nope, I'm saying nothing other than educate yourselves....no swaying, no pushing one way or the other...it's something that I, as a 30-something and wasn't around at it's inception, just took for granted as something that is there and always has been, someone shared with me a little and opened my eyes, and while I don't know enough to say anything, I wouldn't anyway, other than just educate yourself on it. No can. No worms. If there are any, let's go fishin'!
Well i tried. never mind. I see that all I am gong to do is get kicked off here. I promised Queen I would not go sideways. Back to your regularly scheduled broadcasting. Fuzzy
Hang in there, Fuzzy............... Me neither, but basic Econ 101 says: Less taxes = more $$ in rick's pocket to spend, therefore stimulating the local / state / federal / world economy. Buying more goods and services will increase the demand for more jobs which is what we're trying to do, right ? Knock down (or eliminate completely) corporate taxes for awhile and see what the free market and entrepreneurism can really do. Special interests: they'll be Ok without some cash for a little bit. Well said............Capitalism will prevail if we let it. The free market is where its at. Sink or swim............some new guy (or gal) will be there to buy you up, streamline you and make you better, faster and stronger than before. I cannot believe I am involved in a political discussion......whoa is me.
Well said, it you look back at the great depression of 39 most agree it would have not have been as bad or lasted as long if the goverment stayed out of it. Issy
I heard one interesting interpretation of all of this. How true it is will be for history to decide. These recessions often are best left to themselves to resolve - more often than not, the cause was excessive meddling in things that shouldn't have been meddled with. In this particular case, money got too cheap. Interest rates were low, loans were easy to get and plentiful, and pressure was exerted by government to approve loans to people that probably shouldn't have received them. As a result, you had over-valued houses bought on bad credit with horrific loans (interest only, variable APR). Eventually something was going to give - that being the resetting of interest rates, and a bunch of people no longer being able to afford their loans. Mortgage securities became worthless, and lending institutions suddenly realized, particularly based on accounting rules, they didn't have as much liquidity as they thought. Ideally, you back off, let the bad loans falter, housing prices will reset at a more realistic level. More responsible lending will ensue. People who have been saving to buy a house will benefit greatly. People who made unwise investments will hurt, but will learn to not borrow more than you can afford. That is a potentially successful economic solution. But Washington runs on politics, not economics. It would be political suicide for the new president, with his party controlling Congress, if they did nothing. So they dump tons of money (continuing the policy of Bush) at the problem and the Fed keeps interest rates ridiculously low. But banks don't lend just because you gave them a lot of money - they are still worried, so they are taking that money they have been given just to make sure they don't crash - they can lend again later, once things have stabilized. The result is you aren't going to see huge impacts from all the TARP money - at best just a stabilization. And so, in 2-4 years from now, the situation may look just as bleak, which is bad news for Obama and Democrats. Enter the stimulus bill. This bill does stimulate, but not the economy. It stimulates more people to vote for Democrats, in spite of what they are going to see down the road. Sure, things will be bad, but look how much money they spent looking productive. And to pay for this, they cut taxes on everybody but the top 5%, which are a relatively small number of voters. Most people see that they got all kinds of government perks, and the only ones alienated are those at the top who are having to pick up an even larger portion of the tab for all of this.
A real economic stimulus would be to not pay income taxes for the next year, but rather use the money that would go to income taxes for things we would like to buy but cannot afford normally... just my two cents, which no one in government will care about.
Reminds me of the tactics used by the only guy who was able to get elected President 4 times in a row. Not that I'm old enough to remember of course...
I just heard the stupidest thing in the world on the evening news. CA (I think) unemployment agency is so swamped they are approving overtime. WTF?? Gee, too bad they can't find any people to HIRE! And pay normal wages. Several states are having to get money from the federal government to pay unemployment benefits.
On the topic of ATV trails, after WWII there was a lot of stimulus type stuff, in my hometown one of the stimulus things they did was convert an old railroad into a bike trail. That trail is still heavily used now. Having trails did not stimulate the economy, but hiring hundreds of otherwise unemployed people to build the trail had a tremendous effect, and we have these beautiful trails to show for it.
Actually, history will show that you are pretty well on track here. Recessions and even depressions are a natural, if very uncomfortable, part of the economic cycle. We experienced them back in the 19th century and what they did was serve to get rid of the weaker businesses and industries, provide for consolidation and strengthening (as in railroads, steel and other industries in 1873, an even more so in 1893). Objective observers of history will note that Roosevelt's spending in the 1930s did not end the Great Depression. But it did get him reelected in 1936. And it did allow his "brain trust" to install permanent changes into the American system that created many new (and yes, permanent, despite the fact that weren't "supposed to be") government entitlements, like Social Security. The Second World War created an artificial "boom" that pulled the world economy out of the depression.
That may be the best thought I have seen on that subject. There are plenty of projects that can be accomplished like that. But those are short term jobs. We have to be sure that we are doing things to provide more long term employment also. I also wonder if people will travel from families to these jobs the way they did in the past. Fuzzy
This is a really interesting question. People seem less wiling to work this way these days, and it adds to the problem. Many seem to think that jobs has to be where they are these days.
There were times when people would travel from job to job when times where hard. Mostly people are unwilling to do that now. They would rather hold a hand out and see if someone will put something in it. Fuzzy
