Re: OT- stimulus humor

On Feb 15, 9:36 am, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 03:21:51 -0800 (PST), thereco





<there...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 14, 4:12 pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A recent letter from a self-proclaimed independent in one of our
national newspapers expressed disappointment at the lack of
bipartisanship in adopting the stimulus. He claimed that the Democrats
were at fault because they never took the Republican proposals
seriously, and the Republicans were at fault because they failed to
make any serious proposals.

The writer apparently failed to see the humor in his letter, but, for
me, it is a funny and fair summary of what occurred.

====

Here is another, from one of the RW economists. He claimed that we
have NEVER had a case where government spending pulled the country out
of a recession. He said that the spending by FDR and the New Deal was
not enough to explain the recovery, which he claimed, did not occur
until WW II.

Well, on the first point --- that the New Deal spending was too little
(and also too late), well, THAT is the Obama position --- the position
of his advisors, etc. That is why they wanted a big spending bill.
(Note: No criticism of FDR --- he got the biggest spending program
that was politically possible at the time.)

On the second point, how does this guy think WW II pulled the US out
of the recession? It was by engaging in the largest spending program
in world history up to that time.

====

One last little point. I was wondering why the tax cuts are given out
in such dribs and drabs. Apparently there is a study that suggests
that the reason the Bush cuts failed was that people got the money in
one lump and saved it. The claim is that money in little drabs is just
thrown into the regular spending pot. Possible, but I understand the
study is, well, crap. Whatever, THAT apparently is the reason for the
way the tax-rebate money is being doled out. Funny business.

Being probably the oldest one here, 86, I believe that I'm qualified
to answer this. I went through the 20% unemployment, the breadlines
with the canned horsemeat and powdered eggs, and the vets selling
apples and pencils on the street corners. I was 12 when FDR sent
McArthur to Washington to disperse the vets march for their promised
but unfulfilled bouses and benefits.

The reason that we came out of the recession was that money was not
just given away. It was used  via the Works Progress Administration
(WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC's) to create jobs.

Yes, those were important programs from which we continue to benefit,
as you may know if you have seen some of the fine buildings in some of
our national parks. Small programs, to be sure, so they did not have a
major impact on the unemployment rate --- perhaps reducing it by less
than 1%. But mostly good programs and mostly helpful.

The
advent of WWII simply amplified the process of getting the country
back to work.

Yes, amplified it by over 500%.

You don't create prosperity by giving money away.

True, if you mean long term prosperity. Putting money in the a=hands
of consumers, however, is generally thought to be one of the most
effective ways of slowing or reversing a downturn in an economy that
is due to a shortage of demand.

Vis a
vis our welfare system that has created generations of people who
excell at nothing except holding out their hands.

That generalization seems a bit broad. I agree that welfare can be a
"trap" in the sense that it can become more attractive than work. The
Clinton/Republican welfare reform of the 1990s reduced this dependency
link to a significant degree, and other factors (economic changes)
also had reduced it. But studies have shown that it was not the common
result. Most people on welfare stayed on welfare for a year or less.
I've not looked at recent numbers.

No, you create jobs
that help the country such as repairing roads, bridges, building
habitats for the unfortunates who cannot help themselves, etc. These
created jobs in turn add to the tax base and solidify the system.

I could not agree more. WW II "jump started" the economy, but building
stuff to kill people overseas, however important for the survival of
our political system and way of life, was not something that provided
long term growth. But a lot of the research conducted during the way
was very important. The Interstate system was a major contributor ---
a joint program of the Reps and the Dems. The idea was to maintain the
demand that was shrinking due to the end of the war and still end up
with a lot of useful stuff. The plan worked well.

You
don't do as California is doing and drive businesses out of the state
by overtaxing.

California, of course, is undertaxing its people, as evident from its
huge deficits. It is having a bit of a rough patch right now, but it
has easily been the most successful state in the union for the past 30
years, despite relatively high corporate taxes (highest in the
country). No, almost every state in the country would like to have
California's economy.

By the way, one of the few states still doing well in this weak
economy is Massachusetts, which is sometimes associated with high
taxes. Its unemployment hate has gone up, but last I saw, it had gone
from a fantastic 2% to a pretty darn good 3.5%.

You give tax credits to new businesses and old
businesses so that they can create jobs and add to the tax base.

Perhaps, but that worked badly under Bush. Almost all economists do
not think tax credits for business make sense in a deep recession.
Almost all businesses have excess capacity, so it makes little or no
sense to get them to EXPAND capacity at this time. In addition, we
have a tradeoff of capital or jobs. That is, a company can have a
machine mop the floor or a thousand maids mop the floor (to speak in
metaphor). A tax credit for a mopping machine may tip the balance in
favor of firing 1,000 workers and hiring one new one to drive the
machine.

And
you especially don't give billions to the fat cats at banks, companies
like AIG, etc. who reward their executives with $7,500,000.00
retention bonuses or spend $800,000.00 for a weekend in the Caribbean
for those execs to celebrate the generosity of Uncle Sap.

I could not agree more. And the Dems in Congress and the people in the
Obama administration could not agree more. They are trying hard to so
what you are suggesting on that front.

You put the
money where it's needed,
jobs for the unemployed and help for the elderly, the sick and all
else who need a boost to get back on their feet.

Yes, we agree there as well. You want a balanced program to help those
dislocated by the deep recession and job-creating pubic works projects
that provide jobs now and good stuff for the future. THAT represents
most of what we see in the Economic Recovery Act (aside from the tax
cuts, which are a mixed blessing IMO). Of course, this is America, and
Congress is a sausage-making machine <grin>, so the bill is far from
perfect. Still, it gets really high grades based on my criteria and
the criteria you have suggested your post (well, aside from the
California thing <g>.



As Mark Twain once said, "there is no distinctly native American class
of criminal save Congress."

MT said a lot of clever things. But he also liked a lot of stuff
Congress did. Thanks for sharing your views.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

McDuck,

I really appreciate your points of view but I'm afraid that you and I
will always view things through different colored glasses.
You are a liberal to middle of the roader and I have been described as
to the right of Ghengis Khan. But after all that's what makes a horse
race or in fact a country where every point of view is supposed to be
heard.

I'm from the very old school where if you were able bodied and could
work you did work. If you could help people who were less fortunate
you did. If there were no jobs you created them. When I was young, pre
10, I rented a horse and wagon for $2.00 a day and collected junk to
help feed my family because we refused to stand in the breadlines. I
built a kindling wood route and delivered groceries with my wagon.
Every kid did something to help, at least in my neighborhood. Today I
have a 26 year old great granddaughter who has cystic fibrosis and is
mentally retarded. Bonnie stands 4'8" and is crippled with the mental
capacity of a 5 year old. But Bonnie works, her choice, as a greeter
in a family restaurant and helps set tables. She works 20 hours a week
and is the proudest and happiest little girl you'll ever see. She is
included in every family affair and dearly loved by everyone. She will
always be our "little girl." That is the way my family has always
operated and as long as I have anything to do with it we always will.
I am sick of Reagan's Welfare Queens, the millions of illegals in this
state and the draining of capital to provide their keep. While I can
appreciate the wanting of a better life for their families I abhor
breaking the laws of this country to get it. Believe me when I tell
you that I, and my family, contribute heavily to charities and
individual families but wholesale entitlement is not the way to create
prosperity.

As for California, when I lived in Fair Oaks, a suburb of Sacramento,
my neighbor directly in back of me was Richie Ross, or "King Richie"
as he is known, the #1 lobbyist in the state of California. The
corruption and destruction of the welfare of the citizens of this
state caused by this overlord is abominable and detestable. If you
could see first hand what the politicians are doing to this state
while feathering their own nests you would change your tune about
California. I was president of the homeowners association and at a
meeting one time I called him a liar and an idiot in front of
everybody. He threatened to sue me and when I told him we could go
outside into the cul de sac between us and hold court he backed down
and was never seen at another meeting.

I'm sure Mac, that after reading this you'll look at me askance
because it is so 180 degrees from your views but I have always been of
the mindset that if you really need a helping hand I will offer mine.
I simply will not do so based solely on race, creed or any semblance
of need other than the total incapacity to help yourself.

Cheers,

Don
.

Relevant Pages

  • Clinton and global economy
    ... Bill Clinton was one of the better presidents this country has had. ... The global economy, under leaders both Republican and Democratic, has ... Even as American businesses, through creating these jobs, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Democrats destroying America ...
    ... Inflation, hard as it can be on those with fixed incomes, is not ... yet burger flipping jobs are going begging. ... *That's* your 'full employment' economy. ... to live in a country where, at least for the time being, there is ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Can An Airline Guy Steer An Auto Company?
    ... It's not an empty country anymore either. ... Don't suggest they will start taking the higher profile jobs because the people qualified for them are staying in Mexico. ... They are an integral part of our economy now and getting rid of them is not an option. ... Anyone who owe a lot of money to is an economic threat. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang)
  • Re: Price does matter - Mac potentially forces mom to stay on Welfare
    ... but welfare recipiants usually aren't the big ... > middle class). ... >> the other 95% of the country gets screwed, ... >> even minimum wage jobs in a modern industrial economy in a nation of 300 ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Immigrations Destruction of Americas Middle Class
    ... December 11, 2003, "But as the US economy shifted toward service jobs, ... seem to work harder. ... again depends on what country you are using as your example. ...
    (soc.retirement)