Obama’s plan is to build infrastructure… However that takes planning. You don’t just have people build schools, do repairs without having a plan, having contract bidding, etc… All that takes time, probably years… Furthermore, who pays for it? The problem with all this stimulus, is you are spending $$$ now on the belief future taxes will pay for it (tax increases). The stock market is forward looking, higher taxes = less spending… I believe the next 4 years will be a complete opposite of the last 4. People saving to get out of debt (holding off buying a new car, keeping the same flooring longer)…instead of spending their way into debt to buy crap…
I think we will print money to finance this stimulus. If so, one fourth of it will be borne by the foreigners. The risk though is that the Chinese and/or Japanese may start selling the T-bonds. But then we can point a gun at them to prevent them from doing so.
I agree that infrastructure improvement should be a major focus of the coming years. But as you have pointed out, this will not have an immediate impact on the economy in even the medium term. It takes years–decades in many cases–to concoct the plans for infrastructure. I’m not sure why this is even considered a legitimate idea for economic stiumulus.
This should be named “Rightwing Thread of Stupidity”. There is a perfect positive correlation between the two.
Brilliant comment, Joe. Did you learn your spelling of “rightwing” from the Huffington Post dictionary? I guess you have insight that lets us know that infrastructure–roads, bridges, airports, hospitals, trains, power plants, etc.–are planned, approved, funded and built in a timely, expeditious manner with limited bureaucracy and with hasty, willing approval of local residents despite any local impact to their home values, views or traffic congestion. In addition, I’m sure you will inform us that these investments will therefore have an immediate impact on the U.S. economy–by March 2009, but certainly no later than June 2009. Us ignorant right-wingers then should agree that infrastructure investment should be an essential aspect of economic stimulus to help pull the U.S.–and global–economy out of recession. What the heck could us right-wing nut jobs be thinking…?
Print money. It is cheap as hell. This country needs to get…while the getting is good.
It’s not necessary the right wing aspect, which is only annoying but not crucially flawed necessarily. It is: - extremism - paranoia Also, add to that your unshakable confidence that you are correct no matter what, and it’s a recipe for disaster.
I never considered myself a Democrat (always a small government, “true” conservative, Libertarian), until I read your arguments (PtrainerNY, FINforLIL, and kkent) and saw how empty, narrow, alarmist, and idiotic they were compared to the much more educated and intelligent arguments of much more educated and intelligent people (JoeyDVivre, bchadwick, rohufish, mo34). Now Democratic-ish views are starting to make more and more sense.
‘Everybody get in line for a job… and relax your way to a nice paycheck’. A plan like this nowaday reeks of croynism (Obama cannot control every detail) and inefficient results. What good are roads and bridges when it seems almost every important industry or factory has been outsourced to a different country in the name of international trade.
"The risk though is that the Chinese and/or Japanese may start selling the T-bonds. " Sure - both of those economies are fine with the dollar in the tank…
“compared to the much more educated and intelligent arguments of much more educated and intelligent people” Well, that is a nice line. I guess I can’t trust my non-Ivy tier 4 education. Do you see why “elitism” is a problem for Dems? I’m curious if Obama will retain the criticism of deficit spending that has plagued Bush.
Schumer advocates $700 billion plan (another $700 billion!) Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Sunday said an economic recovery plan would have to cost $500 to $700 billion in order to be effective. Noting that the economy is in “serious, serious trouble,” Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” that a recovery plan would need to be “pretty big.” “We’re on the edge of deflation. Once you get into deflation, you almost never get out. That’s what the Great Depression taught us. That’s what Japan taught us,” Schumer said. “So a strong shot in the arm, just the way Barack Obama has conceived it, infrastructure, green jobs, is what is needed.” The senator also expressed confidence that Congress would be able to pass such a plan before President-elect Obama takes office to have it “on his desk by Inauguration Day.” Schumer said his vision of the economic stimulus is “a little like having a new New Deal, but you do it before a depression occurs, not after.” Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, did not immediately reject such a plan. “Well, I would like to see the details of any stimulus package: what it would do, how it would work, who would benefit from it,” said Shelby, who also appeared on the program. “What we need is to really get the economy going. I think it’s fair to say that we Republicans will look at the details and see if we can support it. I want to support things that are meaningful for the economy, and I believe Senator Schumer does, too.” Shelby indicated that he could support such a massive plan “if it would accelerate appreciation, things like that; tax incentives for people to hire, to retool and things like that,” as well as invest in education and infrastructure.
hueion, I’m not referring to an ivy league education. I’m referring to freakin’ idiots like FINforLIL who making stupid, idiotic, ridiculous statements like: “Bayes is BS” or “Quant is BS.” People who say that shit are idiots no matter their institution. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant, about math or anything else, but there is HUGE problem with proactively being ignorant. And if you want to make excuses for that with accusations of “elitism”, then I’d rather be “elite” than be a fcking idiot.
Is being ignorant wanting to stop massive spending? WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday that Congress could put together an economic stimulus package of several hundred billion dollars that should also contain tax cuts. In a recorded interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation” that was aired on Sunday, Pelosi, a California Democrat, said the package should be aimed at creating jobs immediately and include investments for future growth. Pelosi said several economists have called for a package in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
One of the most extreme and narrow-minded assclowns here… Re: Obama’s Stimulus Plan - DOA? new Posted by: PtrainerNY (IP Logged) [show posts from this user] Date: November 23, 2008 05:10PM user ignored - click to show/hide this message
If I am narrow minded, tell me how an infrastructure plan can stimulate the economy in a short amount of time… Instead of calling people names, share your ideas.
Facing an increasingly ominous economic outlook, President-elect Barack Obama and other Democrats are rapidly ratcheting up plans for a massive fiscal stimulus program that could total as much as $700 billion over the next two years. That amount, more than the nation has spent over the past six years in Iraq, would rival the sum Congress committed last month to rescuing the country’s financial system. It would also be one of the biggest public spending programs aimed at jolting the economy since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. Hints of a massive new spending program began emerging last week. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D), an Obama adviser, and Harvard economist Lawrence Summers, who Obama has chosen to lead his White House economic team, both raised the possibility of about $700 billion in new spending. Yesterday, Obama adviser and former Clinton administration Labor secretary Robert Reich and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) also called for spending in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion. While Obama has set a goal of creating or preserving 2.5 million jobs by 2011, his economic team – whose members are scheduled to be formally introduced today at a news conference in Chicago – have yet to decide exactly how that would be accomplished or how much it would cost.
sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I never considered myself a Democrat (always a > small government, “true” conservative, > Libertarian), until I read your arguments > (PtrainerNY, FINforLIL, and kkent) and saw how > empty, narrow, alarmist, and idiotic they were > compared to the much more educated and intelligent > arguments of much more educated and intelligent > people (JoeyDVivre, bchadwick, rohufish, mo34). > > Now Democratic-ish views are starting to make more > and more sense. Ok, do you have a rebuttal? If you’re going to call our arguments bad, then rebut them. Why make this personal? Why can’t we just discuss the issues without you making it personal? Rebut the argument. I underwrite apartments professionally, and I’ll tell you that it can easily take 6 months to 1 year to even obtain financing for a construction project, let alone finding the location, obtaining county approval and/or permits, hiring architects and designers, and conducting appraisals and market studies, environmental reports, environmental impact reports, engineering reports, etc. What makes you think that a $5 billion airport will even break ground within 10 years of Obama taking office? I’ll reiterate, this is not a legitimate form of economic stimulus–I agree that infrastructure should be a target of the next administration, but to sell it as economic stimulus–which Mike Huckabee (conservative Republican) wrongly attempted to do in the primaries–is absurd on its face.
Well, I do think that there does need to be government spending in this situation, because the thing that is going to put businesses out of work is that people won’t have money to buy their products (though I agree that the resulting increases in interest rates may cause problems on the other end too). I also think that that getting our infrastructure updated for the 21st century and trying to move along to renewable/clean sources of energy is something that makes sense on economic, environmental, and national security grounds (I recognize that you think that global warming is a lie, but I disagree on that). I am a Keynesian in situations like these, and one of the things that Keynes pointed out is that you can pay people to dig a bunch of holes in the ground and then you can pay them to fill them back up, and that will help solve a recession where underconsumption is the limiting factor to pulling out. Now, I don’t really advocate spending public funds on something so useless as digging a bunch of holes and then filling them up, so I think that spending the money on something the country needs like improved infrastructure, educational opportunities, and a cleaner energy matrix are very good alternatives. Now, you have a good point about the fact that infrastructure spending may take a while to make its way to people, and we probably need something that will get out the door faster, so the infrastructure part can’t be the whole thing. Maybe that means a separate package for something else. Now, I agree with you that this is likely to bring on inflation, but that is the lesser evil in my mind.