bah, they interrupted TPIR for this.

Something about governing with fear or the like...

ah, this is where people will blame obama for doing his best to fix someone's else's mistakes.

burndtdan: ah, this is where people will blame obama for doing his best to fix someone's else's mistakes precisely the wrong thing to address the recession

albo: precisely the wrong thing to address the recession

So what do you recommend that we do?

SpaceyCat: So what do you recommend that we do?

immediate across the board tax cuts and a massive ax to federal spending

albo: burndtdan: ah, this is where people will blame obama for doing his best to fix someone's else's mistakes precisely the wrong thing to address the recession

exactly.

he didn't cause the problem, and the people elected him because they felt he was best prepared to solve it, but damnit, you're going to blame him for it all.

and besides, what do all those economists know about economics anyways?

albo: immediate across the board tax cuts and a massive ax to federal spending

How will that get people back to work?

SpaceyCat: albo: precisely the wrong thing to address the recession

So what do you recommend that we do?

Duh, lower lower the interest rates, cut taxes further, start another war, and pretend the problem doesn't exist because the fundamentals of the economy are strong! Weren't you paying attention to how the republicans handled it?

albo: SpaceyCat: So what do you recommend that we do?

immediate across the board tax cuts and a massive ax to federal spending

herbert hoover called, he wants his ideas back.

albo: massive ax to federal spending

Let's start with the Dept. of Defense budget. We do not need to have Billion dollar planes to fight people who have sticks.

won't people think of the illegal immigrants? if we start picking the fruit, what will they do?

contrary to what the internet message board economists think, you can't just immediately cut spending on whatever you feel like.

what_now: How will that get people back to work?

borrowing and spending won't get anybody back to work, either. private businesses put people to work. the government doesn't create jobs

cutting spending and allowing people to keep more of the money puts money back into the economy just like borrowing does. Plus it has the extra benefit of not increasing the deficit as well as the overall, and it doesn't increase how much future budgets will have to spend on debt payments.

Also, last night I had a dream that the Joads showed up at my house and I had to feed them for a weekend. It was weird, and hopefully not prophetic.

albo: immediate across the board tax cuts and a massive ax to federal spending

What will that do for job? Tax cuts take at least a year or so for it to be felt.

Cutting federal spending will actually cut jobs, not make more.

Tetrasodium: Weren't you paying attention to how the republicans handled it?

Yeah, I was. Which is why I'm looking at being laid off in another month or two.

what_now: Let's start with the Dept. of Defense budget. We do not need to have Billion dollar planes to fight people who have sticks.

no argument here. lots of defense spending can be slashed. as well as plenty of domestic programs, plus adoption of zero-based budgeting, and adjustments to entitlements.

SpaceyCat: Cutting federal spending will actually cut jobs, not make more.

sure, some, of contractors and govt. employees. but borrowing and spending will cut even more jobs as more of future budgets have to be directed to debt repayment instead of programs.

albo: borrowing and spending won't get anybody back to work, either. private businesses put people to work. the government doesn't create jobs

The government DOES create jobs. Who do you think builds highways? What brought electricity to the Tennessee Valley? The problem is making sure the government creates the RIGHT jobs, something that, admittedly, they've had a problem with in the past.

Private business are failing across the board because conservatives kept screaming about how the "free market" will take care of it all. The "trickle down" theory has proven to fail.

As for the tax cuts, Obama has been talking about cutting taxes for years now.

albo: borrowing and spending won't get anybody back to work, either.

Depending on how it's spent. If it's invested in infrastructure improvements and similar things, you're both making updates that are long past needed and putting people to work by having jobs there for those people.

Yes, spending DOES need to be cut in some areas, but it needs to be done carefully.

cutting spending and allowing people to keep more of the money puts money back into the economy just like borrowing does. Plus it has the extra benefit of not increasing the deficit as well as the overall, and it doesn't increase how much future budgets will have to spend on debt payments.

The stuff I've heard about the payroll tax cut is one of the better ideas I've heard of late, simply because it is faster than an income tax cut.

With unemployment on the rise though, a lot of states are going to be running into major problems paying for things, so even if Fed cuts taxes, states are going to be raising them when the Fed cuts back its funding to the states.

albo: no argument here. lots of defense spending can be slashed. as well as plenty of domestic programs, plus adoption of zero-based budgeting, and adjustments to entitlements.

On this we can agree. However, we have two huge problems in this country: A crumbling infrastructure, and massive unemployment. If I was in charge my "welfare" plan would be: you're a healthy adult, grab a shovel or start watching the kids of the people with shovels in their hands.

Oh, good - another thread where a bunch of people who vote third party are going to tell us all how politics works.
Have at it, Paultards and other assorted goofballs!

what_now: The government DOES create jobs. Who do you think builds highways? What brought electricity to the Tennessee Valley?

no, the government doesn't create jobs. it funds those jobs by taking away money from businesses and taxpayers that would be used to create jobs in teh private sector. it's a wash--it's not making the economic pie bigger, only shifting the size of the pieces and how they are distributed.

jobs are created by entrepreneurs creating new industry and capital--making teh pie bigger.

albo: sure, some, of contractors and govt. employees. but borrowing and spending will cut even more jobs as more of future budgets have to be directed to debt repayment instead of programs.

Yeah. I agree with you there. We're in a really tight spot and it's going to be really really tough going for the next decade or so.

I really really really wish we had something close to a balanced budget amendment. Or at least a cap of how much a deficit could be run...

what_now: you're a healthy adult, grab a shovel or start watching the kids of the people with shovels in their hands.

I could go with that.

We still get internet, though, right?

albo: no, the government doesn't create jobs. it funds those jobs by taking away money from businesses and taxpayers that would be used to create jobs in teh private sector

Ok, once again: Who do you think will pay to fix the crumbling bridges in this country? Wal Mart? GM? Bank of America?

Outlaw financial lobbying

1) Defense contractors won't be able to insist the government buy their overpriced technology.

2) The pork spending would be dramatically reduced.

3) Pretty much every other problem that involves money and politics

what_now: Who do you think will pay to fix the crumbling bridges in this country? Wal Mart? GM? Bank of America?

roads and bridges are paid for through liquid fuels taxes, and i have no problem with keeping them the same or increasing them.

although i didn't specify, i'll clarify that i would like to see reductions in personal income and business income taxes that are levied and used for general revenue line items. user fees can stay the same or be increased, as long as they are earmarked to benefit the users, a la liquid fuels taxes for highways.

Bonkthat_Again: Outlaw financial lobbying

that gets solved by making government smaller--with less to spend and less to regulate, there's less need for lobbyists to be there in DC lobbying

He acknowledged both the staggering cost of his proposals and the enormous debt it will impose on future generations. To assuage those concerns, Obama pledges "an unprecedented effort to eliminate unwise and unnecessary spending."

Hmmm.... I think that President-Elect Obama and myself probably have wildly different ideas as to what constitutes "unwise and unnecessary spending".

Didn't Obama say that he would make the plan available in detail on the internet? That will be interesting to look at.

Bonkthat_Again: Outlaw financial lobbying

That would be nice, but then who pays for the congresscriters' meals and trips?

Silverhammer: i76.photobucket.com

As opposed to Bush & Crew's plans there? That 700 Billion with no strings attached? Yeah.... no thanks.

albo: roads and bridges are paid for through liquid fuels taxes, and i have no problem with keeping them the same or increasing them.

Ok, but there isn't a bridge fairy that maintains them. Actual people with shovels do that, and if we hired another 10,000 of them, we could be fixing two problems.

SpaceyCat: As opposed to Bush & Crew's plans there? That 700 Billion with no strings attached? Yeah.... no thanks.

Glad to see that it was soundly rejected in the House...

KaponoFor3: Hmmm.... I think that President-Elect Obama and myself probably have wildly different ideas as to what constitutes "unwise and unnecessary spending".

I'm pretty sure that if you took 100 people and asked them that question, you'd get 100 different answers.

SpaceyCat: That would be nice, but then who pays for the congresscriters' meals and trips?

They make $179k a year right? If that isn't enough for them, they can wait tables like everyone else who needs extra spending money.

So let's say Obama's plan passes and there are 60,000 government jobs created. What happens when the economy has rebounded? Do we then just fire all those people? You all know how difficult it is to fire a government employee, right?

SpaceyCat:
Silverhammer: i76.photobucket.com

As opposed to Bush & Crew's plans there? That 700 Billion with no strings attached? Yeah.... no thanks.

KaponoFor3: So let's say Obama's plan passes and there are 60,000 government jobs created. What happens when the economy has rebounded? Do we then just fire all those people? You all know how difficult it is to fire a government employee, right?

Hmmm...interesting point. I guess you could make some of them 2-3 year contract positions.

what_now: Hmmm...interesting point. I guess you could make some of them 2-3 year contract positions.

That'd be much more preferable to me, but then we are left with 60,000 people still without jobs after the 2-3 years. I suppose the thinking would be that the economy had rebounded so that now jobs were available for these individuals?

KaponoFor3: That'd be much more preferable to me, but then we are left with 60,000 people still without jobs after the 2-3 years. I suppose the thinking would be that the economy had rebounded so that now jobs were available for these individuals?

Make the contracts somewhat negotiable for the employee, so people can gradually take private sector jobs? I don't know. I'm spitballing.

albo: no, the government doesn't create jobs. it funds those jobs by taking away money from businesses and taxpayers that would be used to create jobs in teh private sector.

newsflash:

the private sector is shedding jobs at half a million a month. it isn't the government that is taking those jobs away.

burndtdan: it isn't the government that is taking those jobs away.

but massive government spending isn't going to get those jobs back. we're not going to spend our way out of a recession. the business cycle is a force of economic nature. it's like trying to divert a hurricane.

albo: but massive government spending isn't going to get those jobs back.

even though you're very wrong (the government can't spur job creation in the private sector by contracting private companies, and can directly create public sector jobs)...

that is beside the point. the private sector is not creating jobs. cutting taxes won't help companies that aren't making money.

not doing anything is not a solution.

Dancin_In_Anson: Glad to see that it was soundly rejected in the House...

Really? TARP was signed into law on 10/3/08 with very little oversight.

Would you like to try again?

albo: SpaceyCat: So what do you recommend that we do?

immediate across the board tax cuts and a massive ax to federal spending

It didn't work with Hoover, and Friedman's version of that plan has been a disaster ever where it has been applied.

The one thing that all of us should have learned by now is that tax cuts and depending on the invisible hand of the market to fix things, just doesn't work.

burndtdan: even though you're very wrong (the government can't spur job creation in the private sector by contracting private companies, and can directly create public sector jobs)...

government contracting creates jobs by taking away private capital in the form of tax dollars from industry and individuals. it's a wash. again, the money for those government contractors comes from other workers and other companies, which can't then create jobs with it.

not doing anything is not a solution

indeed, it's a damn good solution.

Code_Archeologist: It didn't work with Hoover, and Friedman's version of that plan has been a disaster ever where it has been applied.

enough with this. herbert hoover raised taxes and increased spending. you can look it up

albo:
indeed, it's a damn good solution.

What if we are in a liquidity trap?