OT: Any economists out there? Is Krugman right...

[Kirk007]

Paul Krugman continues to advocate for a larger not smaller stimulus bill and in the NYT today takes Congress to task for politics as usual. This is not my arena. Philosophically I agree with the Senators who are taking the position that the stimulus bill should not be loaded up with pet pork that does nothing to stimulate the economy and move us towards economic recovery, but what yardstick is used to measure this? His comments that the Rs are trying to water this down to another Bush era tax cut, and that that approach in part is why we are where we are, resonates as well. An R talking head on CNN said yesterday that the Rs are simply responding to the calls of their constituents railing against the stimulus package, which, if true, means they are putting our economic future in the hands of folks like you and me, and I suspect that the majority of americans are like me, and have a whole lot less knowledgeable to say about this than someone like Krugman. So, if this is your area of expertise, what do you think? I sure would like to avoid a lost decade or two like Japan suffered.

[fiamme red]

According to our resident economist Ahneida Ride, if I understand him correctly, not only do we need a fiscal stimulus, but we need to finance it by printing more money, not issuing debt. ;)

[sg8357]

Maybe if we started laying off congress critters, cutting their pay and making off with their pension and health funds you'd get some practical action.

I tend to believe Krugman. When attempting to move a big rock( the economy) you need a long lever.

Me, If the Gummint gave me money(tax cut) right now, I buy gold and bury it in the backyard.

There is an old SciFi story about a country in depression, the gummint gins
up a war with aliens, trillions of dollars worth of stuff is built and launched
at the aliens, economy recovers.

Scott G.

[goonster]

As I understand it, the primary point of a stimulus is to get the money spent. Period. Any reduction of the stimulus is . . . a reduction of the stimulus.

Macroeconomics is not my field of expertise either, but all I can say as an impotent observer from the cheap seats is that R's didn't seem to have a problem with spending money we didn't have when it went toward blowing **** up.

[1centaur]

Stepping back from politics to the big picture, I think the way to view stimulus is taking money out of the pockets of people who pay taxes to pay for something they will not pay for on their own (i.e., if you won't sustain GDP by spending your money, we'll sustain GDP by spending your money). The perceived need for stimulus is driven by the idea that a period of suffering followed by a recovery is worse than a period of less suffering thanks to the extraction of wealth from the productive followed by less wealth creation in the future by those now more impoverished payers. Is evening out the cycle a better choice than maximizing the wealth creation of the free market after the cycle? Remember this is not just about the rich getting richer, this is about maximizing the size of GDP so that more people have real jobs and more taxes are paid for the social safety net. Without GDP, there is no government money to spend, so anything that hurts GDP in the long run hurts everybody.

Looked at liberally, perhaps, stimulus could be viewed as prying dollars out of the wallets of scared consumers/investors so that GDP keeps some momentum and we don't waste resources responding to a crisis or three in inefficient ways. Looked at conservatively, stimulus can be seen as spending on items that never got majority acceptance in calmer times and so are an inefficient use of capital.

Krugman is a superliberal economist who loves a welfare state, so it is business as usual if he wants to spend more on any liberal wishlist item. Looked at larger, a fair question is whether many items in the bill fit the ideal of effective job creating programs that might have had a chance of passing in calmer times and are least likely to be poor additions to GDP vs. the uses that cash would have been used for in a rebound (note well I did not say poor uses period; I am only trying to compare the size of the economic pie in version A vs. version B). If I were crafting this bill, I would focus on items that create jobs, teach skills, and add value to society over long periods - that have payback and would have been needed eventually - like roads and bridges and insulating government buildings. Anything that's a "wouldn't it be nice if" item would not be in my bill.

On Bush tax cuts, I will say again that the tax rate cuts were skewed against the rich and as fewer and fewer people pay most of the taxes the implication of liberals has become all tax cuts AND all tax increases must be skewed against the rich. That is unsustainable. The tax cuts worked and we had a good economic rebound. I don't think tax cuts for anybody work in this stimulus because we want all the spending to happen RIGHT NOW, and even in a liberal imaginary world where the rich take their tax cut and buy gold bars for their Swiss vaults while the poor eat out at McDonald's, I think the spending on roads and bridges and windmill factories will more effectively raise our collective GDP over time.

[dsteady]

Being the one who posted the Krugman link I'll weigh in: I don't honestly know. I agree that the current stimulus plan should be trimmed of some pork, I mean $650 mil for the Digital TV converters does not seem like it is going to help anybody --I think that probably came from The Murdoch-Eisner lobby.

And, as an independent who leans strongly Democrat, I also believe that this stimulus bill needs to have some bipartisan credibility. We are a very large Democracy and when a country like ours undertakes a massive action, be it a war or a $1 trillion stimulus bill, then it needs to draw as much support as possible from a common majority of Americans.

However, there is a serious clash of ideologies on the table and both of the their proponents realize that this crisis has the potential to shape the future of economic practice for a long time to come.

On the left are the Keynesians (http://www.maynardkeynes.org/) , of whom Krugman is a modern disciple. And on the left are the Friedmanites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman) , whose founder, Milton Friedman, passed away in 2006 -- only 24 months too soon to see the fledglings of his unregulated, free-market orthodoxy come home to roost.

The Friedmanites have had free reign of things since about the time of Reagan right up to January 21st 2009. Now the Keynsians have the upper hand and the old guard free-marketeers are terrified. That is where lot of the right's insistence on tax cuts come into play. It is a clinging to the vestigial comforts of the old way as they watch the inevitability of a modern Keynesian economic policy take shape.

There are some benefits to those tax cuts too: I for one would like to see the 15K home buyer tax rebate that the Republicans are proposing.

Even the Economist magazine, historically a champion of the free markets, although not so ideological as the OP/Ed page of the Wall Street Journal, is calling for a measured return to some Keynes' policies.

I'll let people do their own research and decide who is right: Keynes or Friedman. But it is worth noting this: Paul Krugman was predicting this economic crisis as far back as 2004, when many in the Friedman camp were still chanting "Dow 16,000!"

Daniel

[johnnymossville]

With all due respect to Krugman, does anyone believe the spending is even close to over after this little drop in the bucket? We're up around what? 2.5 trillion already and there's a lot more coming down the pike.

The coming credit card bubble, education bubble, health-care plan, election cycle bubble is right around the corner. Hold on to your molteni hat Eddy!

[RPS]

And, as an independent who leans strongly Democrat
DanielThat's funny. Best joke of the day.

[Kirk007]

Steady and 1Centaur for the explanations.

Interesting to read in today's local paper that items on the chopping block appear to be some that 1Centaur mentions as good ones to invest in - investments in infrastructure like efficiency upgrades to buildings etc. (I hate to see this get cut for other reasons like energy use/dependence/climate etc.).

[johnnymossville]

Paul Krugman was predicting this economic crisis as far back as 2004, when many in the Friedman camp were still chanting "Dow 16,000!"

Daniel

My wife who (used to work in the housing industry) was telling everyone this crisis was coming way before 2004, the writing was on the wall when the dot-com bubble burst. It doesn't take a genius.

[sspielman]

Everybody is an economist. I'll be blunt about the stimulus package....It seeks to remove a historical amount of wealth from the productive side of the economy and transfer it to the unproductive side. Defend it if you will.....

[93legendti]

Steady and 1Centaur for the explanations.

Interesting to read in today's local paper that items on the chopping block appear to be some that 1Centaur mentions as good ones to invest in - investments in infrastructure like efficiency upgrades to buildings etc. (I hate to see this get cut for other reasons like energy use/dependence/climate etc.).
Maybe they are projects that aren't slated to start now? iirc, only 17% of the proposed package would be spent this year. So maybe the cuts are investments in infrastructure scheduled for 2010 and beyond.

[SamIAm]

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Now, I don't completely agree with the above statement, but there is definitely some truth in it.

This bill, for the most part created in four short working days, looks like a pig to me. Actually it is a pig. The call to get this passed without proper time for debate and consideration is just silly. Go ahead take a month or two, despite the rhetoric, it won't make a difference. Put some thought into this thing. Defend every expense item in terms the average citizen can understand.

I personally am looking for the right investment to hedge against this mess other than just a straight out market short. Any ideas?

[thwart]

It seeks to remove a historical amount of wealth from the productive side of the economy and transfer it to the unproductive side. Now that you've over-simplified it for us...

Do you favor it or not? ;)

[rounder]

I am not an economist and don't know what to believe is right...except if the bailout is supposed to be a stimulus package then anything in the package that is not designed to stimulate the economy should not be included.

Not everyone believes that there should even be a stimulus package. Dick Morris, who writes for The Hill and used to be an advisor for Clinton believes that the package will not stimulate the economy at all because many of the people receiving the money will hoard it until later, and it will then lead to big inflation.

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/keynesian-fallacy-2009-02-03.html

D. Morris is very conservative by the way.

[L84dinr]

How about a hard working self employed for over twenty years dumb a** who pays his bills and expects others too do the same insted of crying for another effing handout!

The simple thing too state is there hasnt been a Free Market economy. Not with Govt. intrusion into everything from medicine to schools to how States should spend their money...

I realize this next statement has been battered around lately... But ***, instead of spending 800 billion on BS. why not give 1 million to every tax paying, And I do mean Tax Paying, individual in the country. Hopefully most would pay off debt and then perhaps secure the rest in some sort of savings for their childrens' schooling.

Yes I am L7


rtp

[goonster]

D. Morris is very conservative by the way.

He is not, however, an economist.

[sspielman]

Now that you've over-simplified it for us...

Do you favor it or not? ;)


I think that there has been plenty of obfuscation by special interests who stand to benefit on both sides....

[Steve in SLO]

Macroeconomics is not my field of expertise either, but all I can say as an impotent observer from the cheap seats is that R's didn't seem to have a problem with spending money we didn't have when it went toward blowing **** up.

Goonster,
Too funny. :beer:

[dsteady]

That's funny. Best joke of the day.

Glad you could have laugh. I was just trying to be accurate. I can't call myself truly an Independent because I have not bothered yet to change my party affiliation on my voter registration. It may be naive of me but I still believe in truthfulness.

Here is a better definition: I am not a cool-aid drinking, belligerent ideologue who dismisses all ideas from the "other" side.

[MadRocketSci]

On the left are the Keynesians (http://www.maynardkeynes.org/) , of whom Krugman is a modern disciple. And on the left are the Friedmanites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman) , whose founder, Milton Friedman, passed away in 2006 -- only 24 months too soon to see the fledglings of his unregulated, free-market orthodoxy come home to roost.


The Keynesians are wrong, and the monetarists (Friedman et al) are wrong. Consider the third option, the Austrian School, which includes von Mises and Hayek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_economics

A very recent op-ed on Hayek vs. Keynes by Dick Armey, who I've never agreed with on anything in the past...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123371237124446245.html#

[dsteady]

How about a hard working self employed for over twenty years dumb a** who pays his bills and expects others too do the same insted of crying for another effing handout!

As I understand it, Keynes wasn't about handouts. He was about government intervention (i.e. proactive monetary policy) as a means to create efficiencies in the market that unregulated markets could not achieve on their own. I think his hope was that this would prevent the "hard working self employed for over twenty years" from being left out to dry in times of economic downturn.

. . . .why not give 1 million to every tax paying, And I do mean Tax Paying, individual in the country. Hopefully most would pay off debt and then perhaps secure the rest in some sort of savings for their childrens' schooling.
Yes I am L7
rtp

That works for me.

What does L7 mean?

[1centaur]

Interesting to read in today's local paper that items on the chopping block appear to be some that 1Centaur mentions as good ones to invest in - investments in infrastructure like efficiency upgrades to buildings etc. (I hate to see this get cut for other reasons like energy use/dependence/climate etc.).

Hey, I just want the bridges washed out by floods three years ago on good cycling routes replaced :) Yes, I thought the infrastructure exclusion thoughts were odd; I thought surely there are enough worthy shovel-ready projects to get rolling on. Maybe that's an anti union or anti-waste sentiment, given the cost of the Big Dig, for example.

BTW, L84dnr, 300MM people x 50% wage earners x 50% income tax payers x $1MM is 75 trillion dollars, according to my spreadsheet, all of which would have to come from those exact same people in the end.

[93legendti]

...R's didn't seem to have a problem with spending money we didn't have when it went toward blowing **** up.

Neither did D's, including Secretary of State Clinton, VP Biden, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Reid, Sen. Schumer, Sen. Dodd, Sen. Feinstein, Sen. Daschle, Sen. Edwards and Sen. Bayh.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_ Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237#position

The vote was 77-23 in the Senate. 27 D's voted in favor of the Resolution in the Senate.
81 D's voted in favor of the Resolution in the House of Reps.

[Ozz]

As I understand it, Keynes wasn't about handouts. He was about government intervention (i.e. proactive monetary policy) ...
I think you mean "Fiscal Policy" which is about government spending....."Monetary Policy" is about controlling the money supply which is what the Fed and Treasury do.

just nit-picking.... :beer:

[Climb01742]

oy. i feel a rehash coming of every political thread before the election. run away!! run away!!



:D

[Tobias]

The Friedmanites have had free reign of things since about the time of Reagan right up to January 21st 2009. Now the Keynsians have the upper hand and the old guard free-marketeers are terrified. That is where lot of the right's insistence on tax cuts come into play. It is a clinging to the vestigial comforts of the old way as they watch the inevitability of a modern Keynesian economic policy take shape.Terrified? Try pissed.

The economy started to unravel due to liberal policies in housing which started in California; one of the most liberal states in the union. And now that they are bankrupt because of liberal policies that disregarded costs, the likes of Pelosi want the rest of the nation to bail them out. ***? How stupid does she think we are? Does this seem like free markets to you?

I see many long-term liberal social policies as root causes of most of our problems, so don’t go around making idiotic statements about free markets. We haven’t had true free markets for generations. We’ve been moving towards socialism for a long time and there is little short of a revolution to stop it.

Fortunately Obama is not as liberal as Pelosi and Reid, but if he doesn’t find a way to control these morons we are headed towards becoming a third-world country. If you don’t think we can become one just look at the big cities controlled by large numbers of minorities that vote 90 percent democratic. When people can vote themselves benefits there is no way to stop it. Without the conservative heartland we’d be far worse off.

And if we let Pelosi and Reid have their way we will all be worse off.

[Louis]

Ask ten economists a question and you'll get eleven answers, most of which start with "it depends..."

The solution is very simple. You take a coin and one side place a picture of John Maynard Keynes and on the other a picture of Milton Friedman. You flip the coin (only once) and whomever comes out on top wins the argument.



Louis

[johnnymossville]

Why does this "stimulus" bill look more like election campaign spending than stimulus to me? If the D's are so sure it's the best thing for the economy why are they worried about what the R's think? They are getting everything they want and more and have enough votes to pass it no matter what the R's do. If it works I'll happily change my voter registration back to D like when I was a kid, or at least consider it.

Hmmm curious.

[RPS]

Jim Cramer on Mad Money was unusually funny yesterday. He reasons the Chinese stimulus plan is more likely to work than ours because their leaders are motivated by fear of being killed during an uprising.

Cramer thinks Chinese leaders have a greater incentive to make sure their stimulus plan actually puts the masses back to work quickly. ;)

[cdimattio]

The perceived need for stimulus is driven by the idea that a period of suffering followed by a recovery is worse than a period of less suffering thanks to the extraction of wealth from the productive followed by less wealth creation in the future by those now more impoverished payers. Is evening out the cycle a better choice than maximizing the wealth creation of the free market after the cycle? Remember this is not just about the rich getting richer, this is about maximizing the size of GDP so that more people have real jobs and more taxes are paid for the social safety net. Without GDP, there is no government money to spend, so anything that hurts GDP in the long run hurts everybody.

You can debate your favorite economist of choice, but 1centaur has this nailed.

Government cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air. If Congress funds new spending with taxes, it is simply redistributing existing income. If Congress instead borrows the money from domestic investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If Congress borrows the money from foreigners, the balance of payments will adjust by equally reducing net exports, leaving GDP unchanged. Every dollar Congress spends must first come from somewhere else.

Today's stimulus is borrowed money which becomes a drag on the future GDP. Lots of data to show that government expansions reduce future economic growth.

Our government ran a $410B deficit in 2008. We have already had 8 years of government stimulus. Government spending has grown 2x as fast under Bush than it did with Clinton. Our government is spending $25K per household BEFORE any trillion dollar bailout.

[L84dinr]

Means i am a square. Doesnt look correct because of the font.

[BdaGhisallo]

Any fiscal stimulus is based on the fatal conceit that a relatively small number of politicians and "experts" in DC know more about what the economy needs and how spending decisions should be made than do millions upon millions of producers and consumers.

Central planning is always based on that.

The best thing they could do would be to eliminate payroll taxes, completely, and set the capital gains tax to zero. That would be an immediate stimulus and would allow consumers to decide how best to spend their money, and get capital investment moving.

[Pete Serotta]

I just wanted to say thanks on a few counts...

1centaur for dispensing knowledge and information without emotion. I always learn from you.

To all others for adding to the education of all

To all others for being civil and asking and dispensing information

I love these threads...just wish they could be correlated with selling more Serottas/ :D :D

[johnnymossville]

I just wanted to say thanks on a few counts...

1centaur for dispensing knowledge and information without emotion. I always learn from you.

To all others for adding to the education of all

To all others for being civil and asking and dispensing information

I love these threads...just wish they could be correlated with selling more Serottas/ :D :D

I could get a really nice Serotta if they'd just send me "my share" of this "stimulus." In fact, I'm gonna go over to the other side of the site and shop right now while waiting by my mailbox.

How's that Pete?!! ;) :beer:

[Pete Serotta]

We put in for granting a tax credit for an HSG purchase... It was right after the 3BILLION Chrysler wants before FIAT will agree to acquire a 35% stake of Cerebus :D :D


I could get a really nice Serotta if they'd just send me "my share" of this "stimulus." In fact, I'm gonna go over to the other side of the site and shop right now while waiting by my mailbox.

How's that Pete?!! ;) :beer:

[fiamme red]

I love these threads...just wish they could be correlated with selling more Serottas/ :D :DA seller on eBay put it this way: "Don’t be afraid to spend a lot of money on this bike. If we are going to get out of this economic mess, we are all going to have to buy expensive bicycles." :)

[johnnymossville]

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e194/xnodesign/hsg.jpg

This one would Stimulate me.

[dsteady]

Terrified? Try pissed.
I see many long-term liberal social policies as root causes of most of our problems, so don’t go around making idiotic statements about free markets. We haven’t had true free markets for generations. . . .


You are right in that we haven't had "true free markets" for generations. By the same measure we haven't true Keynsian markets for generations either. Such is the push and pull of a two-party system.

But I think it's fair to say that since Reagan policy has been much more heavily skewed toward free-market interests than regulated market interests.

It's not necessary to call me an idiot.

Daniel

[Kirk007]

Terrified? Try pissed.

T We’ve been moving towards socialism for a long time and there is little short of a revolution to stop it.

If you don’t think we can become one just look at the big cities controlled by large numbers of minorities that vote 90 percent democratic. When people can vote themselves benefits there is no way to stop it. Without the conservative heartland we’d be far worse off.

.

Wow, I tried to walk away form this I really did. Ignoring the social overtones, and focusing on free markets and government, I've gotta ask: How does your statement differ for all those in the conservative heartland and rural areas whose economic survival is dependent on a government subsidy program that forces all sorts of bad side effects?

I don't follow Rush et al or the WSJ but I wonder, would they welcome an honest free ranging discussion of the role of government and economic subsidy? Are they ready to concede that our ridiculous agricultural subsidy programs, the 1872 mining act, our giveaway of timber and every other mineral or natural resource of any value to private companies for pennies on the dollar is something that is at its roots hard to distinguish from the social welfare programs they so quickly want to kill? I come from a family of farmers and factory workers, so this is not meant as a poke at this important segment of America. But being honest with myself I must say that it seems easy, and disingenuous, to pay homage as hard working Americans who have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps in the heartland and ignore the invisible hand that keeps many of them afloat. Easy too to disparage those without the invisible hand as lazy loafers.

[Louis]

One interest group's well-deserved benefit / tax refund is an other person's pork. It's just that simple.

[Peter P.]

The coming credit card bubble, education bubble, health-care plan, election cycle bubble is right around the corner. Hold on to your molteni hat Eddy!

The next bubble you're going to see is the 401(k)/IRA bubble. People will be depleting their retirement accounts to survive. Then they'll retire with NOTHING. We'll be worse off when this group hits the retirement fan.

[Ray]

You are right in that we haven't had "true free markets" for generations. By the same measure we haven't true Keynsian markets for generations either. Such is the push and pull of a two-party system.

But I think it's fair to say that since Reagan policy has been much more heavily skewed toward free-market interests than regulated market interests.

It's not necessary to call me an idiot.

Daniel
I think this about says it. People get too ideological on this stuff. I think history shows that neither extreme works. Truly free, completely free, thoroughly unencumbered markets pretty much always result in intense concentrations of wealth at the top, very little middle class, and teeming hoards of really poor people who eventually get PISSED. Which ultimately leads to one form of revolution or another and then we get communism or something like it, which is every bit as bad in the short run and worse in the long run.

The US and the west has been about as successful as anyplace ever at creating and maintaining a middle class. Yeah, there are rich and there are poor, but not in overwhelming numbers, Most people do well enough to feel like they're leading a decent life and aren't interested in blowing **** up. I think this is due to maintaining market economies but regulating them democratically. We're on a pendulum. Every time we swing towards more government intervention, like now, people on one side get highly agitated and upset and start calling other people socialists and communists. And when it swings back toward a freer market, other people start yelling about facsism and the like.

The bottom line is that neither extreme works - maintaining a balance works. Democracy checks markets and markets keep democracy realistic. Blaming every economic ill on government regulation is idiotic, as is blaming every economic ill on free-markets.

I have no independent judgment on this or any other stimulus plan - I don't begin to understand the details well enough. But when people as diverse as Krugman and Feldstein and the guy who's name I forgot who was one of McCain's main economic guys who's also advising Obama now all agree that we need it big and we're better off erring on the side of too big, I tend to go along with that. They have important disagreements over how it should be structured and that's what the Congress and Prez are in the process of hashing out, but there doesn't sound like there's much fundamental disagreement on the need to spend and spend big and do it pretty soon. I don't have an ideology that says they're automatically right or wrong, but pragmatism tells me they're more likely to be right than the more ideological folks on this board. On either side.

I hope they're right. I hope it works. Not to artificially bring our level of prosperity to the unsustainable levels they've been at, but to soften the landing at whatever the "new normal" ends up being and stopping the spiral of layoffs leading to less demand leading to layoffs leading to less demand, etc, etc, etc.

-Ray

[RPS]

What seems to complicate this issue is that some make little or no distinction between “relatively-passive” government policy that encourages productive behavior and “relatively-intrusive” government action designed to take from one and give to another.

Maybe it’s just me, but I see these as completely different animals. It’s one thing for government to set up red lights so we don’t kill each other in crashes, and another for the tax police to come into my home and tell me that since I have three TVs and my neighbor only one that I have to give him one of mine. And if I happen to know that he only has one TV because he blew his cash on drugs or a vacation to Vegas, that would really make me mad.

I know the line is fuzzy in the middle, but at the extremes the distinction should be easy -- but apparently it isn’t.

[RPS]

They have important disagreements over how it should be structured and that's what the Congress and Prez are in the process of hashing out, but there doesn't sound like there's much fundamental disagreement on the need to spend and spend big and do it pretty soon. Except for the people. As of yesterday the numbers opposing approval of the "big" plan outnumbered those supporting it.

For a guy who likes "democracy" by the numbers, I would have thought you'd go with the majority. ;)

[GoJavs]

I sure would love to have the $1 Trillion dollars President Bush spent in Afghanistan and Iraq back. That'd come in real handy right now. :rolleyes:

Seems like the answer for conservatives would be to throw out the liberal states off the Union.....Alright, who's ready to say goodbye to California and the Northeast? Eh, who?

Repubs are NOT exonerated from the buffonery of the last few years. Whoever thinks Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac or 'those liberals' in California are the ones responsible must also believe Lance Armstrong rode clean! :fight:

[Kirk007]

yes one person's "relative" is another's "pain in the arse in law." I think its mostly middle with little at the extremes.

[Ray]

Except for the people. As of yesterday the numbers opposing approval of the "big" plan outnumbered those supporting it.

For a guy who likes "democracy" by the numbers, I would have thought you'd go with the majority. ;)
"The Majority" seem to have an amazing ability to get the big picture right over time (probably by following/creating that pendulum I was talking about), but they/we tend to suck at figuring out the intricacies of individual issues like this. Which is why we elect people to go do the hard thinking and get all of the smartest input and represent us without representing how we feel on any given moment. I don't claim to have a frickin' IDEA what will work here. And I humbly submit that I'm probably at least as smart as the average voter. So I'm not gonna trust THEM to get it right either! :cool: I doubt I'm as smart as the average national politician - very few of them are dumb, they just play dumb on TV), so I'm just sitting back trying not to develop a more specific opinion than I'm worthy of on this one.

-Ray

[sloji]

"It has been said that trees are imperfect men, and seem to bemoan their imprisonment rooted in the ground. But they never seem so to me. I never saw a discontented tree. They grip the ground as though they liked it, and though fast rooted they travel about as far as we do. They go wandering forth in all directions with every wind, going and coming like ourselves, traveling with us around the sun two million miles a day, and through space heaven knows how fast and far!"

-John Muir

When I'm stumped on any topic I think of these 4700 year old trees...glad they haven't been cut down yet.

[SamIAm]

"..Which is why we elect people to go do the hard thinking and get all of the smartest input and represent us without representing how we feel on any given moment. ..I doubt I'm as smart as the average national politician - very few of them are dumb...

-Ray

I can't believe I just read this! Someone is actually impressed with politicians.

[Ray]

I can't believe I just read this! Someone is actually impressed with politicians.
They're easy targets and sometimes some of them are spineless. But very few of them that reach national office are dumb. Lots of local politicians are pretty stupid, but its like the difference between playing HS football and playing in the NFL. Nobody in the NFL sucks.

-Ray

[93legendti]

Forget the noise re: this intentional bungling of the President's first important bill. This was an intended distraction so the President could drop the charges against the terrorist responsible for the USS Cole bombing. Amazing.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-05-charges-uss-cole_N.htm?csp=34

[RPS]

But very few of them that reach national office are dumb.OK, I'll bite.

How come if they are so smart they can differ so much on the same problems? ;)

[dannyg1]

In one of these threads, someone sarcastically suggested that the government give every taxpayer $1m. That started me wondering that if there are around 120 million taxpayers (is that the number?), isn't the bill being considered somewhere around that size?

And if it is, I'm going with the $1m per customer!

[Flat Out]

My wife who (used to work in the housing industry) was telling everyone this crisis was coming way before 2004, the writing was on the wall when the dot-com bubble burst. It doesn't take a genius.

We won't tell your wife you said she's not a genius. ;)

[Ray]

OK, I'll bite.

How come if they are so smart they can differ so much on the same problems? ;)
Well, hell, you're a smart guy and you're wrong a lot. :cool: I won't claim to be all that smart, but I'm wrong often enough myself. Sometimes there's just more than one way to skin a proverbial cat and some likes it one way and some likes it another. It ain't the smart one's that always have the same answer for everything!

-Ray

[1centaur]

In one of these threads, someone sarcastically suggested that the government give every taxpayer $1m. That started me wondering that if there are around 120 million taxpayers (is that the number?), isn't the bill being considered somewhere around that size?

And if it is, I'm going with the $1m per customer!

120,000,000 x 1,000,000

Your calculator won't have the room, but just count the zeroes above and you will get 12 of them, four bunches of 3: Thousand, million, billion, trillion.

[Louis]

Forget the noise re: this intentional bungling of the President's first important bill. This was an intended distraction so the President could drop the charges against the terrorist responsible for the USS Cole bombing. Amazing.

Yup, he ran for office just so he could do this. Nothing else at all, including the implosion US economy (which is probably "barry's" fault anyway) is more important to the Obama administration.

Seriously, does the following portion of the story mean nothing at all?

"Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Crawford dismissed the charges against al-Nashiri without prejudice. That means new charges can be brought again later. He will remain in prison for the time being. "

Louis

[Tobias]

It's not necessary to call me an idiot.

DanielI apologize for my harsh words, but what did you think would happen if you get in a man’s face and imply that they should be “terrified” because those with different political and economic opinions are now in control of his future? And to add insult to injury you gloat by referring to those who disagree with your winning-side’s obvious positions as “old guard” “clinging to the vestigial comforts of the old way”?

If you want to start a fight with “in-your-face” gloating take your best shot, but expect resistance.

[Tobias]

Wow, I tried to walk away form this I really did. Ignoring the social overtones, and focusing on free markets and government, I've gotta ask: How does your statement differ for all those in the conservative heartland and rural areas whose economic survival is dependent on a government subsidy program that forces all sorts of bad side effects?
I was going to reply until I saw you edit out the racial part.

I'm into civility but not political correctness. Things are what they are and I'm not going to walk around with blinders to suit someone else's expectations.

[dannyg1]

$232,000 per job lost is a figure I just heard during the Senate debate over on CNN.

[michael white]

The next bubble you're going to see is the 401(k)/IRA bubble. People will be depleting their retirement accounts to survive. Then they'll retire with NOTHING. We'll be worse off when this group hits the retirement fan.

that bubble is popped; retirement has already receded for millions.

[Tobias]

$232,000 per job lost is a figure I just heard during the Senate debate over on CNN.If you assume the purpose of the package is to create jobs, and assume the number is closer to 3 million jobs, then it could work out to $300,000 per job.

Obviously much of the cost of the package is not going towards creating jobs, so the cost per job is not accurate.

[Kirk007]

I was going to reply until I saw you edit out the racial part.

I'm into civility but not political correctness. Things are what they are and I'm not going to walk around with blinders to suit someone else's expectations.

Well, if you want me to say that what I thought you wrote had racial undertones - there you go. And myopic. And insulting to a large number of Americans. {Original Tobias comment to which this refers: we are headed towards becoming a third-world country. If you don’t think we can become one just look at the big cities controlled by large numbers of minorities that vote 90 percent democratic. When people can vote themselves benefits there is no way to stop it. Without the conservative heartland we’d be far worse off.}

Your comment infers that the vast majority of urban minorities receive social support that they won't give up and that is why they voted for Obama.

Likewise your comment suggests that no one in the "conservative heartland" supports or receives social support like welfare payments. I respectfully suggest you get on your Serotta or whatever and ride it through Appalachia or the rural south or the rural West or the rural Northwest - out into the country and similar areas romantically referred to as the Heartland; go to the grocery stores and see who is using food stamps. Talk to the residents. I grew up in the very rural country (more deer than people we used to say) surrounded by conservative white folk - Irish, Italian, German - most descendants of folks who used to be and in some cases still are "urban minorities." I worked in a grocery store. I accepted those food stamps from my friends' parents when they were in need. Let me give you my sister's address in rural Pennsylvania and you can see how a college graduate former (cuts in school budgets) school teacher is now forced to work 3 low wage jobs - over 70 hours a week- in order to keep her, and her husband - who is in a wheelchair with incurable degenerative brain condition- in a home. She's white by the way. And on occasion, she accepts handouts - form the church, from neighbors and from what is left of social support programs who help care for her husband while she works.

Talk to some of those folks in the heartland that are out of jobs and while proud and perhaps ashamed nevertheless damn happy that there is at least a modest web of support to keep them off the street. Social programs ain't just for urban minorities; not all the recipients are lazy, drug addled losers. Life isn't fair; we don't control all the cards, and if you think that everyone has equal opportunity in this country to rise above to a land of privileged plenty, well, then the blinders have never been off.

So, there - no political correctness - that's how I see it. That's the America I have experienced first hand (I've also experienced the social experience of the privileged; the private clubs, the sense of entitlement even when life has been handed to a person by their parents or grandparents; this too has shaped my views but that's a different story).

So, now that we have any pc out out of the way, please explain the difference to me between how subsidies for industries like Ag for such things as keeping fields fallow or overproducing corn for ethanol, or allowing mining companies to pay next to nothing royalties to be economically sustainable, are fundamentally different than subsidies for something like urban development, job training etc. Besides of course that the farm and mining etc subsidies benefit mostly the wealthy owners and stock owners of the large multinationals that benefit while anchoring offshore to avoid US taxes, rather than benefitting the workers they use.

[rounder]

Talking about political correctness...i don't think it should matter whether you ride (or like) serotta, kirk or pegoretti.

[Louis]

Talking about political correctness...i don't think it should matter whether you ride (or like) serotta, kirk or pegoretti.

I see that Trek did not make the "approved" list. Is it OK to ride that?

Just wondering :p

[Ray]

I see that Trek did not make the "approved" list. Is it OK to ride that?

Just wondering :p
I used to think so, but then Bush started riding a Trek mountain bike, so it came off the list. But with Obama's new buy American thing in the stimulus bill, maybe they have to go back ON the list. Damn, life has NEVER been so confusing! :cool:

-Ray

[Climb01742]

Well, if you want me to say that what I thought you wrote was racist - there you go. And myopic. And insulting to a large number of Americans. {Original Tobias comment to which this refers: we are headed towards becoming a third-world country. If you don’t think we can become one just look at the big cities controlled by large numbers of minorities that vote 90 percent democratic. When people can vote themselves benefits there is no way to stop it. Without the conservative heartland we’d be far worse off.}

Your comment infers that the vast majority of urban minorities receive social support that they won't give up and that is why they voted for Obama.

Likewise your comment suggests that no one in the "conservative heartland" supports or receives social support like welfare payments. I respectfully suggest you get on your Serotta or whatever and ride it through Appalachia or the rural south or the rural West or the rural Northwest - out into the country and similar areas romantically referred to as the Heartland; go to the grocery stores and see who is using food stamps. Talk to the residents. I grew up in the very rural country (more deer than people we used to say) surrounded by conservative white folk - Irish, Italian, German - most descendants of folks who used to be and in some cases still are "urban minorities." I worked in a grocery store. I accepted those food stamps from my friends' parents when they were in need. Let me give you my sister's address in rural Pennsylvania and you can see how a college graduate former (cuts in school budgets) school teacher is now forced to work 3 low wage jobs - over 70 hours a week- in order to keep her, and her husband - who is in a wheelchair with incurable degenerative brain condition- in a home. She's white by the way. And on occasion, she accepts handouts - form the church, from neighbors and from what is left of social support programs who help care for her husband while she works.

Talk to some of those folks in the heartland that are out of jobs and while proud and perhaps ashamed nevertheless damn happy that there is at least a modest web of support to keep them off the street. Social programs ain't just for urban minorities; not all the recipients are lazy, drug addled losers. Life isn't fair; we don't control all the cards, and if you think that everyone has equal opportunity in this country to rise above to a land of privileged plenty, well, then the blinders have never been off.

So, there - no political correctness - that's how I see it. That's the America I have experienced first hand (I've also experienced the social experience of the privileged; the private clubs, the sense of entitlement even when life has been handed to a person by their parents or grandparents; this too has shaped my views but that's a different story).

So, now that we have any pc out out of the way, please explain the difference to me between how subsidies for industries like Ag for such things as keeping fields fallow or overproducing corn for ethanol, or allowing mining companies to pay next to nothing royalties to be economically sustainable, are fundamentally different than subsidies for something like urban development, job training etc. Besides of course that the farm and mining etc subsidies benefit mostly the wealthy owners and stock owners of the large multinationals that benefit while anchoring offshore to avoid US taxes, rather than benefitting the workers they use.

thank you for taking the time to write this. reading this thread, i'm stunned by some of the comments. i begin to respond but stop because how does one answer some of what's been written and still remain civil? you, sir, are a better man than i. thank you.

[cdimattio]

I am not sure how to embed a Youtube video, but there is some humor here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEDIyztZGBA

[Tobias]

Well, if you want me to say that what I thought you wrote was racist - there you go. And myopic. And insulting to a large number of Americans.You equate using available voting data and simple math to help find cities with liberal policies with being a racist? That’s freaking brilliant.

Using race, ethnicity, or gender data to analyze or predict situations is not racist. Don’t you think Obama did the same during the campaign to project voting outcomes? Does that make him a racist?

Kirk, with all due respect, I hope you look up the meaning of the word.

[Tobias]

thank you for taking the time to write this. reading this thread, i'm stunned by some of the comments. i begin to respond but stop because how does one answer some of what's been written and still remain civil? you, sir, are a better man than i. thank you.Climb, since his reply was directed at me and you agreed with it, I’ll take that as a personal insult.

If you want to believe that I “inferred” any racist connotation in my opinion then that makes you the racist, not me. I deal in simple facts, like 90 percent of blacks voted Democratic, which makes them more “liberal” than the heartland. All the other crap he wrote came from him, not me.

My opinion was based on my political views and not on race. I used race because it’s the easiest way to identify large population groups that vote liberal in significant enough numbers to control the outcome. My political view is that if bleeding heart “liberals” are given the opportunity to control a nation they will run it into the ground. If you want to disagree with me on the politics by all means go ahead, but don’t turn this into a race issue.

The issue is not whether blacks vote predominantly liberal. That’s an indisputable fact. If you don’t like that I use that information because it is not “politically correct” deal with it.

It’s getting really old that when people like you and Kirk disagree with other views you immediately turn it into a personal attack. You “infer” meaning beyond what the person wrote by adding a bunch of rhetoric and then call him a racist. ***?

Look at all the crap Kirk wrote and tell me how much of that I “inferred”. Like he’s some kind of freaking mind reader.


Lastly, how do you know I’m not a minority with more conservative views than yours? Unless of course you think that’s not possible which would make you a bigger racist yet.

[93legendti]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/most_say_tax_cuts_always_better_than_increased_spe nding

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Paul Krugman, last year's winner of the Nobel Prize for economics and a regular columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote that you should “write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.”

If you follow that advice, you’ll be writing off a majority of Americans. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 53% say that it’s always better to cut taxes. Only 24% share Krugman’s views. Republicans overwhelmingly say it’s always better to cut taxes, and so do 50% of those not affiliated with either major party. Twenty-three percent (23%) of unaffiliateds take the opposite view and agree with Krugman.

Democrats are evenly divided—38% say tax cuts are always better while 34% disagree.

...Clearly, his New York Times column was based on his convictions rather than his sense of public opinion, and his purpose in writing is to persuade, not report. The survey data simply highlights how much persuading he has ahead of him...

[Kirk007]

You equate using available voting data and simple math to help find cities with liberal policies with being a racist? That’s freaking brilliant.

Using race, ethnicity, or gender data to analyze or predict situations is not racist. Don’t you think Obama did the same during the campaign to project voting outcomes? Does that make him a racist?

Kirk, with all due respect, I hope you look up the meaning of the word.

I'm not the one who tied third world country, minorities and social welfare problems all into one paragraph and then contrasted it with the "conservative heartland", nor am I the one who asked me to drop any pretense of pc; I was happy to leave it alone until you through down that gauntlet. I think my inferences from what you wrote are reasonable. Fine, we disagree about that.

You still haven't answered my original question of how heartland entitlements differ from "liberal" big city entitlements.

[michael white]

what is the "heartland" anyway? I live in a state which is second in hogs, first in sweet potatoes, first in peanuts, I believe, and a leader in cotton and tobaccy. Sound like the heartland? Well, it's not. NC went blue this year.

The "heartland" seems like a pretty tired construct to me, a way of not saying what you mean. It's like the comment Sarah Palin made about the "real" American towns, as opposed to the other places where someone like her (idiot, far right-wing) had no support.

[dsteady]

I apologize for my harsh words, but what did you think would happen if you get in a man’s face and imply that they should be “terrified” because those with different political and economic opinions are now in control of his future? And to add insult to injury you gloat by referring to those who disagree with your winning-side’s obvious positions as “old guard” “clinging to the vestigial comforts of the old way”?

I really didn't think I was gloating -- there is nothing to gloat abut right now in America -- but if it did seem like that then my mistake.

And I didn't say that you should be terrified. I only said that some politicians on the right were acting as if they were terrified of a Keynesian shift in fiscal policy. That is how it seemed to me anyway when the party was so clearly bereft of leadership that it ran to take cover behind Rush Limbaugh.

If you want to start a fight with “in-your-face” gloating take your best shot, but expect resistance.

I was just trying illustrate what I thought was really going on with all the political posturing in DC.

[ti_boi]

I was born and raised in the heartland. You will find progressives there. Problem is that people like to use euphemisms and illusory language to manipulate others....heartland...real Americans...etc...etc. :rolleyes:

For the record....I like Krugman....yet am not sure that we can 'spend' our way out of this....the downward spiral will most likely continue...and leave some unhappy people in it's wake.

But what the heck let’s stick our great grand kids with the bill since they never visit our graves anyway.

[Climb01742]

Climb, since his reply was directed at me and you agreed with it, I’ll take that as a personal insult.

If you want to believe that I “inferred” any racist connotation in my opinion then that makes you the racist, not me. I deal in simple facts, like 90 percent of blacks voted Democratic, which makes them more “liberal” than the heartland. All the other crap he wrote came from him, not me.

My opinion was based on my political views and not on race. I used race because it’s the easiest way to identify large population groups that vote liberal in significant enough numbers to control the outcome. My political view is that if bleeding heart “liberals” are given the opportunity to control a nation they will run it into the ground. If you want to disagree with me on the politics by all means go ahead, but don’t turn this into a race issue.

The issue is not whether blacks vote predominantly liberal. That’s an indisputable fact. If you don’t like that I use that information because it is not “politically correct” deal with it.

It’s getting really old that when people like you and Kirk disagree with other views you immediately turn it into a personal attack. You “infer” meaning beyond what the person wrote by adding a bunch of rhetoric and then call him a racist. ***?

Look at all the crap Kirk wrote and tell me how much of that I “inferred”. Like he’s some kind of freaking mind reader.


Lastly, how do you know I’m not a minority with more conservative views than yours? Unless of course you think that’s not possible which would make you a bigger racist yet.

tobias, i did not see kirk's reply as directed specifically at you. i saw it as a "progressive" reply directed at many what might be called "conservative" posts in the thread. if you read my post carefully, the operative words are "reading this thread, i'm stunned by some of the comments." both clauses of that sentence make reference to multiple posts/comments. no one is singled out. certainly not you. any reference to your views in my reply is in your eyes, not my words. in all honesty, i didn't even read your post beyond a few words.

[RPS]

Lastly, how do you know I’m not a minority with more conservative views than yours? Unless of course you think that’s not possible which would make you a bigger racist yet.Can’t minorities be racist too? Just a little needed levity here. ;)

Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with using objective data when it’s useful; particularly in science. In political science it becomes a bit touchier, but it shouldn’t be avoided IMHO. It would be counterproductive – would not serve the greater good.

As somewhat of a minority myself, I’m often more disturbed by those who try too hard to disregard or deny our differences. Makes me leery of why they are offended in the first place.

On a separate note, the most important lesson to learn here is that the election did not put an end to political squabbling, discord, or unify many. That’s a sad truth, but one with need to accept to get along.

[RPS]

I think my inferences from what you wrote are reasonable. Fine, we disagree about that.Not to me.

When you start calling people racist you'd better have more than your opinion based on conjecture; which is quite subjective and involves a lot of guessing on your part.

There is no place for that here. Period.

[ti_boi]

Eh....losers come in all shapes and sizes....the trick is to encourage honesty and hard work. Yet somehow that little exercise got lost in the shuffle...and will probably cost us dearly for generations.

[Kirk007]

RPS: I don't believe many, if any, humans, me included, regardless of pigment or physical characteristics, are free from prejudices towards "others" despite our best efforts. See: www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/07/racism.study/. See also the wikipedia definition of racism for an interesting quick and dirty overview.

I've come to believe the sociological studies who view it as systemic in our society and culture. It took me a long time and a lot of discussion to come to accept this as it was repugnant to me and I rebelled against the concept. I also look at our history as a species. Our history is complex and repleat with conflict between groups who viewed each other as different, be it biological, cultural etc. The term racism has developed loaded cultural connotations that now make it very difficult to have a rational discussion of the phenomena. But I believe that if any person, ok maybe not the Dali Lama or the Pope etc., looks inside themselves long enough they will find that, without conscious intent, they distinguish between those they identify as within their tribe, whatever color, cultural values etc. that tribe has for them, and others that are outside the tribe. Perhaps 'racism" is not an accurate term for the phenomena, but to me its semantics.

And for the record, I said that I thought, and I am free to express my opinion last I checked even if others find it distasteful, that the comment, not the person, came across as racist. For you that may be a distinction without a difference, but my profession, and often disputes much more important than this, revolve around the meaning of words and sentence construction; it was intentional, and meaningful, to me.

[1centaur]

See also the wikipedia definition of racism for an interesting quick and dirty overview.

Not hugely interested in inserting myself in this, but I did go and read that wiki definition, and the accompanying dictionary definitions, and found them to conform to what I already understood, which is that racism is the belief that a race is inherently inferior/superior to another or actions taken in furtherance of such belief. Not related to this forum, but a lot of people would be better off if they understood this definition before making the emotionally charged accusation. Noting that minorities vote overwhelmingly Democratic is not racism, nor would be assuming that they do so in their immediate self interest given their economic status. Assuming only minorities, as opposed to poor people without countervailing religious or social structures in general, vote overwhelmingly Democratic because of some inherent failing on their part would be racism. The contempt with which some commentators note their block voting is sometimes assumed to be racist but need not be.

"Third world" is another term that can be read either way. By suspicious minds, it can be associated with people of color. By others, it can be associated with lack of education in the subtle benefits of capitalism or the varying arguments behind economic systems in general.

I kind of lost the thread on the back and forth here and don't feel like parsing words for several pages to see if I can pick it up, but in general I get the feeling that nobody on this thread has demonstrated an attitude that fits the actual definition of racism, an accusation that I think needs to merit a higher standard than is commonly observed, if only so that we all get along a little better.

[Climb01742]

but in general I get the feeling that nobody on this thread has demonstrated an attitude that fits the actual definition of racism, an accusation that I think needs to merit a higher standard than is commonly observed, if only so that we all get along a little better.

+1
the internet is a lousy place for nuance. what a poster means and what a reader reads can often be different, with neither being at fault. i believe a linguist might call this the connotation/denotation twilight. to pick up on 1centaur last thought...perhaps giving each other the benefit of the doubt is never a bad thing. deciphering the true meaning of words in real life, in a real conversation is often hard enough. doing so in the worldwide interwebs is infinitely harder. shall we cut each other a little slack? :beer:

[michael white]

+1
the internet is a lousy place for nuance.:

Are you callin' my nuance lousy? why, I oughta . . .

:rolleyes:

[ti_boi]

This world as in Argentina...and the wholesale self-interest of the government over the people....the greed and upper edge small portion of concentrated wealth in the hands of an elite. Buying and selling assets that are heavily subsidized the government and the IMF....it stinks to high heaven these days of third world...and I dug the Motorcycle Diaries.... :beer:

[Kirk007]

Climb and 1Centaur are right; to Tobias and anyone who interpreted my comments as labeling him as a racist I apologize, it was a poor word choice word for the perception that I was trying to describe.

[fiamme red]

Most people do well enough to feel like they're leading a decent life and aren't interested in blowing **** up.Speak for yourself. Some of us do enjoy blowing **** up. :)

http://www.slagoon.com/dailies/SL090118.gif

[DukeHorn]

There's a difference between racism and bigotry. Sometimes those terms are used interchangeably. As a minority, I'd say I've seen quite a bit of bigotry in my lifetime and very few instances of racism.

As for "statistics", I think it's a bit ironic for Tobias to complain how he's being classified (through probable "stereotyping" since I find it doubtful that he's a minority) since he constantly stereotypes.

Not sure I agree with the below but it has an interesting point in the last sentence (actually I think it describes my mother and her opinions on African Americans (and Obama)).

A bigot is aware of their prejudices and defends them. The bigot is not necessarily crazy, nor illogical, nor does the bigot necessarily expect anyone to think as they do. The bigot has opinions and defends their opinions as their own. As such, when you approach or confront the bigot they are likely to respond, "I am not racist". They might be attempting to say "I am not a Racist", meaning that they don't try to convince others - that they are not ideologues. That fact does not change the content of their opinions, which are racist. If you are a racial bigot, it is because you have internalized and accepted racist ideas. A bigot in this sense is quite obviously racist. That doesn't necessarily make them dangerous as a person, but certainly destructive as a citizen. It is not the personality of the bigot with which the race man should concern himself, rather his attachment to foul ideas. Often, bigots are simply enamored of holding strongly to controversial ideas without much regard to the logical consequences of such ideas. They often defend their ideas on the matter of race by denying that they have any power to effect change or hurt anyone.

[1centaur]

"They often defend their ideas on the matter of race by denying that they have any power to effect change or hurt anyone. "

Brings to mind Kevin from the first season of MTV's Real World, shouting in Julie's face "Race plus power equals racism. THINK about it," one of the more intellectually offensive things I have ever heard.

[Ray]

Brings to mind Kevin from the first season of MTV's Real World, shouting in Julie's face "Race plus power equals racism. THINK about it," one of the more intellectually offensive things I have ever heard.
Might I suggest that you're looking for intellectual fulfillment in all the wrong places. :cool:

-Ray

[RPS]

Quote: ....snipped.....
As such, when you approach or confront the bigot they are likely to respond, "I am not racist". They might be attempting to say "I am not a Racist", meaning that they don't try to convince others - that they are not ideologues. That fact does not change the content of their opinions, which are racist..Hence if you ask a man if he is a racist and he says no, then he must be one. And if he says yes, then presumably it’s confirmed.

Either way an accusation suffices. :rolleyes:


It’s amazing we are having this discussion about a man who, if I recall correctly, wanted Colin Powell to be our next president. :confused:


From Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Baiting : to persecute or exasperate with unjust, malicious, or persistent attacks

[1centaur]

Might I suggest that you're looking for intellectual fulfillment in all the wrong places. :cool:

-Ray

It was that moment, what, 20 years ago?, when I left my youth behind and began my quest for intellectual fulfillment, a journey that brought me...here :banana:

[93legendti]

"I can say with complete confidence that endless delay or paralysis in Washington in the face of this crisis will only bring deepening disaster," Obama said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090209/pl_nm/us_obama

So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766_pf.html

[ti_boi]

It was that moment, what, 20 years ago?, when I left my youth behind and began my quest for intellectual fulfillment, a journey that brought me...here :banana:


...Steady Drumbeat....".....GET ON YOUR BIKES AND RIDE....!!!"

(fade Out) Sound of Queen's Classic Fat Bottom Girls closes out the credits.

[Tobias]

Climb and 1Centaur are right; to Tobias and anyone who interpreted my comments as labeling him as a racist I apologize, it was a poor word choice word for the perception that I was trying to describe.No need, we are good. Thanks anyway. ;)

[Tobias]

Either way an accusation suffices. :rolleyes: I read the definitions three times and can’t decide if I’m a bigot, a racist, both, or neither. :rolleyes:

The only part I can relate to is that I don’t lose sleep over what others think of me -- some much less than others.

[johnnymossville]

This is one of the better arguments I've seen against this crap we are being shoveled.

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/02/an_interview_with_robert_barro.php

[Kirk007]

thanks for returning this thread to its original intent. I'm interested (genuinely, without an agenda) - are there studies, that document this stimulus effect (more hiring, investment etc.) that Barros discusses? Is this the more often than not response? How does it compare to the "I think I'll take home more profit, return more profit to my shareholders" etc. response?

If it works as Barros suggests then that's a good thing. If its just that the rich get richer then, well not sure that's the way out of this.

[93legendti]

http://www.cato.org/fiscalreality

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

Burton Abrams, Univ. of Delaware
Douglas Adie, Ohio University
Ryan Amacher, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J. Arias, Georgia College & State University
Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University
Stacie Beck, Univ. of Delaware
Don Bellante, Univ. of South Florida
James Bennett, George Mason University
Bruce Benson, Florida State University
Sanjai Bhagat, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Mark Bils, Univ. of Rochester
Alberto Bisin, New York University
Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
Michele Boldrin, Washington University in St. Louis
Donald Booth, Chapman University
Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
Samuel Bostaph, Univ. of Dallas
Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
Genevieve Briand, Eastern Washington University
George Brower, Moravian College
James Buchanan, Nobel laureate
Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
Henry Butler, Northwestern University
William Butos, Trinity College
Peter Calcagno, College of Charleston
Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
Art Carden, Rhodes College
James Cardon, Brigham Young University
Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
Emily Chamlee-Wright, Beloit College
V.V. Chari, Univ. of Minnesota
Barry Chiswick, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University
J.R. Clark, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Gian Luca Clementi, New York University
R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University
John Cochran, Metropolitan State College
John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago
John Cogan, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
John Coleman, Duke University
Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University
Robert Collinge, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
Lee Coppock, Univ. of Virginia
Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt University
Christopher Culp, Univ. of Chicago
Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University
Antony Davies, Duquesne University
John Dawson, Appalachian State University
Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University
Arthur Diamond, Jr., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
John Dobra, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
James Dorn, Towson University
Christopher Douglas, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
Francis Egan, Trinity College
John Egger, Towson University
Kenneth Elzinga, Univ. of Virginia
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Eugene Fama, Univ. of Chicago
W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
Hartmut Fischer, Univ. of San Francisco
Fred Foldvary, Santa Clara University
Murray Frank, Univ. of Minnesota
Peter Frank, Wingate University
Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
John Garen, Univ. of Kentucky
Rick Geddes, Cornell University
Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University
William Gerdes, Clarke College
Michael Gibbs, Univ. of Chicago
Stephan Gohmann, Univ. of Louisville
Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University
Richard Gordon, Penn State University
Peter Gordon, Univ. of Southern California
Ernie Goss, Creighton University
Paul Gregory, Univ. of Houston
Earl Grinols, Baylor University
Daniel Gropper, Auburn University
R.W. Hafer, Southern Illinois
University, Edwardsville
Arthur Hall, Univ. of Kansas
Steve Hanke, Johns Hopkins
Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
Frank Hefner, College of Charleston
Ronald Heiner, George Mason University
David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Robert Herren, North Dakota State University
Gailen Hite, Columbia University
Steven Horwitz, St. Lawrence University
John Howe, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
Jeffrey Hummel, San Jose State University
Bruce Hutchinson, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College
Jason Johnston, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Boyan Jovanovic, New York University
Jonathan Karpoff, Univ. of Washington
Barry Keating, Univ. of Notre Dame
Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University
Nicholas Kiefer, Cornell University
Daniel Klein, George Mason University
Paul Koch, Univ. of Kansas
Narayana Kocherlakota, Univ. of Minnesota
Marek Kolar, Delta College
Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Deepak Lal, UCLA
George Langelett, South Dakota State University
James Larriviere, Spring Hill College
Robert Lawson, Auburn University
John Levendis, Loyola University New Orleans
David Levine, Washington University in St. Louis
Peter Lewin, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Dean Lillard, Cornell University
Zheng Liu, Emory University
Alan Lockard, Binghampton University
Edward Lopez, San Jose State University
John Lunn, Hope College
Glenn MacDonald, Washington
University in St. Louis
Michael Marlow, California
Polytechnic State University
Deryl Martin, Tennessee Tech University
Dale Matcheck, Northwood University
Deirdre McCloskey, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
John McDermott, Univ. of South Carolina
Joseph McGarrity, Univ. of Central Arkansas
Roger Meiners, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University
John Merrifield, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
James Miller III, George Mason University
Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University
Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University
John Moorhouse, Wake Forest University
Andrea Moro, Vanderbilt University
Andrew Morriss, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Munger, Duke University
Kevin Murphy, Univ. of Southern California
Richard Muth, Emory University
Charles Nelson, Univ. of Washington
Seth Norton, Wheaton College
Lee Ohanian, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
Evan Osborne, Wright State University
Randall Parker, East Carolina University
Donald Parsons, George Washington University
Sam Peltzman, Univ. of Chicago
Mark Perry, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Christopher Phelan, Univ. of Minnesota
Gordon Phillips, Univ. of Maryland
Michael Pippenger, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Tomasz Piskorski, Columbia University
Brennan Platt, Brigham Young University
Joseph Pomykala, Towson University
William Poole, Univ. of Delaware
Barry Poulson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Benjamin Powell, Suffolk University
Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College
Reza Ramazani, Saint Michael's College
Adriano Rampini, Duke University
Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University
Mario Rizzo, New York University
Richard Roll, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
James Roumasset, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
John Rowe, Univ. of South Florida
Charles Rowley, George Mason University
Juan Rubio-Ramirez, Duke University
Roy Ruffin, Univ. of Houston
Kevin Salyer, Univ. of California, Davis
Pavel Savor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Ronald Schmidt, Univ. of Rochester
Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
William Shughart II, Univ. of Mississippi
Charles Skipton, Univ. of Tampa
James Smith, Western Carolina University
Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate
Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Univ. at Buffalo
Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
Houston Stokes, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University
Shirley Svorny, California State
University, Northridge
John Tatom, Indiana State University
Wade Thomas, State University of New York at Oneonta
Henry Thompson, Auburn University
Alex Tokarev, The King's College
Edward Tower, Duke University
Leo Troy, Rutgers University
David Tuerck, Suffolk University
Charlotte Twight, Boise State University
Kamal Upadhyaya, Univ. of New Haven
Charles Upton, Kent State University
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Richard Vedder, Ohio University
Richard Wagner, George Mason University
Douglas M. Walker, College of Charleston
Douglas O. Walker, Regent University
Christopher Westley, Jacksonville State University
Lawrence White, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
Walter Williams, George Mason University
Doug Wills, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
Dennis Wilson, Western Kentucky University
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
Huizhong Zhou, Western Michigan University
Additional economists who have signed the statement

Lee Adkins, Oklahoma State University
William Albrecht, Univ. of Iowa
Donald Alexander, Western Michigan University
Geoffrey Andron, Austin Community College
Nathan Ashby, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
George Averitt, Purdue North Central University
Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
Timothy Bastian, Creighton University
John Bethune, Barton College
Robert Bise, Orange Coast College
Karl Borden, University of Nebraska
Donald Boudreaux, George Mason University
Ivan Brick, Rutgers University
Phil Bryson, Brigham Young University
Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University
Edwin Burton, Univ. of Virginia
Jim Butkiewicz, Univ. of Delaware
Richard Cebula, Armstrong Atlantic State University
Don Chance, Louisiana State University
Robert Chatfield, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas
Lloyd Cohen, George Mason University
Peter Colwell, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Connolly, Univ. of Miami
Jim Couch, Univ. of North Alabama
Eleanor Craig, Univ. of Delaware
Michael Daniels, Columbus State University
A. Edward Day, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Stephen Dempsey, Univ. of Vermont
Allan DeSerpa, Arizona State University
William Dewald, Ohio State University
Jeff Dorfman, Univ. of Georgia
Lanny Ebenstein, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara
Michael Erickson, The College of Idaho
Jack Estill, San Jose State University
Dorla Evans, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville
Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
Daniel Feenberg, National Bureau of Economic Research
Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
Arthur Fleisher, Metropolitan State College of Denver
William Ford, Middle Tennessee State University
Ralph Frasca, Univ. of Dayton
Joseph Giacalone, St. John's University
Adam Gifford, California State Unviersity, Northridge
Otis Gilley, Louisiana Tech University
J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Richard Grant, Lipscomb University
Gauri-Shankar Guha, Arkansas State University
Darren Gulla, Univ. of Kentucky
Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
Richard Hart, Miami University
James Hartley, Mount Holyoke College
Thomas Hazlett, George Mason University
Scott Hein, Texas Tech University
Bradley Hobbs, Florida Gulf Coast University
John Hoehn, Michigan State University
Daniel Houser, George Mason University
Thomas Howard, University of Denver
Chris Hughen, Univ. of Denver
Marcus Ingram, Univ. of Tampa
Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
Sherry Jarrell, Wake Forest University
Carrie Kerekes, Florida Gulf Coast University
Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
James Kurre, Penn State Erie
Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University
Stan Liebowitz, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Anthony Losasso, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
John Lott, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
Keith Malone, Univ. of North Alabama
Henry Manne, George Mason University
Richard Marcus, Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University
John Matsusaka, Univ. of Southern California
Thomas Mayor, Univ. of Houston
W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University
Mario Miranda, The Ohio State University
Ed Miseta, Penn State Erie
James Moncur, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
Charles Moss, Univ. of Florida
Tim Muris, George Mason University
John Murray, Univ. of Toledo
David Mustard, Univ. of Georgia
Steven Myers, Univ. of Akron
Dhananjay Nanda, University of Miami
Stephen Parente, Univ. of Minnesota
Allen Parkman, Univ. of New Mexico
Douglas Patterson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University
Timothy Perri, Appalachian State University
Mark Pingle, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College
Richard Rawlins, Missouri Southern State University
Thomas Rhee, California State University, Long Beach
Christine Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
Nancy Roberts, Arizona State University
Larry Ross, Univ. of Alaska Anchorage
Timothy Roth, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
Atulya Sarin, Santa Clara University
Thomas Saving, Texas A&M University
Eric Schansberg, Indiana University Southeast
John Seater, North Carolina University
Alan Shapiro, Univ. of Southern California
Frank Spreng, McKendree University
Judith Staley Brenneke, John Carroll University
John E. Stapleford, Eastern University
Courtenay Stone, Ball State University
Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, UCLA
Scott Sumner, Bentley University
Clifford Thies, Shenandoah University
William Trumbull, West Virginia University
Gustavo Ventura, Univ. of Iowa
Marc Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College
Robert Whaples, Wake Forest University
Gene Wunder, Washburn University
John Zdanowicz, Florida International University
Jerry Zimmerman, Univ. of Rochester
Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville

[93legendti]

200 Economists Oppose the Stimulus Plan
by Cord Blomquist
January 27, 2009 @ 7:43 pm


The Cato Institute is running full-page ads in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Roll Call this week disputing the claim from President Obama that their is a consensus about the stimulus package. As Mr. Obama puts it:

There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy.


We at CEI disagree and, as it turns out, we’re not alone. Cato’s ad includes the names of 200 economists who oppose the “stimulus” package. Among them are towering intellects like James Buchanan, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1986 for his work on how politicians’ self-interest and non-economic forces affect government economic policy. How appropriate.

In the ad, Cato’s club of 200 economists respond to Mr. Obama claim in big, bold-face letter, declaring:
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.


http://www.openmarket.org/2009/01/27/fiscal-reality-check/

[goonster]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 200 economists oppose a stimulus, and 2000 economists support it. What should the gubbermint do then?

[MadRocketSci]

[I]200 Economists Oppose the Stimulus Plan
by Cord Blomquist

We at CEI disagree and, as it turns out, we’re not alone. [B]Cato’s ad includes the names of 200 economists who oppose the “stimulus” package. Among them are towering intellects like James Buchanan, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1986 for his work on how politicians’ self-interest and non-economic forces affect government economic policy. How appropriate.



didn't they already try this pre-TARP I? It didn't do much then and it won't do anything now.

[93legendti]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street/print

Stocks tumble after gov't unveils financial plan
By TIM PARADIS, AP Business Writer Tim Paradis, Ap Business Writer
6 mins ago

NEW YORK – Investors are frustrated with the government's latest bank bailout plan — and showing it by unloading stocks.

The major stock indexes fell as much as 5 percent Tuesday, including the Dow Jones industrial average, which tumbled 400 points. Financial stocks led the market lower, reflecting Wall Street's growing concerns about the government's ability to restore the health of the banking industry.

Traders and investors said the lack of specifics from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on how the government would direct more than $1 trillion in public and private support was troubling.

The plan is aimed at restoring proper functioning to credit markets, which seized up over worries about bad debt after the September bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The latest plan calls for a government-private sector partnership to help remove banks' soured assets from their books.

The plan also would boost an effort to unclog the credit markets that govern loans to consumers and businesses. Funding for the effort would jump to $100 billion from $20 billion.

"The good news is they are going to spend a trillion dollars, the bad news is they don't know how," said James Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group.They built this up as being a panacea," he said. "There was so much hope pinned on them to do a good job. The expectations have been so high. It's hard to live up to."

Investors also questioned whether this plan, which followed previous efforts in the final months of 2008, would work. Some selling was to be expected, however, as stocks rose sharply last week ahead of the announcement.

Geithner's speech "basically puts a spotlight on the fact that the government has no idea how to fix the problem," said Jeff Buetow, senior portfolio manager at Portfolio Management Consultants. "People bought on rumor and hope, and now they're selling on reality."

Investors focused on the financial rescue showed little reaction to the Senate's approval of its $838 billion economic stimulus package. The bill must now be reconciled with an $819 billion version passed by the House. Congressional leaders hope to have the bill on President Obama's desk before a recess next week.

"The economy is in deep trouble. The stimulus plan is not very stimulative. It's not addressing the real problem," Buetow said. "We have an insolvent financial system. The government is trying to find a comprehensive way to save it. They can't afford to just throw money at it. That's what they tried to do in the fall and that clearly did not work."

Stocks extended their slide after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke didn't elaborate on the plan in testimony at a House Financial Services Committee hearing. Instead, Bernanke said the programs designed to revive the credit markets are showing promise and that any fix to the worst financial crisis since the 1930s would take time to work.

In late afternoon trading, the Dow industrials fell 402.94, or 4.87 percent, to 7,867.93.

Broader stock indicators also tumbled. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 45.51, or 5.23 percent, to 824.38, and the Nasdaq fell 67.86, or 4.26 percent, to 1,523.70.

The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell 21.91, or 4.68 percent, to 446.03.

Declining issues outnumbered advancers by about 6 to 1 on the New York Stock Exchange, where volume came to 1.19 billion shares.

Bond prices jumped as investors sought the safety of government debt. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, fell to 2.84 percent from 2.99 percent late Monday. The yield on the three-month T-bill, considered one of the safest investments, slipped to 0.31 percent from 0.32 percent late Monday.

[fiamme red]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street/print

Stocks tumble after gov't unveils financial plan
By TIM PARADIS, AP Business Writer Tim Paradis, Ap Business Writer
6 mins ago

NEW YORK – Investors are frustrated with the government's latest bank bailout plan — and showing it by unloading stocks.

The major stock indexes fell as much as 5 percent Tuesday (rest snipped)To quote another forumite: man, somebody's cut and paste functions are just smokin' today! :crap:

[Kirk007]

Campy.

[johnnymossville]

Up until the last few days, I had some hope we'd start moving in the right direction, but for the last few days starting with the Prez's speech, yesterday's town hall fiasco, and geithner's big non-idea, I've got this terrible sinking feeling. The ship is going down people.

At least my bike has a set of fresh tires!

[93legendti]

Up until the last few days, I had some hope we'd start moving in the right direction, but for the last few days starting with the Prez's speech, yesterday's town hall fiasco, and geithner's big non-idea, I've got this terrible sinking feeling. The ship is going down people.

At least my bike has a set of fresh tires!
I enjoy the fact he warns of dire catastrophes ("Danger...Grave danger? Is there any other kind?") and then he does these photo-op/slobber fests and cracks jokes--very classy.

The campaign ended. Time to lead.

[Climb01742]

Up until the last few days, I had some hope we'd start moving in the right direction, but for the last few days starting with the Prez's speech, yesterday's town hall fiasco, and geithner's big non-idea, I've got this terrible sinking feeling. The ship is going down people.

interesting. perhaps not surprisingly, i had the exact opposite reaction, at least to obama in the last few days. i thought each town hall was a success and showed a president acting confidently, intelligently and with genuine compassion. but then maybe we're each seeing what we want to see.

[johnnymossville]

interesting. perhaps not surprisingly, i had the exact opposite reaction, at least to obama in the last few days. i thought each town hall was a success and showed a president acting confidently, intelligently and with genuine compassion. but then maybe we're each seeing what we want to see.

It looked more like an Oprah show. Giving a free house to a lady who should be out looking for work. I guess in this day of handouts I should go to one of those town hall meetings with mine out to see what I can get. We're doomed when banks, corporations and bums are looking for freebies and govt stands there writing the checks with "compassion."

[Climb01742]

obama simply said his staff would see if they could help her. that is a far cry from giving her a house. at least this president has the courage to face a group of americans not handpicked by political operatives. i always wondered what bush feared about facing unculled audiences?

[Ray]

interesting. perhaps not surprisingly, i had the exact opposite reaction, at least to obama in the last few days. i thought each town hall was a success and showed a president acting confidently, intelligently and with genuine compassion. but then maybe we're each seeing what we want to see.
I think its pretty clear we're all seeing what we want to see. No verdict is going to really be in for quite a while one way or the other. I mean, hell, I was pretty high on Bush three weeks into his administration despite not agreeing with him on much. But I wouldn't have predicted how badly (IMHO) THAT would have turned out at that point. And I remember all of the commentary about the "failed Clinton administration" in the first few weeks of his administration. He did get off to a REALLY rough start by any standards, but he ended up doing OK in most people's opinion, despite his prodigious personal flaws.

Obama is a fast learner and a smart guy and I think he's as well equipped as anyone to deal with our current situation. (He was discounted early in the primary campaign and early in the general election campaign too, but he learned quick in both cases). But its a pretty overwhelming situation and there may not BE a good solution to it. So, we'll see. But clearly Climb and I are gonna perceive him differently than Johnny and Adam.

-Ray

[93legendti]

67% Say They Could Do A Better Job On The Economy Than Congress
Wednesday, February 11, 2009


When it comes to the nation’s economic issues, 67% of U.S. voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/67_say_they_could_do_a_better_job_on_the_economy_t han_congress


Rasmussen Consumer Index
Following Geithner Presentation, Consumer Confidence Falls to Record Low
Wednesday, February 11, 2009


Following Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s presentation of the White House financial rescue plan, the Rasmussen Consumer Index fell a point-and-a-half to 56.6. That’s another all-time record low, surpassing the mark set ten days ago.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/indexes/rasmussen_consumer_index

[Climb01742]

gallup and pew polls put obama's approval ratings at between 65-70%, and congress' (including republicans) at mid-30s%. like economists, we can find numbers to support most anything. we all see what we want to see. :beer:

[Kirk007]

[QUOTE=93legendti]67% Say They Could Do A Better Job On The Economy Than Congress
Wednesday, February 11, 2009


When it comes to the nation’s economic issues, 67% of U.S. voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress.

So maybe we should all just saunter down to the polls and vote as to what to do, I'm sure that would lead us out of this mess; I mean, the average American being such students of economics and high finance.