The conundrum

[code1211]

The mood of the country (at least that which gets widely reported) is that people want solutions. The only problem with that is these same people don't want those solutions to involve any sacrifices.

Polling stats indicate people want cheaper and more reliable health insurance. But to actually listen to the grumbling, they rebel at any tradeoff that would make it possible. They demand the government do something about jobs, now, but are highly critical of government stimulus spending which adds to the deficit. They want deficit reduction, but not if it means higher taxes or cuts in any program that benefits them.

The basic difference between liberals ans conservatives is this: Conservatives think that the problems of the country come out of Washington. Liberals think that the solutions come out of Washington.

I highlighted one part of your post above. Being highly critical of a stimulus that adds to the deficite is absolutely logical. The stimulus should have been designed to reduce the deficite by ginning up the economy and reinvigorating the taxable activities of the economy. Any Stimulus that adds to the deficite is not a stimulus.

Compare the stimulus to cardiac paddles. If the heart starts, they worked. If not, they didn't work. Maybe they were the wrong tool. Maybe the problem was mis diagnosed. Maybe the guy working the paddles was an idiot who should never have been given this authority.

If the stimulus works, the economy kicks in and starts working well, tax revenues increase and the deficite reduces. BECAUSE the deficite did not reduce, we know that the stimulus did not work.

No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined.

 

[uscitizen]

"The basic difference between liberals ans conservatives is this: Conservatives think that the problems of the country come out of Washington. Liberals think that the solutions come out of Washington."

This is very true. And both are very wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined.

I wish I could cut through the crap and get to the heart of the concept so easily. Well done.

 

[code1211]

This country today cannot be run based on pure conservative ideology. It simply can't. We're now a nation of around 307 million very diverse individuals, and conservatism tends to assume that all those millions can be neatly placed in one box and all come out the same--happily ever after--without regard to the enormous differences in class, culture, environment, or community structure. Conservative ideologues live in a world of what-if, and not in the real world of WHAT-IS.

What does diversity have to do the purpose of government?

Because you can't have a one-size-fits-all form of government, which is what conservatives advocate. Just read some of Foxfyres comments.

I would argue the polar opposite. When government plays favorites, the favorites are usually in the ruling classes and laws and understandings are designed to keep people "in their place".

If a government and the basis of the government, like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a for instance, are designed to be a one size fits all, that is good. It allows people to be judged on the content of their charachter rather than any other societal restriction.

From whom and to whom do you propose that the favoritism of the elite should flow?

 

[MaggieMae]

Well YOU certainly haven't read ANY of Foxfyre's comments if you think a single one of my comments comes anywhere close to your conclusion. That one is over the top even for you, Maggie.

Conservatism rejects most big government solutions to social problems in part because they ARE one-size-fits-all solutions and are therefore doomed to fail. Liberalism promotes big government as THE solution for most of such problems, and I think most liberals honestly believe that if government just had more money, more power, and more authority to fix things, it would.

Conservatives are anti-big government because they know what a lie that is.

But wasn't it you earlier who posted that any government program should be available to ALL Americans, not just certain classes? And I came back and said something to the effect "welfare for billionnaires you mean"??

Government programs that subsidize the lower class have income eligibility requirements, together with other measurements, so that means they are not one-size fits all.

I am opposed to the Federal government dispensing welfare to billionaires or anybody else. I am opposed to the Federal government dispensing any form of charity, benevolence, subsidy, etc. to anybody. So yes, whatever goods and services the federal government provides to the people must be for ALL the people--the poor and billlionaires alike. Otherwise whatever 'regulation' is imposed on government welfare can too easily be manipulated to favor pet constituencies and punish others.

My reasons go back to an understanding of the dynamics in government of the people rather than of the elite. Such a government rejects a structure that becomes more self serving than effective in serving the people. The U.S. Constitution was a 'first' in world government and was a great experiment in liberty that is impossible under feudal, monarchal, totalitarian, or socialist systems in which the government decides what the people should and should not have.

At the state and local levels, the people may very well agree on a social contract that pools resources to help the less fortunate. That cannot be done at the federal level without giving government powers that threaten the liberties the Constitution guarantees. Americans have experienced and now value such liberties as none other, and I believe that makes Americans the amazing, resourceful, and productive people that they are.

And I think in the face of increasing pressures from the government to take more and more authority, more people are beginning to recognize the danger in that.

65% Now Hold Populist, or Mainstream, Views
Sunday, January 31, 2010

Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters nationwide now hold populist, or Mainstream, views of government. That’s up from 62% last September and 55% last March.

Mainstream Americans tend to trust the wisdom of the crowd more than their political leaders and are skeptical of both big government and big business (see crosstabs). While Republicans and unaffiliated voters are more likely to hold Mainstream views than Democrats, a majority of those in the president’s party (51%) hold such views.

Only four percent (4%) now support the Political Class. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the public at large and are far less skeptical about government.

When leaners are included, 81% are in the Mainstream category, and 12% support the Political Class.

Polling conducted from January 18 through January 24 found that 76% of voters generally trust the American people more than political leaders on important national issues. Seventy-one percent (71%) view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors. On each question, a majority of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters share those views.

These results help explain why most voters are angry at the policies of the federal government, and most think that neither political party understands what the country needs.

“The American people don’t want to be governed from the left, the right or the center. The American people want to govern themselves," says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “The American attachment to self-governance runs deep. It is one of our nation’s cherished core values and an important part of our cultural DNA.” . . . .
More here:
65% Now Hold Populist, or Mainstream, Views - Rasmussen Reports

Rasmussen is your only source? Try looking at the individual polling on these issues for a change. Scott Rasmussen is a RIGHT WING POLLSTER whose questions are couched to get a conservative response.

And I couldn't really care less about all your righteous "freedom and liberty" BS. There are tens of thousands of people who CANNOT BE and ARE NOT being "helped" by your charitable organizations and cannot survive without government programs, a fact which you know but refuse to acknowledge.

Bye bye, I don't intend to read any more of your tomes. It's really not necessary to continue to repeat how you are an uber conservative who believes that there will be no class differential and no poverty if only people could see the wonders of modern conservatism. Unfortunately, it isn't reality based.

 

[MaggieMae]

The mood of the country (at least that which gets widely reported) is that people want solutions. The only problem with that is these same people don't want those solutions to involve any sacrifices.

Polling stats indicate people want cheaper and more reliable health insurance. But to actually listen to the grumbling, they rebel at any tradeoff that would make it possible. They demand the government do something about jobs, now, but are highly critical of government stimulus spending which adds to the deficit. They want deficit reduction, but not if it means higher taxes or cuts in any program that benefits them.

The basic difference between liberals ans conservatives is this: Conservatives think that the problems of the country come out of Washington. Liberals think that the solutions come out of Washington.

I highlighted one part of your post above. Being highly critical of a stimulus that adds to the deficite is absolutely logical. The stimulus should have been designed to reduce the deficite by ginning up the economy and reinvigorating the taxable activities of the economy. Any Stimulus that adds to the deficite is not a stimulus.

Compare the stimulus to cardiac paddles. If the heart starts, they worked. If not, they didn't work. Maybe they were the wrong tool. Maybe the problem was mis diagnosed. Maybe the guy working the paddles was an idiot who should never have been given this authority.

If the stimulus works, the economy kicks in and starts working well, tax revenues increase and the deficite reduces. BECAUSE the deficite did not reduce, we know that the stimulus did not work.

No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined.

Even conservative scholars knew and acknowledged and supported a stimulus package and were realistic enough to KNOW that reducing taxes even further is NOT the answer. If it were, we never would have had such an economic crisis in the first place. Even with the failed financial institutions, businesses should have been able to survive based on their existing tax cuts. But they could not.

 

[MaggieMae]

No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined.

I wish I could cut through the crap and get to the heart of the concept so easily. Well done.

OH please. We won't be able to get to the heart of the PROBLEM (a concept it is not) until the bleeding stops. To use Code's analogy, using another heart attack analogy, Bill Clinton has had to have three major surgeries to try to make sure he didn't have a heart attack.

 

[MaggieMae]

No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined.

I wish I could cut through the crap and get to the heart of the concept so easily. Well done.

Actually, using the term "concept" is what's wrong with a conservative's view on the economic situation. It's the old "what-if" concept as a way to deal with immediate problems, rather than the inyourface "what-is" reality.

 

[uscitizen]

No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined.

I wish I could cut through the crap and get to the heart of the concept so easily. Well done.

Actually, using the term "concept" is what's wrong with a conservative's view on the economic situation. It's the old "what-if" concept as a way to deal with immediate problems, rather than the inyourface "what-is" reality.

be careful with that word now!
Do you want to create a panic?

 

[MaggieMae]

What does diversity have to do the purpose of government?

Because you can't have a one-size-fits-all form of government, which is what conservatives advocate. Just read some of Foxfyres comments.

I would argue the polar opposite. When government plays favorites, the favorites are usually in the ruling classes and laws and understandings are designed to keep people "in their place".

If a government and the basis of the government, like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a for instance, are designed to be a one size fits all, that is good. It allows people to be judged on the content of their charachter rather than any other societal restriction.

From whom and to whom do you propose that the favoritism of the elite should flow?

So I shall ask the same question that I am oh, so sick and tired of asking: How would YOU turn back the clock and fix this in its entirety? You couldn't. There is absolutely zero sense in arguing ideologies in the face of an economic crisis. Things need to get done NOW, not at some future point after years of wrangling over what the Constitution may have envisioned.

 

[code1211]

Because you can't have a one-size-fits-all form of government, which is what conservatives advocate. Just read some of Foxfyres comments.

I would argue the polar opposite. When government plays favorites, the favorites are usually in the ruling classes and laws and understandings are designed to keep people "in their place".

If a government and the basis of the government, like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a for instance, are designed to be a one size fits all, that is good. It allows people to be judged on the content of their charachter rather than any other societal restriction.

From whom and to whom do you propose that the favoritism of the elite should flow?

So I shall ask the same question that I am oh, so sick and tired of asking: How would YOU turn back the clock and fix this in its entirety? You couldn't. There is absolutely zero sense in arguing ideologies in the face of an economic crisis. Things need to get done NOW, not at some future point after years of wrangling over what the Constitution may have envisioned.

I would agree.

Let's take a look at the Stimulus and let's assume that the country needed to spend almost 1 Trillion dollars to stimulate the economy. There were two basic ways to spend the money:

1. Spend it on very controlled and directed programs to funnel money into specific categories of the economy and assure that Democrats got the credit for these expenditures and that everyone knew that they "brought home the bacon".

If the outlays of money were designed to gain political advantage and assure the re-election of Democrats, the outlays would be scheduled to occur over a protracted length of time and rise as the upcoming elections approached.

This is exactly what has occurred and continues to occur. There was NO stimulus to the economy because no stimulus was intended.

2. Spend it on a less controlled and less directed program in a way that produces a multiplied amount of dollars so that if the government spent 1 Trillion dollars, the net impact to the economy would be 5 Trillion dollars.

How to do this? Tax credits to private individuals to improve their primary residence whether it be owned or rented. For every dollar spent, a direct tax credit of 25 cents would be reurned at tax time and all expenditures starting in March 2009 through March 2010 would be eligible. No drawn out politically targeted bribes. Just dollars for domiciles.

This would encourage spending, Stimulate spending so to say, and the net effect of the stimulus would be 5 Trillion dollars pumped into the economy in 12 months. This would produce the materials to improve homes from a gallon of paint to the materials to insualte an entire house, labor to do it, vehicles to carry the materials and labor to produce those materials, vehicles, clothes, tools vehicles and loans.

5 Trillion dollars coursing through the economy, that is to say, 40% of the gross domestic product added to the already existing GDP, which would have fired up the whole economy immediately.

Every person in the USA would have access to this, the entire country would have a new coat of paint and the unemployment rate would have dropped to 4%.

Taxes resulting from the increased employment would have eclipsed the Stimulus outlays and there would be a reduced or eliminated deficite instead of the disaster that we have today.

This is the difference between the Liberal Approach and the Conservative approach if we start by assuming that 1 Trillion dollars had to be spent.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is absolutely zero sense in arguing ideologies in the face of an economic crisis. Things need to get done NOW, not at some future point after years of wrangling over what the Constitution may have envisioned.

Um, didn't you say this shortly after your OP?

The OP was a generalization of the mood of the country. Address that, please. Offering solutions to specific issues are discussed elsewhere (although rather lean on the side of conservatives who are generally 99.99% criticism and 1% solutions).

When I discussed the basis for the mood of the country as I saw it, you blew it off as 'ideology'. So, how do you suggest that we approach this without making it an ideological debate?

How do we discuss what needs to get done NOW without discussing what needs to get done?

Was Code's observation valid that however wonderful sounding is the theory, it is the results that ultimately matter?

What needs to get done NOW is to stop a destructive runaway train in its tracks. That has to happen before we can even consider what needs to happen next.

 

[MaggieMae]

I would argue the polar opposite. When government plays favorites, the favorites are usually in the ruling classes and laws and understandings are designed to keep people "in their place".

If a government and the basis of the government, like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a for instance, are designed to be a one size fits all, that is good. It allows people to be judged on the content of their charachter rather than any other societal restriction.

From whom and to whom do you propose that the favoritism of the elite should flow?

So I shall ask the same question that I am oh, so sick and tired of asking: How would YOU turn back the clock and fix this in its entirety? You couldn't. There is absolutely zero sense in arguing ideologies in the face of an economic crisis. Things need to get done NOW, not at some future point after years of wrangling over what the Constitution may have envisioned.

I would agree.

Let's take a look at the Stimulus and let's assume that the country needed to spend almost 1 Trillion dollars to stimulate the economy. There were two basic ways to spend the money:

1. Spend it on very controlled and directed programs to funnel money into specific categories of the economy and assure that Democrats got the credit for these expenditures and that everyone knew that they "brought home the bacon".

If the outlays of money were designed to gain political advantage and assure the re-election of Democrats, the outlays would be scheduled to occur over a protracted length of time and rise as the upcoming elections approached.

This is exactly what has occurred and continues to occur. There was NO stimulus to the economy because no stimulus was intended.

2. Spend it on a less controlled and less directed program in a way that produces a multiplied amount of dollars so that if the government spent 1 Trillion dollars, the net impact to the economy would be 5 Trillion dollars.

How to do this? Tax credits to private individuals to improve their primary residence whether it be owned or rented. For every dollar spent, a direct tax credit of 25 cents would be reurned at tax time and all expenditures starting in March 2009 through March 2010 would be eligible. No drawn out politically targeted bribes. Just dollars for domiciles.

This would encourage spending, Stimulate spending so to say, and the net effect of the stimulus would be 5 Trillion dollars pumped into the economy in 12 months. This would produce the materials to improve homes from a gallon of paint to the materials to insualte an entire house, labor to do it, vehicles to carry the materials and labor to produce those materials, vehicles, clothes, tools vehicles and loans.

5 Trillion dollars coursing through the economy, that is to say, 40% of the gross domestic product added to the already existing GDP, which would have fired up the whole economy immediately.

Every person in the USA would have access to this, the entire country would have a new coat of paint and the unemployment rate would have dropped to 4%.

Taxes resulting from the increased employment would have eclipsed the Stimulus outlays and there would be a reduced or eliminated deficite instead of the disaster that we have today.

This is the difference between the Liberal Approach and the Conservative approach if we start by assuming that 1 Trillion dollars had to be spent.

But again, you're making a lot of assumptions that the outcome would be rosey. How would you write such a bill so that nobody falls through the cracks? How would you keep the lobbyists at bay? And to have a trillion dollar bill would be such a shock to the system that your average American would dismiss it at the outset! They were upset over $787 billion! There would be so many legal complications in such a massive bill, it's mind-boggling. Dotting the 'i's' and crossing the 't's' is why any major policy bill needs to be thousands of pages long, and Congress would once again get bogged down in details and the entire process would take forever.

I also have to add that tax cuts provided by the Bush Administration only added to his deficit. Further tax cuts are out of the question. What needs to happen, and I do believe it will, are spending cuts in at least one of the major entitlements (Medicare Advantage completely eliminated, for example), and tax increases (eliminating the Bush tax cuts set to expire next year).

And just a side note, new tax credits for homeowners already exist (as do tax credits for small businesses). We always assume that an owner of rental property will pass on his/her expenses by raising the rent, but it's odd that they never give renters a decrease in rent if they have a windfall. Perhaps a tax credit should be given to developers who build reasonably priced rental units that middle-income people can afford. I know where I live there is an enormous shortage of rental properties in the medium range, and because of demand, it costs about $800 to rent a moderate two-bedroom apartment PLUS utilities, which is way out of range for most people earning $15-$20 per hour.

I do appreciate an actual list of ideas, however. Let's keep it up, because it's a debate worth having (sans the ideology-based debates). When it comes down to nuts and bolts, I honestly don't believe Republicans and Democrats differ that much when a problem reaches the critical stage where immediate fixes are required.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is absolutely zero sense in arguing ideologies in the face of an economic crisis. Things need to get done NOW, not at some future point after years of wrangling over what the Constitution may have envisioned.

Um, didn't you say this shortly after your OP?

The OP was a generalization of the mood of the country. Address that, please. Offering solutions to specific issues are discussed elsewhere (although rather lean on the side of conservatives who are generally 99.99% criticism and 1% solutions).

When I discussed the basis for the mood of the country as I saw it, you blew it off as 'ideology'. So, how do you suggest that we approach this without making it an ideological debate?

How do we discuss what needs to get done NOW without discussing what needs to get done?

Was Code's observation valid that however wonderful sounding is the theory, it is the results that ultimately matter?

What needs to get done NOW is to stop a destructive runaway train in its tracks. That has to happen before we can even consider what needs to happen next.

I don't know which program you consider a destructive runaway train. If it's the health care bill, that looks like it's either dead as is, or it will be a do-over. I also think the energy bill is in trouble in the Senate and it's almost a sure thing that cap and trade will at least be removed. The stimulus funds have not all been spent yet, and there is some effort among the various agencies to redirect more of it to infrastructure projects that have proven successful. The DOT could become the focus (read allocations and successes to date, below), as well as education.

department of transportation stimulus... - Google News

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I am totally opposed to just doing something, anything in the face of crisis. You think first, then act. You analyze the problem (Bad loans by banks, panic on the part of investors, bad loans being foisted on banks by regulators) and you fix the causes.

Stimulus is just a way to rip off the taxpayer for the benefit of the connected folks. It has no relation to the problem at hand, except we have a lot of unemployment.

Stupid acts done in the face of panic are twice as stupid, as they compound the problem and make it worse.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is absolutely zero sense in arguing ideologies in the face of an economic crisis. Things need to get done NOW, not at some future point after years of wrangling over what the Constitution may have envisioned.

Um, didn't you say this shortly after your OP?

The OP was a generalization of the mood of the country. Address that, please. Offering solutions to specific issues are discussed elsewhere (although rather lean on the side of conservatives who are generally 99.99% criticism and 1% solutions).

When I discussed the basis for the mood of the country as I saw it, you blew it off as 'ideology'. So, how do you suggest that we approach this without making it an ideological debate?

How do we discuss what needs to get done NOW without discussing what needs to get done?

Was Code's observation valid that however wonderful sounding is the theory, it is the results that ultimately matter?

What needs to get done NOW is to stop a destructive runaway train in its tracks. That has to happen before we can even consider what needs to happen next.

I don't know which program you consider a destructive runaway train. If it's the health care bill, that looks like it's either dead as is, or it will be a do-over. I also think the energy bill is in trouble in the Senate and it's almost a sure thing that cap and trade will at least be removed. The stimulus funds have not all been spent yet, and there is some effort among the various agencies to redirect more of it to infrastructure projects that have proven successful. The DOT could become the focus (read allocations and successes to date, below), as well as education.

department of transportation stimulus... - Google News

An administration who is spending, spending, spending, spending, proposing new taxes, spending, spending, spending, spending, proposing new taxes, is a runaway train. Yes the people have so far been successful in slowing it down in the healthcare debacle and the horrendous and indefensible cap & trade initiative. But we are still facing trillions of dollars of deficit and a vastly swelled national debt unless they are successful in derailing or stopping the reckless attempt to 'spend ourselves rich'.

What of the TARP and stimulus packages that have been spent have accomplished nothing. They were to prevent bankruptcies of auto makers that happened anyway and now the government and union controls them with none of the problems corrected that caused the problem in the first place.

They were to stabilize the financial institutions. Those that have been stablized did not need the TARP money to accomplish that and those that are still in trouble were not helped. The core issues that created the problem have not been even addressed, much less repaired.

They were to shore up the failing housing market and everybody who was underwater then still is and many more have joined them.

They were to jump start the economy and create jobs. We continue to lose tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs month after month, unemployment increased to 10% (which we were promised would not happen due to the stimulus bill) and remains at or near that range for months now. Most of the stimulus money that has been spent went for targeted pork barrel initiatives that provided no stimulus for most of the country and no permanent relief for anybody. And now they want to spend the rest in the same way.

And instead of returning repaid TARP money to the national treasury, the President now views that as his own petty cash fund to spend again and again.

Now Maggie, YOU may think all this is sound fiscal policy and we should be praising the administration for all its hard work to save us.

Many of us, however, see this all as lunacy, a certain prescxription to ensure a recession and near depression for as far as the eye can see, and irresponsible to the core.

A runaway train that must be stopped.

 

[MaggieMae]

I am totally opposed to just doing something, anything in the face of crisis. You think first, then act. You analyze the problem (Bad loans by banks, panic on the part of investors, bad loans being foisted on banks by regulators) and you fix the causes.

Stimulus is just a way to rip off the taxpayer for the benefit of the connected folks. It has no relation to the problem at hand, except we have a lot of unemployment.

Stupid acts done in the face of panic are twice as stupid, as they compound the problem and make it worse.

You do know, I hope, that the bank failures began almost overnight with very few of their CEOs even having a clue what had been happening. How do you "analyze" something of that magnitude when within a 72 hour period, it was discovered that they had no assets to back up their existing financial structure, affecting businesses and governments all over the world?

That said, I'm wondering just how many people would have fallen into the giant chasm of the unemployed that already existed had we taken the time to figure out (a) how the bank failures affected ongoing business failures, (b) where those "bad loans" resided, and (c) how to keep those employees suddenly without jobs working for businesses that survived.

Seems to me that you know little of the chain of events that occurred, so you're all set to jump into the ol' what-if scenario, when every economist on the planet was scared shitless that the entire world's economy was set to crash unless SOMETHING was done IMMEDIATELY. In this case, stopping the bleeding before surgery was absolutely necessary.

There are a ton of books, articles and documentaries detailing and naming names regarding the economic collapse and the events leading up to it. One of the best is "Too Big to Fail," for which there are excerpts all over the place (try Amazon), if you don't want to take the time to read up on the whole sordid mess.

 

[MaggieMae]

Um, didn't you say this shortly after your OP?



When I discussed the basis for the mood of the country as I saw it, you blew it off as 'ideology'. So, how do you suggest that we approach this without making it an ideological debate?

How do we discuss what needs to get done NOW without discussing what needs to get done?

Was Code's observation valid that however wonderful sounding is the theory, it is the results that ultimately matter?

What needs to get done NOW is to stop a destructive runaway train in its tracks. That has to happen before we can even consider what needs to happen next.

I don't know which program you consider a destructive runaway train. If it's the health care bill, that looks like it's either dead as is, or it will be a do-over. I also think the energy bill is in trouble in the Senate and it's almost a sure thing that cap and trade will at least be removed. The stimulus funds have not all been spent yet, and there is some effort among the various agencies to redirect more of it to infrastructure projects that have proven successful. The DOT could become the focus (read allocations and successes to date, below), as well as education.

department of transportation stimulus... - Google News

An administration who is spending, spending, spending, spending, proposing new taxes, spending, spending, spending, spending, proposing new taxes, is a runaway train. Yes the people have so far been successful in slowing it down in the healthcare debacle and the horrendous and indefensible cap & trade initiative. But we are still facing trillions of dollars of deficit and a vastly swelled national debt unless they are successful in derailing or stopping the reckless attempt to 'spend ourselves rich'.

What of the TARP and stimulus packages that have been spent have accomplished nothing. They were to prevent bankruptcies of auto makers that happened anyway and now the government and union controls them with none of the problems corrected that caused the problem in the first place.

They were to stabilize the financial institutions. Those that have been stablized did not need the TARP money to accomplish that and those that are still in trouble were not helped. The core issues that created the problem have not been even addressed, much less repaired.

They were to shore up the failing housing market and everybody who was underwater then still is and many more have joined them.

They were to jump start the economy and create jobs. We continue to lose tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs month after month, unemployment increased to 10% (which we were promised would not happen due to the stimulus bill) and remains at or near that range for months now. Most of the stimulus money that has been spent went for targeted pork barrel initiatives that provided no stimulus for most of the country and no permanent relief for anybody. And now they want to spend the rest in the same way.

And instead of returning repaid TARP money to the national treasury, the President now views that as his own petty cash fund to spend again and again.

Now Maggie, YOU may think all this is sound fiscal policy and we should be praising the administration for all its hard work to save us.

Many of us, however, see this all as lunacy, a certain prescxription to ensure a recession and near depression for as far as the eye can see, and irresponsible to the core.

A runaway train that must be stopped.

I'm not saying it's all been successful. It hasn't. But ironically, greater minds than ours have actually stated that MORE "bailouts" and "stimulus" are necessary, that the original was not enough.

As for the TARP funds, those financial institutions would indeed have gone under without help (with the exception of Goldman-Sachs which I too remain skeptical that it needed anything at all), but the only reason they are back on their feet now is because Congress is still dragging its feet on re-regulating them so that they MUST be financially leveraged and not act like risky hedge funds. The "fee" Obama wants to impose is a stop gap measure to make sure that if those same banks go under again because they're playing by Las Vegas rules, they will need to look to their OWN insurance (the fee account) to pick themselves up and not expect the taxpayers to do it again.

I also take strong issue that the stimulus bill as "accomplished nothing" which is the mantra of the cons 24/7. There are plenty of websites that track the spending, and which I've posted many times. It isn't my fault if you and others refuse to actually LOOK AT IT. Has there been waste? Yes. There's been waste of the grant money given to states to use at their discretion, so I blame state and local leadership for a lot of the silly projects they decided to use their money for.

There have also been thousands of homeowners about to lose their homes who have been saved; tax credits for new home buyers, and other assistance. They can't ALL be saved!!!

Why don't you read something other than the negative crap? It isn't all happy, for sure, but it isn't all as dismal as you portray it either.

READ THIS, and follow it daily:
http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimulus

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know which program you consider a destructive runaway train. If it's the health care bill, that looks like it's either dead as is, or it will be a do-over. I also think the energy bill is in trouble in the Senate and it's almost a sure thing that cap and trade will at least be removed. The stimulus funds have not all been spent yet, and there is some effort among the various agencies to redirect more of it to infrastructure projects that have proven successful. The DOT could become the focus (read allocations and successes to date, below), as well as education.

department of transportation stimulus... - Google News

An administration who is spending, spending, spending, spending, proposing new taxes, spending, spending, spending, spending, proposing new taxes, is a runaway train. Yes the people have so far been successful in slowing it down in the healthcare debacle and the horrendous and indefensible cap & trade initiative. But we are still facing trillions of dollars of deficit and a vastly swelled national debt unless they are successful in derailing or stopping the reckless attempt to 'spend ourselves rich'.

What of the TARP and stimulus packages that have been spent have accomplished nothing. They were to prevent bankruptcies of auto makers that happened anyway and now the government and union controls them with none of the problems corrected that caused the problem in the first place.

They were to stabilize the financial institutions. Those that have been stablized did not need the TARP money to accomplish that and those that are still in trouble were not helped. The core issues that created the problem have not been even addressed, much less repaired.

They were to shore up the failing housing market and everybody who was underwater then still is and many more have joined them.

They were to jump start the economy and create jobs. We continue to lose tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs month after month, unemployment increased to 10% (which we were promised would not happen due to the stimulus bill) and remains at or near that range for months now. Most of the stimulus money that has been spent went for targeted pork barrel initiatives that provided no stimulus for most of the country and no permanent relief for anybody. And now they want to spend the rest in the same way.

And instead of returning repaid TARP money to the national treasury, the President now views that as his own petty cash fund to spend again and again.

Now Maggie, YOU may think all this is sound fiscal policy and we should be praising the administration for all its hard work to save us.

Many of us, however, see this all as lunacy, a certain prescxription to ensure a recession and near depression for as far as the eye can see, and irresponsible to the core.

A runaway train that must be stopped.

I'm not saying it's all been successful. It hasn't. But ironically, greater minds than ours have actually stated that MORE "bailouts" and "stimulus" are necessary, that the original was not enough.

As for the TARP funds, those financial institutions would indeed have gone under without help (with the exception of Goldman-Sachs which I too remain skeptical that it needed anything at all), but the only reason they are back on their feet now is because Congress is still dragging its feet on re-regulating them so that they MUST be financially leveraged and not act like risky hedge funds. The "fee" Obama wants to impose is a stop gap measure to make sure that if those same banks go under again because they're playing by Las Vegas rules, they will need to look to their OWN insurance (the fee account) to pick themselves up and not expect the taxpayers to do it again.

I also take strong issue that the stimulus bill as "accomplished nothing" which is the mantra of the cons 24/7. There are plenty of websites that track the spending, and which I've posted many times. It isn't my fault if you and others refuse to actually LOOK AT IT. Has there been waste? Yes. There's been waste of the grant money given to states to use at their discretion, so I blame state and local leadership for a lot of the silly projects they decided to use their money for.

There have also been thousands of homeowners about to lose their homes who have been saved; tax credits for new home buyers, and other assistance. They can't ALL be saved!!!

Why don't you read something other than the negative crap? It isn't all happy, for sure, but it isn't all as dismal as you portray it either.

READ THIS, and follow it daily:
Eye on the Stimulus - ProPublica

Well, I'm not going to go through (yet again) all the counter arguments I have for your arguments, Maggie. I respect your conviction that you are right. I also respect my conviction that I am mostly right. I believe that the current administration and congress is rushing us headlong toward financial disaster that will not be overcome in my lifetime and perhaps not in that of my children and grandchildren, if ever. I only pray that it is due to inexperience, naivete, and/or stupidity rather than intentional.

I am unable to look at this through the rose tinted glasses as you seem to be able to do. I have a pretty good grasp of history and there is no evidence that this country nor any other has been able to tax and spend itself into prosperity.

So perhaps we can agree to disagree on that.

 

[code1211]

But again, you're making a lot of assumptions that the outcome would be rosey. How would you write such a bill so that nobody falls through the cracks? How would you keep the lobbyists at bay? And to have a trillion dollar bill would be such a shock to the system that your average American would dismiss it at the outset! They were upset over $787 billion! There would be so many legal complications in such a massive bill, it's mind-boggling. Dotting the 'i's' and crossing the 't's' is why any major policy bill needs to be thousands of pages long, and Congress would once again get bogged down in details and the entire process would take forever.

I also have to add that tax cuts provided by the Bush Administration only added to his deficit. Further tax cuts are out of the question. What needs to happen, and I do believe it will, are spending cuts in at least one of the major entitlements (Medicare Advantage completely eliminated, for example), and tax increases (eliminating the Bush tax cuts set to expire next year).

And just a side note, new tax credits for homeowners already exist (as do tax credits for small businesses). We always assume that an owner of rental property will pass on his/her expenses by raising the rent, but it's odd that they never give renters a decrease in rent if they have a windfall. Perhaps a tax credit should be given to developers who build reasonably priced rental units that middle-income people can afford. I know where I live there is an enormous shortage of rental properties in the medium range, and because of demand, it costs about $800 to rent a moderate two-bedroom apartment PLUS utilities, which is way out of range for most people earning $15-$20 per hour.

I do appreciate an actual list of ideas, however. Let's keep it up, because it's a debate worth having (sans the ideology-based debates). When it comes down to nuts and bolts, I honestly don't believe Republicans and Democrats differ that much when a problem reaches the critical stage where immediate fixes are required.

I think that the Democrat approach was pointless and completely lacking results.

The republican approach given the same circumstance would have been to simply cut taxes. The result of this would have been pointless and completely lacking results.

My idea is one that would act as a multiplier of the government outlay. 787 billion or a Trillion; it doesn't matter. the dems would burn it and the Reps would throw it away.

Under my plan, the effect would be immediate, direct, positive and forceful.

No money would go to a landlord or a corporation. All of it would go to individuals who have a primary residence whether it is owned or rented. The law could be printed on one side of an 8.5 by 11 sheet of paper. Spend money to improve your primary residence. Save the recipts. Add the recipts together. Multiply by .25. Reduce your tax liability by that amount.

If your tax is $10,000, you could potentially do $40,000 worth of improvements and get it written off partially written off. Obviously, it is self regulating because you can only credit as much as you would have paid. Do Allot? You have to hire someone to help. Everyone does allot? Lots of folks get hired. Those folks pay taxes.

The moral of the story is that the Dems did it wrong, cost us plenty and produced no results. The Reps didn't do it, but if they had, they too would have done it wrong, cost us plenty and produced no results.

Aren't we all just a little sick of getting screwed and getting nothing that we've been promised?