"Economic stimulus" explained!

[Londoner]

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?

A. Shut up.

From FDR to Reagan - Lemme explain...

The Left (the real Left) *blah blah blah, hackery bullshit, blah blah evil GOP more hackery bullshit...*

Ya, that's why the democrats have been onboard with free trade as well. They must have been GOP spies. Face it, the movement of labor overseas is neither a left or right agenda, it is shared by both parties. That has nothing to do with Ragan or any other president specifically to be quite honest. It has been a function of modern times and a piece of the puzzle that people don't seem to understand but don't go the hackery way of hefting this on an ideology. Neither ideology ascribes to a free trade system yet both live and die by it. I don't see any aspirations of Obama that would address this problem. I have never even seen a democrat talk about it seriously. Nor a republican.

I made it very clear that Clinton and the New Left were part of the problem. When the Left abandoned labor and sided with Capital, we lost the distinction between the parties. Now both parties side with capital's desire for cheap labor. Both parties are owned by the concentrated power of concentrated capital, which funds elections and staffs government.

Here is the problem with cheap labor. You need to build a credit card economy to make up for decreased wages/benefits. You need to hand out Visas and Master Cards and encourage greater and greater debt-based consumption to keep the economy afloat. This is what happened when Reagan crushed unions and drove labor costs down. Without wages to drive consumption, we needed to build the largest credit economy on earth and turn our very homes into ATMs. ...- anything to make up for the lost wages which made possible staggering profits. [This is the structural flaw with Reaganomics. If you give the suppliers cheaper labor (aka higher profits), your consumers have less purchasing power. So you need more bubble and credit gimmicks to maintain consumption - hence 1980 to the present]

The only serious politicians to address this issue are

1) The old FDR Liberals who did everything possible to make American capital beholden to American labor

2) Ross Perot and the giant sucking sound...

The greatest irony is still Reagan and his amnesty bill. He broke American labor by opening the border to Mexico . . . and then his party used illegal immigration to fire-up the idiot base.

Brilliant.

 

[Moonglow]

Actually, thanks to the first stimulus we still have great US cars- we still have computer stuff. But thanks for the depression and ruining the non-rich for 30 years....

Ford's Rule: "Pay the workers as much as you can, to stimulate demand"...Pubs and Voodoo: "Screw em all" LOL!

And it worked to. Henry Ford was quite proud of the fact that his workers could afford to buy the product they made/sold/maintained. He faught the Unions Tooth and Nail to, even having his own goon squad in Detriot to thump up union reps. Suddenly though as business got better and profits increased he embraced the Unions and worked with them, that was persistant untill his death.

Used to be a man could earn a good living in this country, and a days work got a days pay. Now though a days work gets you just enough to make it to work the next day.

Capitol gets rewarded though. No capitol, your just SOL.

I grew up in an era in which, for the family just starting out, a day's work every work day for a month ususally paid the rent, made the car payment if one was necessary, allowed for some modest furniture, a black and white TV, a kitchen range, a modest size refrigerator, enough groceries to stave off starvation, quarters for the laundromat, and maybe a little left over for a movie or ballgame, something for the offering plate on Sunday, and a bit to tuck away for a downpayment on a house someday. Few families had a second car or could afford a washer/drayer, dishwasher, or any of that stuff. We beat stuff with an old fashioned manual rotary egg beater. Few owned a credit card. Workouts were tending a large garden in the summer and chopping wood and shoveling snow in the winter. For the most part it was paycheck to paycheck.

There were essentially no government benefits or subsidies.

And we counted ourselves fortunate, even blessed, because we knew if we worked hard, improved ourselves, saved up, and lived right, we could expect to do better later on. And we did.

Now too often young families starting out want a NICE place, NICE furniture, color digital HD TV and a wall full of stereo equipment, computers, Ipad, game pad, Wii, everybody wants their own car, washer/dryer, freezer and refrigerator, trash compactor, electric dishwasher, gym membership, and money to eat out, party on the weekends, and travel. Sometimes a boat.

And they live paycheck to paycheck with a large credit card debt to boot.

I don't think it's any harder to make a living now than it used to be. It's just that people want a so much better living now.

all u had to do to afford to live was one day of work? musta been a hell-of-a wage.

 

[Londoner]

Does anyone remember the brilliant Conservative intellectual Christopher Lasch? He wrote "The Culture of Narcissism" (about the utter failure of the sixties Left) and "Revolt of the Elites" (about the failure of Leftist managerial class).

He was kicked out of the Rightwing orbit in the late 90s because of something he said about the American Labor Movement. He said that 50s was a great era for the American Family because the Labor Movement secured such high wages for the father that the mother could stay home and be with the kids. He said that high wages/benefits/entitlements allowed the average family to spend more time together - which meant that the family (as opposed to the State) could socialize the children. This meant that children were raised by the mother not MTV vulgarity, Hollywood indecency, or government bureaucrats. Unfortunately, Lasch claims, once Labor was crushed (in order to give American Capital higher profits), that is, once the GM wage/benefit scale was replaced by the Walmart wage/benefit scale, the father had to get a second job and the mother was forced into the job market. This meant that the family spent less time together.

Essentially, Lasch was criticizing the effect of capital or big business on the Conservative Movement. He was defending the American family against decreased wages required by unregulated Capital. To this day, members of the conservative base are not allowed to even consider Lasch's point. Anybody who reads this brilliant conservative is considered a traitor. The conservative base is not allowed to criticize the demands or logic of Capital . . . (ever)

 

[FA_Q2]

Truth and one of the main reasons that stimulus spending is doing NOTHING. The dems will have none of it though, they will simply insist that we saved millions of jobs even though we actually lost jobs...

Bush gave us two stimulus payments, did they fail also?

Do you not see the economy that we are in at the moment???

IOW, yes, they failed. They failed for the same reasons the last one failed. Simple spending will no longer get us out of a recession that is not strictly due to consumer confidence and spending levels. There is more to this downturn then this.

 

[FA_Q2]

From FDR to Reagan - Lemme explain...

The Left (the real Left) *blah blah blah, hackery bullshit, blah blah evil GOP more hackery bullshit...*

Ya, that's why the democrats have been onboard with free trade as well. They must have been GOP spies. Face it, the movement of labor overseas is neither a left or right agenda, it is shared by both parties. That has nothing to do with Ragan or any other president specifically to be quite honest. It has been a function of modern times and a piece of the puzzle that people don't seem to understand but don't go the hackery way of hefting this on an ideology. Neither ideology ascribes to a free trade system yet both live and die by it. I don't see any aspirations of Obama that would address this problem. I have never even seen a democrat talk about it seriously. Nor a republican.

I made it very clear that Clinton and the New Left were part of the problem. When the Left abandoned labor and sided with Capital, we lost the distinction between the parties. Now both parties side with capital's desire for cheap labor. Both parties are owned by the concentrated power of concentrated capital, which funds elections and staffs government.

Here is the problem with cheap labor. You need to build a credit card economy to make up for decreased wages/benefits. You need to hand out Visas and Master Cards and encourage greater and greater debt-based consumption to keep the economy afloat. This is what happened when Reagan crushed unions and drove labor costs down. Without wages to drive consumption, we needed to build the largest credit economy on earth and turn our very homes into ATMs. ...- anything to make up for the lost wages which made possible staggering profits. [This is the structural flaw with Reaganomics. If you give the suppliers cheaper labor (aka higher profits), your consumers have less purchasing power. So you need more bubble and credit gimmicks to maintain consumption - hence 1980 to the present]

The only serious politicians to address this issue are

1) The old FDR Liberals who did everything possible to make American capital beholden to American labor

2) Ross Perot and the giant sucking sound...

The greatest irony is still Reagan and his amnesty bill. He broke American labor by opening the border to Mexico . . . and then his party used illegal immigration to fire-up the idiot base.

Brilliant.

And I would say that you are completely off base with what the right is SUPPOSED to represent. It has nothing to do with capitol by the way. I don't expect you to understand but that is mainly because you are taking the right as it stands today (the party of Bush) and ascribing it to the right just like I did with the left. If you want to make that distinction then so do I. Hence, we are back at the beginning. I agree with you summation on open borders and free trade but I reject your inane idea that the answer is some old liberalism that has been stuffed in the closet or that Ragan was somehow the grand creator of the problem in the first place. In other words, you had a great point until you went all party with it.

 

[editec]

Ya, that's why the democrats have been onboard with free trade as well. They must have been GOP spies. Face it, the movement of labor overseas is neither a left or right agenda, it is shared by both parties. That has nothing to do with Ragan or any other president specifically to be quite honest. It has been a function of modern times and a piece of the puzzle that people don't seem to understand but don't go the hackery way of hefting this on an ideology. Neither ideology ascribes to a free trade system yet both live and die by it. I don't see any aspirations of Obama that would address this problem. I have never even seen a democrat talk about it seriously. Nor a republican.

I made it very clear that Clinton and the New Left were part of the problem. When the Left abandoned labor and sided with Capital, we lost the distinction between the parties. Now both parties side with capital's desire for cheap labor. Both parties are owned by the concentrated power of concentrated capital, which funds elections and staffs government.

Here is the problem with cheap labor. You need to build a credit card economy to make up for decreased wages/benefits. You need to hand out Visas and Master Cards and encourage greater and greater debt-based consumption to keep the economy afloat. This is what happened when Reagan crushed unions and drove labor costs down. Without wages to drive consumption, we needed to build the largest credit economy on earth and turn our very homes into ATMs. ...- anything to make up for the lost wages which made possible staggering profits. [This is the structural flaw with Reaganomics. If you give the suppliers cheaper labor (aka higher profits), your consumers have less purchasing power. So you need more bubble and credit gimmicks to maintain consumption - hence 1980 to the present]

The only serious politicians to address this issue are

1) The old FDR Liberals who did everything possible to make American capital beholden to American labor

2) Ross Perot and the giant sucking sound...

The greatest irony is still Reagan and his amnesty bill. He broke American labor by opening the border to Mexico . . . and then his party used illegal immigration to fire-up the idiot base.

Brilliant.

And I would say that you are completely off base with what the right is SUPPOSED to represent. It has nothing to do with capitol by the way. I don't expect you to understand but that is mainly because you are taking the right as it stands today (the party of Bush) and ascribing it to the right just like I did with the left. If you want to make that distinction then so do I. Hence, we are back at the beginning. I agree with you summation on open borders and free trade but I reject your inane idea that the answer is some old liberalism that has been stuffed in the closet or that Ragan was somehow the grand creator of the problem in the first place. In other words, you had a great point until you went all party with it.

the FREE TRADE policy has been brewing for a mighty long time (it really started under FDR!! during WWII) through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Reagan's assault on Unionism and his FORGIVNESS OF IMMINGRANTS was merely two more nails in the coffin of the middle class.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, thanks to the first stimulus we still have great US cars- we still have computer stuff. But thanks for the depression and ruining the non-rich for 30 years....

Ford's Rule: "Pay the workers as much as you can, to stimulate demand"...Pubs and Voodoo: "Screw em all" LOL!

The stimulus helped build the Veyron? Do you have a different definition of great when it applies to cars than the rest of the universe?

 

[Foxfyre]

And it worked to. Henry Ford was quite proud of the fact that his workers could afford to buy the product they made/sold/maintained. He faught the Unions Tooth and Nail to, even having his own goon squad in Detriot to thump up union reps. Suddenly though as business got better and profits increased he embraced the Unions and worked with them, that was persistant untill his death.

Used to be a man could earn a good living in this country, and a days work got a days pay. Now though a days work gets you just enough to make it to work the next day.

Capitol gets rewarded though. No capitol, your just SOL.

I grew up in an era in which, for the family just starting out, a day's work every work day for a month ususally paid the rent, made the car payment if one was necessary, allowed for some modest furniture, a black and white TV, a kitchen range, a modest size refrigerator, enough groceries to stave off starvation, quarters for the laundromat, and maybe a little left over for a movie or ballgame, something for the offering plate on Sunday, and a bit to tuck away for a downpayment on a house someday. Few families had a second car or could afford a washer/drayer, dishwasher, or any of that stuff. We beat stuff with an old fashioned manual rotary egg beater. Few owned a credit card. Workouts were tending a large garden in the summer and chopping wood and shoveling snow in the winter. For the most part it was paycheck to paycheck.

There were essentially no government benefits or subsidies.

And we counted ourselves fortunate, even blessed, because we knew if we worked hard, improved ourselves, saved up, and lived right, we could expect to do better later on. And we did.

Now too often young families starting out want a NICE place, NICE furniture, color digital HD TV and a wall full of stereo equipment, computers, Ipad, game pad, Wii, everybody wants their own car, washer/dryer, freezer and refrigerator, trash compactor, electric dishwasher, gym membership, and money to eat out, party on the weekends, and travel. Sometimes a boat.

And they live paycheck to paycheck with a large credit card debt to boot.

I don't think it's any harder to make a living now than it used to be. It's just that people want a so much better living now.

all u had to do to afford to live was one day of work? musta been a hell-of-a wage.

If I had said that I would agree, but I said nothing like that. But then, back then we were encouraged to read too.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Call him, incorrigible

Posted by William A. Jacobson Monday, September 12, 2011 at 4:00pm

The Great Jobs Plan of 2011 is nothing more that The Great Tax Increase of 2011.

He’s completely incorrigible, the Rain Man of class warfare and tax increases on job creators:


White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew outlined President Barack Obama’s plan to pay for his $447 billion jobs plan — mostly through tax increases.

Lew said itemized tax deductions and exemptions for those making more than $200,000, and families earning more than $250,000 would be cut — raising about $400 billion to pay for Obama’s jobs plan over 10 years

» Call him, incorrigible - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Just pandering to his base, those who couldn't stay away from the nose candy long enough to find and hold a job, Those who couldn't keep their legs closed every time they thought the brass ring was near.

"Just stickin it to the rich like I promised". Class Warfare writ large

 

[FA_Q2]

Call him, incorrigible

Posted by William A. Jacobson Monday, September 12, 2011 at 4:00pm

The Great Jobs Plan of 2011 is nothing more that The Great Tax Increase of 2011.

He’s completely incorrigible, the Rain Man of class warfare and tax increases on job creators:


White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew outlined President Barack Obama’s plan to pay for his $447 billion jobs plan — mostly through tax increases.

Lew said itemized tax deductions and exemptions for those making more than $200,000, and families earning more than $250,000 would be cut — raising about $400 billion to pay for Obama’s jobs plan over 10 years

» Call him, incorrigible - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Oh, it will only take ten years to pay this one off then. I guess that includes the optimistic predictions of the affects of this stimulus II as well then?


Smells bad...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Actually, thanks to the first stimulus we still have great US cars- we still have computer stuff. But thanks for the depression and ruining the non-rich for 30 years....

Ford's Rule: "Pay the workers as much as you can, to stimulate demand"...Pubs and Voodoo: "Screw em all" LOL!

Can I have what you're smoking?

You should (probably) check with your boy, Rick.

His grasp on Reality suggests he might be a little "loaded", himself.

Rick Perry vs. CBO​