Does He Really Think People Are This Gullible?

[CaneBrain 95]

We are mostly in this mess because of the Senate banking committee's everyody deserves a house plan.We are unable to snap out of it because of Congress's spending like drunken sailors for the last 20 years.We are being led by people that don't pay their taxes, take bribes as a rule, and generally don't believe the laws apply tho them.And you look to these guys to bail us out?Next you'll point to tiny South American's countries with almost zero similarities and declare them perfect models for our future.If spending money is the cure, then Bush would have made us disease free

the house plan is just a piece of the puzzle. it is not mostly the reason. it is one of many reasons. If those bad house loans were not repackaged and sold as commodities the fallout would not have been nearly so bad.I have said I dont like the stimulus bill. I dont like any plan that just involves tax cuts either. Thats just hoping and wishing things will work out. I like the housing bill that was drafted by Collins, Snowe and a couple others. It is bipartisan and it has a purpose without spending like crazy. It just needs polishing. I also like the bad bank idea....credit is such a linchpin of our economy and we needs strong banks to give that credit.I only came in this thread to show that LMD's explanation of Obama's behavior is just one of several plausible explanations (then he called me an idiot and it was on like donkey kong). To believe that explanation you would have to assume that Obama knows the stimulus stinks and is doing it anyway to purposely try and hurt the American people because he just loves to spend more than anything. I dont buy that.

[Loismustdie 0]

Well we're in the middle of things and the job losses are accelerating so for you to say this isn't the worst recession in the last 50 years is premature.http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090206/...ness/us_economyAnd it's not just the US that is suffering. Every country is having a tough time. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090206/...omy_jobs_canada

No, Bob, it currently most certainly is not. Now, it could be, and the question is does the "stimulus" package help or hurt actual commerce?

[Loismustdie 0]

the house plan is just a piece of the puzzle. it is not mostly the reason. it is one of many reasons. If those bad house loans were not repackaged and sold as commodities the fallout would not have been nearly so bad.I have said I dont like the stimulus bill. I dont like any plan that just involves tax cuts either. Thats just hoping and wishing things will work out. I like the housing bill that was drafted by Collins, Snowe and a couple others. It is bipartisan and it has a purpose without spending like crazy. It just needs polishing. I also like the bad bank idea....credit is such a linchpin of our economy and we needs strong banks to give that credit.I only came in this thread to show that LMD's explanation of Obama's behavior is just one of several plausible explanations (then he called me an idiot and it was on like donkey kong). To believe that explanation you would have to assume that Obama knows the stimulus stinks and is doing it anyway to purposely try and hurt the American people because he just loves to spend more than anything. I dont buy that.

Like I said, combine the spending bill with ultra aggressive tax cuts and it's hand holding time.

[hblask 1]

I dont like any plan that just involves tax cuts either. Thats just hoping and wishing things will work out.

Did you read my posts in the OT thread about this Obama Second Depression Bill? (The thread title is something about stimulus, but we know better).Read the two long posts I wrote about wealth creation, and compare tax cuts to congressional spending in terms of wealth creation.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yeah, they weren't all that aggressive, meaning, alot more can be done to he downside. Lets put it this way- if Obama cut the corporate tax rate to 12% and lowered income tax rates and capital gains I would have no problem with the spending plan, because people would spend alot more money, taxes would be collected, the economy would be stimulated and the sheer numbers could pay for his ridiculous spending bill- you could even have prosperity. The spending bill in and of itself leads to dependance, and nothing else.

so now you are fine with the stimulus as long it is combined with a couple of tax cuts? Are you schizophrenic? That was my point. You cant just have tax cuts and you cant just have spending. The tax cuts help the upper half and the spending helps the lower half. Everything in balance. However, I think income taxes are fine as they are. We are still at the Bush rates. Thats fine.I am fine with a small cut to corporate taxes and a nice tax cut on payroll taxes. That would be a perfect complement to a spending bill that was trimmed to about 750 billion. Lots of pork in there (unavoidable in the current political climate sorry) but lots of good programs too as was pointed out by checky or vb.I dont know why everyone wants capital gains tax cuts at the moment....who the **** has any capital gains?!!?

[CaneBrain 95]

Did you read my posts in the OT thread about this Obama Second Depression Bill? (The thread title is something about stimulus, but we know better).Read the two long posts I wrote about wealth creation, and compare tax cuts to congressional spending in terms of wealth creation.

no i have not read them and I will when I get a chance.Sadly, I have been scouring Phoenix for jobs while I post here. Just so people who dont think the economy is so bad understand.....the job market is a nightmare. That is why I am ok with some spending. We need to get people working. 75% of my law school graduating class is unemployed. I am about to be an Ivy League graduate (with a 3.4 GPA) and a law school grad (with a 3.35 GPA, top 25% of my class) and I cant find shit anywhere. It is doubly sad because my dad has been a lawyer for 25 years and knows lots of people to contact for help. Still nothing. When all the graduate students get their diplomas this summer, it is going to magnify the job market troubles.Business tax cuts should help create jobs and spending should help create jobs. It is just about getting Congress to spend more wisely.

[hblask 1]

The tax cuts help the upper half and the spending helps the lower half. Everything in balance.

How about tax cuts that raise the standard deductible to $100K? That would help those with the least first, as their taxes would be cut to $0. Wouldn't that be better than building the Daschle Memorial Drinking Fountain Plaza and Rest Stop for $18 Million and calling it "infrastructure"?

[hblask 1]

That is why I am ok with some spending. We need to get people working.

How does taking money from taxpayers and moving it to bureaucrats create jobs? Do you think that most taxpayers have their money sitting in a hole in the ground doing nothing for the economy? Or do you think they are spending and/or saving it? The ONLY way that moving money from citizens to bureaucrats could create jobs is if the citizens have removed that money from the economy entirely -- out of banks, out of stores, out of stocks and bonds.This is what I was talking about earlier in The Big Lie theory -- if we just say that federal spending creates jobs, and ignore the fact that it has to *take* jobs from some other part of the economy, people will start to believe it. Call it a "stimulus" bill instead of what it is, which is a massive wealth transfer program, and people who aren't thinking too hard will support it.If you are looking for a job, what you need is employers flush with cash, not more mid-level federal bureaucracy, which is what this bill buys.

[CaneBrain 95]

How does taking money from taxpayers and moving it to bureaucrats create jobs? Do you think that most taxpayers have their money sitting in a hole in the ground doing nothing for the economy? Or do you think they are spending and/or saving it? The ONLY way that moving money from citizens to bureaucrats could create jobs is if the citizens have removed that money from the economy entirely -- out of banks, out of stores, out of stocks and bonds.This is what I was talking about earlier in The Big Lie theory -- if we just say that federal spending creates jobs, and ignore the fact that it has to *take* jobs from some other part of the economy, people will start to believe it. Call it a "stimulus" bill instead of what it is, which is a massive wealth transfer program, and people who aren't thinking too hard will support it.If you are looking for a job, what you need is employers flush with cash, not more mid-level federal bureaucracy, which is what this bill buys.

actually I think most employers would take any cash they get right now a put it in a hole because they are nervous about the economy as a whole. I dont think that every law firm is unable to hire right now. They just are unwilling to hire because they are unsure of the direction of the country.I know that gov spending will create some jobs. They are the only entity really hiring right now at least in my field. Tax cuts might lead to more jobs or they might not. I started looking for a job 2 years ago not 2 months ago. Employers have not been hiring for a while. Its just now people are losing jobs too.I dont believe in putting all my eggs in one basket. Particularly if that basket is the general public. The general public's greed is a huge part of why we are here in the first place (both the bankers and the borrowers who borrowed way more than they could afford). So, I hedge. Some government spending, please. And throw in a few tax cuts for businesses (especially tax breaks for new hires!!!!!!!!!!). You are advocating economics that are not in the middle ground and that makes me very wary. Ben Franklin was right when he said everything in moderation.

[hblask 1]

And throw in a few tax cuts for businesses (especially tax breaks for new hires!!!!!!!!!!). You are advocating economics that are not in the middle ground and that makes me very wary. Ben Franklin was right when he said everything in moderation.

If one side is advocating throwing you off the Grand Canyon, and the other is advocating staying somewhere level, middle ground is throwing you off the Empire State Building. No, I don't support the middle ground when one of the ends of the line is a radical restructuring of the US economy in a way that, when last tried, turned an economic downturn into a decade long recession.You know, you keep saying the govt "creates jobs", but where is that money coming from? It's coming from you -- from your situation right now -- the people who can't find jobs because employers can't afford to create them. Taking money from people who create lots of jobs -- private entrepreneurs -- and giving it to people who create a few jobs -- Congress -- is a net loss of jobs. It doesn't look like it, because if you start with a million jobs, and the entrepreneurs would've created 100,000 more, but the government creates 50,000, the government gets to claim 50,000 more jobs, and the jobs-not-created doesn't show up on anyone's radar.All this talk about "stimulus" and "job creation" ignores a fundamental piece of the economic picture: opportunity cost.When opportunity cost is figured in, you have to start asking the important questions about where the growth of this country and every other country in history comes from. Is it from entrepreneurs and free markets, or is it from bureaucrats and legislators? Think about that question, in terms of the US, Canada, England, the former Soviet Union, whatever country you want. Where, really, did growth come from?It is only by ignoring the economic reality of opportunity costs that this bill can in any sense be considered "stimulus".And no, I can't write that word without scare quotes, because it's a complete perversion of the meaning of the word.

[85suited 0]

We are mostly in this mess because of the Senate banking committee's everyody deserves a house plan.

QFT

[akoff 0]

no i have not read them and I will when I get a chance.Sadly, I have been scouring Phoenix for jobs while I post here. Just so people who dont think the economy is so bad understand.....the job market is a nightmare. That is why I am ok with some spending. We need to get people working. 75% of my law school graduating class is unemployed. I am about to be an Ivy League graduate (with a 3.4 GPA) and a law school grad (with a 3.35 GPA, top 25% of my class) and I cant find shit anywhere. It is doubly sad because my dad has been a lawyer for 25 years and knows lots of people to contact for help. Still nothing. When all the graduate students get their diplomas this summer, it is going to magnify the job market troubles.Business tax cuts should help create jobs and spending should help create jobs. It is just about getting Congress to spend more wisely.

Did you really just write that...hehehe yea lets hope for that. BTW way when you do get a job (which you will)and start at around 130k to 160k depending on what market you settle into enjoy your tax bill!!

[akoff 0]

actually I think most employers would take any cash they get right now a put it in a hole because they are nervous about the economy as a whole. I dont think that every law firm is unable to hire right now. They just are unwilling to hire because they are unsure of the direction of the country.I know that gov spending will create some jobs. They are the only entity really hiring right now at least in my field. Tax cuts might lead to more jobs or they might not. I started looking for a job 2 years ago not 2 months ago. Employers have not been hiring for a while. Its just now people are losing jobs too.I dont believe in putting all my eggs in one basket. Particularly if that basket is the general public. The general public's greed is a huge part of why we are here in the first place (both the bankers and the borrowers who borrowed way more than they could afford). So, I hedge. Some government spending, please. And throw in a few tax cuts for businesses (especially tax breaks for new hires!!!!!!!!!!). You are advocating economics that are not in the middle ground and that makes me very wary. Ben Franklin was right when he said everything in moderation.

So the obvious solution is tax those bastards so they have nothing when things settle down and we'll give it to Congress and ask them to spend it intelligently to help us all...sounds like a thesis waiting to happen!!!

[BigLebowski 0]

LMD, are you using the same numbers that you used when you argued 4 months ago that we were not in a recession? All but the most ardent and optimistic conservatives used common sense and realized we were deep in a recession even if the "numbers" didn't officially state we were. And no, giving everyone and their brother a house was not the main cause of this. It had more to do with the schmucks who leveraged that bad debt over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again trying to make a quick buck. The only ones that didn't realize that home values wouldn't continue to accelerate at that pace were the idiots who couldn't and will never be able to afford to make their mortgage payments Drop their interest rate down to zero and write down the principles. Maybe the re-default rate will drop below 50%. This bill is only a feel good story that should give anyone no more than a two second boner. The way that Obama is going about this is despicable and deserves to be compared to everything the last administration did that everyone loathes them for. There simply is no way to refute this and that is coming from someone who is trying to give Obama nearly every benefit of the doubt.