foreign countries
Destruction of the wage base by flooding the country with 40M illegals
Forcing the taxpayer to provide healthcare and subsistence for 40M illegals
Refusing to enforce immigration law…

Gotta go, Lou Dobb’s is up.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 4, 2009 07:49 PM

David,
Why I understand your argument for Cross Disciplnary Education, playing with the Devil once again. How do you deal with those Citizens who insist that is the job of the parents?

For why I agree that educating the Learned and Unlearned of Society is important. Knowing that My Peers Children will not discuss 3 D Thinking with their parent or elected officials. Where can you start and still protect the Unknown Kowledge and Wisdom of Man? Especially since My Peers and Their Children refuse to let me cross that line.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2009 08:01 PM

Well, tonight we have a much clearer picture of which way Obama is going to tilt. He was just glowing today when he signed the SCHIP healtcare into law which will allow illegal immigrants access to taxpaid healthcare insurance. Referring to ‘all American’s’ being helped. And, some of these children can be 32 years old. Imagine that!
E-verify is being fought hard by the CofC and Business Roundtable. Obama is being real quite on that one right now. It is estimated that 300k illegals will receive jobs through the stimulus package if E-verify is left to expire, Mar 3rd. I would think that is an incredibly low number. Polls are now showing that most folks are against the stimulus package.
A serious anomoly is upon the administration. The Senate left intact in the stimulus bill a provision for ‘buy American. But, now get this, they added a verbal agreement or something to that effect, that says that the buy American ruling must meet with US trade law. That should muddy the waters sufficiently to allow Obama to say he supports buy American to the degree of the law in the stimulus bill. Muddying the waters? Intellectual dishonesty? Or, just good politics?
Is this not a defacto way of stating that US law is superceded by international trade law?

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 4, 2009 10:35 PM

Roy, you are still speculating as to what Obama will try to do. In the realm of speculation, one can just as easily posit that NOW that he has an economic team assembled and will be receiving much of the same data as you present, he may just scrap NAFTA, (if such a provision is legal on the terms of the contract), and begin anew with a Fair and Free Trade agreement.

Again I say, the man has only been president for a couple weeks. He got, by all current accounts, the Senate stimulus bill passed despite serious opposition and the usual barrage of misinformation, with the help of Collins, Lieberman, Specter, and Nelson.

The Senate version is superior in many respects to the House version. Let’s see what comes out of the Conference Committee. But, Obama has rightly assessed the need for a stimulus bill to help short circuit the vicious cycle of falling consumer demand causing ever larger unemployment, and he has rightly assessed that sooner is vastly better than later in effectiveness for the dollar.

He exercised the appropriate bully pulpit and power of persuasion to overcome the obstacles in the Senate to getting this done and moving. In addition to his other executive orders and assembling a competent cabinet, his couple weeks in office are so far, promising.

His only major mistake was in not crafting an initial stimulus bill and handing it to the House as a blueprint. I am confident, that is not a mistake he will make again in the future. Every president from G. Washington to Obama has, in their first term, experienced on the job training. So, far, Obama is doing significantly more good than harm, in my opinion and that of the American people as polled.

Let’s remain skeptical, let’s give him our feedback and ideas on his website, and let’s give him our support as long as his performance is more positive than negative for our nation going forward.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2009 06:18 AM

ROy said: “Well, tonight we have a much clearer picture of which way Obama is going to tilt. He was just glowing today when he signed the SCHIP healtcare into law which will allow illegal immigrants access to taxpaid healthcare insurance. Referring to ‘all American’s’ being helped. And, some of these children can be 32 years old. Imagine that!”

Roy, I don’t agree with providing tax payer health care to illegal immigrants, but, you know, they get that tax payer health care at the Emergency Room at 10 times the normal cost, ANYWAY.

Legal or illegal, America is NOT going to deprive little children with no say so over their being here in the U.S., needed health care. Try at least to take the American psychology and culture into account, disjointed as it often is.

Second point, OBAMA is not responsible for the language in the Senate Stimulus plan. Your comment on this matter is completely illogical as you say: “A serious anomoly is upon the administration. The Senate left intact in the stimulus bill a provision for ‘buy American….That should muddy the waters sufficiently to allow Obama to say he supports buy American to the degree of the law in the stimulus bill. Muddying the waters? Intellectual dishonesty? Or, just good politics?”

Your implication is that Obama is responsible for this and party to some muddying of the water, or intellectual dishonesty. OBAMA had nothing to do with that language in the Senate Bill.

So, tell me Roy, should Obama VETO the stimulus bill and delay another million and half workers finding jobs over this ‘Buy American’ excerpt?

C’mon, Roy, be realistic. Put yourself in the shoes of one of those million and a half who won’t be employed were Obama to veto the bill on that Buy American language proffered by the Senate, and which may not even make it out of he Conference Committee.

Buying American SHOULD be an American consumer choice, not an American government choice at this time. Be that as it may, it is small potatoes compared to getting a stimulus bill in effect as soon as possible. The rate of growth of unemployment should be scaring the bejeezus out of Americans with, and without jobs, currently.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2009 06:36 AM

Roy, by the way, the people who write Headlines for he media, haven’t a clue what is in the polls they are writing about. They take their cue from the reporter’s submission and come up with an attention getting headline that often bears no fidelity to the actual content of the article.

Bear that in mind when quoting headlines as substitution evidence for actual polling data. The link I provided is well substantiated by other polls as well directly in a few cases, and indirectly in a host of cases.

Americans don’t oppose free trade. They insist however, that free trade also be fair trade. You will find this is true if you seek out the actual polling data behind those media selling headlines in most cases.

To oppose free trade is to invite other nations to deny the United States access to their markets, and even to deny American markets their own imports in some cases. Americans who have an inkling of what is involved in international trade DO NOT oppose free trade.

Americans DO oppose wage and benefit and collective bargaining disparities between our trading partners and our own export manufacturers, which give UNFAIR advantage to our foreign trading partners.

This is anything BUT a simple topic and one plagued with ideological blinders. To treat this topic with the candor and objectivity it deserves requires more than sensationalist headlines designed to sell newspapers and magazines.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2009 06:46 AM