As Obama floats his $800 billion stimulus plan — over 2600 dollars for every man, woman, and child in the country — i would like to suggest my own plan for the economy:
Do nothing.
If that’s not feasible, do as little as possible.
Thank you.
P.S. Or we could just borrow more and completely trash our children’s future (even more than we have already) to fund goodies for Congressmen. Either way.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Powered by WordPress.
Breaking News: $800 billion may not be enough to stimulate the economy. Total could go as high as $1.3 trillion. Much more needed in years ahead.
Ropelight (d40bc3) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:23 amThey can just take my “part” of that total and just cut me a check…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:30 amAnd of course all those newly minted greenbacks will enrichen all our lives. No fears of a new Weimar Republic and massive inflation ahead. The change you hoped for and anything that is bad was due to malfeasance of the evil Bush. There are lib petitions out there telling W to take responsibility for the mess he made giving his wall st. pals a break. O’s pal Raines is blameless, as are the clean hands of Dodd, Franks and Jamie Gorelick. Even some Hollywood libtards are aware of the complicity of those aforementioned miscreants. Fannie/Freddie got their money’s worth from Obama, Lurch and Dodd.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:34 amWhat is the breakdown for every taxpayer in the US? Just cut me a check for that amount, instead, since my fed income tax is greater than my fed income tax return, let alone all my other non-fed income taxes.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:36 amHeh, guess the underline preview doesn’t go through to the actual. Underline “taxpayer” in your minds, okay? Thx.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:38 amDon’t hold your breath waiting for a stimulus check under Obamafuehrer unless you already pay no fed income taxes. We really have to start leveling incomes and helping out the poor more. Or at least the beleagured UAW. What did Congress propose, about a $100 a week increase in their unearned salaries? How often did Clinton, Obama, Biden and McCain show up for votes last couple of years?
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:45 amAfter 8 years of George Bush’s deficits and expensive wars, now you’re going to start worrying about future taxpayers? That’s convenient. You guys got to spend trillions creating and exasperating all of these problems, and you expect the people that are coming after you to fix the problems by spending nothing? How does that make sense?
Sarlberid (116266) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:49 amFront-loading primaries and curtailing freedom of speech did wonders, didn’t they?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:49 amThe reality is that the “stimulus” will do nothing in terms of our economy, at best.
The “need” is for the Democrats to pass something that they can point to and take credit for the return of the natural economic cycle. They want to dance a big expensive dance in the night and take credit for the sunrise.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:52 amYeah, funny thing, that… The economy was doing great up until about 2 years ago… I wonder what happened then…
Oh yeah, that’s right. The dem’s got control of congress. I forgot.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:54 amOh hey look! The weather has changed, and everyone remembers they’re a fiscal conservative again! I thought you guys went extinct.
Sarlberid (116266) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:54 amOkay sport. What bill or bills did the Democratic Congress pass or not pass that means they are fully responsible for the current economic problems?
Specificity is your friend.
Sarlberid (116266) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:58 amWhat’s even funnier is that for 8 years the Democrats have been railing about deficits and future taxpayers, and now it’s okay to run up another $800 billion in debt.
I know you wanted to use a really big word there, but I think you meant exacerbating.
What Patterico is proposing is to let the economy work its trouble out on its own. It will happen, given time, and it will be for the best. It’s certainly a better idea than throwing money around simply for the sake of throwing money around.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/7/2009 @ 7:58 am#7 You are advocating a “do nothing” approach to 9/11? You blame Bush for exacerbating the debt issues? Seriously? What of the Dem-controlled congress who continuously fed pork-filled and debt-ridden budgets to Bush? Do they not get any blame? What of the libs’ successful scuttling of “line-item veto” with SCUS? Does that not get any of the blame? What of a previous Dem-controlled congress’ passing of a law that makes it illegal for a sitting president to refuse to spend money congress appropriated? Does that not get any blame?
Your convenient amnesia draws bile from the pit of my stomach and into my mouth.
Here’s a hint: Get your facts straight before you make another propaganda attempt here. We’re better informed than the vast majority of the US population.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:00 amOkay sport. What bill or bills did the Democratic Congress pass or not pass that means they are fully responsible for the current economic problems?
Specificity is your friend.
Comment by Sarlberid
Does Community Reinvestment Act ring a bell? I notice you left yourself an out by adding “fully” to your rant.
Democrats have been programed to spend back to the days when they passed legislation to stop Nixon from refusing to spend appropriated money by recision.
History is your friend if you would only make his acquaintance.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:08 amOkay sport. What bill or bills did the Democratic Congress pass or not pass that means they are fully responsible for the current economic problems?
How about the last stimulus/voter bribe package pushed through a year and a half ago on the Donkey watch?
How about the inane bailout that every mother’s son is hopping upon?
Geez, you libs never realize that words mean something. BTW, let’s turn your “trillions for war” argument around- why, after all the lib bitching about budget-busting expenditures in Iraq
are you socialist-libs champing at the bit to dwarf the spending of the Bush years? For “green” jobs?
Please spare us the intellectual superiority- people who don’t learn and can’t count aren’t very smart.
trentk269 (3d3bfe) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:12 amSarlberid, the current economic crisis is the result of longstanding policies of government intervention in the mortgage financing market that created a discontinuity between actual risk and perceived risk. As a result, when the housing price bubble popped, those created a credit crisis. Democratic policies contributed to that crisis by subsidizing on the taxpayer credit the extension of loans to people who were poor credit risks. Democrats opposed reining in this issue when even mild attempts were made.
Do pay attention.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:13 amYes, that’s what I’m saying. More spending is necessary because of how much Republicans have wrecked the joint. I mean, do you guys think you have any credibility on this front anymore? It’s not like Bush was an anomaly, his father and the Great Reagan spent like crackheads, too.
Wow. Get a life?
Um, leaving the market to its own devices is what’s created this disaster in the first place, and we’re supposed to believe, on faith, that it will auto-correct and everything will be great again in a few months? That’s like standing outside of your crumbled home after an earthquake and just hoping that an aftershock comes through and puts it all back together just the way it was.
Sarlberid (116266) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:16 am#18
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn’t have an impact? You know, those pseudo-government agencies that went belly-up? Those agencies that were specifically excluded from proper accounting and oversight regulations? Those agencies that contributed huge sums to politicians, the top 4 being Dems, with Obama being one of the top 4 in recipients over the past 10 years despite the fact he was only a recipient over the past 3 years? Where McCain adamantly warned they were going belly-up without proper oversight years in advance and the Dems you support accused him of racism?
Please do try to get your facts straight. You will be eaten alive by the fact-piranha you will find in these waters.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:23 amThis is worth talking about, because you’re kind of close on the part about discontinuity between risks, except that it wasn’t government intervention that created, but rather the supposedly benevolent and all-knowing free market.
Should have stopped there though.
The programs that you’re talking about, even if they were run as poorly as they possibly could have been, were not so fundamentally problematic that they trigger an international financial meltdown. Certainly there were loans given to less ideal candidates, but those loans alone couldn’t bring down these billion dollar companies. The relatively small risk had to be transmogrified by Wall Street through frantic, unregulated trading into the sort of massive risk that is now shutting down our economy.
Yes, some of these Democratic programs had weaknesses. Those weaknesses were exploited by short-sighted, money-grubbing criminals, and that’s the issue that we’re dealing with now. I mean, the idea that the largest and wealthiest economies in the history of the world could be thrown totally out of balance by a program that gave poor minorities home loans doesn’t strike you as laughably implausible?
Sarlberid (116266) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:41 amEither spending is a good thing, or it is not. You appear to think that when Republicans spend, it’s a bad thing, but when Democrats do it, it’s a good thing. Talk about lacking credibility.
Translation: I attempt to look smart by using a big word, and use the wrong word. When called on it, I lash out, because I have no explanation for my idiocy.
No, that’s not even close to the truth. Stupid regulations that pushed mortgage lenders into making loans to people who couldn’t pay them back, combined with deliberate blockade by Democrats in Congress was the proximate cause.
I never said a few months, those are your words. But the fact remains that the American economy finds its own momentum, and left to itself will get back on track.
No, it’s simply realizing that 300 million people going about their daily business will revive the economy without any “stimulus” from Uncle Sam. To believe as you do is to believe that all Americans will simultaneously stop working, driving, eating, and spending money.
BTW, I reject your premise that the American economy is in ruins.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:46 amIf you do not give loans to people who are high risk, we (the feds) will investigate you. We (the Dems in power) will castigate you publicly and do everything in our power to bring you down. After all, you (the ones refusing high-risk loans) are racist and in violation of equitable lending laws we (the libs) created.
The crime here is the crime of vote-buying at the expense of people who actually can make money, those of today and those of 20 years from now.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:47 amSince we’re talking fantasy here, why not have Congress just cut everyone who wants to START a business, EMPLOY qualified people, PAY them good wages for jobs well done and CUT TAXES so that everyone can spend the money we earn?
Of course, Congress would NEVER let the PEEPULL live their own lives without their interference.
SeniorD (50f696) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:51 amSteverino, apart from the slapfests that always happen in this kind of situation, there is a real philosophical issue emerging.
Is government the answer, or part of the problem?
Most folks on the Left believe that the government, and regulations and law, will “fix” things. Most folks on the Right want to see more “free market” strategies in play.
It’s not as cut and dried as “All Lefties like rules,” and “All Righties worship Adam Smith.” Certainly the Right has been spending too much (and many conservatives have criticized and rejected the Right for this, which is one reason that Obama won the election). But for the Left to counsel fiscal restraint is ludicrous.
We’ll see what happens. Bad policies on both sides of the aisle put us here. But one thing is certain: things are neither as bad, or as good, as political cheerleaders in DC tell us.
Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:52 am“Um, leaving the market to its own devices is what’s created this disaster in the first place,”
Who taught you this? The market is what created the American economy, the largest economy in the world. We go thru a recession and you just want to trash everything and use it to advance socialism. At least be honest about it. How old are you anyway? Have you never seen a recession before or something? It is not like the economy would just keep going up and up if not for a political party gaining control. To try to shift blame for this onto Reagan exposes you as some stupid piece of sh!t that wandered over here with some DK talking points. Go back over there where your genius is appreciated please.
Mr. Pink (a64369) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:57 amI have an issue with those who consider Republican and “the right” to be synonymous. They are not. While it is true there are no data-points of “the right” in the Democrat set, and there are many data-points of “the right” in the Republican set, this does not make “the right” synonymous to Republican. It does not even make “the right” a subset of the Republican set. In truth, “the right” is a set that intersects the Republican set and is exclusive of the Democrat set.
Just for clarification purposes.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:57 amHere’s the thing; I’m not running around pretending I’m a fiscal conservative.
No translation necessary. If you’re correcting strangers’ spelling on the internet you literally need to get a life.
Especially if I spelled the word right.
I’m sorry, but that alone doesn’t destroy the United States economy. It’s too complex and resilient to be brought to a standstill by a singular, allegedly misguided housing program.
Except when its own momentum sends it off a cliff.
Anyway, keep hitting that message. I’m sure people that are jobless will be receptive to the ‘let’s not do anything at all ever about anything’ plan.
It’s hard to do those things if people are losing their jobs.
I’m sure you do. I don’t know how many times I’ve had a Republican tell me over the past 8 years, ‘Sure, Bush has made a few mistakes, but the economy is going strong!’
Just keep believing man.
Sarlberid (116266) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:02 amYes if only Carter would have defeated Reagan in 1980 none of this would be happening huh idiot? Seomeone is teaching you this crap, propagandizing you to be a moron. Noone would come to your conclusions if they objectively looked at history.
Mr. Pink (a64369) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:02 amSarlberid, the free market created the problem? You said that with a straight face? Nearly half of all mortgages being written by a government corporation, regulation by the Community Reinvestment Act threatening lenders who don’t write enough loans in the subprime market and you say its a “free market” ?
You seem to have a broken dictionary.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:04 amSarlberid – Why not focus on passing laws that will create private sector jobs instead having the government crowd the private sector out. Allowing drilling in previously restricted areas is one such idea that will allow us to transition to a greener energy future over time and create jobs as well. Your grade school understanding of U.S. energy history and Peak Oil fantasies shows your ignorance in this area. Permitting and building nuclear energy plants would be another good idea outside the government realm. No government spending required.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:11 amAnd adding to SPQR’s “broken dictionary” theme, exasperate is not at all the word that fits what was written in that particular argument. Exacerbate is the word that fits. Of course, you can claim to have spelled “exasperate” correctly all you want. It doesn’t change the fact “exasperate” was the wrong word. But debating someone who such as Sarlberid, who rejects facts that run counter to his “truth” can truly be considered exasperating.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:14 amOne of the problems, I think, is large governmental entities making “one size fits all” decisions.
Kind of a “one ring to rule them all” philosophy.
Then the LGEs start using their political ideology to make fiscal decisions—that is, everyone should own house, even if they cannot afford to make the mortgage payments.
It takes me back to Huey Long, with “Every man a king.”
Voters love that idea. But they won’t like the aftermath.
And that sad part is, the politicians who demagogue all this walk away clean. Like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:15 amFor literally tens of thousands of years, government has been the answer. We kind of owe civilization to the fact that humans started organizing the people in their communities to build irrigation canals and and roads and city walls and stuff. Government has been abusive and oppressive at times, to be sure, but one of the cool things about living in America is that we were one of the first places to realize it didn’t need to be that way. We owe our security and our wealth to the United States government more than anything else whether or not you accept that or not. (Before you credit the free market for all those things, recognize that the free market is a product of government, too.)
Our society is larger and more complex ever, and the idea that we no longer need the government, as if it was just some development stage that was bringing us to unrestrained capitalism, is irresponsible. Government can only be as good as the people that we put in there, and well, there aren’t many characteristics of George Bush (or most of the Democratic leadership, to be fair) that I would describe as good.
Sarlberid (116266) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:18 amAlso the deflections seen here along the lines of “Well Bush spent like hell for the last 8 years” are pure partisan horseshit. If my dad caught me stealing and I said “Well my brother was stealing first” he still would have beat my ass. Either massive government overspending is good or it is bad. It does not magically become good when the politician doing the spending of your money has a D or an R in front of his name.
PS Obama has voted for each and every one of these bills that are just “spreading our wealth around”. He plans on doing more. To not even address an argument point and instead immediatly jump too “Well Bush spent like a drunken sailor” is an elementary school debate tactic. Also Bush doesn’t spend a dime that’s congress, they authorize spending our tax dollars not the president. Please go look at the Constitution once or twice before you keep commenting and making yourself look like a moron.
Mr. Pink (a64369) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:19 am“We owe our security and our wealth to the United States government more than anything else”
Yes F all that “Government for the People, by the People” stuff. We owe our government everything. The American citizen did not conquer the West and settle the Continent, no no. We did not defeat communism, nazism, facism, and make this country the world’s sole superpower. No way. It was our blessed government, oh sorry that would be Government.
You can not get a job without your Government helping, you can not get an eductation without it helping, you are nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, if not for having a government run by the right people. Your life will become meaningless and you will be bound to fail. We owe our government everything.
If you couldn’t tell I was being sarcastic because you make me sick.
Mr. Pink (a64369) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:27 amJust so I have this straight. You think the global economy was thrown for a loop because…. low-income Americans were defaulting on their home loans?
Sarlberid (116266) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:27 amYou tell us, smart guy.
C. Norris (71baba) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:29 amEB, Huey Long was devoted to the belief that the government could, nee should create these kings by guaranteeing everyone an income enough to provide them with their own homes, a radio and an automobile. Of course the modern translation of these entitlements would be a home…and an American made car and big screen television.
I think it was Spanish philospher Santanaya who noted that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it….unfortunately decades of dependence conditioning has resulted in too many being more than willing to abdicate their own responsibilities, self-reliance and independence.
Dana (137151) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:29 amSarlberid, actually the global economy was thrown for a loop because the credit markets are global. Similar problems to ours occurred in European mortgage markets as well – markets no less regulated than ours. As an example, the entire Icelandic banking industry has collapse, with a loss in excess of Iceland’s entire GDP, due to their exposure in European and US mortgage-backed securities.
You really don’t understand the current credit crisis at all do you?
SPQR (72771e) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:31 amSo you are in disbelief that the world credit market could be thrown for a loop by hundreds of thousands of defaulting 300 thousand dollar mortgages in the United States, but yet in the next breath you blame two Republican presidents(shocker there), George Bush and Reagan, without batting an eye. Such intellectual consistency is stunning. You should go on tour with this crap.
The world market was torn down by one idiotic madman, George Bush, and one political party in the United States, Republicans. Those bastards. Did you get your grasp of economics playing SimCity?
Mr. Pink (a64369) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:38 amI don’t and I’m close to the RE biz, but thats what the folks on the 6:00 o’clock alphabet news tell us. What’s YOUR take. More Republican Madoff’s than Dems? Could be. Lotsa Dems on Wall Street now.
C. Norris (71baba) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:39 am#40
That SimCity remark, while curiously humorous, is a bit inaccurate. Playing SimCity on my PS1, I found starting out with a tax rate of 3% as opposed to the default tax rate of 7% created a much greater high-value commerce sector and a much greater population density. It is obvious SimCity’s creators were better versed in tax issues than are today’s libs.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:44 amSpending $800 billion for projects worth $200 billion will not stimulate the economy. It will make us $600 billion poorer and deeper in debt.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:48 amDana, Long tapped into the ever-powerful “gimme something for free because I deserve it” mentality.
Our politicians don’t believe we should have what they have. Why should we believe Long’s philosophy?
I’m also reminded of Long’s statement to people who were considering contributing to his political campaigns:
Sounds like Chicago South, maybe?
The Eric Blair Related to Cajuns (3e2520) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:50 amSarlberid wrote:
This statement assumes that those of us who voted for President Bush — twice, in my case, and I’d do so again — approve of everything the Republican Congress and he did.
Certainly not in my case; I just knew that the Democrats would have been much worse. I wanted taxes cut, but I also wanted spending cut.
I’d start out with the very basic division: is it a luxury or is it a necessity; luxury spending would go. And I’d have another very simple formulation: if you don’t work, you don’t eat.
The too highly taxed Dana (3e4784) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:58 amChicago and NY Port Authority and LAT friends?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 9:58 amDana, speaking of luxury (taxes), whatever happened to that luxury tax on yachts the illustrious Mister Clinton and his all-knowing Democrats created?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:02 amif you don’t work, you don’t eat.
Gasp! The too highly taxed Dana, you bring shame to our name with this unjust and obviously unfair demand. Don’t you understand, if it weren’t for George Bush everybody would be working…because everybody wants to work and nobody wants to be *forced* to take those freebies at the public trough! But George Bush didn’t let them! Stop trying to force people to be responsible for their own predicaments!
The Dana seeking a name change (137151) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:08 amGovernment is evil. It’s a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless, and therefore should always be kept at a minimum. I wish that would be made part of the oaths of office. What’s more, it has never done anything well… ever.
But hey, digging yourself further into debt is always the best way to handle money problems, right? It’s not like that’s what got us into this problem in the first place… right?
Buzz Killington (747191) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:09 am# 33
We kind of owe civilization to the fact that humans started organizing the people in their communities to build irrigation canals and roads and city walls and stuff.
Infrastructure is what you are talking about and I will go out on a limb here and say that “civilizations” existed before infrastructure.
And just off the top of my head I recall some very large construction projects that “governments” have undertaken and to keep cost down they used slave labor, so we owe a lot more to slaves than any government.
Why do these types only see “free markets” as those that only go up, never down?
ML (14488c) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:11 amOh, disingenuous Dana, how horribly obvious you are. You should be ashamed of yourself for even placing in my mind the memory of that IL (oops) member of congress who decried forcing Chicago “projects” residents to work 2 hours a week to clean up their buildings for welfare checks as “communism.” Hang your head low in utter shame, disingenuous Dana, for even causing me to remember that speech. How horrid of you to remind me of historical speeches.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:12 amOur incoming President has spoken!
And he hasn’t even told all of the truth yet. We had a $455 billion deficit for FT2008, and no reason to expect that systemic deficit to be lower. Then we threw in a $700 billion financial systems bailout at the very beginning of FY2009. Now we’re looking at a deficit of, very roughly, $1.15 trillion for FY2009, before the first penny of the stimulus package is passed. If the Congress passes a $775 billion stimulus package, and spends it all in FY2009, we’re looking at a deficit closer to two trillion, at (again, very roughly) $1.9 trillion.
I love how he blamed President Bush for increasing the debt, and them plans on increasing it himself by over a trillion dollars every single year.
Our esteemed host was right: just do nothing, nothing at all, and it can’t possibly be worse than what Mr Obama is planning.
The too highly taxed Dana (3e4784) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:13 amThe Dana seeking a name change wrote:
[Hanging my head in shame] Oh, you’re absolutely right, and I am so, so wrong. To save everone else the effort, I’ll go ahead and denounce myself, severely.
The Dana who should be run out of town (3e4784) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:17 amNo. Why should it?
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:23 amCan you hear me now? 😉
Obviously Dana, Dana, Dana, Dana and Dana can’t hear anyone other than the other Danas. Maybe now one of the Danas can hear me, maybe? 😉
The Dana named John Hitchcock (but not really) (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:24 amComment by John Hitchcock — 1/7/2009 @ 10:02 am
AD (64c542) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:25 amThat was the Luxury Tax Act of ’88 IIRC pushed by the Sen Maj Ldr George Mitchell (D-ME) on cars, boats and planes.
It eventually died after the GOP took over Congress in ’95, but not before it devestated the yacht industry in Mitchell’s home state.
Someone did a study on it and found that the unemployment benefit costs to the Federal Government for unemployed boat workers exceeded the amount of tax collected on yachts.
It also pretty much killed the General Aviation industry for a decade, with the exception of executive jets (go figure).
(#33) For literally tens of thousands of years, government has been the answer. . . .Our society is larger and more complex [than] ever
Wow, that’s the moldy old argument that the more complex the society, the bigger the government we need. You sound like an old Italian fascist:
“We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become.”
—Benito Mussolini
You’ll find that quote in Chapter 4 of The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek (1944), as he criticised government planning.
Official Internet Data Office (81a27f) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:30 amI am reminded of a quote that I’ll paraphrase, since I can’t remember the exact quote one of the founding fathers made.
Government is a dangerous servant and an overbearing taskmaster.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:33 amThe Democrats love taxes. They love spending even more than taxes. Especially spending on wasteful, unnecessary and counterproductive programs that sound good but benefit only bureaucrats.
A trillion won’t be nearly enough. No matter what the new taxes bring in ( if anything ) they will spend it and then some. And then same more. Multitrillion dollar deficits are just around the corner while we are stimulated into a depression.
Ken Hahn (1a397d) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:35 amWhy is it that when someone starts off a comment with this phrase, inevitably, what follows is pure, unadulterated drivel?
JD (457b76) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:40 amI did hear you Dana formerly named after the John Hitchcock to croaked in the 18th Century. It’s just that, after being so thoroughly shamed by the Dama who wants to change her name, I couldn’t bear to type up another answer. And, naturally, I was loathe to inflict my thoroughly denounced self on others, knowing how they would look on me with a combination of pity and disgust.
Please accept my most humble of apologies.
The pitiful excuse for a human being Dana (3e4784) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:44 amI remember that during the campaign, Baracky was proposing in the neighborhood of $1,000,000,000,000 in new spending, and had the audacity to claim that he would offset all new spending by closing “corporate loopholes”. He has not even taken office yet, and appears to have over $1,000,000,000,000 in new spending, most certainly not paid for with closing any loopholes (HA!), and no apparent ceiling to the amounts of our money that he is willing to give to people that did not pay taxes in the first place. Do nothing would be a result so splendid that it would defy description.
JD (457b76) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:52 amHow can I stay angry with you after such a mournful response, hon (or sir or ma’am, as the case may be, depending on the Dana who hears this)?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:53 amDoes that mean I can come back now?
The hopeful Dana (3e4784) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:05 amAs the USA is devolving into a third world country, I wonder how much of that $800 billion is destined for secret Swiss bank accounts?
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:09 am“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”
–Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 29 November 1802
AD (64c542) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:12 amDana, stop being hopeful and quit kissing my… ring. You have almost as much right to be here as do I. Stand up and take your rightful place among the rest of the masses. I hereby forgive you of all your transgressions.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:14 ammaybe we need to get back to the very things that made this country great. You evil, greedy right wing fascists should be paying your fair share in taxes and those with businesses pay your serfs a decent wage. At least the UAW union looks out for their members. I saw the same concern for union members during the time I was a member of AFSME when the great Gerald McEntee was running. Now we have truly criminal former CEO’s such as Big Box Store Home Depot’s Bernie Marcus INTIMIDATING unions. Mr. Marcus thinks that fellow CEOs who don’t fight the Employee FREE CHOICE Act should be SHOT; should be thrown out of their #%&!@ jobs. GIVE EMPLOYEES THEIR RIGHT TO UNIONIZE!!!
http://www.care2.com Support unionization, fair play and help return America to the people. Sign the action alert on the care2 site now. And you can also send out free greeting cards. Bush is bad and hopefully the great and wise Obama will get us out of this mess.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:20 amMoney quote from the libtard running show there (Jessica)-” Executives have no right to harass, coerce, imtimidate or even fire workers when they try to exercise their legal right to form unions.”
Duh Lady, that egregious bill that takes away the secret union ballot has yet to be passed. What assclowns. Are people really that frackin’ stupid to think unions are being abused?
I recall the power of the teacjers’ unions in southeast Pa. years ago. Check out what teachers make in Bucks county compared to other parts of country, for example. And as I recall the roofer’s union in Philly was comprised of thugs. Ask Jack Klompus. And how corrupt are the Teamsters still?
/ sarcasm intended
“As the USA is devolving into a third world country, I wonder how much of that $800 billion is destined for secret Swiss bank accounts?”
yeah, that’s where the first 7 Trillion that Bush’s administration has already printed out (incl. the one trillion given to investment banks in ’08). Really didn’t expect such knowledge on a conservative site.
datadave (9feb62) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:24 amAnd what republican Congress voted to pass that?
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:28 amSwiss numbered accounts are so yesterday.
AD (64c542) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:33 amHamilton, Bermuda is much easier to get to and the weather is generally better.
Patterico: Liquidate, Liquidate the Middle Class.
Lawyerish, but not good economics.
Andrew Mellon squared.
datadave (9feb62) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:39 amI missed y’all while I was away. datalessdave, not so much.
JD (457b76) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:41 amWhen did I say the credit markets weren’t global?
Who the hell do you think you’re arguing with?
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:43 amYou are being silly, datadave. None of Obama’s pork-laden “stimulus” would do anything significant to aid the “middle class”.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:43 amscott, I agree the Democrats were suckered by the likes of Bob Rubin, Barnie Frank who were deeply involved in Financialization.
I attack Republicans only because they expounded the Greed is Good philosophy more than Democons…but since Reagan shocked them, Democrats often follow Republicans…and they listened to Bush and Paulson with good intentions. Republicratism is alive and well. Phil Gramm certainly didn’t help by calling us “whiners” for noting the obvious. On the other hand, Republicans have little but contempt for the working lower middle class that could care less about tax cuts now but wants more job security.
datadave (9feb62) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:44 amHoover did not take [Treasury Secretary] Mellon’s advice to liquidate–yet almost 80 years later, liberals still pretend that he did.
Official Internet Data Office (81a27f) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:45 amSarlberid, evidently I’m arguing with someone who throws out vapid “gotcha” lines without any real understanding of the issues he’s opining upon.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:46 amfyi, the swiss have been giving the IRS info on Americans with “secret” swiss bank accounts…not so secret any more and loads of money has been withdrawn. Those banking Gnomes are hurting too as far as confidence in Swiss banking and actual bank performances there.
I keep hearing gold is a way to shelter money and protect it from inflation, but adjusted for inflation we are still way behind the prices of early eighties. And silver is even worse. And if it should explode up, there are plans in place by gummint to take it away or exchange for treasury notes, etc. So some say hold the actual physical metals.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:46 amDatadave, let it be known that I am currently between jobs. My last job was lower-middle-class and unionized. Everyone in the plant, from the temps to the union work force to the management, was a liberal Democrat, the vast majority of them racist. Except for me, the sole conservative Republican. I spent nearly nine years listening to the liberal mumbo-jumbo and the anti-semitic, anti-black, anti-“zebra” (as they called children of a white parent and black parent) hate-speech while doing what little I could to shut their offensive mouths around me.
So, please tell me why I, with my mental capacity, would support conservative efforts as opposed to the racist liberals I was surrounded by.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:48 amwell, spqr, how is the Bush giveaway to the Financial Elites doing for “main street”? Job creation is at the heart of Obama’s plan so why stab it in the back before he’s got a chance to implement it?
Compare Milton Freidman’s philosophy *the Fed should Print more Money” with Keynesian philosophy and then get back to me. Maybe both are wrong…but we KNOW Milton Freidman’s Chicago School bs doesn’t work. So we need to go back to what worked during FDR’s regime and during the 50s and 60s (the American golden age) when America could fend off the USSR and China and still build freeways, grow the Middle class and even start to fight poverty…instead of recent Republican leadership in growing poverty and McMansions for a few suckers who bought them. Now we owe ourselves to the hard work of Chinese who build our IMacs and Ipods.
datadave (9feb62) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:52 amIt is really a broken record.
JD (457b76) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:54 amWhat worked during FDR’s regime? Are you serious? I nearly choked on my philly steak sammy. First, before I even discuss the sentence as a whole, I wholly object to the dysphemism attached to the sentence. “Regime” is analogous to dictatorship-via-coup and is wholly unsuitable in civilized discussions where public voting results in governmental leadership positions. And I strongly urge you to use less inflammatory and less derogatory terminology if you wish to be taken seriously.
Now that I have that cleared up, FDR was “fortunate” with his economics in that WWII brought the US out of the Great Depression, thereby shielding his atrocious and unconstitutional governmental economic takeovers from the abject failures they would most certainly have become.
Please do examine history before posting to prevent further embarrassments.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:01 pmIt’s a pretty prevalent theory among people that study human history that the earliest, rudimentary governments were centered around those kinds of public works projects.
Also, a civilization without infrastructure. How would that work, exactly?
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:01 pmah right, Hitchcock.. I am not “unionized’ and admit I don’t like the ‘worker’ as drone aspect of the unions. Labor organization should be more political and less ‘trade oriented’ which was a dark turn in US Labor history. Europeans had a more efficient way of organizing labor (more along political party ways rather than often ethnic dominated unions as in the US). Remember the hard hats and teamsters were big supporters of Reagan and also hated the “intellectuals” of the left. Now, they’re paying for that foolishness. Labor has nearly no voice now.
I actually have a ‘conservative’ background. I am all for conservative investments, balanced budgets at the household level (I owe nothing!) but also understand the dynamics of Keynesian economics and why WE Should have been Saving when Times were good…not cutting taxes like in the Bush/Republican congress era.
btw, It’s more fun to argue with (sometimes) intelligent conservatives than to nod my head along with smart liberals who really aren’t sure what to do….as you guys ARE SO SURE about things. That surety (or arrogance) inspires debate (and often more and more derision as directed to the likes of Anne Coulter).
datadave (9feb62) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:04 pmdatadave, Obama’s “plan” is a giveaway to poorly run state and local governments, and a giveaway to large construction companies that donate to Democrats. And as for “job creation” being its “core”, that’s amusing given how most of it is welfare transfers – which do not “create” jobs.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:05 pmHitchcock, actually its pretty clear that FDR’s policies extended the Great Depression by several years.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:06 pmWhat was vapid about what I said? Because this:
does not seem to be a response to anything I ever said, even though it seems to be an attempt to straighten me out about the credit markets being global, which I of course can only agree with. So again, who are you arguing with? What is that comment in regards to? I’m just trying to make sense of what you’re saying dude.
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:06 pmSarlberid, perhaps if you read your own comments.
You wrote: “Just so I have this straight. You think the global economy was thrown for a loop because…. low-income Americans were defaulting on their home loans?
And my comment was responsive to that.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:10 pmSpeaking of those praiseworthy Europeans, they are traveling toward conservative US doctrine while we are traveling toward the failed communo-marxist USSR doctrine.
Since the Euros are moving away from what failed them, why are we moving toward what we already defeated?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:12 pmdysphemism
Lower Middle Class word? NOT! cacophemism too!
pardon, I used to think hyperbole was pronounced ‘hyperboil”! Such words rival ol’ Buckley’s use of lingo to keep ’em guessing and squinting.
Sorry, you had to work in some unionized mattress factory or something. I worked in a Nonunionized mattress factory once and the abuse was much worse I am sure. You, like me, seem to be utterly underemployed….thus college educations can be overvalued.
as for FDR, even many conservatives like the “Forgotten American” writer liked the CCC and some aspects of the employment increases done by the New Deal. I fear we need something along those lines if the stimulus fails to be implemented soon…or else massive poverty.. ah “liquidation” meaning greater class disparity and a middle 1800s type of scenario…but we wont have an “America” to flee to. (English, Irish, Italians, Germans all suffered extreme privation due to unrestrained speculation..thus the inspiration for das Kapital among other things. )
datadave (9feb62) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:16 pm#84 wrote:
Also, a civilization without infrastructure. How would that work, exactly?
Nomadic cultures.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:23 pmwhy do you think local govts are poorly run? They have to balance their books every year (unlike Wall Street Banks and the USA Fed govt.)? spqr”’
sarlberid…don’t expect honest debate. you said intelligent things and thus you have to be labeled as a weirdo or worse for they’re not being able to debate you. Name-calling is the usual argument by conservatives: Ann Coulter. (they don’t get it that Al Franken was being “ironic” in calling Right wingers “liars” and ‘fat” ditto heads as he was only imitating them… and they don’t get the irony of Colbert Report….or it took ’em awhile to see themselves in a new light.
Blaming the (at most) half trillion dollar foreclosure crisis for a 10 plus trillion dollar default on Leverage and Derivatives is conservatives way to back up the Lies from Wall Street that have screwed the average American with greater inequality and resulting easy money for them (and less for the rest of us). Former Treasury head John Snow is begging Paulson to bail out his ‘chrysler’ while pitching the sam lie that minority subprime loans caused his business plan to go sour.
How about Incomes? Republicans are all for cutting incomes for auto workers and others…and expect people to pay for overpriced housing blown up in price by financial guys who are overwhelmingly Reaganite ditto heads.
datadave (9feb62) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:30 pmNomadic cultures.
AD (64c542) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:36 pmComment by Perfect Sense — 1/7/2009 @ 12:23 pm
Think Arabs, before oil.
#93
ad hominem
straw man
false dilemma
appeal to ridicule
false attribution
post hoc ergo propter hoc
hasty generalization
I’m sure I could do more research and name more fallacies, but do I really need to?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:44 pmdatadave, actually local governments do not have to balance their books every year. First, they do an enormous amount of placement of bonds – which is borrowing. Even more significantly, among the largest unreported aspects of the recent economic problems is that state and local pension funds have been run with levels of funding that make Madoff’s Ponzi scheme look legitimate. And that is among the issues that local governments are begging Obama’s administration to address.
So don’t whine about “honest debate”. Especially with all the name calling we see from you.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:48 pmTimes must be tough!
Hat tip to Jason of the Delaware Liberal.
I mean, if times are this, er, hard for the porn industry, we must need Narack Obama to help us out!
The rehabilitated Dana (3e4784) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:50 pm#93 wrote: How about Incomes? Republicans are all for cutting incomes for auto workers and others…and expect people to pay for overpriced housing blown up in price by financial guys who are overwhelmingly Reaganite ditto heads.
Tens of thousands of finance people have lost their jobs. Auto workers get paid for not working.
Oddly, those overwhelming “Reaganites” contribute to Democrats.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:52 pmwow, Hitch, I must be a genius packing that much in so few words. (I don’t think so!)
? ad hominem…perhaps Colemans’ slutty wife comment…just a humorous aside although he’s labeled the ‘slut’ in MN, not her so much.. but she’s obvious. but that was on another thread.
the other stuff is rampant here without me participating. And Patterico is one of the most polite conservative sites. I am just following along.
ah, I could perhaps think oversensitivity might be the overwhelming response to my jeremiads but I’ll think about it.
Why is it ok for Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter to do that shit and not liberals?
datadave (9feb62) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:56 pmdatadave, why is OK for you to whine about others doing it, and then do it yourself in the same comment?
SPQR (72771e) — 1/7/2009 @ 12:57 pmI don’t understand what 500.00 or 2000.00 for individuals/families/etc will accomplish to fix the economy. Probably in a year or two we’ll have to pay it back in taxes quadruple the stimulous we get now.
So far they have given the banks and financial systems HUGE monies that they didn’t control to hit any part of the problem – maybe extend 30 year loans to forclosure facing people to 60 years, and get them payments they can live with and still eat – yet not give away ‘free’ money to them – they still have to pay what they owe…..
Instead the banks bought up other banks and shot the money who knows where else – and did NOTHING to keep money flowing.
I am not in forclosure, am making my payments, but feel that if they can’t spend the money to work on what is creating the problems, they should NOT spend money.
Also – states and national government could start at the top – pay reduction from the top down rather than the little guy getting hit most. Put everyone on Social Security and the normal health insurances and see how fast things get fixed and looked after.
Just some thoughts
Sue (ab8d61) — 1/7/2009 @ 1:12 pmSue, I feel for your situation but if you think the ivory towers are going to subject themselves to the same rules to which they subject us, the “unwashed masses,” … I want what you’re smoking. 😉
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 1:20 pm“Tens of thousands of finance people have lost their jobs.”
We gave the Financial Sector a trillion dollar bailout last year…but couldn’t spare more than 25 mill to a much larger industry that actually makes something?
aside: at least the financial people had relatively huge incomes and unemployment unlike many in the construction industry (which uses subcontractors w/o employment benefits).
whine? just repeating the obvious
listening to those flakes on CNBC maybe gives me a hard heart. All they want is more tax cuts for billionaires and they think that’ll do the trick. The idiot with a bow tie who said that also said that layoffs for the Year were 750 thousand..(but meant 750 thousand for only the month of December>
so much for the first false rally of the Second Great Depression. Some people are making a cool killing on this now deceased rally. (20 percent since early November ) and now are cashing in.
datadave (9feb62) — 1/7/2009 @ 1:23 pm“I want what you’re smoking.”
hitchcock. that was uncalled for. You just vitiated all your phony arguments about liberals bashing you all. She was polite and made an honest statement and you called her a druggie dope smoker more or less.
piss on you. you owe her an apology.
datadave (9feb62) — 1/7/2009 @ 1:28 pmDatadave, did you say something? I’m not sure, but I think I may have possibly heard a hint of your whiny voice shrilling up from the blades of grass my Danes were using as sand pits. I could be wrong, though.
I thought I was wrong once before, but I was mistaken. Perhaps I’m mistaken again, although I’m not entirely certain.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 1:38 pm# 84
Sarlberid
Also, a civilization without infrastructure. How would that work, exactly?
Well it all depends on what your definition of “civilization” is!
But I highly doubt you think aliens or something else arrived and built any infrastructure here in America before the pilgrims arrived?
We humans are the ones that build this infrastructure so it cannot exist in an undeveloped area before we do.
Now back to comment # 33
We owe our security and our wealth to the United States government more than anything else whether or not you accept that or not.
I would not agree, its not as if we owe the US government a great deal of thanks for not oppressing us as if they have a right to oppress. If we owe thanks it is to the founding fathers for having the willpower to foresee a government of the people by the people and for the people.
Nobody is saying we don’t any government, the question is how much government do we really need!
ML (14488c) — 1/7/2009 @ 1:40 pmRemember the hard hats and teamsters were big supporters of Reagan and also hated the “intellectuals” of the left.
Say what, I have never heard such a stupid canard?
ML (14488c) — 1/7/2009 @ 1:58 pmLabor unions have never supported anything other than a Dhimmicrats.
You’re talking about two vastly different things.
There are two economies: the “real” economy, which consists of the various goods and services bought and sold by the populace, and the “money” economy, which consists of the medium of exchange — currency.
The money economy flows in the opposite direction of the real economy: when you sell me a car, the car goes to me and the money goes to you.
The integrity of the real economy is the responsibility of its participants. The government, though the civil courts, can act as a referree, but it’s up to the participants to keep the real economy going. However, the integrity of the money economy is the responsibility of the government: it must insure a valid currency, because no private citizen can do so.
Thus, you can distinguish between propping up the financial markets (to insure liquidity and to keep the money economy sound) and propping up the automakers (whose function can be filled by other entities).
Steverino (69d941) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:02 pmEspecially not after Reagan broke the Air Traffic Controllers union…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:09 pmI didn’t suggest that.
They didn’t foresee it, they invented it. And the government of the people, by the people, and for the people have done plenty that I think we should be thankful for, the Louisiana Purchase, maybe? Keeping the Union together in the 1860s? Winning World War II? Our people-powered government has been generally pretty awesome, it’s just that now the fuel supply has been poisoned with crazy Republicans and moronic Democrats. Remember, George Washington famously warned us about political parties, not the government that he just invented. You wouldn’t want to argue with George Washington, would you?
Nobody is saying that? The subject of this blog post was a recommendation that the government’s economic plan should consist of…. doing nothing. So there’s at least one person saying we don’t want any government, isn’t there?
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:21 pmSarlberid, I don’t believe Nato should have it’s regular meetings in my house. By your standards, you will have just claimed I don’t believe Nato should exist. That is a fallacy of the highest degree. Try again.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:32 pmNo, because “don’t do anything in this case” is not the same as “don’t do anything ever“.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:34 pmPatterico for President!
Patricia (89cb84) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:36 pmYes, I would.
Political parties are engines of compromise — extremists are moderated, cooperation is required, and issues get hashed over before the campaigns start. In any case, political parties start because two people agree they can both more easily achieve their goals (which may not even include the same issues) by working together.
The problem starts when people substitute party affiliation for actual thought.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:42 pmPatterico’s words, not mine. “Do nothing.” If not now, then when? I think that’s a fair question, since most everyone seems to agree we’re headed into crisis territory. Do you agree with that idea? That the government should just do nothing when the country is staring down the barrel of a gun?
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:44 pmGeorge Washington did not invent the US Government. He just happened to be a famous general in the war for liberation who became the first POTUS. Please do not try to re-invent that history.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:46 pmand thus you have to be labeled as a weirdo or worse for they’re not being able to debate you
Ah, Dateless Davey – champion of the…what, exactly? Nice grammatical usage there, quite
coherent.
perhaps Colemans’ slutty wife comment…just a humorous aside although he’s labeled the ’slut’ in MN, not her so much.. but she’s obvious. but that was on another thread.
Even more inarticulate and incoherent – are you drunk blogging right now?
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:49 pmSince it is governmental action, and not free market, that has caused this debacle…
and since markets, by nature, fluctuate…
staying out of the way of the free market fluctuations and corrections is the best maneuver the government can take.
The Constitution did not make allowances for such massive government interventions as have been occurring since roughly 1925, likely earlier to a lesser degree, but most assuredly since then to an overbearing degree.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:50 pmWhen isn’t he?
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:52 pmYou guys want to do a few things, but most of those things are colossal wastes of time (gay marriage) while the rest are downright counter-productive (Iraq war.) It’s only on the important stuff that you guys want to sit on your hands. Global warming? Do nothing. Economic crisis? Do nothing. Health care? Do nothing. You’re the Do-Nothing party. It’s what you, heh, do.
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:52 pm# 110
Sarlberid
You wouldn’t want to argue with George Washington, would you?
I am sure I would argue with him, but the point is moot seeing he has been dead a really long time.
Nobody is saying that? The subject of this blog post was a recommendation that the government’s economic plan should consist of…. doing nothing.
I take it the nuance of government inaction and the very existence of government is lost with you.
I guess in your world government only exists when its thumb it up your caboose?
ML (14488c) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:53 pmThat the government should just do nothing when the country is staring down the barrel of a gun?
Have you ever heard of the oft – quoted axiom of “first, do no harm.”
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:53 pmJesus buddy, lighten up.
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:53 pmGlobal warming? Do nothing.
You mean you want to re – organize the entire gov’t in order to combat a mythical theory based on science that’s already been Fisked many times over at this point? Who’s going to pay for that massive spending bill?
Economic crisis? Do nothing.
Are you even aware of the huge bailout that Bush just passed less than two months ago, or have you been living in a cave during that time?
You’re the Do-Nothing party.
Judging by your rant – filled and content – free posts here, it’s safe to say that you’re the dumbass person.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/7/2009 @ 2:59 pmFirst have this mouth – breathing rant:
That the government should just do nothing when the country is staring down the barrel of a gun?
Then immediately afterward, this gem:
Jesus buddy, lighten up.
Do you suffer from manic – depression?
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:01 pmGlobal warming? You mean that thing where the preponderance of upper-level scientists poo-pooed all the algorisms? That thing where all the other planets were warming when the earth was? That thing where the earth has been COOLING since 2001? That thing? Seems “do nothing” was right, after all.
Health care? You mean that thing that has failed in Candada and England? That thing that has failed in Europe? That thing where France is trying to become more US-like? That thing where the US is trying to become more France-like? That health care problem?
Economic crisis? You mean that thing where the two organizations who collectively own 50% of all mortgages? That thing where those organizations pumped huge dollars into the Dem coffers? That thing where the Dems made certain they didn’t have to abide by the same regs as other businesses in their sector? That thing with the car industry where the UAW employees get paid whether they work or not? That thing where the UAW files a lawsuit every year they are stuck with a property tax on their luxury golf course? That thing where no Dem will allow any investigation regarding Dem culpability? That thing?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:02 pmWow, the argument fallacies keep flying in. Urging inaction in one instance isn’t the same thing as urging complete dissolution of government.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:04 pmDmac, intentions and well-meaning supercede facts, right? Only in this case, I don’t see any well-meaning, do you?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:05 pmGlobal warming is a scam — the science is horrid, the economics is worse, and the politics is atrocious.
The health care system’s biggest problem is too much government — hell, there have been cases where cities have forbidden the opening of low-cost routine care clinics because the operator (Wal Mart, AFAICR) was politically unacceptable. More competition and choice would certainly help — and giving government more control would open the door to a level of nanny-statism that would make your eyes bleed. I sure as hell don’t want Congress — or, more likely, a civil-service bureaucrat — deciding whether or not I deserve to live.
The “financial crisis” will pass — and history shows us that attempts to interfere, particularly in the ways being suggested, exacerbate the problems rather than ameliorate it.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:07 pmI’m not even going to touch all that. But a convention hall full of Republicans screaming ‘Drill, Baby, Drill!’ at the top of their lungs over and over again might as well be saying ‘Do Nothing, Baby, Do Nothing!’
You are the person that just posted ‘First, Do No Harm’ to me, aren’t you? Sure, Bush did something, but as usual, it was counter-productive. All he’s done is made it so that someone else, probably a liberal, will have to do something, at which point you will respond with ‘Do nothing.’
ZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:08 pm# 120
You guys.
I see lots of strawmen coming this way, shortly.
Health care? Do nothing.
Wrong I go to the doctor when I feel the need, you just want big government to babysit you like the parent of a little immature child, that way you can be lazy and still live a good life.
The rest of us would like to live our own lives in our own ways, unlike you who desires to be cared for in all ways and on my dime, you lazy lefty move to Europe already.
ML (14488c) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:09 pmYou know that I’m talking to more than one person, don’t you?
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:10 pmWhat, you’re gonna pretend like you’re not the anti-government party all of a sudden to try and win some meaningless argument with some stranger on the internet?
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:12 pmBush did something counterproductive by pumping money into a failed system. The Dems plan on fixing Bush’s counterproductive action by … wait for it… wait for it… pumping more money into the exact same failed system.
How is the system failed? The Dems wrote the system to subvert free market pressures and replace those pressures with overarching central government pressures.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:13 pmDoes anyone else see the irony, after eight years of lefties endlessly lecturing about “not sacrificing freedom for temporary safety”, they’re bound and determined to sacrifice economic liberty for, at best, temporary economic safety?
Apparently we’re supposed to simply accept the murders of our fellow citizens, but move heaven-and-earth to prevent a UAW member from losing his job.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:14 pmTrust me, Sarlberid, Republicans are by no means anarchists. Conservatives are neither anarchist nor Republican; however, a large number of conservatives associate themselves with the Republican party.
But you most assuredly must stop with these ad hominem and straw man attacks if you wish to have your opinions valued above that of those belonging to a mere troll.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:16 pmOpening currently off-limits areas to exploitation is close to the opposite of “do nothing”.
Here’s a clue: supporting policies you disagree with is not the same as doing nothing.
Wanting less government interference in our lives is not “anti-government”. Wanting government to limit its activities to the legitimate roles of government is not “anti-government”.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:19 pmOnly in this case, I don’t see any well-meaning, do you?
In a word, no.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:21 pmIt’s only on the important stuff that you guys want to sit on your hands. Global warming? Do nothing. Economic crisis? Do nothing. Health care? Do nothing. You’re the Do-Nothing party. It’s what you, heh, do.
Comment by Sarlberid
I think he’s got us, guys. The “important stuff” is exactly what we want them to leave alone.
Mike K (f89cb3) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:27 pmSarlberid #130:
From the USGS released 4/10/2008:
Economies need energy to succeed. Come on, Sarlberid, say it with me: Drill, Baby, Drill.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:33 pmWhere did I ever go ad hominem? Where are my strawmen? I don’t think that ever happened.
I don’t care if you don’t value my opinions, either. So you can just skip right ahead to calling me a troll over and over again if you want.
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:36 pmWinning an argument with you would be like winning a chess game against my daughter’s cat.
I’m not going to pretend anything. The fact remains that urging restraint in one area is NOT an advocation for the end of government.
That you would even equate the two tells us all you’re not serious about honest, rational debate.
BTW, I’m not a Republican. Just thought you might want to know that.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:37 pmThe attack of the straw people army.
ATTACK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JD (457b76) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:39 pmSarlberid, it might help if you didn’t accuse others of making logical fallacies while committing your own.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:39 pm“No fears of a new Weimar Republic and massive inflation ahead. ”
I don’t think we’re talking about a Weimar style printing money. These are fiscal stimulus. Weimar just started printing money to pay debts.
“What is the breakdown for every taxpayer in the US? Just cut me a check for that amount, instead, since my fed income tax is greater than my fed income tax return, let alone all my other non-fed income taxes.”
The problem with this sort of idea is that people won’t spend the money to the extent government will — some will be saved — so you won’t have as much stimulus.
imdw (70833b) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:43 pmSPQR – There are a lot of things that could help this troll.
JD (457b76) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:43 pmYou know what the coolest part of untapped oil reserves is? The ‘untapped’ part. The longer we can get by without dipping into those reserves, the more valuable it will become. We’re in a very unique period right now, where the world is recognizing that demand for oil is skyrocketing while the supplies are decreasing, yet oil remains relatively cheap. We can see the problem coming at us, why shouldn’t we take the steps necessary to address it?
Because inevitably, we will have to address it. All that oil you were so excited to bold is going to be gone eventually, too, what do you propose to do when there’s nowhere left to drill? And why shouldn’t we get started on it now?
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:50 pm# 141, see # 131 regrading # 120
You guys
Lumping all of us here into one nice and neat pigeonhole is a logical fallacy know as “hasty generalization”, as someone has already explained to you.
And history being anything the strawman army is soon to follow if they haven’t been here already.
ML (14488c) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:53 pmSarlberid, you keep raising the mandatory pole-vault height each time we conservatives and free-thinkers clear it with ease. When will you admit defeat? How many of your higher mandatory minimums will you install before you finally admit we have surpassed them?
I’m sure if you were well-versed in fallacies, you would be able to name the particular fallacy you’re currently using. But that isn’t the point, is it? The point is you’re right and even when you aren’t, you can make a new temporary standard to maintain your “rightness” in the debate.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:56 pmThis does not ring true to me. It is oft claimed, yet never really sourced. I seem to recall a couple studies in the last couple years that arrived at different conclusions.
Banning drilling and making production cost prohibitive is an interesting way to get started.
JD (457b76) — 1/7/2009 @ 3:57 pmSarlberid
Have you taken the time to realize how stupid our government really is?
Here in California Gov Arnold the donkey in an elephant suite has jumped on the Gore-bal warming bandwagon and is or has mandated reductions in CO2 emissions that are so unrealistic that if every single car was removed from California today those mandates could not be obtained, although they do not take effect for 10 years or so.
And in the height of this government irony/stupidity ethanol is being mandated, yet in order to produce ethanol equal amounts of CO2 are also being produced the same rule applies to making concrete, yet we have construction projects being mandated, how can all this be if Gore-bal warming is caused by CO2?
Now this does not imply I want our government to disappear, I just want them to pull their head out of their ass.
ML (14488c) — 1/7/2009 @ 4:11 pmDon’t forget, ML, if you mow down your wild fields in violation of CA law to prevent your house (and the fields you just mowed down) from being destroyed by the oncoming wild-fire, you can and will suffer huge fines and possible jail time.
It has happened before in CA, it’ll happen again. But suggesting government shouldn’t do this is the same as suggesting there should be no government, according to Sarlberid. No fallacy there. Nothing about false alternatives or anything. Nothing like that.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 4:18 pmSorry Patterico, but I need to Illuminate here a bit, as well as double check your math.
As Obama floats his $800 billion stimulus plan — over 2600 dollars for every man, woman, and child in the country — i would like to suggest my own plan for the economy:
While $2,600 times 300 million people is 780 billion dollars, you factored in the tax cuts of 300 billion into your equating….. why?
This is over a two year period mind you.
Math Fact Check:
4.8 billion dollars (7.8 – 3 (tax cuts)) divided by 300 million (every man, woman, and child) in fact equals $1,600.
Just out of curiosity when McCain, Bush, Bush and Reagan were talking about tax cuts, did you take that amount and divide it by “every man, woman and child” and attempt to scare everyone with a per person dollar amount? I don’t think so.
Think of “Doing Nothing” as akin to Not “Drilling Baby Drilling”
Oiram (983921) — 1/7/2009 @ 4:19 pmOiram, if your salary is 1k per week, how much of that salary is money you earned? Is it 1k or is it less?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 4:24 pm#153 John, I know what your getting at. I asked the question first.
When past politicians have talked about tax cuts, did they scare us by telling us how much that would be per person?
Oiram (983921) — 1/7/2009 @ 4:27 pm#154 Add On.
To Illuminate you, the reason I ask is that tax cuts are included not subtracted from Patterico’s mathematics….. again… why?
Oiram (983921) — 1/7/2009 @ 4:30 pmSMALL government. They are the SMALL government party.
Again, why is it always all or nothing with you people? Either I must wish Bush 43 to burst into flames while being devoured by ravenous beasts, or I want to have his babies… I either want to have Obama’s babies, or I’m a racist that wants him back out in the fields, how very dare he think himself equal to whites?
Seriously man… They are spots along that line where one can stop and still hold valid views…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/7/2009 @ 4:33 pmSarlberid #146:
This is my pet peeve. Oil and gas are vital now because the literal and figurative engines of the American economy — transportation, electricity, and manufacturing — depend on them. Petroleum production may be vital in the future, too, but then again it may not.
We can’t slip back and forth between energy sources without the burden of inefficient and dramatic costs. Tomorrow’s energy may be petroleum-based or it could be nuclear, solar, wind, or some other energy form we haven’t even focused on. It makes as much sense to hoard today’s energy for the future as it would to hoard horses or buckboards in the early days of the automobile.
You don’t like Drill, Baby, Drill? How about: Use it or lose it.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/7/2009 @ 4:34 pmPatterico, how is that supposed to be a plan? Aren’t we in this position because of too much of “doing nothing”?
love2008 who just got a new name. (1b037c) — 1/7/2009 @ 4:53 pmlove2008, your giving are current administration way to little credit………….. President Select Bush did do somethings 🙁
Oiram (983921) — 1/7/2009 @ 4:56 pmmariO, the difference between deficit spending and tax cuts is dramatic.
Tax cuts means you get to keep more of YOUR OWN money.
Deficit spending means the government is spending more of YOUR OWN MONEY than it takes in, causing your grandchildren to have to lose more of THEIR OWN MONEY to pay for what our government overspends today.
Don’t see a difference yet?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/7/2009 @ 4:58 pmDammit, DRJ, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Oriam:
Tax cuts are money not taken out of a worker’s pocket. Why would the idea that the average worker gets to keep $X “scare” anyone?
As to why government spending should: we’re the ones on the hook for that cash.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/7/2009 @ 5:02 pm#161, Still not addressing my question.
I do see your difference.
Maybe your dyslexia is clouding your math.
Please at least read the link Patterico has kindly provided us above for somewhat of an explanation of the 780 billion dollars.
300 billion is tax cuts…… tax cuts.
I’ll accept you and all here not liking Obama’s plan (consistent), but at least get the math right and scare us with $1,600 instead of $2,600.
Oiram (983921) — 1/7/2009 @ 5:02 pmAmazingly, you don’t seem to understand how regulations and laws come to be…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/7/2009 @ 5:03 pmWhich are only good when a Dem wants them. McCain or Bush suggests them, and it’s the worst idea you ever heard.
Did you know some of those billions will go to corp. tax cuts?
Seems that’s were, dollar for dollar, you get the most economic growth…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/7/2009 @ 5:04 pmWell, to believe that you have to ignore the roles of CRA, the GSEs, the Congressional Democrats blocking attempts to reign in the GSEs, and the “community organizers” mau-mauing the banks into lending, for a start.
Maybe what the economy needs is a period of regulatory stability — stop dicking with the rules and incentives, let people figure out what to do, and stop trying to control things. Seriously — let’s stop playing Calvinball with the economy.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/7/2009 @ 5:07 pm# 158, DRJ
And another thing governments do not think about, fuel economy with alternative fuels which do not have the same energy content as gasoline. Beside the fact that ethanol only gives 5 gals for every 4 used, its beyond stupid and the reason ethanol only survives by government subsidizes.
Ethanol has 33% less energy than standard gasoline, so imagine going from say 30mpg to 20mpg or getting 200 miles from 10 gallons of ethanol compared to 300 miles from gasoline.
I am sure the world cant wait for $2.99 and 9 tenths of a cent a gallon ethanol.
ML (14488c) — 1/7/2009 @ 5:07 pmI also love how they pinned all the money for roads on gas taxes, then pushed for higher fuel efficiency. Now the efficiency has so cut into tax receipts some states want to impose an additional per-mile tax.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/7/2009 @ 5:16 pmIf we do something, the economy will recover. And if we do nothing, the economy will still recover. That’s the business cycle: when things get unbalanced, it rebalances over time.
But, our politicians have to be seen as Doing Something, as if Doing Something will make a difference. When the economy recovers in a couple of years, Mr Obama will tell us that it was all a result of His Great Plan, but, with no control against which to measure it, we’ll have no way of knowing whether his Great Plan helped or hurt or, most probably, did nothing at all.
The cynical Dana (556f76) — 1/7/2009 @ 5:57 pmdid you take that amount and divide it by “every man, woman and child” and attempt to scare everyone with a per person dollar amount?
Nice try, threadjacker.
I am sure the world cant wait for $2.99 and 9 tenths of a cent a gallon ethanol.
Get used to much more of the same, my friend. Despite McCain’s courageous calling out of the disgraceful subsidies to companies like ADM, since they’ve been one of the largest political contributors to Obama over the past decade, forget about reform.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/7/2009 @ 6:18 pm#163 Oiram
A tax cut that is a reduction in the amount of taxes individuals and/or businesses pay is not an expenditure or “outlay” in Federal budgetspeak. However, the $300 Billion in proposed tax cuts include refundable tax credits for people who pay no taxes or who paid or owe less taxes than the credit they are receiving.
The linked article does not distinguish between tax cuts and refundable tax credits that exceed taxes paid.
Stu707 (7fb2e7) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:56 pmThat’s the business cycle: when things get unbalanced, it rebalances over time.
I’d describe this as a credit cycle rather than a business cycle transition we are experiencing for the time being. Yet as we are discovering first hand, they are quite inter-related. Commerce is intrinsically tied to available credit, so no credit produces no commerce. The bailouts so far have been a massive failure in trying to inject credit expansion back into the economy. Lots of money has been printed up and stuffed into all the wrong places. Thus, all this monetary expansion will likely lead to price inflation according to the Austrian economic crowd amongst others. Some things such as commodities could rise in price as the dollar sinks, while some assets priced in easy credit days could undergo price deflation.
In the late 1970’s dormant economy all this became stagflation. One would expect a similar result today, but the backdrop of massive private and govt debt should create a different species of stagflation this go around. We probably won’t be able to get a handle on it until it’s all over and done with. Too many trees to discern the forest layout.
But I’d wholly agree on the rebalancing…whether you want to call it a business or credit cycle which has become unbalanced.
allan (7f9669) — 1/7/2009 @ 8:57 pmSo you’re recognizing that there is some uncertainty as to whether or not oil is going to be useful in the future, but you figure we should just drill it all up anyway? That doesn’t sound very much like conservatism to me.
Oil is always going to be an important, valued commodity, but it’s just impractical and problematic at this point to be so dependent on the stuff. As you said, oil drives the American economy, and while that arrangement might have served us well over the past century, it just isn’t up to the task anymore. Something else is going to have to fulfill that role eventually no matter what happens, so why put it off?
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:43 pmLife is uncertain but we know we need petroleum now. We don’t know what we’ll need in the future. Your analysis turns that reality on its head.
DRJ (345e40) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:52 pmThat sort of calculus doesn’t really work in any sort of situation I can think of. Not knowing what you’ll need in the future doesn’t give you license to empty your savings and go on a shopping spree, does it? So how is that irresponsible short-sightedness okay for the economy?
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:19 pmOk then. No more oil out of US grounds ever again… I mean, who knows when we might need it again later…
And Blood transfusions? No sir, we might need that stuff later, and we can’t be sure people will donate. Nope, we’ll have to put a hold on that…
Bank loan? I’m sorry, but someone else who needs this money more, for a better idea, might come along. If we gave it to you, what would we have to loan to them?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:24 pmGreat idea, Scott! Let’s use the entire country as an enormous strategic oil reserve.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:29 pm“but it’s just impractical and problematic at this point to be so dependent on the stuff.”
Sarlberid – Part of it is that is stupid to be dependent on potentially unfriendly sources of oil which could cut us off on a whim. Since many proven domestic reserves will take years to develop, we should begin the process of developing them now as national security measures. We should also actively explore areas presently off limits to drilling which may yield additional proven reserves. You continue to be a complete moron when it comes to energy issues.
What is going to power all the electrical generating plants to charge up all the Pelosi mobiles the AGW alarmists want us to build but nobody wants to buy?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/8/2009 @ 12:20 amIcy – You want to buy some carbon credits, cheap?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/8/2009 @ 12:21 amI like the things Obama is saying. If he cleans up GOVERNMENT WASTE the economy should be much better off. If the people managed their money like the government does, we would go to jail. I also like the fact that the people on main street might get the next stimulus package, which should have happened in the first place. Let Wall Street suck it out of US like they usually do. At leas some people might have a chance to save their homes since the paulson has decided to buy bank bonds instead of helping the homeowners. He misshandled the money and should loose his position. No one should have the kind of power that lets him go past recomendations and do what the hell he wants. Lets buy bank bonds that will provide government with more profit and tuff for the home owners that are loosing their homes. These homeowners are not as important as he is. It is really sad that the banks did not have the same guidelines the motor companys are expected to have. BUYING BANK BONDS DID NOT HELP DID IT?
Debbie Mintz (955a9e) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:24 amWhere is the money now? Giving the money to the big people and hope it trickels down has proven that the people just get pissed on. GIVE it to Mainstreet and let Wall street suck it out of US like they usually do. I think Someone needs to answer the question about where the money is now.
Government handouts always work, period. Some fool somewhere once said “give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life.” That’s why we never needed welfare reform. That’s why the welfare reform, which cut so many parasites–excuse me, needy people off the government teet–excuse me, assistance failed miserably and forced them to get jobs and pay taxes.
If the people who vote for gov’t money for them would actually look to themselves for strength instead of the gov’t for freebies, this nation of “gimme gimme” would return to its former strong self.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:34 amDebbie Mintz said:
Thing is, they all say that they want to stop “waste, fraud and abuse,” but, unfortunately, waste, fraud and abuse are not line items in the budget that can be cut; they have to be hunted out and identified individually.
The biggest waste fighting thing we could do is to bring in a new attitude, one which asks: is that something we need to do, or something that it would be nice to do? We don’t have that now.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:56 amThose are Obamamobiles too. And the best part? We’re going to cut electricity consumption by 15% while we’re adding all of this load onto the grid.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 5:27 amWe’re going to cut electrical production massively, as well. Nobama is going to just say no to the coal industry, sending the entire industry into bankruptcy. This according to his own words. The massive cost increases in electricity he has already said he favors will benefit the world by reducing electricity usage in the US and further eroding the US economy. Sounds like a plan to me.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 6:02 amAh, but The One is going to think about nuclear power, and how we can make it safe! You know, because of all the nuclear power disasters we’ve had in the decades we’ve been running power plants and ships with it…
Now, don’t nobody mention this. Obama is thinking. Don’t distract him.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 6:20 amSounds like you’ve got it all worked out.
Sarlberid (b989f8) — 1/8/2009 @ 6:28 amMy head is spinning over this stunning bit of sophistry. Oil is important and valued because we need it. If we weren’t dependent on it, it wouldn’t be important or valued.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:35 amNow the Porn industry needs a bailout. Who next?
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:36 amThere are too many liberal sheep with the NIMBY disease to allow nuclear power plants to provide efficient and plentiful electricity. And those liberals in MA decided against windmills-for-electricity a great distance off-shore because it might erode the beauty of the ocean as seen from their high-priced estates.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:57 amObama has just given his address on the economy. Apparently doing nothing or doing little is not in the cards,
“It’s time to change the course of Washington… But equally certain are consequences of doing too little or nothing at all for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes and confidence in our economy. It is true we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth but at this particular moment only government can provide the short term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the cycle that is crippling our economy where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending, where inability to even lend and borrow stops growth, and leads to even less credit. That’s why we need to act boldly and act now to reverse these cycles.
(emphasis added)
Dana (137151) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:29 amAll serfs must heretofore prostrate themselves at the altar of big government, our savior has spoken.
(Just a sec while my convulsions and dry heaves subside, then I’ll be able to post this.)
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:33 amOnly Oiram … and Democrats … would call giving money to people who are not paying taxes, a “tax cut”.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:52 amProof positive that something less than absolute zero is achievable?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:55 amI watched Hannity and Colmes last night (something I almost never do). Hannity annoys me, but he kept point-blank asking this DNC tool how giving money to someone who doesn’t pay federal income tax was not welfare. The guy kept referencing those Bush tax cut checks from a few years back, which went to … wait for it … only people who paid federal income tax. He wouldn’t (couldn’t) answer the question. He didn’t even try.
If you don’t pay taxes, you shouldn’t get a check. It’s not a tax “cut” if you don’t pay taxes. It’s welfare. If Obama wants to expand welfare to the middle class, let him pass it through Congress.
There is a real danger of our “progressive” tax system leading to only 5 – 10% of earners paying all of the taxes. That would leave 90% of Americans with their hands out and obvious social problems associated with people not feeling ownership of their own government.
carlitos (34f76e) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:58 amWe did nothing for eight years. That didn’t work. Give the man some credit for actually trying to do something.
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:02 amemperor lovey, you did notice that Bush already did one of these bailout thingies, right?
carlitos (34f76e) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:04 amO.k., back to work here. Look Dmac I’m not “threadjacking”. The original post here is telling us: “over 2600 dollars for every man, woman, and child in the country………. “
I was simply pointing out that it is o.k. for all here to disagree with Obama’s plan. I get it.
But to include 300 billion worth of tax cuts that would be praised if it were dolled out by a Republican by the way, into that $2,600 is just inconsistent math.
Again, I remind everyone…. 7.8 billion includes 3 billion worth of tax cuts. Use 4.8 billion in your math, especially if you like the idea of tax cuts.
Again, I would of understood Patterico had it used a $1,600 per person figure.
I used the word “Scare” yesterday, because it seems to me that the original post here felt the need to “Pad” the “Per Person” amount to get it’s point across.
As far as why Obama and I are “suddenly” embracing tax cuts? Perhaps it’s because of true recession and economy figures that are finally in front of us that have been conveniently hid by many in our government.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:17 amNo, you are “embracing” them because they are welfare spending not tax cuts.
And the conspiracy nut thing about economic figures being “hidden” is just nutty.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:18 amIf “nothing” was done, it was in large part because Democrats forbid anyone to look too closely at the GSE mess — while pocketing millions from those same GSEs.
I really wish someone would dig into Jamie Gorelick’s role in all this. It seems odd that a single person would have crippled our ability to prevent terrorism, been seated on a committee that was supposed to address the biggest failure in our ability to prevent terrorism, then be given a $200 million-dollar sinecure at an organization that, when it fails a short time later, brings the credit system to its knees.
No doubt she actually had no active role in any of this, but wouldn’t you think there’d be some press interest in her? Maybe they could interview her instead of Greg Packer.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:23 amSPQR #200 Please show me how the tax cuts are welfare spending.
Every Republican I’ve ever known has promised (not necessarily delivered) tax cuts.
Let’s try this SPQR, what if Obama today told you his plan was just the 3 billion in tax cuts. Would that satisfy you?
And the conspiracy nut thing about economic figures being “hidden” is just nutty.
Please don’t think I was partaking in partisanship offensiveness. I said “Our Government”, I’m not just singling out Republicans.
How come our economy seemed so hunky dorry back in Feb. of last year?
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:35 ammariO, I refer you to 194 and my 195 response.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:40 amSomeone who pays no taxes cannot have their taxes cut.
Example: Joe Blow files a tax return. The return shows that he’s to receive all that was withheld back — meaning he paid no taxes. In addition to that, he receives an extra $200.
Where did that $200 come from?
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:46 am#203 O.k. John, I haven’t heard that those tax cuts would be going to non tax paying Americans. Please Illuminate this President Elect supporter.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:48 amI believe that the bottom 20% of earners (income around $16K) do actually pay 3% or so in Federal tax. What I don’t know is how the EITC factors in, and whether this ‘refund’ will exceed their taxes paid. I suspect that it will, and is therefore welfare.
carlitos (34f76e) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:48 amAnd a couple of those stimulus rebate thingies too.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:50 am#206 So these tax cuts are a “refund” carlitos?
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:02 amHow come our economy seemed so hunky dorry back in Feb. of last year?
Comment by Oiram — 1/8/2009 @ 9:35 am
Well if the only information you get is from the MSM then I suppose you would think the “economy” was just peachy one year ago, of course to anyone else that was paying attention it didn’t “seem” so great.
ML (14488c) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:39 amthe EIC (and other related things) can make it so you get back more than you paid in. I made very little in 2007, and my EIC did boost me up a bit in my refund (Not much, but I very much believe it did).
That’s what Credits do. In fact, if your gross income was $1, your EIC for a single head of household without kids is $2, going by the instructions for the 1040 I just looked at online at the IRS website.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:53 am#209, no ML sometimes I get my info from the current administration and Senators like McCAin.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:57 amemperor lovey, you did notice that Bush already did one of these bailout thingies, right?
Comment by carlitos — 1/8/2009 @ 9:04 am
love2008 who will now be known as Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:00 am(Smiles). Not without drawing fire from his base. And thanks for acknowledging my new rank. The Emperor blesses you.
#210 Realistically speaking Scott, what percentage of the 300 billion tax cuts will go to people who have paid no taxes? Second question, does the tax cuts for the opposite end of your percentage (people who do pay taxes) satisfy you?
One more, would McCain’s “supposed” tax cuts be any different?
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:02 amIt depends on what portion are cuts in the tax rate (which only affect those who pay taxes), and how much is in Credits, and what those Credits are.
Yes, but dollar for dollar, I would favor cuts in Corporate tax rates and in Capital Gains. Those two (Corp being the better) give the most bang for the buck when it comes to stimulating growth. I can explain the reasoning behind that if you would like.
You really will need to remind me what “cuts” you are talking about, because all I remember from McCain is that I was less certain he would end up screwing me.
Seriously, by Election Day, I was choosing based on Damage Control.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:09 am# 211
So it is Bushes fault that you are uninformed?
Perhaps you are confusing McCain with Barney Frank?
ML (14488c) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:11 am#215 Trying to avoid partisan bickering here ML.
Fine Barney Frank as well (I did say “our government” not Bush and McCain exclusively, read #199)
The fact is we did not have the economy picture in February of last year that we should of had. Hence the reason Obama and a lot of Dems are “suddenly” o.k. with 300 billion in tax cuts.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:17 amJust so long as you admit that the fact we didn’t have that economic picture that we should have (and frankly, looking back, I saw this coming, though not this bad) was because of people like Franks, who does not have an R after his name, last time I checked. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:20 am#214 I think McCain said he would lower our taxes with no mention to how he would do it. It might have matched your criteria.
Thanks for the explanation Scott.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:21 amI have a bit more time than I thought, so I’ll go into why Corp tax cuts and cuts in Cap Gains are good for the economy.
Corp tax cuts decrease the cost of doing business. Corporations don’t actually PAY taxes. They just shove the required money at the IRS, and then figure out how much to raise the prices we as consumers pay to make up for what they lost. When that pile they need to push shrinks, so do prices, and the amount of money on hand increases, allowing for either better pay/benefits, capital investment (equipment, facilities, R&D, what have you), or both.
Cuts in the Capital Gains Tax reduced the cost of investing, which promotes more people to invest, growing the market and thus the economy…
Personal income tax/payroll/SS/Medicade/yadda yadda yadda cuts, while increasing the money the individual has (since the govt takes less), doesn’t mean that money will make it back into the market. Maybe the people will buy stuff (consume more, thus growing the economy), or maybe they will bank it (which while it does help the economy, it isn’t as much as the first two cuts I mentioned).
I hope that all made sense (and that I remembered it all correctly).
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:33 am#219 Hey Scott, could you show me where in our history Corp tax cuts have actually increased jobs and or lowered prices?
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:37 amIreland rings a bell. They lowered corporate taxes to 12.5% and had the fastest growth in the Western EU for years (pissing of the French) The Celtic Tiger, I believe it was called. Why would I locate my call center in California and pay up to 40% tax when I could just as easily open it in Shannon or Cork?
carlitos (34f76e) — 1/8/2009 @ 1:14 pmIreland is a great example, their tax cuts caused such a large growth rate that the EU started putting pressure on them to raise them.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/8/2009 @ 1:15 pmWhich may be one of the reasons Ireland told the EU to go get stuffed concerning that one resolution-thingie it wanted to pass.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/8/2009 @ 1:18 pmIreland? Your kidding right?
I said “Our History”. We live and or are talking about the good ol’ U.S. right?
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 1:37 pmEconomics is economics.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/8/2009 @ 1:41 pm#225 “Economics is economics.”
Interesting…….
Economics is economics comparing The United States…….. to Ireland.
Uh…… yeah sure.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 1:46 pmAgain, the economics behind what caused Ireland’s rather stagnant national economy to experience massive growth would hold true for any country.
The rules behind economics are universal. for example, the Laffer Curve is universal (if not constant).
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/8/2009 @ 1:55 pmThere is no US example, because corporate tax rates haven’t really ever been cut. It went down 4 or 5 points in 1988, so you could argue that the cut ’caused’ the dot-com boom in the nineties.
Again though – 12.5% in Eire, 35% here (plus state and local). Who’s going to attract more business?
The corporate rate is artificially high, and encourages towns and states to compete via subsidies and tax holidays. Just like personal income, it should be one low flat rate and get rid of all the accountants.
carlitos (34f76e) — 1/8/2009 @ 2:16 pmExcuse me?
Do I need to point out my major to you? 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/8/2009 @ 2:21 pmMost accountants could then join the FBI or run sports teams? 🙂
Seriously though, remember Steve Forbes and his post card?
carlitos (34f76e) — 1/8/2009 @ 2:23 pmFirst of all, there were dozens of factors that contributed to Ireland’s growth, not just the one you mentioned (if even that).
Second of all, unfortunately the Celtic Tiger’s economy is contracting left and right.
As with all good democracies, hopefully they will pull through as I know we will.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 2:46 pmYou asked for, and got an example of growth spurred by lowering corporate tax rates, in the ROI. There is no example in the USA because tax rates were never lowered. What can we make of your request, then? It can never be satisfied. In California, corporations pay a marginal rate over 50% between state and federal. That’s confiscatory and certainly costs jobs and results in higher prices.
carlitos (34f76e) — 1/8/2009 @ 2:59 pmSo, Oiram, you think there’s no advantage to having a 12.5% corporate tax rate vs. a 35% rate? If you were starting a business, and all other factors were equal, which would you choose?
What about just the fact that corporate taxes just result in higher consumer prices?
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/8/2009 @ 3:02 pmThe corporate rate is too high and discourages investment. Explaining that to a Democrat is tough, though. Especially if they don’t understand that Ireland is a laboratory of what can be done if you change the law. California has, for example, a minimum corporate tax of $800. That will cause me to move my little personal corporation to Arizona as soon as I can. Personal corporations are almost always zeroed out at the end of the tax year to avoid the double taxation typical of dividends with large corporations. Has anybody wondered why companies are leaving California ?
The issue of tax cuts and giving money to those who don’t pay taxes is a serious one since 65% of income tax revenue comes from 10% of the population and 50% don’t pay income tax. We are coming rapidly to the time when the majority can vote to tax the tax-paying minority.
Then we hear about FICA but the trouble with cutting FICA is that SS and Medicare are not solvent now at the present tax rates. If we cut them, the date of insolvency is closer.
It’s all a Ponzi scheme anyway. The Wall Street Journal had an article on Madoff. They suspect that a a lot of his investors knew something wasn’t right about those high returns and got out in time. Doing so is an act of complicity. So, I’m asking if my being the right generation to collect SS before it goes broke in 25 years is complicity ?
My oldest son, who is a busy lawyer and an Obama supporter, thinks he’ll never see SS and I think he’s right. But I can’t figure out why he wouldn’t support Bush’s attempt at private accounts. We try not to talk politics but I do wonder about some people and their understanding of economics and policy.
Mike K (f89cb3) — 1/8/2009 @ 3:11 pm#232 Carlitos, this is what you can make of my request. I had asked for proof that a lower corporate tax rate worked in our history. Sorry if I didn’t specify U.S. history. I thought we were all on the same team here.
You are telling me taxes were never lowered here, yet Mike #234 is telling me he would move his business to AZ from California.
Perhaps there should be some sort of extra tax when businesses move out of our country and still trade with it’s home base. This would help keep businesses from moving.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 3:56 pm#233 So, Oiram, you think there’s no advantage to having a 12.5% corporate tax rate vs. a 35% rate? If you were starting a business, and all other factors were equal, which would you choose?
Of course sans penalties I would choose the lower, this in fact is one of the problems with our current economy. Why do you think California as well as the U.S. is having a major budget crisis?
What about just the fact that corporate taxes just result in higher consumer prices?
Maybe they wouldn’t result in higher consumer prices if our government spent the money wisely on education, infrastructure and health care.
If our government provided health care instead of businesses for employees, do you think that would lower consumer prices as well?
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:02 pmCan government be expected to spend money wisely? Government exists to reach political consensus or compromise in a changing culture, not economic efficiencies.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:14 pmDRJ, I think government is in the business, essentially, of promoting government.
Look at colleges and universities right now. The administrators are cutting back on hiring more teaching stuff because of economic hardships. But I have yet to find one that has pledged not to hire more administrators.
Since administrators make the hiring decisions, it is no surprise.
So why would government officials think that government was a problem?
Sigh.
Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:17 pmFunny. I meant “teaching staff” and wrote “teaching stuff.” Now that is a Freudian slip!
Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:18 pm#237 We should expect government to spend money wisely.
DRJ, I’m sure this is going to come as no surprise to you, but the little faith you have in government spending wisely, I have in corporations spending wisely to create jobs for America.
Sure a lot of corporations do, but don’t many of them squander their respective riches in order to create exaggerated wealth, instead of more high paying jobs? Doesn’t that shrink the middle class they need to purchase their goods?
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:21 pmSo what do you think the answer is? This answer will tell me a lot about how to approach this topic with you.
How it gets spent doesn’t change the fact that Corporations want that money back, and raise the price they charge consumers. Virtually any increase in a business’s expenses will cause a price increase. It is how business works. Why do you think the prices at places like McD’s go up? How do you think Wal-Mart is able to reduce prices?
I doubt it, and here’s why: When Hawaii mandated healthcare, and set up a state system for it, LOADS of people who had been paying for a company-provided insurance plan dropped it and took the free stuff from the state. This put a MASSIVE drain on the state system, and put a huge hurt on the state budget.
How do you think the state would normally go about getting that money back? Usually Corp taxes.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:25 pmIt is very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not being deliberately obtuse. I’m trying one last time here.
As you have been told, the laws of economics do not differ from place to place. Supply, demand, taxes, and the like all work the same, regardless of geography. You could liken Ireland’s business-friendly status in the EU to that of the Carolinas or mid-South in the US, if you like.
You are telling me taxes were never lowered here, yet Mike #234 is telling me he would move his business to AZ from California.
As he states, this is in response to a California minimum tax of $800, which is ridiculous. As you are aware, states levy taxes in addition to the feds. He should incorporate in Nevada.
When in our (American) history has protectionism (tariffs) created jobs and lowered prices?
carlitos (34f76e) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:28 pm#243 I’ve been told by you that the laws of economics don’t differ from place to place.
Sorry if you think I’m being “obtuse” if I don’t agree with your Ireland argument Carlitos.
You don’t have to try again. I have my belief’s as you do yours.
I personally think it’s obtuse to compare Ireland’s economic needs to the U.S.’s.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:40 pmOiram,
It doesn’t really matter how we feel about government and corporations. What matters is analyzing how things work. I think government is inefficient by design because it responds the way the people in charge direct it. On the other hand, the market responds the way the people in each community want.
Here’s a concrete example: When the market runs the economy, there are abortion doctors in some communities and not many in others. When government runs the economy (and depending on who is in charge), either there are few/no abortion doctors or there are thousands and thousands of abortion doctors.
Now multiply that by every decision you can think of. Which do you think is more efficient?
DRJ (8b9d41) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:47 pm#241 Scott, if I knew the answers I wouldn’t be spending my time commenting here at this fine site.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:50 pm#245 Although I disagree DRJ, I know you and everyone here have the best interest of the masses at heart.
With your belief’s, 8 years and 4 years ago, I would of told you “I hope your right”.
Based on many of Obama’s strategies, sorry if I tell you “I hope your wrong”.
God Bless
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:56 pmBut with what YOU know, what do you THINK they should do? I’m not asking for the RIGHT answer, just what YOU think the right answer might be. I only want your honest opinion.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/8/2009 @ 5:01 pm“DRJ, I’m sure this is going to come as no surprise to you, but the little faith you have in government spending wisely, I have in corporations spending wisely to create jobs for America.”
Oiram – Take a step back and consider the goal of most for profit corporations. Is it to make money for their shareholders or to spend wisely to create jobs for America? You seem to make the assumption that the two objectives are always in conflict, but that is not necessarily the case.
“squander their respective riches in order to create exaggerated wealth”
Can you give me a few examples of what you consider squandering riches and exaggerated wealth please so I understand what you are talking about here?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/8/2009 @ 5:01 pmOiram – Do you own shares of stock in any individual corporation? I’l not talking about mutual funds, I’m talking about individual stocks. If you do, when you look at their financial statements do you ever find yourself saying, I think the company ought to expand its workforce by 30% because Americans need work. I don’t really care that the company doesn’t need the workers and it’s like featherbedding, America needs this. I also don’t care that it will hurt the company’s earnings and earnings per share and probably trash the company’s stock price, it’s the right thing to do for America.
If you do think like that, I’ll wager you think differently than the large majority of the company’s shareholders.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/8/2009 @ 5:13 pmOiram?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/9/2009 @ 8:50 amOiram’s statements make a lot of sense … if you accept Oiram’s belief that other peoples’ money must be taken from them and used for the purposes that Oiram approves of.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/9/2009 @ 9:07 amI wasn’t comparing their needs, Oiram. I was merely observing that they lowered corporate tax rates, and (surprise) their economy grew. But never mind – Western Europe is nothing like the USA. We have a unique economy that has nothing to do with the rest of the world. The laws of scarcity, taxation, supply and Demand are just theories in a classroom which don’t apply in more than one place.
Anyway, you ignored my last question – after you suggested that we somehow “tax” companies the relocate outside the US but still have US customers (the only way to do this would be to slap a duty or tariff on their imports), I asked you:
When in our (American) history has protectionism (tariffs) created jobs and lowered prices?
carlitos (34f76e) — 1/9/2009 @ 9:07 amSPQR – Precisely. I wanted to hear if it was only OPM solutions Oiram was proposing or if he has thought it through in terms of his own money.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/9/2009 @ 9:21 amThe only money that mariO thinks about is the obscene pile that attaches to Rush.
AD (9c6207) — 1/9/2009 @ 9:45 amOiram? Oiram?
carlitos (34f76e) — 1/9/2009 @ 7:28 pmJust today, I was talking to a convenience store/gas station cashier concerning political matters, as I am wont to do. I stated that most people falsely think Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative when it is much more accurate to say Democrats are liberal and Republicans are moderate, and there is no conservative party of any real viability.
He waved that past (metaphor) and said he isn’t D or R but his view was: If a R sees someone in need, he opens his wallet. If a D sees someone in need, he opens somebody else’s wallet.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/9/2009 @ 7:52 pmDoing nothing is not an option. “Doing as little as possible” is a much better idea; the only problem is figuring out how much is possible in the first place, and refraining from doing what makes no difference.
But really now: anyone who has lived through a basic Econ course covering even just a little macroeconomics should know that the government has to act to restore the money supply. That has been basic macroeconomics since Keynes’s brilliant book, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”.
MattJ (931243) — 1/10/2009 @ 6:47 pmThere is plenty of money (capital), there just seems to be no incentive, or desire, to trade in it.
AD (4de33d) — 1/10/2009 @ 6:57 pmThe Fed is attempting to push money into the system to make up for the decline in velocity, but they have a tiger by the tail, and no one knows when, or how, to let go.
As in 1933 following the “Bank Holiday”, capital is “taking a holiday”.
I would just hope that the prompt to end that holiday is not as attention grabbing as what occurred in 1939.