The Obama Plan

[HowardRoark]

Smart move on the Obama's part.

I agree. I don't see this as a big deal. I would probably do the same thing. It shows he cares about the sanity of his daughters.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

And, who is the writer to judge if they are wasteful.

That, Tyrone, is an EXCELLENT point!!! Seriously. And, who is Obama to judge if they are good projects?

I'm sure there aer some smart guys and gals on the team.

[Freak Out]

Until the bill is published for public review prior to vote we have little to go on....Has it been posted anywhere yet?
I have to say nothing would surprise me anymore when it comes to what might be considered vital infrastructure....a mob museum in Vegas..ha ha...
Many would argue that it is putting our Mexican laborers to work so it's all good.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm not surprised to see the elitist/class warfare faction of our forum conservatives come out against the plan. I am, however, surprised to find no forum liberals (except for a one line retort from Ziggy and a typically weak comeback from Tyrone) come out in favor of it.

Howard, this is NOT going to harm our grandkids or cost any future generations or whatever.

First of all, the whole "crisis", to the extent it is tangible at all, was triggered by the media and leftist politicians (with the help of a few complicit Republicans) telling people there was a problem, causing consumer spending to dry up and a real downturn to occur. Typically, the beginning of the end of a downturn is when unemployment spikes. That is now occurring. The media declaring Obama's stimulus package a success should be all it takes to relieve the public's psyche and end this mostly psychological pseudo-crisis.

Let me anticipate the response of Bobblehead, Howard, and Aynrand to that: "If there was no (or not much of) a real crisis, and it's ending anyway, why do we need to spend that nearly trillion dollars?" Well, need may be too strong a word. Obama and the libs undoubtedly intended to spend like drunken sailors anyway, but not to cut taxes--even though he campaigned on doing so.

This package combines both aspects of the Keynesian success formula--as Kennedy did, as Reagan did. The Reagan tax cuts--combined with the military buildup and domestic spending that was forced on him by the Dem-controlled Congress--quadrupled tax revenue to government--even at the lower rates. That same scenario should occur here--thus alleviating any need for either tax hikes or runaway inflation or whatever other dire consequences some predict for the future.

It is really annoying to hear this same line of crap BHead, Howard, and AynR are spewing in here from some of the commentators I usually respect the most in the media. Why not just give Obama credit for doing what will help the economy while attacking him on the much more serious issue of security/defense and the many moral and cultural issues where he is so disgusting wrong--instead of retreating into class warfare pro-wealthy rhetoric?

[HowardRoark]

--instead of retreating into class warfare pro-wealthy rhetoric?

Who did this so called "class warfare pro-wealthy rhetoric?"

The point I am making is who gets to decide on what this money is spent? All statistics seem to prove that children brought up in a home with two parents save our society money in the long run. Should we put up, and staff, facilities that will counsel every married couple to stay married in every zip code? That sounds like a solid thing to spend our, um, paper with green ink it. Should we do that? Wise people on his team might think we should.

Also, when the Chinese start selling off/not buying more of our Treasuries because of our deficits, who will fund all this Keynesian nonsense? Rates will spike, we will be saddled with the debt.....my kids/grandkids will bear the burden.

[texaspackerbacker]

--instead of retreating into class warfare pro-wealthy rhetoric?

Who did this so called "class warfare pro-wealthy rhetoric?"

The point I am making is who get's to decide on what this money is spent? All statistics seem to prove that children brought up in a home with two parents save our society money in the long run. Should we put up, and staff, facilities that will counsel every married couple to stay married in every zip code? That sounds like a solid thing to spend our, um, paper with green ink it. Should we do that? Wise people on his team might think we should.

Also, when the Chinese start selling off/not buying more of our Treasuries because of our deficits, who will fund all this Keynesian nonsense? Rates will spike, we will be saddled with the debt.....my kids/grandkids will bear the burden.

I was mostly referring to historically conservative people I've see commenting who keep whining and ranting about "who's gonna pay for all this?", when clearly, the tax cuts and spending in tandem will generate greatly enhanced economic growth/personal and corporate income/ greatly increased tax revenue even at lower rates.

Debt is leverage. It is rolled over, not paid off; It logically is maximized when interest is low. That is as true, maybe more so, for governments as it is for individuals and businesses. As for the Chinese, I doubt they invested in America out of altruism. Assuming it was a sound business decision on their part, they'd be hurting themselves more than us to liquidate. In the extreme scenario you describe, they would just be paid off in devalued dollars--a bigger negative for them than for us.

As for your gibberish about a government program to promote stable marriage, where did you dig that up, and what's your point? Who's gonna decide how the money is spent? In the current political climate, it sure as hell ain't the good guys. We probably will get a whole new round of stupid and intrusive liberal crap inflicted on the country. That aspect, however, is far less significant than the prospect of that money being injected and turning over and turning over again and again. What it goes for is less important.

The simple fact is that what you call "Keynesian nonsense" works. And even if it didn't work, the ultimate downside would not be higher taxes, but inflation. And inflation, in effect, is a flat tax--hitting all strata of society at the same rate--something you should like.

[The Shadow]

"The Obama Plan"?
After careful observation over the last 2 years, I was never able to actually find one.

[The Shadow]

Prediction : This was the 'touchy-feely' election, where America grafted onto Obama whatever qualities they wanted him to have.
Once Americans see the results of the Amateur Hour presidency; once we are again being attacked by terrorists emboldened by weakness = the country will be looking for a 'Daddy' - someone to straighten out the mess and actually protect the citizenry.
Look for a strong (conservative) Republican candidate next time. McCain had the character credentials, but had 3 obstacles :
1. The country wanted a complete change, even if the one espousing it had no experience or achievements.
2. He attempted to be a new 'hybrid' Rep/Dem. Didn't sell.
3. He had absolutely no charisma.

[mraynrand]

--instead of retreating into class warfare pro-wealthy rhetoric?

Who did this so called "class warfare pro-wealthy rhetoric?"

The point I am making is who get's to decide on what this money is spent? All statistics seem to prove that children brought up in a home with two parents save our society money in the long run. Should we put up, and staff, facilities that will counsel every married couple to stay married in every zip code? That sounds like a solid thing to spend our, um, paper with green ink it. Should we do that? Wise people on his team might think we should.

Also, when the Chinese start selling off/not buying more of our Treasuries because of our deficits, who will fund all this Keynesian nonsense? Rates will spike, we will be saddled with the debt.....my kids/grandkids will bear the burden.

I was mostly referring to historically conservative people I've see commenting who keep whining and ranting about "who's gonna pay for all this?", when clearly, the tax cuts and spending in tandem will generate greatly enhanced economic growth/personal and corporate income/ greatly increased tax revenue even at lower rates.

Debt is leverage. It is rolled over, not paid off; It logically is maximized when interest is low. That is as true, maybe more so, for governments as it is for individuals and businesses. As for the Chinese, I doubt they invested in America out of altruism. Assuming it was a sound business decision on their part, they'd be hurting themselves more than us to liquidate. In the extreme scenario you describe, they would just be paid off in devalued dollars--a bigger negative for them than for us.

The simple fact is that what you call "Keynesian nonsense" works. And even if it didn't work, the ultimate downside would not be higher taxes, but inflation. And inflation, in effect, is a flat tax--hitting all strata of society at the same rate--something you should like.

The tax cuts you talk about are 300 billion - 200 billion are to go to those paying no income tax - thus it is simple rediistribuition and/or printing of money. 100 billion is gor business. Given that the stimulus is anywhere from 700 bil to 1.3 trillion on top of a record predicted deficit of 1.2 trillion for the fiscal year, please tell me how that 100 billion in actual reduced taxes will stimulate business enough to compensate for 1) increased inflation 2) loss in dollar status 3) loss in lending due to loss of confidence by lenders due to a debtor society.

Please also show me where Keynsian strategems show that the 'stimulus' will result in a net gain under the current circumstances. How were the current payouts decided? Assuming that a 1,000 payout to individuals paying no tazes is good Keynsian economics, why wasn't the number 1,500 or 2,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 or 200,000? Certainly you must admit that at some level there must be diminishing returns from such a strategy. If so, then how is that being determined? Please explain. Also, please demonstrate how the 150 billion stimulus checks from 2007 were a net gain for the economy and how the 170 billion for Katrina was a net gain.

Real reduction in tax cuts work; under Bush tax cut, revenues increased by almost 200 billion per year, and revenues increased in all modern tax cuts from Cleveland to JKF to Reagan to Bush. The current proposed tax cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to those previous cuts and much like with Bush, under Obama's plan they are coupled with huge spending increases in addition to automatic spending increases in entitlement programs at the Federal and State levels at double the rate of inflation and that account for almost 75% of all budgetary items. No amount of stimulus of any kind can compensate for that kind of spending growth.

[bobblehead]

Rand I've tried every angle under the sun including the ones you just did. He doesn't get it and never will.

[swede]

My goldfish looked sick. I fed him 300 billion goldfish flakes.

Damn thing died.

Maybe too much of a good thing is bad.

[packinpatland]

Too bad about your fish Swede. Mine is thriving and is looking forward to the next 8 years.

[texaspackerbacker]

--instead of retreating into class warfare pro-wealthy rhetoric?

Who did this so called "class warfare pro-wealthy rhetoric?"

The point I am making is who get's to decide on what this money is spent? All statistics seem to prove that children brought up in a home with two parents save our society money in the long run. Should we put up, and staff, facilities that will counsel every married couple to stay married in every zip code? That sounds like a solid thing to spend our, um, paper with green ink it. Should we do that? Wise people on his team might think we should.

Also, when the Chinese start selling off/not buying more of our Treasuries because of our deficits, who will fund all this Keynesian nonsense? Rates will spike, we will be saddled with the debt.....my kids/grandkids will bear the burden.

I was mostly referring to historically conservative people I've see commenting who keep whining and ranting about "who's gonna pay for all this?", when clearly, the tax cuts and spending in tandem will generate greatly enhanced economic growth/personal and corporate income/ greatly increased tax revenue even at lower rates.

Debt is leverage. It is rolled over, not paid off; It logically is maximized when interest is low. That is as true, maybe more so, for governments as it is for individuals and businesses. As for the Chinese, I doubt they invested in America out of altruism. Assuming it was a sound business decision on their part, they'd be hurting themselves more than us to liquidate. In the extreme scenario you describe, they would just be paid off in devalued dollars--a bigger negative for them than for us.

The simple fact is that what you call "Keynesian nonsense" works. And even if it didn't work, the ultimate downside would not be higher taxes, but inflation. And inflation, in effect, is a flat tax--hitting all strata of society at the same rate--something you should like.

The tax cuts you talk about are 300 billion - 200 billion are to go to those paying no income tax - thus it is simple rediistribuition and/or printing of money. 100 billion is gor business. Given that the stimulus is anywhere from 700 bil to 1.3 trillion on top of a record predicted deficit of 1.2 trillion for the fiscal year, please tell me how that 100 billion in actual reduced taxes will stimulate business enough to compensate for 1) increased inflation 2) loss in dollar status 3) loss in lending due to loss of confidence by lenders due to a debtor society.

Please also show me where Keynsian strategems show that the 'stimulus' will result in a net gain under the current circumstances. How were the current payouts decided? Assuming that a 1,000 payout to individuals paying no tazes is good Keynsian economics, why wasn't the number 1,500 or 2,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 or 200,000? Certainly you must admit that at some level there must be diminishing returns from such a strategy. If so, then how is that being determined? Please explain. Also, please demonstrate how the 150 billion stimulus checks from 2007 were a net gain for the economy and how the 170 billion for Katrina was a net gain.

Real reduction in tax cuts work; under Bush tax cut, revenues increased by almost 200 billion per year, and revenues increased in all modern tax cuts from Cleveland to JKF to Reagan to Bush. The current proposed tax cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to those previous cuts and much like with Bush, under Obama's plan they are coupled with huge spending increases in addition to automatic spending increases in entitlement programs at the Federal and State levels at double the rate of inflation and that account for almost 75% of all budgetary items. No amount of stimulus of any kind can compensate for that kind of spending growth.

You obviously recognize the tax revenue generating value of tax cuts--which is clear proof of the Keynesian multiplier effect. How then can you deny the exact same scenario when the increased money in the hands of people comes from government spending rather than tax cutting?

As for $200 billion of the $300 billion in tax cuts going to people not now paying any tax (that is an exaggeration, but whatever), these people are at least as likely to spend the money, thereby triggering the multiplier and increasing growth, total income, and tax revenue as if the tax cuts were limited to the "more deserving" who currently do pay tax--or more accurately, who pay it in larger amounts. This idea of tax "cuts" to those who do not pay--basically, a negative income tax--can be attacked on fairness ground--as I'm sure you three class warriors will do. However, the economic benefit is undeniable.

You want to call it "redistribution of wealth"? I won't argue with that. The reason it is that is that Obama's crowd is playing its own brand of class warfare game by raising taxes on the upper levels of income. Ideally, the low end cuts he is touting would NOT be accompanied by the tax increases on the high end. Then, there would be no justification to the whine about redistribution--and the whine about "where is the money gonna come from?" is just plain bogus all the way around.

Diminishing returns? I'm the one who theorized a system of zero tax revenue--ALL government spending done by merely printing the money. I bet it would work--why the hell wouldn't it?

I challenge you three valiant class warriors to leave class warfare behind--the "unfairness doctrine"--and state exactly in detail why economic growth through deficit spending--small scale, large scale, any scale--won't work.

I don't like the tax raising aspect of Obama's plan either. That part really is redistribution of wealth, but worse than that, it partially negates the positive aspects of the plan--a net tax cut and money injected through spending.

The real danger is when you combine the liberal propensity for social spending with you guys' wrongheaded idea that you have to pay for it with tax money. That is the LBJ/Jimmy Carter way--in stark contrast to the Kennedy/Reagan way.

[texaspackerbacker]

Prediction : This was the 'touchy-feely' election, where America grafted onto Obama whatever qualities they wanted him to have.
Once Americans see the results of the Amateur Hour presidency; once we are again being attacked by terrorists emboldened by weakness = the country will be looking for a 'Daddy' - someone to straighten out the mess and actually protect the citizenry.
Look for a strong (conservative) Republican candidate next time. McCain had the character credentials, but had 3 obstacles :
1. The country wanted a complete change, even if the one espousing it had no experience or achievements.
2. He attempted to be a new 'hybrid' Rep/Dem. Didn't sell.
3. He had absolutely no charisma.

You won't get any disagreement from me. In fact, that's essentially what I've always said--Obama's biggest vulnerability politically is the horrendous danger from his total opposition to everything that has worked to prevent repeats of 9/11. Picking Panetta as CIA Director shows that he still opposes what works.

I also agree completely with what you said about McCain, and that there is a strong chance the country will be ready for a decent conservative Republican next time--the strength of that chance, unfortunately, is directly proportional to the increased chance of terrorist hits in America. Anything short of that, and the God damned leftist mainstream media will pull Obama through.

This thread, however, is about the economy--and like the proverbial blind squirrel, this economic package is Obama's "nut"--probably the only thing he is getting right.

[mraynrand]

--instead of retreating into class warfare pro-wealthy rhetoric?

Who did this so called "class warfare pro-wealthy rhetoric?"

The point I am making is who get's to decide on what this money is spent? All statistics seem to prove that children brought up in a home with two parents save our society money in the long run. Should we put up, and staff, facilities that will counsel every married couple to stay married in every zip code? That sounds like a solid thing to spend our, um, paper with green ink it. Should we do that? Wise people on his team might think we should.

Also, when the Chinese start selling off/not buying more of our Treasuries because of our deficits, who will fund all this Keynesian nonsense? Rates will spike, we will be saddled with the debt.....my kids/grandkids will bear the burden.

I was mostly referring to historically conservative people I've see commenting who keep whining and ranting about "who's gonna pay for all this?", when clearly, the tax cuts and spending in tandem will generate greatly enhanced economic growth/personal and corporate income/ greatly increased tax revenue even at lower rates.

Debt is leverage. It is rolled over, not paid off; It logically is maximized when interest is low. That is as true, maybe more so, for governments as it is for individuals and businesses. As for the Chinese, I doubt they invested in America out of altruism. Assuming it was a sound business decision on their part, they'd be hurting themselves more than us to liquidate. In the extreme scenario you describe, they would just be paid off in devalued dollars--a bigger negative for them than for us.

The simple fact is that what you call "Keynesian nonsense" works. And even if it didn't work, the ultimate downside would not be higher taxes, but inflation. And inflation, in effect, is a flat tax--hitting all strata of society at the same rate--something you should like.

The tax cuts you talk about are 300 billion - 200 billion are to go to those paying no income tax - thus it is simple rediistribuition and/or printing of money. 100 billion is gor business. Given that the stimulus is anywhere from 700 bil to 1.3 trillion on top of a record predicted deficit of 1.2 trillion for the fiscal year, please tell me how that 100 billion in actual reduced taxes will stimulate business enough to compensate for 1) increased inflation 2) loss in dollar status 3) loss in lending due to loss of confidence by lenders due to a debtor society.

Please also show me where Keynsian strategems show that the 'stimulus' will result in a net gain under the current circumstances. How were the current payouts decided? Assuming that a 1,000 payout to individuals paying no tazes is good Keynsian economics, why wasn't the number 1,500 or 2,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 or 200,000? Certainly you must admit that at some level there must be diminishing returns from such a strategy. If so, then how is that being determined? Please explain. Also, please demonstrate how the 150 billion stimulus checks from 2007 were a net gain for the economy and how the 170 billion for Katrina was a net gain.

Real reduction in tax cuts work; under Bush tax cut, revenues increased by almost 200 billion per year, and revenues increased in all modern tax cuts from Cleveland to JKF to Reagan to Bush. The current proposed tax cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to those previous cuts and much like with Bush, under Obama's plan they are coupled with huge spending increases in addition to automatic spending increases in entitlement programs at the Federal and State levels at double the rate of inflation and that account for almost 75% of all budgetary items. No amount of stimulus of any kind can compensate for that kind of spending growth.

You obviously recognize the tax revenue generating value of tax cuts--which is clear proof of the Keynesian multiplier effect. How then can you deny the exact same scenario when the increased money in the hands of people comes from government spending rather than tax cutting?

As for $200 billion of the $300 billion in tax cuts going to people not now paying any tax (that is an exaggeration, but whatever), these people are at least as likely to spend the money, thereby triggering the multiplier and increasing growth, total income, and tax revenue as if the tax cuts were limited to the "more deserving" who currently do pay tax--or more accurately, who pay it in larger amounts. This idea of tax "cuts" to those who do not pay--basically, a negative income tax--can be attacked on fairness ground--as I'm sure you three class warriors will do. However, the economic benefit is undeniable.

You want to call it "redistribution of wealth"? I won't argue with that. The reason it is that is that Obama's crowd is playing its own brand of class warfare game by raising taxes on the upper levels of income. Ideally, the low end cuts he is touting would NOT be accompanied by the tax increases on the high end. Then, there would be no justification to the whine about redistribution--and the whine about "where is the money gonna come from?" is just plain bogus all the way around.

Diminishing returns? I'm the one who theorized a system of zero tax revenue--ALL government spending done by merely printing the money. I bet it would work--why the hell wouldn't it?

I challenge you three valiant class warriors to leave class warfare behind--the "unfairness doctrine"--and state exactly in detail why economic growth through deficit spending--small scale, large scale, any scale--won't work.

I don't like the tax raising aspect of Obama's plan either. That part really is redistribution of wealth, but worse than that, it partially negates the positive aspects of the plan--a net tax cut and money injected through spending.

The real danger is when you combine the liberal propensity for social spending with you guys' wrongheaded idea that you have to pay for it with tax money. That is the LBJ/Jimmy Carter way--in stark contrast to the Kennedy/Reagan way.

Fuck class warfare. It seems we've been doing massive Keynsian economics for the past 5 years. Even with tax cuts, the economy is tanking. Certainly even the rape of by the financial/Mortgage industry should have worked as a massive Keynsian boost to the economy too, right - all that money flooded into the system spurred massive growth - nothing wrong with that, even if it was fake (i.e. printed or loaned money). Prove to me that Keynsian tactics work. What is your evidence?

And you didn't answer any of my questions. If a 1,000 check from the Gov. is a good thing, why not 2,000 or any number on up to 1,000,000? How do you determine the correct amount? How?

Did the first stimulus work? Did the Katrina money work? If it did, then I agree with you - the Government should just write checks to everyone for what ever amount (???) saves the economy. Just keep printing money. The more the merrier. It will have high value no matter what you print, right?