Obama’s Uninformed
This man is completely out of touch or a liar. Take your pick.
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama hailed Wednesday’s one-year-old economic stimulus law as a solid accomplishment that staved off another severe economic depression and kept up to 2 million Americans on the job.
Does he remember the promises made when he signed the stimulus bill (8% unemployment, revitalizing infrastructure, etc.)? Did he read the hundreds of stories of waste and pork in the bill? Did he see the countless stories about the fraudulent counting of jobs “saved” or created?
I suspect Obama did see those stories. If that’s the case, then he is a liar.
Eric Cantor bragged that 160,000 were created in Virginia alone. But since one-third of the “stimulus” was tax cuts, one would think that by itself would have created scores of jobs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1200 hrs
Taking the best mythical numbers from Obama and dividing into the $179 billion spent so far you get $89,500 to “save” one job.
How is that a good deal in any form? Clearly the President thinks people are too stupid to grasp their excessive wastes of money in DC.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1208 hrs
It should be noted that this is the same argument Rick Kopatich made regarding Bill Hughes. Rick is my hero.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1208 hrs
AND he wants ANOTHER 800 billion dollars! NONE of this money went in my pocket!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1210 hrs
Out of touch or a liar? C’mon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html
Posted by scott on February 18, 2010 at 1243 hrs
As has been noted before, scott, when the “analysis” consists of declaring your model inherently correct and its’ failure, and lack of predictive value, always due to an economy worse than thought, then yes, it is lying.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1306 hrs
Whoa there, Scott. Look at the SOURCE of your link.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1330 hrs
Whoa there, Scott. Look at the SOURCE of your link.
scott thinks that all sources are objective… except the ones he disagrees with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1358 hrs
The stimulus package is a solid accomplishment that lessened the blow of a severe economic recession and kept millions of Americans on the job.
Anyone that denies it is either out of touch or a liar.
There isn’t a more credible source than the CBO:
The Congressional Budget Office late Monday said it estimates that the federal stimulus package sustained between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs in the third quarter, and raised gross domestic product by 1.2 to 3.2 percentage points higher than it would have been without the program.
If a main GOP campaigning strategy for the mid-term elections is claiming the stimulus was a failure the Democrats aren’t going to do as poorly as I thought they would.
Any credible economists I have read claims the stimulus gave the economy a jolt and helped to keep people employed. If anyone can link to a credible economist willing to counter that argument please do so. Until then you will be either out of touch or a liar.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1417 hrs
Of course the stimulus gave a “jolt” and created some jobs. If that is the measure of success for spending nearly a trillion dollars we are in bad shape. The question isn’t “were jobs created” it is “was the money well spent”. The answer to this question needs to consider the future consequences of having to pay the bill someday.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1423 hrs
Even the AEI can see the truth
The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.
http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928
What cracks me up is the lying, out of touch Republican legislators that voted against the stimulus, show up all over teevee claiming that it hasn’t worked, and yet still hold photo ops at and hand out big checks for projects funded by the stimulus.
http://thinkprogress.org/touting-recovery-opposed/
In their home states, they like to claim credit for the positive benefits of the stimulus, but politically, they’ve gone “all in” on the strategy of opposing the President’s every move.
Hypocrites.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1436 hrs
Whoa there, Scott. Look at the SOURCE of your link.
I really don’t get what you guys are wetting yourselves about. What, you don’t like IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers, Moody’s and the CBO? If this is the crux of your argument, consider me to have heard it and utterly rejected it.
The question isn’t “were jobs created” it is “was the money well spent”.
It is? That isn’t the issue we were hearing last time I checked. Last time I heard it was the stimulus package hasn’t created a single job or the stimulus package failed or stimulus money doesn’t create jobs. Surely you’re familiar with the fact that righties have been saying this. A lot.
You guys are changing your story. First, the stim didn’t create jobs. Now it’s that the stim created jobs but that it’s not efficient enough to make it worthwhile.
And another point. When you take the stim package and divide it up by the number of jobs the CBO says were created, that’s obviously not fair. Not all of the money has been spent. The full effect of the money hasn’t yet been seen. This is a widely reported fact, so I’m not sure how you could be missing that. But now you know.
Posted by scott on February 18, 2010 at 1500 hrs
The irony of the original post just keeps jumping out at me.
Apparently The major economic research firms, a gaggle of well-respected economists and the CBO are all either liars or misinformed, too, I guess. The folks who’ve really got their fingers on the pulse of what’s going on are the guys who claimed that the money wouldn’t create any jobs and then went back home to take credit for all the jobs it created.
Posted by scott on February 18, 2010 at 1505 hrs
I suggest actually reading the CBO report. As has been noted before it simply claims its’ model to be correct and attributes its’ inaccuracy to a worse than expected economy.
There isn’t a less credible source.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1520 hrs
Right. You reject the credibility of the organizations mentioned above and reject the veracity of what they’re saying about stimulus spending and jobs. I get it. They, like the president, are either lying or misinformed.
One question, though. Whom are you trusting to tell you the facts of the matter? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by scott on February 18, 2010 at 1526 hrs
I suggest reading the CBO report, scott.
The history of this business is well documented. The administration presented a scary chart showing that unemployment would be worse without the stimulus and presented employment numbers generated by the CBO, among others, to attempt to prove its’ case for stimulus. Those numbers can now be demonstrated to be factually incorrect.
Unemployment is worse than what the administration claimed it would be with the stimulus and indeed worse than what it claimed it would be without the stimulus. Given that fact it is incumbent upon the administration and the CBO to prove their analyses correct, it is already demonstrably wrong. They have utterly failed to do so. They have merely proclaimed their analyses correct without any justification, and declared its’ failure to achieve results to be the result of a worse than expected economy.
I trust myself to tell me the facts. Among other things I am an economist and quite capable of reading and interpreting economic information and data.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1536 hrs
-
...that the General Accountability Office will declare today that the Energy Department has fallen woefully behind—about 98.5% behind—the 593,000 homes it initially predicted would be weatherized in the Recovery Act’s very first, very chilly year.
The Energy folks did tell ABC they’ve so far spent 522-million Recovery Act dollars on the program. So, let’s see, about 9,100 homes divided into that chunk of stimulation change to believe in is—gee!—about $57,362 worth of very expensive weatherstripping for each home fixed up so far.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1543 hrs
So, let’s see, about 9,100 homes divided into
So, a blog. That nifty bit of analysis is from a blog. Are there other trusted sources you guys are into that you’re so dead-on certain that the rest of us are totally wrong (or liars) about the issue? I’m quite serious. Utter rejection of Moody’s, the CBO and all the rest. I want to know who you do trust.
Posted by scott on February 18, 2010 at 1551 hrs
Cut out the obfuscating BVBB.
You are right that the administrations projections were wrong. But when have economic forecasts ever been 100% correct? You are holding the administration to a standard that is impossible to achieve.
In retrospect the fact that the economy and job market was worse than the projections makes the case for stimulus, certainly not against it.
The question isn’t whether their projections were correct. The question is whether the stimulus achieved its goal of keeping people employed and lessening the blow of a deep recession. Every credible economist says it was successful at achieving those goals.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1602 hrs
1. I talk to people. I ask them why they are doing what they are doing and why. I make judgements based on those collective conversations.
2. I observe. Economic indicators are all around you should you choose to look. They forecasted the current downturn and can tell you when we will be in an upturn.
3. Economics isn’t terribly difficult. It’s principles are simple. Unfortunately it’s principles give answers politicians don’t like to hear and can’t take credit for. When in doubt go back to the basic principles.
Using those principles several things are going on right now. First, the excessive government spending is artificially propping up prices in certain markets and creating uncertainty with private money causing it to remain on the sidelines and forestalling a recovery. Price is the most important thing in a market and anything that creates price uncertainty is bad, bad, bad.
Second, there are inflationary fears caused by the massive government spending, causing additional money to remain on the sidelines. Bad money drives out good money is an old proverb and it is in action now.
Finally, the economic indicators I see have been somewhat stable. They aren’t getting better, but they aren’t getting substantially worse. If the government can just layoff and concentrate on getting its’ own spending house in order a real, genuine, actual recovery is possible. Unfortunately statist rhetoric like the administration is spewing thwarts that possibility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1608 hrs
So basically you’re serving as your own authoritative expert on the national economy. A+ for self-sufficiency, I guess.
Posted by scott on February 18, 2010 at 1612 hrs
I am holding the administration to its’ own standard, 3rd way.
The administration and CBO cannot demonstrate that the economy was worse than thought, they have merely declared it so. Additionally the economy being worse than thought is not an indicator of the success of the stimulus. They have merely declared it successful. I suggest looking at the latest employment and inflation figures for evidence.
“Every credible economist has declared…” No they haven’t. You simply wish to declare contrary opinions as non credible.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1615 hrs
“Every credible economist has declared…” No they haven’t.
Provide a link!!!!
I don’t claim to know more about economics than any average casual observer. All of the things I have read from standard unbiased business news outlets lead me to believe the stimulus was at least moderately successful. If you have some contrary evidence done by professional economists through thorough analysis please provide a link.
Until you can provide that evidence it wouldn’t be unreasonable to hold you to Owen’s standard and call you completely out of touch or a liar.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1625 hrs
No scott, I declare myself a greater authority than reports that when read reveal assumptions, declarations and conclusions that should cause revulsion, or at least questioning, in a competent high school graduate, such as the reports generated by the CBO.
Second, I have no interest other than me and country. I don’t need to lie to keep working and I don’t need to lie to let others keep working. I’m not the one trying to turn blame into credit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1629 hrs
I have yet to see a thorough analysis claiming any jobs saved through stimulus, only claims. I have also failed to see any attempt to count the jobs lost due to the stimulus and its’ crowding of private money.
The administration and CBO claimed unemployment would peak at 8% and then fall off quickly with the stimulus. It has topped 10% and jobs are still being actually lost. That’s your evidence of the stimulus failure. It’s also the only piece of real genuine data you are going to find in any analysis of employment and stimulus. After that you will find assumptions. The data says no.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1649 hrs
The administration and CBO claimed unemployment would peak at 8% and then fall off quickly with the stimulus. It has topped 10% and jobs are still being actually lost. That’s your evidence of the stimulus failure.
Fun to watch people with such poor reasoning abilities trying to make sense of it all.
Yes, the projections of a year ago were incorrect, but that has nothing to do with determining whether the stimulus was effective or not. The question you need to ask to determine that is “Would unemployment be HIGHER or LOWER than it is right now if the stimulus had not passed?”
The answer to that question is very clear to anyone who does not have an ideologically-driven need to portray Obama and the Democrats as unsuccessful in their attempts to repair the damage wrought by Republican policies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1703 hrs
The answer to that question isn’t clear in the slightest, djheru. It has been assumed, and only assumed. To declare it a success is to declare a failed model accurate.
Employment would likely be higher without the stimulus, because we would now be on the road to a real recovery.
The damage was caused by 50 years of an extremist government spending policy; a policy that is now running into reality. Reality is about to have its’ way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1751 hrs
I have also failed to see any attempt to count the jobs lost due to the stimulus and its’ crowding of private money.
Care to elaborate?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1754 hrs
Employment would likely be higher without the stimulus
Is there any reputable expert who shares this opinion? That you’re aware of?
Posted by scott on February 18, 2010 at 1756 hrs
Employment would likely be higher without the stimulus
Is there any reputable expert who shares this opinion? That you’re aware of?Yes, Barack Obama himself believes that… or at least that was the line he sold the nation.
http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf
Note on page 4 that the Obama team predicted 9% unemployment in Q1 of 2010 WITHOUT stimulus. Perhaps we should have stuck with that. I think most people would see 9% as quite an improvement over what the Stimulus has given us. Have you had a gander at those new jobless claims? Up up up.
I used to think Obama was honest and intelligent but simply misinformed by the socialist mentality of his insiders and educators. I’m now starting to think that he’s less of a dupe and a whole lot more of a self serving Chicago liar. It would be impossible at this point to believe that his administration doesn’t see the train running off the tracks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1832 hrs
Government spending crowds out private investment, fact or opinion. That leads to higher unemployment. In addition, you have todays’ announcement that the fed is raising rates. This is a direct result of the inflationary effects of excessive government (money without production). What do you expect those higher interest rates to do: raise or lower employment?, increase or decrease private growth?
“A reputable expert”. I’ll refrain from commenting on what that phrase suggests of its’ writer, scott.
My statement that the stimulus has cost jobs contains as much analysis as anything you or anyone else has linked to.
Show me a real dynamic analysis of stimulus and employment. You won’t find one. Show me a static analysis claiming job growth for government stimulus spending that simultaneously explains the recession with real genuine data. You won’t find one of those either.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1907 hrs
There once was a man who lived near a river. The river flooded and the man’s home began to fill with water. Estimating the amount of water overflowing the banks, he said to his wife “we better fetch two boxes to stand on or the water will be up to our necks!” They stack two boxes to stand on together, but there turns out to be more water than he realized and they soon are indeed up to their necks anyway. The man’s idiotic wife says “This proves that standing on boxes had no effect!”
A tortured metaphor, but I think you get the point. Disagree with our position all you want, but don’t pretend you don’t know what it is.
“A reputable expert”. I’ll refrain from commenting on what that phrase suggests of its’ writer, scott.
I’ll take that as a no. But I think you should go ahead and let us all know what the phrase suggests to you about its author.
Posted by scott on February 18, 2010 at 1934 hrs
BBB, specifically, in what sectors of the economy has govt spending competed with private investment relative to the stimulus money paid out to date? Or projected with additional disbursements?
How has this led to higher unemployment?
This is a direct result of the inflationary effects of excessive government (money without production). What do you expect those higher interest rates to do: raise or lower employment?, increase or decrease private growth?
Are we staring into an abyss? Again????
They raised the discount rate from .5 to .75. I think the banks can handle it.
Nothing else has changed that I know of?
I would not expect that to influence or affect the average consumer’s or business’s decision making.
Why do you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 1950 hrs
1. All government spending competes with private capital. The government issues bonds and competes with the private sector for money every time it borrows, which is how it is financing the stimulus. This raises interest rates for all private investment everywhere. Private investment is the key to our recovery and future employment.
2. Read the CBO’s own analyses. The fed not raising interest rates is one of their key analytical assumptions. Additionally they assume such a measure would not take place prior to late 2011. It is taking place now. I would expect it to have a large effect because it will be treated by investors and lenders as validation of inflationary concerns (which it is). Investors are going to expect higher rates of return for private investment, especially longer term investments, exactly the type of investments we need to recover. Lenders will react similarly, and will probably once again respond by requiring higher rates of return and higher equity requirements to control their long term risk. Your government will also see the effect by having to offer higher rates to attract money for its’ borrrowing, further exacerbating its’ debt problem.
We are undertaking a huge series of disjointed policies at loggerheads with one another. We throw money at banks under the theory that they lacked capital to lend to willing private borrowers. We simultaneously implement a huge stimulus program and claim it has raised employment because there is no crowding out because there is no private demand for the capital. We then raise interest rates because the lack of employment of that capital to increase production and increase in the money supply has created inflationary concerns.
Your analogy is nice, scott, but incomplete. What happened in this case was the man took boxes out from under three other people standing in the river, dropped one of them in the river, put one under himself and his wife and then proclaimed everyone better off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 2211 hrs
There once was a man who lived near a river. The river flooded and the man’s home began to fill with water. Estimating the amount of water overflowing the banks, he said to his wife “we better fetch two boxes to stand on or the water will be up to our necks!”
Mayor Obama heard the man’s idea and decided to cut down all the man’s trees in order to make enough boxes for all the government officials and under-served populations to stand on. The river eroded the now treeless banks and the resulting breaches flooded twice as much land for twice as long as would have been flooded had Mayor Obama not been such an idiot and simply ridden out the flood as had been done in every flood for the last 50 years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 2220 hrs
A tortured metaphor, but I think you get my position. The Democrats reckless and irresponsible spending spree has left us still deeply in recession and now perilously in debt… a debt that our children will be paying for many years after this recession has ended.
To deny that things have gotten worse and not better is a slap in the face of honest governance. To continue to spend when spending has had no proven benefits is foolish… no matter what elitist economists have to say. Simply ask the millions losing jobs even as Obama struts about in his flight suit and proclaims “mission accomplished”. Nancy and Harry and Timmy and Barack are going to have much to answer for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2010 at 2226 hrs
1. All government spending competes with private capital.
That’s a good answer, to a different question.
How about answering mine.
2. Read the CBO’s own analyses.
Ouch! That must have been painful?
Did you suffer any whiplash?
14. I suggest actually reading the CBO report. As has been noted before it simply claims its’ model to be correct and attributes its’ inaccuracy to a worse than expected economy.
There isn’t a less credible source.
Who do you think I should believe BBB?
Batter Up!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 0806 hrs
Every single thing the government spends money on compete with private capital, fact or opinion. What’s unclear about “all”. It answers your question.
Believe and trust your own judgements.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 0856 hrs
What’s unclear about “all”. It answers your question.
Except it does not.
BBB, specifically, in what sectors of the economy has govt spending competed with private investment relative to the stimulus money paid out to date?
Come on that is an easy one.
Try again.
Hint: one can do it and one cannot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 0913 hrs
BVBB - You should know that crowding only occurs during periods of economic growth.
The stimulus was necessary due to the lack of private investment. How can government spending crowd out what doesn’t exist?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 0932 hrs
I am kind of shocked by the notion that Scott and the other lefties here would be so dismissive of the idea that people are capable of making their own observations on the economy. Everything BVBB said is right on. The basic economy is pretty stable, retail sales at my store have remained at a pretty stable month to month and from last year to this. The problem is that that stable level is to low to be sustainable long term.
The “tax cuts” included in the stimulus, were not tax cuts at all. They were a temporary reduction in withholdings, which has now gone away. For the average worker it was $10 a week, which is probably less than what they lost in salary to the recession anyway.
Again, BVBB is right on with his analysis that bad money is keeping the good out of the market. There is demand for products out there, but it is quelled by uncertainty about government spending. The point BVBB makes about price is especially salient… Government money is competing with private money right now, people will buy anything if the price is right, and at this moment in time the proper price is LOW, very low, and the government is propping prices up. This can be clearly seen in housing, where if prices were allowed to drop to sane levels, we would be seeing a major turnaround in the housing numbers… In my area, the only properties that are selling are forclosures… Why? Because the price is LOW.
Everyone seems to have forgotten the reason that we are where we are… Because of government meddling in the housing arena, and even now they will not allow prices to correct themselves.
No businessperson can predict what the government is going to do next… One day we have a president criticizing the bonuses on wall street, the next he is saying that those execs deserve every penny. One day he is telling people not to travel to Las Vegas when they cannot afford it (as if he has any idea what anyone can afford), the next day he is flying to Las Vegas himself. The schizophrenic behavior of our head of state on issues affecting the economy is not a good thing, and it most certainly is not productive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1000 hrs
Sorry to interrupt the flow of the conversation, but I just wanted to make sure I didn’t miss something important. Did someone come up with a couple of names or names of organizations who support the thesis that the stimulus package didn’t boost employment? I haven’t seen it and I want to make sure I’m not just making that up.
On my side of the argument there’s a short list of opinion from sources which I consider to be pretty impressive in their reputation for stodgy, nonpartisan, sober-minded expertise. What have we come up with on the other side? I mean except “read the CBO report and see how it means the exact opposite of what the writers say it means” and “economics is simple and I’m my own expert—anyone can do this!”
Posted by scott on February 19, 2010 at 1001 hrs
I am kind of shocked by the notion that Scott and the other lefties here would be so dismissive of the idea that people are capable of making their own observations on the economy.
I’m all for making one’s own observations. I would just like to know how the people here square the fact that their observations are completely at odds with what the experts seem to be saying. And I would like for someone to tell me why I, or anyone else, should have more confidence in their observations and analysis than these other sources.
Posted by scott on February 19, 2010 at 1004 hrs
BVBB - You should know that crowding only occurs during periods of economic growth.
The stimulus was necessary due to the lack of private investment. How can government spending crowd out what doesn’t exist?
I would exist if government spending weren’t holding prices UP. When prices go down, people spend. When they go up, people don’t. ECON101.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1009 hrs
I’m all for making one’s own observations. I would just like to know how the people here square the fact that their observations are completely at odds with what the experts seem to be saying. And I would like for someone to tell me why I, or anyone else, should have more confidence in their observations and analysis than these other sources.
Could it be that the experts you seem to trust have skin in the game?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1010 hrs
Could it be that you guys have an ideological hard on for a certain answer which enables you to reject all expert opinion which disagrees with it?
Posted by scott on February 19, 2010 at 1015 hrs
An Associated Press analysis of stimulus spending found that it didn’t matter if a lot of money was spent on highways or none at all: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless. And the stimulus spending only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, the analysis showed.
.
.
.But AP’s analysis, which was reviewed by independent economists at five universities, showed the strategy of pumping transportation money into counties hasn’t affected local unemployment rates so far.
“There seems to me to be very little evidence that it’s making a difference,” said Todd Steen, an economics professor at Hope College in Michigan who reviewed the AP analysis.
And there’s concern about relying on transportation spending a second time.
“My bottom line is, I’d be skeptical about putting too much more money into a second stimulus until we’ve seen broader effects from the first stimulus,” said Aaron Jackson, a Bentley University economist who also reviewed AP’s analysis.
.
.
.
“As a policy tool for creating jobs, this doesn’t seem to have much bite,” said Emory University economist Thomas Smith, who supported the stimulus and reviewed AP’s analysis. “In terms of creating jobs, it doesn’t seem like it’s created very many. It may well be employing lots of people but those two things are very different.”
.
.
.
“It would be unlikely that even $20 billion spent all at once would be enough to move the needle of the huge decline we’ve seen, even in construction, much less the economy. The job destruction is way too big,” said Kenneth D. Simonson, chief economist for the Associated General Contractors of America..
.
.
The 400-page stimulus law contains so many provisions — tax cuts, unemployment benefits, food stamps, state aid, military spending — economists agree that it’s nearly impossible to determine what worked best and replicate it. It’s also impossible to quantify exactly what effect the stimulus has had on job creation, although Obama points to estimates that credit the recovery program for creating or saving 1.6 million jobs.It is also becoming more difficult to obtain an accurate count of stimulus jobs. Those who receive stimulus money can now credit jobs to the program even if they were never in jeopardy of being lost, according to new rules outlined by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.
.
.
.
But that’s a policy argument, not a stimulus argument, said Daniel Seiver, an economist at San Diego State University who reviewed AP’s analysis.“Infrastructure spending does have a long-term payoff, but in terms of an immediate impact on construction jobs it doesn’t seem to be showing up,” Seiver said. “A program like this may be justified, but it’s not going to have an immediate effect of putting people back to work.”
from ABCNews and AP
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wirestory?id=9527995&page=4Now, just need to see if these sources are “credible” in Scott’s mind….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1021 hrs
At least we’re in the same ballpark, yes. I think this is the first example that’s been provided. I appreciate it.
Posted by scott on February 19, 2010 at 1024 hrs
Crowding occurs always. Not only during periods of growth.
All sectors, fact or opinion. Housing, beverage sales, transportation. Government spending increase the cost of capital for all sectors and necessarily decrease private investment.
Read the CBO report and understand its’ premises, assumptions and limitations, scott. Understand what it considers, and what it makes no attempt to consider.
We do not lack private investment, djheru. Private investment simply has no interest in investing in the overpriced crap being peddled by government cronies. Allow prices to fall and you will get all the investment you want and a nice, strong recovery.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1028 hrs
Read the CBO report and understand its’ premises, assumptions and limitations, scott. Understand what it considers, and what it makes no attempt to consider.
I think it would be more helpful if you’d just tell us what’s bugging you about it. What’s bugging you about it that doesn’t seem to have other experts similarly alarmed.
What this all comes down to, I think, is that some of you guys are fiercely biased ideologically and this enables you—no, compels you—to reject the majority of expert opinion on the subject. When people like myself reference this expert opinion you basically call us simpleminded sheep who can’t think for ourselves. And there you have it. The whole disagreement in a nutshell.
Posted by scott on February 19, 2010 at 1032 hrs
And the stimulus spending only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, the analysis showed…
It would be unlikely that even $20 billion spent all at once would be enough to move the needle of the huge decline we’ve seen, even in construction, much less the economy…
Yes, so according to your sources, the stimulus should’ve been much larger, which is what liberals were saying all along.
Republicans worked hard to reduce the size of the stimulus package so that it would be less effective, allowing them to deceptively claim that the stimulus had no effect. But they know that it had an effect, because they’ve been going around their home states touting the projects funded by the stimulus and taking credit for them, even though they voted against the stimulus legislation that made them possible.
What confuses me the most is why people act like republicans are arguing in good faith. They have one clear goal, which is the transfer of wealth to the wealthiest. Everything else flows from that - whether it’s reducing the size of government, cutting taxes, reducing regulation, initiating military conflicts, introducing and emphasizing divisive moral belief systems - these are all just means to an end.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1035 hrs
Crowding occurs always. Not only during periods of growth.
That is demonstrably not true. The mechanism by which crowding occurs is as follows - Government deficit spending is supported by borrowing, which raises interest rates, which makes borrowing by corporate entities more expensive. We can see that this is not a factor by looking at how low the discount rate has been for so long. Obviously, government deficits have not been significantly increasing the cost of capital.
Additionally, following the plunge in demand caused by the housing market acollapse, there was a great deal of unused industrial capacity.
In this situation, government spending can have a “CROWDING IN” effect by spurring an increase in production, which STIMULATES private investment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1045 hrs
I identified my problem in comment 6, scott. CBO declared its’ model correct and said its’ errors are due to worse than expected economic conditions, economic conditions for which it also issued a predicition that failed utterly. I’m not big on agencies and models that have no predictive value.
Second, by the type of analyses contained in the CBO report we should not have had a recession. We should all be swimming in jobs and money. But this isn’t so. The reason it isn’t so is because the effectiveness of borrowing can only be measured by the use of those funds to increase or decrease your ability to pay back the money. CBO makes a half hearted effort to declare that the spending proposed in the various stimulus packages might lead to more productivity but it presents exactly no evidence to justify even the claim of “might”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1047 hrs
No it doesn’t djheru. Government borrowing crowds out private money always. You can see it in 30 year treasury yields, which went up over 40% last year.
You are making several other enormous assumpitions:
1. Demand genrates supply.
2. Government demand can substitute for private demand.
3. Your use of capital in the form of unused capacity generates a return in excess of your borrowing in spite of the fact that private investors believe otherwise or alternately that government is capable of coverting that excess capacity to something that can generate a return in excess of your borrowing and generate it at the elevated price you are paying for that capacity.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1059 hrs
Yes, so according to your sources, the stimulus should’ve been much larger,
Talk about a non-sequitur… you cannot be a functional and thinking adult and arrive at your conclusion from your quoted statement of “It would be unlikely that even $20 billion spent all at once would be enough to move the needle of the huge decline we’ve seen, even in construction, much less the economy…”
If that’s all you have as rebuttal from that AP article, I won’t bother reading any more of your posts on this subject.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1100 hrs
@djheru;
Your argument that the fact that the stimulus dollars spent barely helped to create jobs is reasoning for MORE stimulus spending is assinine.
It is like telling someone who has a vitamin K deficiency who has been trying unseccesfully to bring the level up by eating peanut butter to eat more peanut butter.
Yes, peanut butter has vitamin K in it and eating peanut butter will help, barely. One cup of the sticky mess has 2% of the daily value. So, your suggestion is to eat 50 cups of peanut butter and damn any other consequences as long as they get their vitamin K.
The argument from the other side of the aisle is that 1 cup of cooked broccoli has more than 200% of the daily value of vitamin K. Let’s try the broccoli instead.
(Yes a strained metaphor, but better than the man and the river, and educational besides)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1117 hrs
Am I to understand that you believe LESS government spending would be more stimulative in terms of our current economic woes than MORE government spending is? Again, I’d like to know what economists say about this idea. No, I don’t want another ranting, homegrown “ECON 101” lesson, either. Last time I checked ECON 101 was taught by actual experts.
Posted by scott on February 19, 2010 at 1127 hrs
So what would be the broccoli, then, smart guy?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1128 hrs
Am I to understand that you believe LESS government spending would be more stimulative in terms of our current economic woes than MORE government spending is?
Don’t you get it scott? The stimulus CAUSED the recession!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1130 hrs
I only have a few minutes before I need to head the the doctor’s office, but here goes an answer.
I don’t KNOW what the anser is, but the experts seem to be split on whether or not the current actions providing help commensurate with their cost.
Let’s try a step-by-step logic exercise and you tell me at which opint you disagree:
1) The number one creator of jobs in the US is small business.
2) Small businessmen have a desire to grow their businesses.
3) In order to grow their businesses, the need capital.
4) The banks have access to plenty of capital available.
5) The Fed rate is still at historically low levels.
6) Small businessmen are willing to borrow at low rates.
Seems like small businesses should be borrowing and growing like all get-out. Wy aren’t they?
7) The banks are unwilling to extend credit? Nope, they want to make safe loans.
Must be something that I missed, let’s look at 7) again. Businesses are not willing to borrow in an unclear economic climate. They don’t have any idea what laws, requirements, mandates, prohibitions and regulations are going to be enacted by the current administration because they are all over the plac. If teh gov’t just got the hell outta the way they would do much better at creating “real” jobs
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1149 hrs
I’ll be the first to agree that the stimulus package saved a large number of jobs. And created others. What I question is whether we should have saved or created those jobs. The vast majority of those saved jobs were in government, at the federal, state and local level. We’ve have saved a ton of money, by just paying unemployment for all of those people. Instead we puffed up the government employment roles to unsustainable levels, with people who add very little to the economy, and for whom we will be paying for, for generations.
We’d be in a much better place, if we ran 2% higher unemployment, and extended unemployment benefits. We’d have spent a fraction of the money, and not had the budget time bombs that now exist at every level of government, as they deal with how to continue to pay for the bloated staff levels paid for by the porkulus.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1208 hrs
Curt, I agree with you completely, and the author of scott’s article in post #5 supports your statements about where a lot of the stimulus money went…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/1 7leonhardt.html
In the early months of last year, spending by state and local governments was falling rapidly, as was tax revenue. In the spring, tax revenue continued to drop, yet spending jumped — during the very time when state and local officials were finding out roughly how much stimulus money they would be receiving. This is the money that has kept teachers, police officers, health care workers and firefighters employed.
Emphasis mine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1217 hrs
Extending unemployment benefits was exactly the right approach. Extending unemployment doesn’t allow one to reward cronies, however, and it doesn’t allow one to claim credit and control over the economy. Unemployment benefits have no political benefit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1220 hrs
A cogent analysis, elovrich. But I take issue with a couple of points.
First, item 4. You realize that the reason banks are in a position to do anything at all is because the financial bailout prevented the collapse of the entire financial system, right? That’s my understanding anyway. I mean, I hate to see wealthy (and seemingly incompetent) bankers get rewarded with bonuses instead of being fired or prosecuted, but hey—the alternative was to let it all go down the tubes. I hold my nose and say that the bailout was a sound idea. Not much choice, really.
Now on to the subject at hand: The stimulus package.
Regarding item 3 (and I guess 6 as well). Businesses borrow money to grow, but only when there’s sufficient demand to suck up their increased production. I’m sure you’re aware that because of high unemployment and economic uncertainty, people aren’t spending like they used to. That drop in demand means that businesses will not borrow money for increased production. They can’t sell what they’re already producing and are cutting back production. This of course contributes to unemployment, creating a nasty little feedback loop. The less people buy, the fewer jobs there are; the more unemployed there are, the less people buy.
In any case, this precipitous drop in demand has a whole lot more to do with why businesses aren’t growing and hiring than any nebulous concern about “laws, requirements, mandates, prohibitions and regulations” that may or may not come along.
The answer in situations like this is for the government to step in and fill some of hole in demand by spending. Even if it means deficit spending. (And it almost certainly means that, as with high unemployment and faltering GDP, tax revenues are down, to say nothing of the costs of increased services such as unemployment insurance, food stamps and medicare.)
I’m all for fiscal restraint and balanced budgets. No, really. But here’s the thing: Jobs trump deficits. If the government steps in and spends it increases demand for goods and services. That increased demand keeps some businesses afloat and its employees on the payroll. People with paychecks go out and spend them instead of sucking up government services. It breaks the feedback loop. Or it’s supposed to. If you spend enough and can wait longer than six months for it to work.
And then when it does work and the experts say that it worked you have to, you know, believe them.
When unemployment is shrinking, GDP is growing, banks are lending and businesses are borrowing and expanding—then let’s start talking about a balanced budget. I’d be thrilled to. But to strive for that goal right now is extremely misguided and will make our problems worse.
Posted by scott on February 19, 2010 at 1221 hrs
I’m sure you’re aware that because of high unemployment and economic uncertainty, people aren’t spending like they used to.
Hey knucklehead, why don’t you try reading your own sourced articles… no wonder that there isn’t a thinking adult here who can make sense of your opinions and ideals. WTF is wrong with you?
The story isn’t quite as clear-cut with consumer spending, as skeptics note. Its sharp plunge stopped before President Obama signed the stimulus into law exactly one year ago. But the billions of dollars in tax cuts, food stamps and jobless benefits in the stimulus have still made a difference. Since February, aggregate wages and salaries have fallen, while consumer spending has risen.
Emphasis mine.
I stopped reading your post at that point, because I know you’ll just go on in your ignorant rant about lowered consumer spending.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1225 hrs
Screw the rich!!
I need work and I’m going out asking a poor guy for a job!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1227 hrs
Okay, I’m out. Have fun geniuses! When you’ve got it all solved, let me know. Peace.
Posted by scott on February 19, 2010 at 1236 hrs
Wow - talk about ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in this conversation.
Both side above are both correct and incorrect.
Jobs were “saved and created” with the stim money. Government jobs.
Jobs were also lost. By the private sector.
In fact, last year the number of people employed in the public sector actually exceeded those in the private sector.
So now we have a permanently larger and more expensive government that will need to be supported by a smaller private sector.
Until the private sector starts to grow, the economy will remain in the tank. Period.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1315 hrs
Jesus scott;
we finally get a thoughtful exchange going and you unplug because one of your assertions is refuted using your own source. Throwing your hands up and leaving it for others to solve isn’t going to get anything done, but then it seems the Democrats in Congress are doing the same thing. BHO starts looking across the aisle (whether sincerely or not is yet to be seen) and they all start jumping ship….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1318 hrs
It’s the tone, elovrich. Just not in the mood for it right now, that’s all.
Posted by scott on February 19, 2010 at 1324 hrs
Obama is a lame duck, how many people r going to follow him to their grae. Now we have to nail Feingold. As Dick Morris said, he’s the biggest flake in the Senate. No one is following him.
Read the real truth in the new Wisconsin conservative Digest. Help distribute them to your neighborhood. the new one analyzes all of the tea party movement.Bob Dohnal, Editor
11324 W. Potter Rd.
Wauwatosa, wi. 53226
414-258-1719
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1339 hrs
Awwww, poor widdle scott doesn’t like his own tone… pussy
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1344 hrs
Could it be that you guys have an ideological hard on for a certain answer which enables you to reject all expert opinion which disagrees with it?
And you don’t Scott?
You’re theory about the ‘nasty little feedback loop’ is correct, but it leaves out the fact that the employed are also not spending as much… With good reason, they are saving, and paying down debt. Government spending does not fill the hole left by the consumer, even when they are directly buying products. Taking money from the taxpayers to buy goods or services does not satisfy demand the way people using their money to buy goods and services does, you are digging dirt from one hole to fill another, all you’ve done is move the hole… ultimately it still needs to be filled, and the only way to fill it is to grow the economy. Something the government cannot do.What is the answer to our current fiscal woes? Well, since I have a political hard-on for it, I’ll tell you.
1.) The administration needs to have a clear and concise message on the economy, and they need to STOP ragging on the tourism industry.
2.) The administration needs to start cutting taxes, especially on businesses. I am spending capital on my business as fast as I can get my grubby little hands on it, BUT I am not willing to go into debt in this economy to expand my business, whether the interest rates are good or not. Tax cuts would allow me to have more cash on hand, which could be spent hiring employees, and buying updated operating equipment.
3.) The administration needs to push congress to STOP passing laws allowing people to renegotiate their debts. This should be between the individual and the bank, this country NEEDS more forclosure, not less. Housing and commercial property prices need to come down in order for there to be a rebound. Artificially suspending the prices at outlandish levels only kicks the crash further down the road. There are people sitting on the sidelines with TONS of cash money, that they would like to invest in property…. but prices are not coming down the way they should.
4.) We need to stop throwing cubic dollars down a hole. We are already to the point where we are going to have to monetize major portions of our debt, adding MORE dollars to the world economy, further devaluing the dollar. We are staring at the potential of major inflation when the economy heats back up, and that could be catastrophic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 1441 hrs
Scott,
Those “experts” you seem to put so much stock in were granted government monopoly power to slap AAA ratings on toxic paper. So of course they have a vested interest in promoting the stimulus. They collect a hefty fee to deem esoteric bonds as investment-grade.
BTW, here’s an expert on Econ 101 who not only teaches Economics at Harvard, he writes THE textbook on macro/micro. He’s also very friends (as in stood up in their wedding) with Christina Romer, the one who crafted the economic framework for Keynesian stimulus. You’ll note that even Romer concluded that tax cuts increase GDP by double the amount of government spending.
Bernanke and Obama are already starting to feel the heat from the bond market. The discount rate (the rate at which the banks can borrow from the Federal Reserve) is being benchmarked 25 basis points higher. China is diversifying their holdings, and no longer buying long-dated US Government paper, only short-term. Sooner or later, interest rates will start rising and will choke out any meager recovery we are in.
Bottom line is this: in the real world, there is no free lunch. Either government forces up demand and by extension prices, or we cut taxes and maybe get tangible benefits.
Or, there could be another way out, looking to the Austrian school. Force all banks backed by the Fed, FDIC, OCC, OTS, et. al. to completely liquidate malinvestments and take the writedowns on their balance sheets. Then, and only then, bring back sound money. By that, I mean mandate the Fed to have a mandate of price stability only, not full employment. The Fed is the most culpable in most recessions, not Bush, not Obama, not Reagan, not Clinton.
Then our government will be able to get it’s fiscal house in order.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2010 at 2310 hrs
A free economy will never be completely stable. It needs to have it’s up and downs to keep the market gene pool free from weak businesses. Some businesses fail and others replace them. “Too big to fail” was just a smoke screen for this most left wing congress in history, and this socialist wealth redistributor in the White House to grab lots of power and economic control. Had we let it ride, created a low tax stable business platform, and removed government over-regulation, we would be coming out of this recession by now, leaner and meaner. What we have, at this point, is a massive and unheard of new debt load and no jobs. Local and state governments spent Stimulus money to continue day to day operations as usual instead of trimming waste. The money is gone now, and Obama doesn’t have any more in his stash (The Chinese are through propping him up, long term). There will be several states (Wisconsin included) that face financial insolvency this year.
When Obama declared victory over the recession, he was really saying that this is about as good as things are going to get under his leadership. All indicators show there is a very bad stretch of road ahead… even if Krugman and Reich (the defense counsel in the matter of The People of the United States vs Barack Obama) say otherwise. Those two have made more bad predictions than Rasputin. Why do you lefties idolize them so much? Don’t you folks feel confident enough in your own intelligence to have your own reasoned opinions?
Obama was right about one thing. Unemployment without Stimulus probably would have hit 9% before recovering (That IS what he predicted Scott… less unemployment than we have now if we had NOT done stimulus). Unemployment with meddling and Stimulus went over 10% and shows no signs of significant improvement in the near future. Perhaps a temporary lift in spring as construction season begins… but that will be short lived.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 20, 2010 at 0839 hrs
Pants and a sequence of exothermic chemical reactions is my vote.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 20, 2010 at 1045 hrs
The main street issue I have is this.
I live in Madison. The MALL IS so damn full I can’t find a parking space.
Hubby and I went out last night and had to drive to 3 places to eat because the line was more than 30 minutes at 5:30 and hubby refuses to wait, my taxes went up 30 dollars on my house of $425,000 value (down 60,000 from last year) and while in Texas this Xmas the mall, Walmart, Target parking lots were full and we went home instead of out to eat cause all feeding holes were full. WHERE is the crisis? Where is the poverty. I get that Janesville closed plants and several other businesses that were stressed used this opportunity to bail on some employees but based on the fact that I can’t find a seat to eat, or a spot to park at the mall where is the poverty? My 401K and Edvest accounts are back to pre-depression prices and my Ford stock is soaring. I am a tax paying Mom of 3 with a working husband and a part time job and I don’t know a person suffering as much as all the TEA Baggers. I have family in Tennessee, Texas, Arizona, California, and Montana. None jobless, layed off or screaming poverty. Most are republicans and yet they are angry as hell that the economy sucks. I have to laugh at the Sis in Highland Park Texas with a Lexus and 2 million dollar house who is upset she can’t go to the spa cause she is remodeling the kitchen. Damn it’s tough out there…................Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2010 at 1822 hrs
I don’t know Mary, maybe you and your family should just count yourself as fortunate. Lexus’ and $2MM and $425K houses. You should color you and yours very grateful. It’s not really a shock that everything in Madison is hopping. The government jobs increased in the last year.
However, out here outside of that bubble…
A company I worked at before my current one - and where my best friend still works - has laid off over 50% of their production workers, and about 40% of their salaried, put them all on a salary freeze and then furloughed them for 6 weeks. My brother’s company did an across-the-board 5% pay cut to try to stave off layoffs. A pretty big place in Milwaukee - you may have heard of Harley-Davidson - also laid off about 1500 and closed 2 faclilities in WI with more layoffs in KC and York, PA.
The division of the company that I currently work for laid off 400 last year. The division I formerly worked at laid off 500. Oh - and we didn’t get raises either. My husband is unemployed and is back in school because there are no jobs. Our area has lost about 25% of the small businesses and 6 of the larger employers (200 or more) have completely shut down. The property tax on my $225K house went up a smidge, but our insurance just about doubled because of a deal the state insurance commissioner made to lower rates in other parts of the state. We are driving 6 year old vehicles that we are happy are paid off. Gas and food prices keep going up. We haven’t had a vacation in 3 years.
But since y’all seem to be able to afford it, why don’t you just send some extra into the schools, state, and feds and lay off the rest of us just trying to tread water. mkay?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2010 at 1846 hrs
It’s not really a shock that everything in Madison is hopping. The government jobs increased in the last year.
However, out here outside of that bubble…
So now Highland Park Texas is part of Madison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park,_Texas
But since y’all seem to be able to afford it, why don’t you just send some extra into the schools, state, and feds and lay off the rest of us just trying to tread water. mkay?
Why don’t we just raise taxes on the wealthy mom?
So you and your hubby did not make the right decisions for today’s global economy.
Whose fault is that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2010 at 2208 hrs
First of all, I think someone living in a $2M house would be considered… wealthy. But it is not up to me to take anything from them. My issue is usually those screaming the loudest about increasing regulations and taxes are already wealthy making it just that much more difficult for a) the rest of us to get wealthy because the greatest threat to Progressive statism is an informed and thriving middle class and b) usually causes government to grow even larger so that we know we’ll end up paying for it anyway.
Second, I told recommended that they send in extra - which they can do if they feel they don’t pay enough.
Third, the income of my family would put us firmly in the “middle class” that the Progressives usually are tripping over each other to pretend they give a shit about. I’m perfectly happy with my work-life balance now and where we have been, where we are now, and how we are setting up for the future. Thanks for condescending.
Lastly, Mary’s entire post was a bunch of “Let them eat cake!” type of patronizing dreck. It was like a valley girl post… I mean, like, me and my family, like live in great big expensive houses and, like drive expensive cars and don’t care about like property values or taxes. And you know, the mall and restaurant parking lots are like full, so, I mean, like, how can you possibly say that like, people are like unemployed, because, like we aren’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2010 at 2336 hrs
Sounds like Mary is a participant in the greed sector of the economy. We should levy some pretty stiff luxury taxes on her and her family. Clearly she has more house than she needs. I’d say some Federal wealth redistribution is in order too. Perhaps a 75% tax bracket and a windfall home value tax. That would only be fair… right?
After all, if you’ve made those good economic decisions that FoO cites, that just means you’ve stolen your wealth from the poor… isn’t that how the story goes?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2010 at 1433 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 104
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 12:11 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).