Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090213/ap_on_bi_ge/congress_stimulus

Another way of looking at this massive Failout bill...

If you spent 1,000,000 USD (Million) A DAY since the day Jesus was born, for sake of being easy... 2010 years ago.

you would fall 50,000,000,000 (Billion)(give or take a few) shot of this bill.



think about it..... 1,000,000 a day for 2,010 YEARS...... now then, try and think about how we will pay it off?? think about what happend to the first few Failout bills that got passed, have we seen anything form them other then C.E.O.s getting nice good buy presents???

and dose anyone still think this is a GOOD idea for the country???

on a side note.... add in the other Failout bills, and your up to 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 a day and still falling short.

IMO

Envy89 wrote:
think about it..... 1,000,000 a day for 2,010 YEARS...... now then, try and think about how we will pay it off?? think about what happend to the first few Failout bills that got passed, have we seen anything form them other then C.E.O.s getting nice good buy presents???

You do realize that the US annual GDP is 13 times the value of the stimulus package, right? Billion really isn't a very big number when you start talking about the entire economy.

Envy89 wrote:
and dose anyone still think this is a GOOD idea for the country???

Yes.

Bad idea, like some of the economist believe, the current situation doesn't need government interference.

Bluntly said, no more sharing the wealth, everyone for themselves.

Maybe the lazier people will wake up and get their acts together

LunaHound wrote:Bad idea, like some of the economist believe, the current situation doesn't need government interference.

Bluntly said, no more sharing the wealth, everyone for themselves.

Maybe the lazier people will wake up and get their acts together

Or the banking industry will collapse and we will enter a new great depression. Never mind that the current economic situation has nothing to do with laziness. We are where we are because banks and major investment firms made very stupid decisions with their money. I don't trust these people to fix this mess on their own.

Similarly, the Labour government here in Aus has passed the majority of its second stimulus bill, to the tune of 42 billion.

We're not a huge economy, and our population is rather small compared to a lot of countries, but with the reduced tax income predicted, the government is headed for a 200 billion dollar deficit. That's worth about 130 billion USD. So there's a lot of argument going on here as well...

It took us ten years to get out of a 100 billion defecit over the 90's, but we pulled up pretty well. The big difference between then and now is that the economy isn't exactly growing, and no one is really sure when it will start again. Sure enough, plenty of recessions have been survived the world over, and everyones panics when it's happening... but never in history have governments thrown around so much dosh with no idea when the storm will end. Japan's package is pretty insane as well.

Envy89 wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090213/ap_on_bi_ge/congress_stimulus

Another way of looking at this massive Failout bill...

If you spent 1,000,000 USD (Million) A DAY since the day Jesus was born, for sake of being easy... 2010 years ago.

you would fall 50,000,000,000 (Billion)(give or take a few) shot of this bill.

That's incredibly awful analysis. Staggeringly, shockingly bad.

You're talking about one guy spending a million a day. We're talking about 300 million people who create and spend 13 trillion a year.

LunaHound wrote:Bad idea, like some of the economist believe, the current situation doesn't need government interference.

Bluntly said, no more sharing the wealth, everyone for themselves.

Maybe the lazier people will wake up and get their acts together

Yeah, you're talking about the Austrian school. No-one takes them very seriously, because they're. For a range of reasons they managed to get hold of IMF for an extended period, and it's their no regulations policies that led to Russia becoming the Kleptocracy it is today.

In short, the idea that the Austrian school represents any real thought in economic debate is wrong. The idea that the economy will start working once you remove regulations and they can't be lazy is dreadful. Go read Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Friedman's Monetary History of the United States and Smith's Wealth of Nations. After you've done that you'll probably have something to say about economic policy.

LunaHound wrote:Bad idea, like some of the economist believe, the current situation doesn't need government interference.

And some think otherwise. Opinions are like that, what's your point ?

Bluntly said, no more sharing the wealth, everyone for themselves.

Maybe the lazier people will wake up and get their acts together

Yeah ! feth society. We should get back to sending kids down mines and chimneys eyc. If they've got spare time to post their ill considered opinions on the internet they've clearly got too much spare time and they could be working instead.

We've been sharing the wealth ? Man, I missed out on that one.

What has the GOV ran efficiently enough to make you think they will do a decent job running everything they are set to take over in the next few years??

reds8n wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Bad idea, like some of the economist believe, the current situation doesn't need government interference.

And some think otherwise. Opinions are like that, what's your point ?

Bluntly said, no more sharing the wealth, everyone for themselves.

Maybe the lazier people will wake up and get their acts together

Yeah ! feth society. We should get back to sending kids down mines and chimneys eyc. If they've got spare time to post their ill considered opinions on the internet they've clearly got too much spare time and they could be working instead.

We've been sharing the wealth ? Man, I missed out on that one.

Believe what you want, but i know plenty of americans i talk to everyday that lives off welfare / dissabilities /
when themselves admit they would be fine enough to work.

Now, just figure out yourself where they are getting the money from to support that.

Not green leprechans k?

Believe what you want, but i know plenty of americans i talk to everyday that lives off welfare / dissabilities /
when themselves admit they would be fine enough to work.

Now, just figure out yourself where they are getting the money from to support that.

Not green leprechans k?

Yeah, but those aren't the people that collapsed the banking industry kk? Nor are they the ones causing global economic slowdown which is greatly reducing exports and causing the second level of the global economy (manufacture) the begin to fail.

Bad idea, like some of the economist believe, the current situation doesn't need government interference.

Those are not economists, they are political pundits, and idiots. The only economists on this planet that believe we should let the economy sink to rebuild itself are the purists, they are the same people that think that diseases and death a function of the market. They are the people that support selling cancer treatment at market value and believe that public schools are socialist endeavors.

Hardcore free market capitalist economists aren't useful when it comes to shaping economic decisions. They are bad at economics. You are bad at economics.

Well guys here we go again. We're all blathering on about stuff we don't really know what is or what it means.

The important thing here is to ask yourself why a business does the things it does. Why do automakers have their own jets? Because airline travel is costly and ineffective at rapid transport. For what CEOs get paid it is actually cheaper to own the jet and buy the fuel and pay a man to pilot it. Another thing is that a majority of people on the stock market actually don't get paid giant salaries. They get paid in benefits and pensions and a kind of meager salary throughout the year. But at the end of the year they get a 'bonus'. Which is just basically a big check that makes up for all the pay they weren't making the rest of the year. They are still rich bastards mind you but that million isn't adding to the other 14 million they made that year. Because that 14 million doesn't exist.

As for the government taking money and throwing it at everything it's part of the Keynesian economic theory. Keynes was actually a pretty bad ass guy. But he was into economics too. What he proposed was that if the public becomes too fearful or too unwilling to spend their money to move the economy then the government can take those assets from the people and use them to move the economy and create growth and prosperity. Now that is kind of an in a nutshell synopsis but it pretty much boils down to it. People who believe in the Keynesian economics point to world war 2 as the proof that it worked. But those who doubt it say there were extenuating outside influences that made it work then. So right now we're pretty much rolling the dice. We don't know what will really happen but lets all cross our fingers and hope for the best because we have absolutely no control over this whole mess or anything that has gone on in the government for a long time. Outside of violent revolution. But most American's are too fat and lazy to really give it a go, but that's a topic for another thread.

Ya im bad at economics, and lets just see how long can people willingly "wipe other ass" just for sake of keeping it all together.
And for the middle classed citizen that has been wiping other's ass through their own hard work gets laid off their work,
lets see where the confidence and willing to spend , put money into the buisnesses will go.

Ya im bad at economics, and lets just see how long can people willingly "wipe other ass" just for sake of keeping it all together.

You're bad at economics because you don't understand the implications of what your posting, not because of your ideals. You don't know enough about global economics to have ideals.

LunaHound wrote:Ya im bad at economics, and lets just see how long can people willingly "wipe other ass" just for sake of keeping it all together.
And for the middle classed citizen that has been wiping other's ass through their own hard work gets laid off their work,
lets see where the confidence and willing to spend , put money into the buisnesses will go.

Sigh... the economy is failing because no one is buying anything. In order to fix this problem we need to create demand in our economy, you know the whole "supply and demand" thing? Right now their is little demand because so many people are either out of work, have had their hours cut or fear future layoffs. Banks are not confident enough to loan money and are already drowning in debt. If we leave this situation as it is more banks will fail. By creating jobs and injecting money into the finance system the hope is that:
1. People will begin to spend money again. Giving people tax breaks (as the Republicans propose) doesn't help people if they are unemployed. The unemployed or those who fear unemployment will horde the money fearing even harder times. By directly creating jobs and lowering the risk of further layoffs, people will be encouraged to not horde their wealth and will hopefully be confident enough to spend on items other then necessities which will invigorate the economy.
2. Banks will start lending again. By lending people money to buy homes, cars and to assist small businesses, the economy will be further invigorated which will lead to growth in private industry which would allow the government to eventually roll back the job programs which we are now implementing as they become unnecessary.

One of the major problems with our current financial system is that we have allowed institutions to become to big to fail. That is to say, if Bank of America were to go under, they would drag the entire US economy down with them which would in turn drag down the world economy. Not acting is simply not a realistic option. If we lose our financial institutions, they will take decades to rebuild. The last great depression took a decade and a World War to fix. Seriously think 'How old will I be when this is over if we don't fix this mess now?' Right now the federal government considers the current worldwide financial collapse to be THE greatest threat to world security.

As for confidence, Which makes you more confident:
1. The government is planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to try to fix this mess before it causes irreversible damage to the world economy and are basing their plan on the The New Deal which was a major factor in getting us out of the first great depression, or
2. The government will do nothing and will allow businesses and banks to continue to fail because that is what the market dictates.

Yes, I know we will have to pay the money back. But if nothing is done and the economy fails to right itself, we will lose the money anyway as our gross domestic product plummets due to the poor economy. Furthermore, If the economic situation gets even worse, what's to stop some future President from simply nationalizing the banks or industries? If the situation gets desperate enough, we could see even more radical steps be taken in a desperate bid to fix the economy.

Yes i know thats why the economy is failing.

My post was directed to why "no one is buying anything"

LunaHound wrote:
Yes i know thats why the economy is failing.

My post was directed to why "no one is buying anything"

Ya im bad at economics, and lets just see how long can people willingly "wipe other ass" just for sake of keeping it all together.
And for the middle classed citizen that has been wiping other's ass through their own hard work gets laid off their work,
lets see where the confidence and willing to spend , put money into the buisnesses will go.

Where? Please clarify what you are trying to say.

Luna hound doesn't know what she's saying. Theres nothing to clarify, its an uninformed emotional rant.

ShumaGorath wrote:Luna hound doesn't know what she's saying. Theres nothing to clarify, its an uninformed emotional rant.

Lawl, there are no women on the internet. Silly awesome face.

Typeline wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Luna hound doesn't know what she's saying. Theres nothing to clarify, its an uninformed emotional rant.

Lawl, there are no women on the internet. Silly awesome face.

BloodofOrks wrote:
Sigh... the economy is failing because no one is buying anything. In order to fix this problem we need to create demand in our economy, you know the whole "supply and demand" thing? Right now their is little demand because so many people are either out of work, have had their hours cut or fear future layoffs. Banks are not confident enough to loan money and are already drowning in debt. If we leave this situation as it is more banks will fail. By creating jobs and injecting money into the finance system the hope is that:
1. People will begin to spend money again. Giving people tax breaks (as the Republicans propose) doesn't help people if they are unemployed. The unemployed or those who fear unemployment will horde the money fearing even harder times. By directly creating jobs and lowering the risk of further layoffs, people will be encouraged to not horde their wealth and will hopefully be confident enough to spend on items other then necessities which will invigorate the economy.
2. Banks will start lending again. By lending people money to buy homes, cars and to assist small businesses, the economy will be further invigorated which will lead to growth in private industry which would allow the government to eventually roll back the job programs which we are now implementing as they become unnecessary.

No cutting taxes for people who pay them frees up capital for large corporations small business owners to hire more people, business is the engine that drives commerce. Secondly you seem to not realize that the issue with consumer spending is we have been for the past 16 years spending on credit and using credit to buy everything. People then default on the debt and banks loose money. People in this country do not know how to save or manage their money any more and unless they can establish new easily gotten lines of credit then they start floundering. The banks need to fail just to get all that bad debt and bad practices out of the system, the only thing you are offering is a possible softer landing with a longer harder recovery.

BloodofOrks wrote: One of the major problems with our current financial system is that we have allowed institutions to become to big to fail. That is to say, if Bank of America were to go under, they would drag the entire US economy down with them which would in turn drag down the world economy. Not acting is simply not a realistic option. If we lose our financial institutions, they will take decades to rebuild. The last great depression took a decade and a World War to fix. Seriously think 'How old will I be when this is over if we don't fix this mess now?' Right now the federal government considers the current worldwide financial collapse to be THE greatest threat to world security.

As for confidence, Which makes you more confident:
1. The government is planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to try to fix this mess before it causes irreversible damage to the world economy and are basing their plan on the The New Deal which was a major factor in getting us out of the first great depression, or
2. The government will do nothing and will allow businesses and banks to continue to fail because that is what the market dictates.

Yes, I know we will have to pay the money back. But if nothing is done and the economy fails to right itself, we will lose the money anyway as our gross domestic product plummets due to the poor economy. Furthermore, If the economic situation gets even worse, what's to stop some future President from simply nationalizing the banks or industries? If the situation gets desperate enough, we could see even more radical steps be taken in a desperate bid to fix the economy.

The last great depression took a decade to fix because Herbert Hoover and FDR took Keynesian models and raised taxes (upper rate of 63%) and started government projects. Every other major economy broke out of it well before we did, just because we kept trying to interfere with it. If you want to get technical unemployment never dipped below 17% until 1940, which extended the depression years beyond any other in history. The government will not be able to fix this at all, they will only be able to heap more debt on us and make the next crash even worse if we get out of this one before the world ends in 2012.

No cutting taxes for people who pay them frees up capital for large corporations small business owners to hire more people

Except thats never actually been the case. There are better uses of that capital, and a business that streamlined under higher taxes has little incentive to bloat itself with additional hires when its business functions properly with less.

Secondly you seem to not realize that the issue with consumer spending is we have been for the past 16 years spending on credit and using credit to buy everything. People then default on the debt and banks loose money. People in this country do not know how to save or manage their money any more and unless they can establish new easily gotten lines of credit then they start floundering. The banks need to fail just to get all that bad debt and bad practices out of the system, the only thing you are offering is a possible softer landing with a longer harder recovery.

I agree in concept but the idea that a reborn banking system would somehow cause the country to lose its credit obsession is just wishful thinking. Credit models are good functional ways to run a monetary system, the problem is lax regulation. Unregulated capitalism will always destroy itself through commodity prospecting.

I'm pretty leery about this package. I'm an obama supporter, but this whole crisis mentality reminds me too much of the crisis mentality that occurred after 9/11. The economy is in a bad place, that much is for certain, but the track record of government spending helping any actual recovery is spotty at best.

I favor aid to simply help those that are struggling to survive, and investment in our nations infrastructure has always paid dividends (canals, railroads, interstates all helped the nation grow), but so much of this bill includes tax cuts for those that are at least comfortable, spending on areas that are more speculative, and the sheer partisan air surrounding the bill worries me. I'm not certain if the GOP simply didn't want to hand Obama an early victory, of if they genuinely think this is a bad bill. On the flip side, I'm equally worried that the White House wanted a big win early at the expense of actually crafting a top notch bill.

As for taxes, our current tax code bends over backwards to limit or eliminate the taxes paid by small businesses. people will always be entrepreneurial, the wealthy will always invest. The tax rate is part of the cost of doing business, and even when the tax rate for the wealthy was in the low 90's (during WW2) there was still plenty of work being done by the wealthiest. Even internationally, nations with high tax rates (like scandanavia) manage to compete with nations with low rates. The more things the government pays for, the higher taxes get, but that means fewer things for business to pay for!

Dice Monkey wrote:
No cutting taxes for people who pay them frees up capital for large corporations small business owners to hire more people, business is the engine that drives commerce. Secondly you seem to not realize that the issue with consumer spending is we have been for the past 16 years spending on credit and using credit to buy everything. People then default on the debt and banks loose money. People in this country do not know how to save or manage their money any more and unless they can establish new easily gotten lines of credit then they start floundering. The banks need to fail just to get all that bad debt and bad practices out of the system, the only thing you are offering is a possible softer landing with a longer harder recovery.

A softer landing does not correlate to a longer, harder recovery. Quite the opposite. We came out the Great Depression as the world's premier industrial power for the very reason that the recovery was actually much shorter, in terms of our production potential, when compared to the global average.

Dice Monkey wrote:
The last great depression took a decade to fix because Herbert Hoover and FDR took Keynesian models and raised taxes (upper rate of 63%) and started government projects. Every other major economy broke out of it well before we did, just because we kept trying to interfere with it. If you want to get technical unemployment never dipped below 17% until 1940, which extended the depression years beyond any other in history. The government will not be able to fix this at all, they will only be able to heap more debt on us and make the next crash even worse if we get out of this one before the world ends in 2012.

Yes, tax increases prolong depressions. That tells us that we should alter the traditional Keynesian model by avoiding the tendency to immediately balance the budget. Certainly there should be an overall ceiling on our expenditures, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't spend at all. Remember, every other major economy broke out of the depression before we did because every other major economy was a colonial power with the ability to generate massive profits (by exploiting colonial territories) without cutting domestic services.

Dice Monkey wrote:
If you want to get technical unemployment never dipped below 17% until 1940, which extended the depression years beyond any other in history. The government will not be able to fix this at all, they will only be able to heap more debt on us and make the next crash even worse if we get out of this one before the world ends in 2012.

Actually unemployment was 17.05% which is a major improvement over the 24.75% unemployment rate we had in 1933. And don't forget that 1934- 1937 saw an improvement of unemployment every year up until the market crash of 1937.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

Envy89 wrote:What has the GOV ran efficiently enough to make you think they will do a decent job running everything they are set to take over in the next few years??

Whereas the corporate sector has been so brilliant. And so dutiful in respecting everyone's rights. What's your point?

Typeline wrote:The important thing here is to ask yourself why a business does the things it does. Why do automakers have their own jets? Because airline travel is costly and ineffective at rapid transport. For what CEOs get paid it is actually cheaper to own the jet and buy the fuel and pay a man to pilot it. Another thing is that a majority of people on the stock market actually don't get paid giant salaries. They get paid in benefits and pensions and a kind of meager salary throughout the year. But at the end of the year they get a 'bonus'. Which is just basically a big check that makes up for all the pay they weren't making the rest of the year. They are still rich bastards mind you but that million isn't adding to the other 14 million they made that year. Because that 14 million doesn't exist.

Hang on, are you suggesting that bonus payments at the brokerage firms didn't get wildly out of control? Because that would differ from every business analyst I read on the issue. Brokerage firms have been coming out and recognising things got out of control. Have you followed Merril Lynch?

LunaHound wrote:Ya im bad at economics

You know, that's not a thing you just have to accept. You can start reading up on the topic, and you'll find you've suddenly moved beyond posting vaguely coherent rants built around moral judgements.

Dice Monkey wrote:The last great depression took a decade to fix because Herbert Hoover and FDR took Keynesian models and raised taxes (upper rate of 63%) and started government projects. Every other major economy broke out of it well before we did, just because we kept trying to interfere with it. If you want to get technical unemployment never dipped below 17% until 1940, which extended the depression years beyond any other in history. The government will not be able to fix this at all, they will only be able to heap more debt on us and make the next crash even worse if we get out of this one before the world ends in 2012.

Hoover and FDR were trying to balance the budget in the middle of a depression, which is the exact opposite of Keynesian teaching, and the opposite of the recent bill. Note that when budget neutrality was finally abandoned US economic activity finally began recovering.

sebster wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Ya im bad at economics

You know, that's not a thing you just have to accept. You can start reading up on the topic, and you'll find you've suddenly moved beyond posting vaguely coherent rants built around moral judgements.

Thanks , i'll remember that for next time.

What moral judgements btw?

LunaHound wrote:What moral judgements btw?

The bit about lazier people.