I agree but it wold have made me feel better if we sent a few people to jail or at least clawed back the bonuses they made over the previous 5 years or so.
Like your gas heater, you will have to replace your solar panels every few years. GE is not anywhere near grid parity for most of the United States (I guess solar panels work pretty well in Death Valley). But if we do not invest in greeen energy today we will fall behind on the technology that will make SOMEONE the leading manufacturer of green technology. SOMEONE’S got to develop a comparative advantage and we are behind the 8 ball in developing any comparative advantage in ANYTHING because of our relative labor costs so we have to get ahead of the curve. It scares me that China is making so many right moves (massive stimulus which made their recession evaporate, investment in infrastructure and green technology…) while we fuck around trying to appease Republicans that will never be satisfied with anything until there is a Republican controlled government.
Well the second stimulus tax cuts were FAR more stimulative than the first stimulus tax cuts (accelerated depreciation), so there’s that.
The same can be said for telephone and pretty soon cable and internet service.
Well, my understanding is that those toxic assets you are talking about are largely Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs (which regulators had permitted Banks to hold as tier one capital). Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs ARE in effect loans and now those loans are guaranteed by the federal government. To the extent they held Fannie and Freddie preferred stock, there is no problem with valuation. I don’t believe they held a lot of the stuff generated by Countrywide mortgages but to the extent they did, then yeah, that stuff is still toxic.
Yeah anything is possible, I’m just laying out an argument for why I think we are in better shape than that. I once thought we were headed for a lost decade but I no longer think so.
Its not that we want the dollar to float lower, we want the RMB to float higher.
What you say is definitely true at the lower GS levels but once you get past about GS 12 or 13, its simply not true anymore.
[qoute]and before you say this is apples and oranges
[/quote]
Comparing state to federal, that’s not apples and oranges, that apples and volkswagons.
First of all I’d like to point out that the CATO institute is full of shit. They compare absolute salaries without taking into account the difference in job description, education, experience, etc. They do so later but why would you such irrelevant data in an “analysis”?
Second they point out the rate at which “AVERAGE” wages increased in the fed versus the private sector without mentioning that this is due to the fact that the fed had been outsourcing all its lower paid jobs. Its really fucking simple to figure out how much the federal employee wage has increased. They only get raises if congress VOTES to give them raises. Its a matter of legislative record. What is the point of comparing a 1990’s general federal workforce with a 2010 federal workforce that that has a much higher concentration of people with professional degrees?
BTW, I’m surprised to hear that the federal workforce experiences layoffs at 25% the general rate, I thought their rate was damn near ZERO. I also think the conclusion that federal pay is high based on quit rates is ridiculous. Money is not the sole driving factor in every decision that people make. YOU think that the government attracts lazy losers, I think it might do some of that, I also think it attracts people who believe there are more important things than money. Perhaps they would rather enforce environmental regulations at the EPA than represent companies that routinely violate the environmental regulations. Perhaps their federal job gives them a higher sense of purpose.
Sure you can look at one group (air traffic controllers get $170K at the top end) and say WOW thats a lot of money for a guy who may or may not have a college degree. My only insight into the job is that movie “Pushing Tin” which leads me to believe its not really an easy job and its certainly not the sort of job I would want to hire out to the lowest bidder.
The CATO institute has an agenda, they are funded by one of the Koch brothers (the money behind the libertarian wing of the Tea Party movement). Until recently, the Koch brothers were hands of and the CATO institute rarely tried this sort of bullshit analysis but now that their populist movement is gaining some traction they are flushing their reputation down the drain in order to pump out propaganda.
hahahahahahahahaha
Ah, it’s good to get a nice belly laugh sometimes.
Oh, wait, I’m sorry, did you SERIOUSLY think China is dedicated to green technology?
But Obama raised the deficit which also can be found on Google. So are lowering taxes while raising the deficit separate issues?
Solutions offered by “the other side”
-
Cut government spending.
This was offered by McCain as way to have more responsible government. I support this view but unfortunately, McCain’s proposal was not part of a plan but more of a way to get a good soundbite during the debates. -
Do not bail out the companies that hurt themselves.
Let’s look at this simplisticly. You borrow against your house and go to Vegas. You’re gambling to win big but you lose everything. Most people think that the solution is TFB and don’t be an idiot. BUT, the system is set up to reward risk. It’s a contradiction but when companies are flying in corporate jets to beg for money or using stimulus money to pay bonuses for already well-paid execs that got their company into this financial quagmire, then you need to question:
Are they in this mess because they took a calculated risk or are they just idiots?
Is giving them money that same as giving money to a drug addict? -
Do not give out money to banks.
This was so obvious that it is inexcusible that any President would do this. Read up what happened in 1932 and the RFC. Hoover gave money to the banks and they held on to it rather than lending it out. So the same thing happens with this stimulus. What a shocker! :dubious: So Wall Street gets bailed out but people on Main Street still get foreclosed on and lose jobs. Even now, lending is so bad that less than 10% of the houses for sale in my neighborhood that have been on the market for over a year have sold. I went to buy a new car and with 50% down and better credit than 6 years ago it took 3 days to find a lender to finance it. -
Implement direct lending.
The solution to #3. I am not typically a socialist, but it seems banks still have forgotton the first rule of banking - lend money to make money. I think that in these unusual circumstances, the government should have lent money directly to Americans and small businesses to stimulate the economy and made interest that I would have legislated to directly retire the debt. -
Reward companies for hiring/keeping Americans employed.
Give a tax credit of $X for every employee beyond 8 that were full-time employees up to $Y.
Allow companies to expense out payroll made to Americans but not foreign nationals (e.g. no outsourcing to India)
IANAAccountant but I’m sure an sensible incentive plan could be made to encourage more employment in the US -
Extend tax credit to grad degrees.
AFAIK (correct me if I’m wrong), the current tax credits are only for those working on bachelor’s degrees. If you want an MBA or MEd etc. then no nachos for you. If the goal is to get people to make themselves more employable, then we need to encourage post-grad degrees, especially as a BA/BS is bare minimum for many jobs out there.
Your turn
The deficit has gone up under Obama but it’s gone up due to stuff that happened before he took office, the financial meltdown, massive existing deficit etc. He inherited a one trillion a year deficit and almost all of his increased spending has been on a fiscal stimulus designed to get us out of a recession that wasn’t created by Obama. I’m no Obama supporter but it’s incorrect to blame him for the current fiscal trainwreck.
Yeah… because its not possible for the world’s largest polluter to also be the leader in green technology.
They’re not doing it for the “sake of the planet” they’re doing it because they want to make money and they know they can’t keep spewing this crap into the air forever.
Like you said, its a sound bite, they’re not serious.
Right, because the collapse of the global financial system would be fine as long as we stuck by our principles. NOONE WANTED TO BAIL THOSE GUYS OUT. We had no choice unless another great depression was an option. Its like people forget what staring into the abyss felt like.
One cockeyed scheme is as good as the next I guess. Putting together the bureaucratic infrastsructure to do that would probably take a while but I guess we could do it.
A social security and medicare tax holiday would have done that AND put more money into the pockets of people who would have spent it.
This would be horribly unfair and violate a bunch of treaties, plus it wouldn’t work very well because Subchapter F of the tax laws suspends all income from foreign activity until you bring the money back to the USA. People would just stop bringing money back to the USA, they’ll just invest it in India.
College education is something that you can argue that everyone would benefit from, the same cannot be said of an MBA.
So I suppose that when the stimulus lapses next year, you will credit him with reducing the deficit?
Sure if he does what he promises as he promises to do as long as you admit you’re wrong in 2013 (not next year) if he doesn’t. Deal?
But I would honestly like to see some hard numbers of how much of the current deficit is Bush’s spending. Demos have been saying that for two years but a paragraph in this articlesays
How is that Bush’s spending? The numbers I remember reading that took into account the stimulus and TARP money showed a slight dip in 2009 but others showed a slight rise. In both cases that difference was about $100 million. I’m willing to concede that Obama did not raise the deficit in 2009, but what about 2010?
He’s spending stimulus money in 2010 and he’s also spending extra money in the form of unemployment insurance, food stamps and similar automatic stabilisers that kick in when an economy is doing badly and unemployment is high. So the money he’s spending is down to the meltdown and consequent recession, mass unemployment etc.
Here’s how much money Obama has spent :
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/hey-small-spender/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/ever-expanding-government/
I have no problem admitting I’m wrong… when I am wrong. What big new spending has Obama initiated other than the stimulus?
The ONLY thing I can think of is the healthcare bill. Something that he ran on (now I agree that he put too much focus on healthcare at a time when he should have been focusing more on the economy. He should have spent his political capital on a 1.5 trillion dollar stimulus plan and spent it on infrastructure and improving our technological base in alternative energy).
He didn’t increase welfare or start a lot of new expensive programs. This is the first time in recent history that the federal civilian workforce had smaller raises than the military (they are usually lockstep) but Obama proposed a lower raise for the civilians that’s what congress gave them.
You tell me. The deficit is being increased $2.4 trillion for 2010. Is all of that stimulus & TARP money from Bush’s watch? If not, then you cannot say that Obama hasn’t increased the deficit. Maybe you think the extra spending is necessary but that is not the issue. The deficit went up $2.4 trillion in Obama’s 2nd term but you claim it is Bush’s money-spending. I ain’t buying it.
So correct me if I’m wrong. Of the $3.8 trillion dollar budget, how much is money spent under Bush’s administration for the stimulus that is being credited to Obama’s budget?
I already explained to you exactly why Obama’s spending has gone up and posted links for you to read. The reason the deficit is increasing in Obama’s second term isn’t down to increased spending, it’s mainly down to decreased tax revenues caused by the recession. Higher outgoings and lower income equals bigger deficit.
Here’s the deficit over the next ten years explained in a picture. You can see Obama’s spending ex-stimulus (which he’s only spending to dig us out of the hole he inherited) is a negligible part :
http://intoxination.net/files/nodeimages/chart_of_the_day_bush_policies_deficits_june_2010.gif