Seventy percent of the U.S. economy is service, and a large part of the service industry was financial services. I agree the U.S. needs to produce something. What do you think the U.S. should produce? Should the government play any role in economic planning?
It is quite possible that a particular teacher is not rehired, but is the total number of teachers today the same as it was in 2002? In my district, a number of counselors were laid off in the mid-90s, and the positions were restored when the economy picked up. I think the stimulus money is going to be used to avoid layoffs, so assuming that the economy picks up, they can be avoided.
Getting back to the original theme of this thread, the Times today had an article on Republican governors supporting the stimulus package. Some have visibly signed on, like Crist, some would if it were not for opposition by the state Republican party. Some consider Obama to be more supportive than Bush. Of course these guys have to deal with the impact of the crisis, and don’t have the luxury of ideological purity. Package opponents: are these Republicans all wet, or greedy, or do they maybe have a clue?
OK, good, Kimstu, thanks. I think we’re still moving here.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that something can have a beneficial effect on society regardless of how it is funded. This is true. And in fact, the mere act of putting money into the economy has a short-term beneficial effect on society, no matter where it came from. I think we’re in agreement on that.
Now, I’m asking my daughter to pay, in her lifetime, to bail us out today from our greed and stupidity. I very much dislike doing that. It is a huge debt burden, one I place on her very unwillingly.
Accordingly, I want to get maximum bang for my buck. Call me crazy, but I don’t want to piss her money away buying chairs to prop up the Government. What, like there’s some short of critical government chair shortage that we want to alleviate? I don’t want my daughters money to buy chairs. I want to invest that money in something that will last, that will give benefits tomorrow and for years to come. That is what we owe to my daughter and her generation, the responsibility to invest the money as wisely as we can.
I want the equivalent of teaching a man to fish, or as near as we can get to that. I want a focus on production and the things that support production. As a result, I’m sorry, I love the outdoors, I’ve worked as a sport salmon fishing guide in wild country, but the cleanup of the National Park trails will have to wait.
Not because there is no benefit. We know there’s always benefit in spending money.
Not because it doesn’t create enough jobs. Every job is a good job.
But because nothing is produced. Nothing is created. Nor does it smooth the way or ease the path or provide the means of producing something.
Or to take it back to Keynes example, yes, there is definitely a benefit to society just from hiring guys to holes and fill them in.
What I’m saying is, let’s get smart about it and instead of hirings guys to dig and fill holes, let’s have them dig wells …
That’s what we owe our children who are paying for Hank and Tim’s Excellent Economic Adventure … a responsibility to invest their money wisely, to drill wells instead of just digging holes and filling them back in. And if we had an inkling of economic sense, we’d start tightening our belts right now and end the profligacy of our everyday spending. Not even counting this extraordinary event, we live way beyond our means. Can’t go on forever, folks …
I have not said primary producers should be the sole focus. As I mentioned above with the example about fishing, primary production depends directly and proportionately on access to certain resources. These include transportation, energy, communications, raw materials, finance, and a skilled workforce. Those are the sectors that we need to encourage and support. The finance sector is being handled in a different bill.
I’m a businessman. I want to stimulate the economy every day, not just in a crisis. Those are the resources that primary producers depend on. Those are the sectors that we should invest in. Not trails in the National Forests. Not chairs for government employees.
If I were Governor of say Kentucky, and I oppose the bill, when the sachels full of loot show up are you seriously suggesting I should say “No thanks, we just had lunch, give it to Tennessee instead”? Give away free money? The citizens would have me lynched …
I mentioned above the things that primary producers directly depend on. These are transportation, energy, communications, raw materials, finance, and a skilled workforce. For me, in this instance the role of the government (in addition to directly supporting the primary producers) should be to strengthen those sectors that directly aid primary production.
So, I noticed in the stimulus bill a provision for farmers and beekeepers that would insulate them against a one-year shock of the drop in prices. I know it sounds dumb and prosaic and all, but those are primary producers. I think it’s a good provision.
I noticed a bunch of highway funds in the bill. Fix the aging highways and bridges of America, direct support of primary production, definitely gets my vote.
I see there are job training funds in the bill. We need an educated and skilled workforce.
That’s the kinds of things I see the gov’t role in this instance.
In the more general case, you ask, should the govt play any role in economic planning? I’m not sure what you mean.
The govt already plays a huge role in the economy through taxes, tariffs, duties, fees, licenses, permits, and the like. Add to that Freddie and Fannie, and the Federal Reserve Bank, and their cousins. Plus the hundreds of government regulations that every business has to adhere to. It owns huge tracts of land. Toss in the Federal Budget and the choices of where and how to spend it, the effect of the government on the business world and the economy is huge.
Please be clear I’m not saying that’s bad. It’s just a fact. Big country. Big business. Big government.
I guess the reason I’m unsure what you mean is that I don’t see a whole lot of “economic planning” happening on either the government or the private side of the economy. I mean, the G7+ meets and nods their heads and says “yes, free trade is the holy grail”, but that’s not economic planning as I understand it. What planning are you talking about?
Ocean Annie, thanks for the question.
Thanks for your explanation.
Regards,
Shodan
I for one, as an independent moderate/conservative, fully support honest government stimulus spending. I think the compromise bill that was signed by Obama was much better overall than the original House bill.
But, I also think the process of developing/signing the final bill was rushed and warranted some legitimate debate in Congress and in the public. It reminded me in a weird kind of way about Bush + Republicans after 9-11 and how they acted ramrodding legislation like the PATRIOT act through Congress without really taking input from the Dems (but IIRC the Pubs did make claims of trying to be bipartisan). They totally used a crisis to get controversial spending/legislation that they wanted that they wouldn’t have been able to pass (at least, in that form) if people had kept cooler heads, debated the merits and specifics of what was contained in such legislation. Instead, no, “WE MUST DO SOMETHING!” was the mantra then, just like it’s the mantra now.
Never mind if that “SOMETHING!” wasn’t fully vetted/debated/understood.
I do agree with intention’s overall point, if not specific points - real Stimulus spending is best spent on sectors that will have immediate impact on job gains and stabilizing the economy, but also sectors that will keep the positive economic momentum going after the flow of stimulus monies end. And I think it is this overall point that Congress really failed to have meaningful debate about.
I find this expression of angst about the stimulus bill, based on debt passed on to future generations, to be highly unconvincing. First, absent the stimulus bill, what will we be passing on to future generations, wealth or debt?
Secondly, the concern of debt passed on to future generations sure does not have appeared to have caused similar angst during the massive increases in debt under Reagan and Bush (and Bush). Whence the angst?
Finally, the children of the 50’s don’t appear to have suffered greatly under the crushing debt of the stimulus efforts employed to get ourselves out of the Great Depression. Are we worse off at the end of the Bush economy than we were at the start of the Great Depression? Weren’t the 50’s a period of great economic expansion?
To borrow a phrase from a conservative, when it comes to this new-found angst over future generations, “Give me a break.”
So are you saying that you’re opposed to the proposed construction of a new headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security, which is where they’re planning to put the new chairs?
And if so, is it just this particular building project you object to, or would you disqualify all construction of new government buildings from being part of the stimulus plan? Myself, I would have thought that constructing new buildings (if they are needed, and if they are built to be environmentally efficient) would definitely count as “something that will last, that will give benefits tomorrow and for years to come”.
And if you would potentially be willing to approve the construction of a new government building as part of the stimulus plan, what would you expect that building’s occupants to sit on?
In short, while I understand your general principle about preferring stimulus spending that has durable long-term value, I think your particular anti-chairs fixation is a bit silly. If we’re going to construct buildings as part of our infrastructure improvement efforts, the buildings are going to need to be furnished, so we’re going to have to spend some money somewhere to buy chairs for them.
You underestimate the power of ideological purity. In California Republican legislators are about to have government workers in their districts laid off because they are exercising the sort of absolutism you seem to support. Perhaps a governor who saw that other spending is more efficient would oppose the current form of the stimulus? If they believed tax cuts were more effective, maybe they’d support those?
I think the problem with your position is that the best is the enemy of the good. Politics is inherently imprecise, and you can never expect to pass anything optimal under anyone’s metric. There is the matter of time also. As time goes on, more people get laid off, there are more foreclosures, less consumption, and the downward pressure continues. It might be fun to debate the provisions for a few weeks, but would the costs of delay be greater than the savings from what might be a more effective package? I think so. Since even you agree that the “pork” is a small percentage of the package, I think that it is clear that the risk of losing the package is far worse than the benefit.
I see my writing is still not clear …
We could buy gold with the 750 billion … that would be long lasting. We could build a giant Mount Rushmore sized monument to Obama with 750 billion … that would be long lasting. But neither would improve the economy in any durable way.
As I said above, but obviously not clearly enough, I want something that will have a long-lasting effect on improving the economy. This I see as stimulus in certain sectors, which I defined above - primary production, education, transportation, and the rest I listed.
So no, I would not approve of building government buildings, nor chairs for the occupants. They do almost nothing to improve primary production, in either the short or the long term.
Whether or not I opposed the current form of the stimulus, if I were Governor of a state, I’d accept the money. Not sure how this applies to California, nor to ideological purity. In California, the budget is way out of whack. Tax cuts won’t help, the state needs more money, not less. So I don’t understand your example.
I also must confess, I wince when I hear somebody say “The best is the enemy of the good.” So should we all shoot for second-best? Should we all stop saying “Go for the gold”, and start saying “Forget the gold, go for the silver and bronze”? Should we cease trying to do the best job we can, and settle for simply doing a good job?
Yes, politics is imprecise, and no bill is ever perfect.
But to use that as an excuse for the slap-dash, “I’m late, I’m late, for a very important date” throwing together of the biggest appropriations bill in the history of the country is nonsense. Yes, there was time pressure … but Obama delayed signing the bill for three days, and I didn’t hear any wailing and gnashing of teeth. If we took an extra two weeks to make the bill better, given the size of the numbers involved, it would most likely be a net gain. Yes, some people would get laid off during that time, but anyone due to be laid of in the next two weeks won’t be helped by the bill in any case. And if we avoided pissing a few percent of the money down a rathole by the delay, it is more than worth doing.
Absent the bill, we will be passing on less debt. We’re not doing this for future generations. We’re doing it so we don’t have to face the full measure of our stupidity.
Don’t know where you were during those years, but I heard lots of people say during both those administrations that we were leaving crushing debt burdens to future generations … perhaps you weren’t listening.
Take a look at the relative sizes of the numbers in question. Then consider that the 50’s were three decades after the Great Depression.
New-found? Sorry, what you are trying to say is you just found it. It’s been around for decades. A lot of us have been expressing this very same sentiment for years. My father certainly said it loud and clear about Reagan’s budget busting ways … and my father was a staunch Republican … and he was right.
Sounds like you think that this $750 billion is going to get magically repaid by shoemaker’s elves after midnight or something. If you’re not concerned about the effect of the bill on future generations, you’re not following the story.
My question is probably better suited for a different thread.
Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford still haven’t agreed to take the money. Jindal suggested he might take some of the money.
Am I not understanding the situation correctly that more money is returned than taxed and that it applies to couples earning $3000. It’s not a huge sum at this point but as I said earlier I expect it to grow. It’s not a temporary welfare payment as there are no time restrictions to my knowledge. I’m not opposed to temporary welfare assistance but these payments are in addition to welfare, with no time constraints. If you want to increase temporary welfare due to economic crisis then do it without hiding it in a long term program that has the ability to grow.
Sorry, I forgot that you are fortunate enough not to have your nose in this mess every morning. True, tax cuts are not the issue (though I swear I read some Republican legislator pushing them) but the ideological purity here is no tax increase, even when it is basically impossible to cut spending more than has been proposed - certainly not enough to balance the budget. Democrats can cut spending - and it will be painful - and expect that Democratic voters will see the need. It appears that any Republican voting for even the smallest tax increase is at serious risk of losing in the next primary. There are only two additional state senator remotely likely to cast the last vote needed, they are both from moderate districts, but they seem to fear for their political life.
I take this to mean optimize what is important, not which is perhaps easiest to measure…In many things there is an exponential curve of cost vs quality, where it is more and more expensive to get that last bit of quality when you near perfection. At some point it is much better to say good enough and devote those resources into something more useful. 99% may be better in the global sense than 100%.
If we waited two weeks would we have a bill at all? Would there be pressure on the few Republican senators who voted for it? And doesn’t Congress have better things to do, like doing something about the housing market? In any case, why do you think 2 weeks is adequate for a bill of this size? Why not a month, or two months?
A lot of the so-called pork isn’t even in the bill. The Las Vegas to LA train, for instance, is not in the bill. Money for intercity rail is. Maybe that is a good idea, maybe it isn’t, but we can fight that out when the money for that kind of thing is doled out - and there is no rush in that item. Let’s not allow the fight about the long term items stop getting money needed right away to the people.
In fact, I’d say we’ve taken too long, but there is no way of moving faster with Bush in office. Remember the planning began even before Obama was sworn in. As for the delay, I suspect the wheels were set in motion as soon as it passed. Passage was at risk, not his signing the bill, so I doubt any time was lost at all.
I cited something a while back with this information. The debt load after WW II was two times GDP, much, much worse than anything we have now. By not increasing the debt load during prosperity, Eisenhower was able to whittle it down to very reasonable level.
As for crying about the deficits, remember that the Republicans in the House were backing a tax cut bill which would also add to the deficit while doing nothing useful to fix the problem. The Republicans who moan about deficits and yet vote for these bozos in primaries and in the general elections have only themselves to blame.
Getting back to he OP, President Obama has been in office almost a month now and his approval rating has plunged all the way to 68%. I don’t see how he lasts the year. :rolleyes:
What a roller coaster ride!