Old news, son.

The whole world is fucked. Let's get back to the relationship threads.

I remember it being just $800b or so, this figure is new to me.

You accidentally said the word sirs twice

I say just burn as much money as possible then default on the debt.

We're already hopelessly indebted anyway.

Barely enough to fix the economy.

>>3105355
Nope, this articles is barely hours old.

WHO THE FUCK CARES
WELL ALL BE DEAD SOON ANYWAY
GO AHEAD AND BURN OUR MONEY OBONGO YOU HALF-NIGGER I DONT GIVE A SHIT

I don't see why, the cold spell broke last week.

Yeah, he has to burn $3t of our money.. to clean up the mess left behind by the last 8 years. Dumbasses trash the place, and you bitch if the new owner buys some paint and spackle.

However, I'd prefer more of this money go into the economy and less into 'stabilizing' the moron bankers who brought this on.

>>3105449
Aw fuck
I read "OBONGO" and sprayed milk all over my monitor.

>February 11, 2009

I guess they're from the fucking future.

>>3105498
>the moron bankers who brought this on.
Bankers had little to do with it. The idiotic American population did.

>>3105513
is that the first time you've seen stormfags refer to him as ``obongo''?

you need to visit /r9k/ more, broski

>>3105549
lrn2GMT

>>3105575
No, I've seen it before.
It's just the whole rant made me stifle my laughter, and I lost it at OBONGO

>>3105582
what game is that? what system is it on?

>>3105591

EpicTimeZoneFail

>>3105600
oh so its a flash game? link!?

None of this would be an issue right now if we didn't have a PRIVATELY OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE.

Go ahead, keep blaming the american populace, but just know; you should only be blaming them for letting these assholes get away with OWNING ALL OF OUR MONEY.

>>3105623
go away unfunny tripfag

$3 trillion? i only see that $800billion dollar plan and the original bailout, which doesn't add up to $3t, and isn't all obama's idea

>>3105628
the Fed is only a sorta-kinda private entity

No one here pays taxes, its not our money.

>>3105634
read the goddamn article you fucking lazy nigger, it's in the op

>>3105657
There is no conceivable way we can pay this off anyway.

>>3105671
i did, hence the confusion
$3trillion is only mentioned in the title

Hopefully the economic collapse this idiocy will cause will finally put the nail in the coffin for Keynesian economics. Or, will they still say: "Lol, we didn't spend enough this time either".

20% of the GDP... in how short a time span?

>>3105842
Are you sure you actually read it?

The Obama Administration laid out plans yesterday to marshal an extraordinary $3 trillion to stabilise America's stricken banking sector and revive its collapsing economy. US shares dropped sharply despite an unprecedented few hours of emergency government action.

First, President Obama's Treasury Secretary unveiled a sweeping new rescue plan for the US banking system that could amount to at least $2 trillion. It involves a combination of taxpayers' and private money to help to free up the country's frozen credit markets and to save the financial sector from collapse.

etc

I think, we have a good presidnt, everyone pray that God will lead obama in the right direction, als God will strengthen him with all these crisis that has hit us in America God Bless you
paul and martha shortridge, london ky 40744, united state

Wow, there are some crazy people in America.

>>3105905
You're a Milton Friedman fanboy, y/n? Hardly one to be talking about nails in coffins. Just saying.

>>3106009
Not really, but Friedman is leagues above Keynes.

>>3105905

Whahahaha, yep, BORROWING IS ONLY GOOD IF YOU'VE GOT LOADS OF MONEY, AND YOU'RE USING IT TO FINANCE WORTHWHILE INVESTMENTS LIKE WARS. I SHOULD BE IN CHARGE OF ECONOMY, I WOULDNT BORROW MONEY WHEN I NEEDED IT MOST, NO SIR!

>>3106067

INSTEAD I WILL BORROW TO KEEP PRICES AND RATES AT THE BUBBLE LEVELS THAT CAUSED THE WHOLE THING IN THE FIRST PLACE

>>3105955
right, so it's:
$0.80 trillion for the stimulus package
$0.35 trillion from the EXISTING bailout money
$1.00 trillion from the fed (up to)

assuming it is the full $1t from the fed and we count the $350billion from the previous administration as falling under the obama umbrella, that's still way short of $3t, the rest is from private investment, which is private entities using their own money and judgment to voluntarily invest in the banking sector

in other words it's a stupid claim that it's $3t to generate a lot of website ad revenue from outraged visitors reading the article

I'm not worried.

1. I live outside the United States.
2. I've invested in foreign (i.e. non-US) markets which won't crash as hard as America, in sectors that will continue to be strong, and in places that will end up even more prosperous once America's economy finally collapses.
3. None of my assets are in US dollars.

So after a little rough and tumble, I'll be bouncing back harder than most people.

>>3106067

Fuckin lolmatic post friend, very effective sarcasm

>>3106115
also it doesn't take into account that the money used to buy bad debts can be recovered to an extent when the market(s) recover and they are now worth at least something (and thus, sellable)

>>3106067
So what's a worthwhile investment to you? Keeping jobs? Most of our jobs are in the service sector and the few manufacturing jobs we have serve domestic markets. America doesn't produce anything anymore. We consume, consume, consume. That's all we do, and this is very bad because we're fucked. We can't consume our way out of this recession.

who knows, maybe its enough to turn the economic situation around.

look at it this way: politically, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

>>3106143

see those foreclosed homes in the news?

that's the "bad debt" that will never be recovered.

all the talk about money being returned in the long term is bullshit.

banks pretty much lost all the equity "skin in the game" in the cdo structures with the first defaults in the pools.

Just thought I might remind everyone. .... He didn't create this mess.

>>3106312

I love how not one, but two of the worst came during Bush's two terms in office.

>>3106312
the chart should be reporting in terms of % of nonfarm payroll, not absolute numbers.. the recessions of the past would look a lot worse then. i suspect whoever made that chart wanted to emphasize the current recession.

>>3106312
No

But Clinton did.

>>3106451

0/10

This is a thread about facts, not fiction.

>>3106451
I love how the conservatives are crowing that it's all Obama's fault when bush is the one who drove the cock up the economy's ass.

With 3 trillion you could give every person in America like 2 grand. But i bet this money just disappears into the banks and becomes another gigantic figure added onto the US debt.

>>3106505
which would do virtually nothing to reduce unemployment or fix the financial sector

>>3106505

Most of it isn't going anywhere near the banks. It's about 2/3rds tax cuts and 1/3rd infrastructure building.

>>3106505
...Wow. You suck at math.

3,000,000,000,000 / 318,000,000 = ?

>>3106534
You do realise most of the money is coming in through taxes.

>>3106547
Yea i was being retarded don't know what came over me. Well yea that's even worse.

OK, weighing in here.

Frankly, this crisis so far exceeds the scope of past depressions, I don't think any of the economic plans you little nerds are endorsing can work. We may well have to bludgeon our way through this. I wish I knew more about the New Deal, because some of this is starting to sound familiar.

>>3106550

Don't blame me for it, Republicans get major hardons for tax cuts. Ever since Regan, their tiny little dicks just get really hard at the mention of a tax cut. It doesn't matter that tax cuts don't have any benefit at all, they just love them.

PRAISE BE UNTO OBAMA, MAY HIS WILL BE DONE SO HE MAY BRING OUR COUNTRY INTO A NEW ERA OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY, THOSE WHO QUESTION HIM SHALL BE CLEANSED.

>>3106565
maybe you were thinking of the population >18years rather than total population, amirite?

>>3106591
>far exceeds the scope of past depressions
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I've watched Zeitgeist, so i know my economics. I feel we should just get rid of money like now and just all leave equally and happy.

Who cares? Im smoking a joint, fuck this economic bullshit.

>>3106591

>Frankly, this crisis so far exceeds the scope of past depressions

sweet mother of god are you retarded.

>>3106615
Well at first i was thinking about how much money each person on Earth could get from it, then i realised that number wasn't shocking enough. But then i dunno my brain just shut off. Perhaps Obama is stopping us from thinking against his stimulus.

>>3106619
As stupid as Zeitgeist is the addendum makes a decent point in concerns to monetary economics.

>>3106645

Yes, Obama's mind control is stopping you from thinking.

>>3105449
>OBONGO

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's the funniest typo ever.

i ruv yuo. :]

>>3106591
>>3106591
>>3106591
>>3106591
I would bet you "wish you knew more" about quite a few things judging by the statement you started with.

>>3106646
no johnny, no

KK, here's how the world works.

Society is split into several classes- but to make things easier we'll split it into three.

The lower classes are the workers. Unskilled or barely skilled they work for the middle classes. There are MANY of them, and they are essential for a society to work.

Middle classes are usually business owners or even corporation owners. Skilled workers, and college grads. They piece the middle and upper classes together.

The upper class are in few and control everything. They own entities which own corporations, which own other corporations. They are old money and have always been rich.

OKAY- now, when the middle classes can't afford to give the lower classes jobs the middle and lower classes fall which eventually cause the upper classes to lose their cash flow.

I don't care any more. Fuck the government.

I guess we're going to have to elect the first Mexican president to sort this shit out.

>>3106696

The sentiments and wisdom of a 14 year old.

>>3106673
Everyone knows zeitgeist is a joke.
However, you can find a small amount of truth in just about anything.

>>3106694
you must be living in an era where people still referred to the bourgoise

nowadays the majority of the middle class is not business owners (merchants).

>>3106694
>They are old money and have always been rich.
80% of millionaires in the united states are self-made first generation wealthy.
>They own entities
Technically speaking their is a cap on the amount of a company a single individual or organization can own unless an exception is granted (in the case of a merger for example).

>>3106701
we already elected clinton, though

To quote Richard motherfucking Nixon:

"We're all keynesians now."

The time to bitch about deficit spending was when the country was going to war, or when we were cutting taxes under Republicans who literally believe that all government-collected money goes into a vacuous hole, while ALL business money trickles down into the pocket of Joe the Plumber (protip: it doesn't really matter if the government or a small business spends money, and in some cases government is actually the spender BETTER capable of spurring economic growth).

When there's no longer political points to be scored on the issue of deficit spending, and when stormfags can no longer use the issue to legitimize their retarded, unpatriotic hatred of "Obongo," who will still be crying for responsible budgeting?

Obama will, but as for "Let's stay in Iraq until the end of the time"-Republicans, I'll believe it when I see it.

>>3106591


>this crisis so far exceeds the scope of past depressions
I lol'd heartily. I KNOW IT BECAUSE NEWSMAN TOLD ME. HE WOULDNT LIE, WHAT WOULD HE HAVE TO GAIN?

>I don't think any of the economic plans you little nerds are endorsing can work.
>New Deal
Um.... have...have you been reading this thread? At least half of us are here supporting what is basically New Deal 2: The Dark Man Cometh.

> We may well have to bludgeon our way through this.
Wow, another detailed roadmap to recovery from our economic knowledge god, GenericTripfag #42562. Glad you were here to enlighten us on the highly specific step-by-step plan which totally lends itself to an actual plan of action.

> I wish I knew more
We all wish you knew more. /r9k/bots, can we have a collection to buy this fellow "See Dick Run" or "The Hungriest Caterpillar"? I think such fine tomes would improve our disadvantaged friends' level of intelligence - maybe even doubling it!

Honestly, tripfags are the most ill-informed bunch of fucking retards this side of the Bible Belt. The smartest thing I've seen come out of a tripfag is still dumber than the stupidest thing I've seen come out of an anon. Can we please permaban all tripfags? Useless to the last, a waste of valuable thread-space.

>>3106601

MOST RELEVANT CHART IN ALL OF /R9K/. THAT IS ALL.

Could someone explain to me why tax cuts will not work? Links to nonpartisan, research-backed, logical sites would be great. Or if you'd like to put it to me in your own terms, you can do that, too.

>>3106772
>ome cases government is actually the spender BETTER capable of spurring economic growth

no. the administrative overhead of ANY government program is ridiculous. a tiny fraction of the money spent actually goes to whatever the spending is supposedly for.

also, about tax cuts, if you really, really want the government to have more money, i'd suggest perusing this chart documenting tax revenue before and after the much derided "Bush tax cuts"

>>3106836

Because people don't spend tax cuts. Yes, it is a very sad state of affairs when people have to have their money taken and handed back for them to realise that they have BONUS MONEYZZZZ. But that's the way it is. And because the core problem of this crisis is low confidence (ie. everyone's scared to spend money), then giving them money to spend (through any number of avenues, whether it be increased infrastructure projects or increased handouts) is the best way to re-invigorate the economy.

>>3106601
I'm sorry but what is "economic benefit"? I see it's measured in dollars, but what does that mean? GDP? How much money is being "put back into the economy"? Also if you want the government to have more money too spend... please see
>>3106873

Die Keynes die!

>>3106724
>nowadays the majority of the middle class is not business owners (merchants).
I suppose it depends on the business ... but when I think of upper class I think of people that have an indispensable amount of money and power.

>>3106738
>Technically speaking their is a cap on the amount of a company a single individual or organization can own unless an exception is granted (in the case of a merger for example).
Rich people are the best at avoiding taxes and moving money around. Also, old money is usually shared, hidden, or in something that can be traded like gold.

>>3106873

>the administrative overhead of ANY government program is ridiculous. a tiny fraction of the money spent actually goes to whatever the spending is supposedly for.

No, this is a bullshit "common-sense" myth without a shred of support. The federal government supports national programs, which do business on a scale far beyond most corporations. They are also, as a matter of course, far more responsible with their actions (in terms of pollution mitigation, worker benefits, etc.) than private industry. If private industry were expanded to the size of the federal government, it would be equally "wasteful" because large size requires responsible planning and more overhead. However, large-scale programs (even with their large overhead) are capable of inducing far more economic change than individual businesses.

There are also other important factors to consider: NO government overhead is actually "wasted," (another retarded Republican myth), it goes into the hands of Americans who spend it JUST AS surely as if it had gone into their hands via a tax cut. Only, you know, these government employees actually had to do something for it.

>>3106907
"economic benefit" has to be a guesstimate at best.. too bad its not really mentioned that way.

>>3106907

IT's the return on the investment. For every dollar spent, that's how much the economy returns.

>>3106880
I thought the tax cuts would be for businesses with the idea that with the cost of operating lowered, firms would continue to operate, eventually rebounding and hiring workers.

>>3106873
Hmmm yes the sudden reversal in this chart in no way coincides with other important factors, such as the growth of the real estate bubble in America. Never mind that unemployment is growing at astounding rates, BANKS ARE REPORTING RECORD PROFITS YESSSSSSSS THIS CANNOT GO WRONG.

Educate yourself beyond a fucking chart, start here:
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_viewpoints_jobs_growth_testimony/

No no no, see you guys still aren't getting it. If we aren't able to go on as business as usual than there will be no money coming from anywhere. With mass unemployment everyone will go bankrupt and everything will go to shit.

That's why this is called a stimulus. The goal is to throw money at the problem and get everyone working/off of benefits so that we can go on to business as usual and hopefully everything will begin to get a little better in a few years.

>>3107022
you mean the bubble that's been growing since the 90s?
>>3106972
>because large size requires responsible planning and more overhead
which is why it's stupid to do anything at such a high level, and why the Federal system is set up to concentrate more power in the groups that govern over a smaller amount of people. Unfortunately, that's been reversing steadily.

I keep hearing, "Well if the media would quit talking about how bad things are, things would get better."

Is this incorrect? Why?

Fuck you, I have a chart. It looks likes mountains.

>>3107084
thats some badass mountains, lets go skiing, bro

>>3107092
>>3107092

I can't, I need $3 trillion to make the trip.

>>3107006

That's the theory, but in practice it doesn't make many returns. For one thing, businesses do not always put the consumer first (more often than not it's the investors and the directors), but we want the companies to put the consumer first. It's basically equivalent to giving the money to businesses instead of to the consumer - which is not how capitalism works, the consumer should be the empowered one.

Raising taxes and raising handouts means that some failing businesses will collapse, but this is not necessarily a bad thing - those businesses might have collapsed on their own. By giving the money to the consumer, that consumer can go out and support the businesses which are already the most attractive (which are theoretically the most efficient ones).

Eh, I need some sleep, hope this made sense.

>>3107112
IT'S NOT THREE TRILLION YOU FAGS
L2ADD AND NOT TAKE EVERY FUCKING ARTICLE AT FACE VALUE

>>3107073
No I do not mean the bubble that started in the 90's, I mean the bubble that started when banks started reaping profits due to their misreporting of the value of their home loans. You know, the thing that actually caused this current economic (credit) crisis?

>which is why it's stupid to do anything at such a high level, and why the Federal system is set up to concentrate more power in the groups that govern over a smaller amount of people

This is not true, it's a broad generalization without a hint of fact. Is the military controlled by small groups of people (hint: it both is and it isn't)? Do you even know what you mean by "small groups of people?"

And lastly, a statement like:
>it's stupid to do anything at such a high level

is completely retarded. Your precious "small groups" would be unable to apply a large stimulus with any singularity of purpose, which is necessary for the spending to create effective results. Lay off this "common-sense" bullshit, nothing in your post is either substantial or logical.

>>3107081
This is total bullshit, I can assure you that investors do not rely on the mainstream media for investment advice/decision-making. They rely on well-paid advising/investment firms which will not lie to them. Anyone touting that line is a know-nothing idiot.

>>3107172
>Do you even know what you mean by "small groups of people?"
states, cities, counties

you know? federalism? the basis of our entire government?

>>3107081

It's an oversimplification, but yes. The problem with this crisis is low confidence. The thinking is this: If they don't know about the problem, then they will act as if everything is normal, and because the market is a self-fulfilling prophecy, then it will return to normal*.

*This is not entirely true, a one-off hit of consumer confidence would not solve the problems of low market confidence and collapsing businesses - it's a crisis from all sides. As soon as people figure out they're getting fired left-right-and-centre from companies that are struggling in the market, and discover that other places are also struggling, there would be an outcry with worse results than if people knew the truth from the beginning. If you lie to them from the beginning, they could easily assume you're crying wolf when you explain the truth, and they could imagine the situation as far worse than it really is, possibly resulting in RIOTS GET FOOD GET GUNS RUN FOR THE HILLS apocalypse.

>>3105327
It's not Obama, dumbass. His plan was for $800 billion, which included provisions for updating and renovating schools, roads, power grids, and so forth.
The Republicans balked at this, decrying the "pork barrel" spending and its enormous cost, and demanded the removal of the superfluous stuff, like....schools, medical care, and infrastructure modernization. Meanwhile, they were fine with shit like a tax credit for home buyers, which will cost a lot and do nothing.
Not only that, but after decrying the enormous cost of the stimulus plan, they were the ones who pushed the $3 trillion tax cut program. They were more interested in special interests and party politics than they were with actually fixing the economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

>>3107207
Rofl you pick one sentence of my reply, take it out of context, and expect me to believe that you're making a relevant point. You aren't.

You haven't even suggested why 50 states spending 800 billion is preferable to, say, 10 government institutions doing the same (despite the fact that I directly charge you with the fact that singularity of purpose is necessary for adequate spending).

It's obvious I understand federalism, but as I point out, government institutions like the military are also split up into "smaller groups" which can act semi-independently in a similar manner to state govts. Your argument has no meaning or relevance, take these bullshit soundbyte-style talking-points somewhere else.

>>3107257
well ideally they wouldn't be spending 800 billion at all.

i mean, if this was such a huge emergency crisis that they had to call an emergency session of congress and vote for the 800 billion IMMEDIATELY or we were going into the 2nd great depression, why have they not even decided who's getting the money yet?

>>3107332
Lol please inform us by what retarded obfuscated metric they have

>not even decided who's getting the money yet?

Or do you expect spending bills to just be a series of checks ready for signature and delivery as soon as the package is ratified?

>>3107251
Typical liberal proproganda from a libfag 'economist'

1) Schools - US already has the HIGHEST PER CAPITA STUDENT SPENDING in the world. Of course typical lib thinking is too throw more money at them
2) Medical - See above
3) Home Buyer Credit - (Psssssst) ... in case you havent been paying attention, the housing market has tanked and nobody is buying homes. Banks cant get rid of their inventory of foreclosed houses. The tax credit is to spur sales of houses by private individuals/companies, so the banks can add positives to their insolvent balance sheets.

>>3107379
i mean it can't be that much of an emergency if they can sit on the money for months deciding what to do

>>3107410
I'd like to see some evidence for point #1, and point #2 is just fuck-all retarded. Just because we SPEND more on health care out of pocket doesn't mean the government is matching that.

>>3107410

About 1 and 2: so you're saying that a shitload of money is being spent on privatized health and a crap educational system, resulting in the worst standards of living in the developed world, and your solution is to cut spending?

>>3107410

1) Student spending takes into account private high schools/voucher programs, which grew under the Bush administration and bloated costs. It also takes into account inner city schools, which are in no way relate-able to public schools in any other country, and skewer our statistics significantly. Do you honestly believe that teachers are sufficiently paid for the amount of work they do (seriously answer this question)?

2) We also have the most privatized medical system in the world. The end goal of government spending of medical services is to remove the privatized element, as studies repeatedly show that universal healthcare provides much more bang for the buck, in terms of average life expectancies and lifetime treatment costs.

3) A home-buying tax credit will not put homes into the hands of people who are losing them, it just finances predatory businesses looking to ride out the current depression and then make a profit on the resale. Essentially this amounts to government handouts for a small, predatory and unproductive sector of the business community HMM THIS DOES NOT SEEM AT ALL REPUBLICAN IN NATURE.

"The United States spends more public and private money on education than other major countries, but its performance doesn't measure up in areas ranging from high-school graduation rates to test scores in math, reading and science, a new report shows. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-09-16-education-comparison_x.htm

>>3107454
I'm not the original poster of that list, but better funding doesn't mean a better educational system. Shit teachers with higher salaries are still shit teachers. Unmotivated students with massive computer labs and state of the art technology will still fail. The system is flawed in many ways. Most of these ways have nothing to do with funding.

>>3107512

Well, you'd be right if we were characters living in Atlas Shrugged. But funding (and not the POWER OF RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM) has more than 'nothing' to do with student performance. Hiring more teachers and reducing class sizes, for example, has real and tangible effects.

>>3107501
1) Doesnt change the FACT that the US spends MORE PER STUDENT than any country in the world

2) And there is no medical reform and the US doesnt have universal healthcare. Again, throwing money at an inefficent system is a waste of money

3) Who is going to buy these house then? If the private citizen/company isnt go to buy these house, then the only answer is the government? And yes, people will buy these house to make money from them ... it is called capitalism. But it will take these unsellable houses off the 'books' from the banks and add some liquidity to these bank's balance sheets.

>>3107512
exactly

throwing money at problems doesn't fix anything if you throw it at incompetent people.

the problem is that the government's solution to that is generally to just throw more money at the same incompetent people

>>3107578
>>3107584

Implementing reform takes a lot of money too. Your assumptions seem to be that the government is not capable of doing anything right, so the solution is to just let everything rot.

>>3107599
hahaha oh wow.

yes. our only choices are "let the government do it" or "nobody does it" because we're all mush headed shit for brains that couldn't wipe our own asses if there weren't government regulations on toilet paper

>>3107575
Yeah I was totally gonna go off on a tangent about the will of man overcoming insurmountable odds.

Build new wings on every school and reduce the class size. A boring dick teaching me the same old shit that I don't care about is the same in a class of twelve as it is in a class of thirty. There is no motivation to learn in some areas of the country. More teachers cannot help this. Better teachers can. How about we fund better training instead? It isn't philosophical bullshit. I was in a grade school where my class was 9 kids. Did it change the fact I fell asleep in U.S. history because it was presented like a goddamn lullaby? Not. One. Bit.

>>3107575
yes schools need funding

but "not enough funding" isn't the only problem that schools have

>>3107584
>throwing money at problems doesn't fix anything if you throw it at incompetent people.

true, but those are the people we have. If you've got some more competent people to throw in the mix, please do. otherwise STFU.

>>3107620
Rofl please explain to me how someone besides the government is supposed to correctly implement/reform public healthcare or a public school system.

"We do it" when we vote for a government that vows to reform our current policy. Bullshit statements like

>1) Doesnt change the FACT that the US spends MORE PER STUDENT than any country in the world

show that you have no actual interest in building a working system, and are just raging over random statistics with no interest in context. You should consider hosting a talk radio show, you could be the next Limbaugh.

>>3107697
thats the most horrible line of logic ever.

and besides, there are plenty of more competent people out there. the problem with government schools is that you pay for the incompetent ones whether you want to or not

>>3107699
that "bullshit line" illustrates a very important point. giving more money to people is not working. Especially when you give extra money to the ones that are failing more.

>>3107650
You're totally missing the point though, because you're not considering this from a teacher's angle. It's not just a matter of "oh hey my class is less crowded now, I can sit closer to the chalkboard." It's a matter of how much time the teacher spends grading, how much personal instruction the teacher is able to give, and how easy it is for students with specific needs/problems to slip through the cracks and develop delinquency (and no, you falling asleep during one of your classes is not the delinquency we're worried about, esp. in inner city schools).

Obama in his Monday speech mentioned specifically that education spending needs to be coupled with proper discipline, there's an obvious imperative to reward good teachers and warn bad ones. But you're dismissing the benefits of education spending way too hastily and way too earnestly.

>>3107697
throwing money at incompetents is worse than doing nothing at all.

see: the miserable failure that was the Bush administration for perfect example.

>>3107768
Again, you have no understanding of context. For instance, in Sweden, there are more social programs available directly to families, so it's not as necessary for public school programs to offer free lunch programs, or to deal with delinquency caused by a broken home. Other countries DO PAY for their public schools, but often do so indirectly (cue extremely high residential tax rates, etc.).

However, the key point here are inner city public schools, which significantly skewer American statistics. Do you really expect a public school in inner city Baltimore to EVER cost less than a public school ANYWHERE in England? It's not a matter of wasted money, it's a matter of absolutely HAVING to pay more in order to offset other economic factors working against these school systems.

>>3107795
except teachers haven't been losing jobs.

The point of a stimulus is by hiring people who otherwise don't have work more labor is done and economy does better because we're not wasting resources (people who want a job and can't get one).

Education spending won't actually serve this purpose unless we want to put business & professional service or construction workers in our classrooms. I for one do not think this is a good idea. Where are more people trained as teachers going to come from? The magical pool of unemployed teachers that doesn't exist?

Sure glad I wasn't stupid enough to buy into all that bullshit and vote for him under the mindless assumption that he was somehow magically different from everyone else in Washington.

Same old, same old son.

>>3107795
I'm not dismissing them. I just think if we're going to spend it needs to be in the right places. If there's motive to improve, then I definitely feel better about it. But I'm not going to get my hopes up for another possible failed attempt at improving schools. All of this sounds good on paper but could be executed terribly. It's a lot to risk.

>>3107878
Large portions of the money are going to fund higher salaries for teachers. The reason we have so few teachers (and so many bad ones) is because teaching pays horrendously, and is enormously life-sucking, as teachers put in full days and still have to grade papers/develop lesson plans/etc/etc. It's truly the definition of a thankless job.

Not all of the stimulus is built to create jobs tomorrow. That would be stupid and reckless. The small portion aimed at education would boost teacher salaries, which gives more incentive for more educated people to take up the teaching profession in the long term.

You're semi-correct when you state that teachers haven't been losing jobs, it is more correct to note that they also haven't been getting raises. If you really want better teachers, and a better pool of hirees to choose from, you need to make the job pay better. Right now, there's literally no incentive for an educated person to become a teacher beyond a sense of charity that is almost saintlike.

>>3107857
so let baltimore, or maryland worry about it. having the federal government pay for it makes about as much sense as england paying for it

>>3107944
Sorry, I don't follow. How does shifting the burden onto state government change the situation at all? Either way, the money comes out of the taxpayer's pockets, and local government already do handle much of their public education systems.

>>3107928
I agree with you somewhat: if you want more good teachers, you need to raise pay to attract good people, raise pay much much more for math and science (this is where the real shortage of people is, other stuff not so much), and eliminate tenure so you can fire bad/lazy teachers and eliminate people in the profession just for an easy job.

The problem with just plain raising pay is that while its a good idea, it's a thing for the long term, not related to the immediate crisis, and by just giving the pay raise it removes the absolutely neccesary bargaining chip it provides for removing tenure and differential pay based on subject, which are critical for making sure the higher paid people we get are actually better and getting the math/science teachers where the shortage of talent is worst.

tl;dr -- raised pay is a good thing, but, it should be traded to the unions for other good things not just given, and it doesn't relate to the current crisis, and with the current need for cash and huge incoming deficits that kind of long-term reform should wait for a better time economically.

>>3107965
because the people it actually affects have more access to and control over state and local governments, making blanket decisions for a localized group of people fucks less people over, and then you don't get into a situation where people in california have to pay for creationism only education because of some bumfuck in kansas

>>3107965
it doesn't.

anyone bitching about this bill shouldn't accept any of the money out of principle and lets see how dedicated they actually are

>>3107928
"Not all of the stimulus is built to create jobs tomorrow. That would be stupid and reckless."

If it doesn't create jobs now or in the short-term and doesn't increase lending/capital availability its not a stimulus, its just generic government spending at a time when we have deep, deep deficits and need to save everything we have for real stimulus like reducing payroll tax for poor people and building infrastructure, not generic big government spending and pork like remodeling some random mall and shit that doesn't stimulate the economy.

If it doesn't create jobs or liquidity it doesn't stimulate the economy and is just more big government inefficient spending when our deficits are so deep that it really is "generational theft." As someone in my twenties, fuck you.

>>3108028
too bad its not going to anybody here

>>3108003
To me, that's a more reasonable position than your previous post, but at this point I just have to play realpolitik. It might be perfect to ditch the worst union entitlements and get better pay for teachers in one blow, but unfortunately we live in a world where

a) Democrats want to pay teachers more, but also support Unions
b) Republicans are resistant to paying public school teachers more (god I hate private schools/Republican policy on this issue) but are eager to reform unions

At the end of the day, I'd rather support Democrats on this issue. Even if a few bad apple teachers slip through, once you expand the hiring pool you give school administration more leeway when it comes to replacing teachers before they hit tenure. Even if it is bloated, public education is still a ridiculously small portion of our national budget.

I don't work for a school system or anything, but I realize that representative democracy rises and falls with the strength of its public school system; educated voters are absolutely vital. The longer you hold out for Union reform, the more Republicans are going to starve the public system, which will ironically only cause Unions to more viciously hold onto what little they've got. To me, right now, the best option available is to increase teacher salaries, even if it isn't perfect.

>>3107620

Oh god. Free market faggots should be illegal, they're the ones that caused this in the first place (inb4 BUT LOL FREE MARKET PERFECT IT WAS REGOOLASHIN - bullshit, free market only works with an educated, non-apathetic consumer base, which we clearly don't have).

But maybe you're right. Maybe we should set up a business that spends the ludicrous amount of money (about the net worth of all US-based fortune 500s) needed to restore confidence, and it can profit by......... asking other companies it indirectly helped out nicely? Yep, that's a viable company in the free market. Profitable and everything.

Or better yet, we can take the LOLBERTARIAN tact, and just wait for this shit to roll over on it's own. Yeah. Because LOW TAXES are much more important than likely outcome mass starvation of hard workers who were made redundant. After all, the Great Depression didn't scar the depression generation for life or anything..

>>3108061

I'm also in my twenties. Let me clear this situation up for you:

The government is getting a loan of money. It is literally creating money where none previously existed (lol I can sense the internet rage already over that sentence). Even if that money is spent on something that only creates jobs in the long-term, it is still injecting more capital into our economy. Therefore it is still a stimulus. "Remodeling a mall" is stimulus, that money doesn't just disappear, it is used by salaried workers to purchase goods, etc.

The bailout is one of the many examples of partisan thinking that boggles my mind:

Bush's trillion dollar spending spree: OMG, EVVVIL REPUBLIKKKANS WILL SPEND THE ECONOMY INTO THE GROUND

Obama's trillion dollar spending spree: WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO FIX EVERYTHING BUSH BROKE.

mootbadgatewaynginx block
>>3108028

If only it worked that way.. unfortunately, the best stimulus injections are the ones that cause indirect money flows - ie, it causes people to get money who they give to other people who they pass on... even if you actively tried to avoid receiving stimulus money, you'd probably end up with some anyway.

>>3108200
Uh big difference between deficit spending after starting a war/during times of economic stability and deficit spending following a credit crisis that has caused every single nation across the world to see dips in their economies and has leading economists pissing their pants.

But hey, I'm sure that "both sides are so dumb lol" would make a great episode of South Park.

>>3108145
This may seem logical on a purely political viewpoint, but, doing it NOW when the economy is so poor and deficits so large and adding it to the stimulus bill, falsely calling it a stimulus and trying to push it through by screaming bloody murder when the stimulus bill (which is a mix of stimulus and a lot of unrelated stuff like this, more unrelated than stimulus) gets fought by people who think it should be a real stimulus has destroyed the potential for a generation of democratic rule.

I'm actually an example of this. I'm a moderate republican (right but not far right economically, left socially, guess you might have been able to tell by wanting to raise teacher pay AND get rid of tenure), but swing vote sometimes and voted for Obama because I was so sick of Bush and his ilk. There were a lot of people like me, but, we've all (or at least all the ones in my social circle) come back to the Republican fold after the "stimulus" bill. It's a betrayal of the moderates Obama appealed to during the election and its a betrayal of the country, putting the treats various democratic constituencies wanted the last eight years over getting us out of this crisis.

>>3108200

MORE TRIPFAG IGNORANCE. Does tripfagging cause stupidity, or is it that only the stupid tripfag?

Obama's spending is different to Bush's spending, because Obama's spending is designed to make maximum returns. Hence, "stimulus" - it's STIMULATING the economy so he can tax it when it gets better and make a return.

Bush's spending was for wars, which, I'm sure you can appreciate, DO NOT REALLY MAKE RETURNS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE UNSUCCESSFUL. Also, he spent borrowed money when he didn't need to (he could have raised taxes, and people could have easily afforded it) - unlike Obama, who has to borrow out of necessity (or do you think he should raise taxes now that we're in the worst economic crisis in decades?)

It's not partisan when one side is just fucking up.

>>3108221

Good god, learn to punctuate. Are you saying that more of something will solve its own problem? Because my common sense is telling me otherwise.

>>3106601

I wonder, does spending on food stamps work because poor people use their extra expendable income to buy useless shit?

>>3108246
>Are you saying that more of something will solve its own problem?
YES YOU FUCKING IDIOT. IF YOU UNDERSTOOD ECONOMICS YOU WOULD REALISE THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED. COMMON SENSE DOES NOT APPLY WHEN YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION

FUUUUCCCCKKK, WHY ARE YOU EVEN POSTING ITT, YOU DUCK BRAINED SHIT FARM?

>>3108240

Obama's stimulus (it's not really his,most of it is cooked up by congress) is one of the broadest spending programs there is, it even appropriated millions of dollars to Acorn, an organization under investigation by 14 states for election fraud. This loose pile of steaming pork and inadequately researched proposals worse than the Iraq war. At least the war created manufacturing jobs in the steel, weapon, and aircraft industry.

>>3108278

So I guess Bush should be thanked because his spending is the first step of the economic recovery?

>>3108278
The world is not as simple as the Keynesian model you learned in introduction to econ.

>>3108231

I hear this a lot, but it's not fair to claim that spending on teacher salaries as part of the stimulus package is "not stimulus."

See >>3108191, as long as the money is injected into the system, it will have a stimulating effect. Now, it would obviously be dumb to spend all of our money on things that will only generate positive job growth in the long term, but it's also a bad idea to invest only in short term projects (since these tend to die after the stimulating period, and do not necessarily provide equal long-term benefits).

Obama has made it clear that his first goal is job creation. Therefore, it seems obvious that the bill does have sufficient job creation spending within it. Beyond that issue, however, there is still the need to inject capital into the system. If you ask me, it's the perfect time to address teacher spending, because it allows us to couple our urgent need to inject capital with a social project that has been, imo, long overdue. To me, it makes perfect sense.

I'm sorry to hear that you think Obama's stimulus is a betrayal of your vote, because I really don't think he's interested in spending anything more than is absolutely necessary in order to revive the economy. I mean, for god's sake, even George Bush sponsored a 300 billion dollar package at the end of his term. If the Republican President felt the situation was so urgent that he had to risk further tarnishing the Republican brand (who arguably lost this election due to their loss of fiscal conservatism) with MORE deficit spending, then I think it's a pretty clear indicator that we are in crisis mode, and Keynesian spending is more than just an excuse for Democrats to bloat their pet projects.

>>3108157
this isn't an example of the free market failing, it (could have been) an example of the free market working.

You people are all pissed at the eeeeeevil predatory banks and their greedy profit mongering practices, right?

well those banks failed. they're gone. and the banks that DIDN'T exploit people(at least not in that way) were left.

except uncle sam decided to step in and make sure those people DIDN'T go away by giving them 800 billion dollars

>>3108297
yeah bush "tarnishing" his fiscal conservative status was pretty much par for the course.

>>3108157

The market is not completely rational, but it is pretty close. The economy deserves to treated as a free market as reasonably possible, information is distributed more evenly than before and barriers to trade should be kept to a minimum.

>>3108252
Food stamps get used 100%, poor people will spend more on stuff, and people aren't the completely rational animals of econ: getting money in the form of food stamps means they'll spend more and on better stuff for them and society in general than getting it in cash would result in.

Republican, but, no one with any intellectual legitimacy can argue against food stamps as a form of stimulus, and to make it even better its a pretty good policy even in normal times as a minimal social safety net that does relatively little harm and distortion to long-term economic growth, if any at all.

>>3108279
Rofl the fact that you mention "millions of dollars" in a trillion dollar package as if it's supposed to a shocking revelation only proves that you're grasping at straws in order to attack the bill. I seriously doubt any Senator said "hey btw let's give millions to Acorn," if your statistic is even true it's most likely a result of a broad spending initiative targeting several voter groups, under whose umbrella Acorn happens to fall.

Of course, I suppose I can't expect much when you criticize a national stimulus package for being "broad."

>>3108279
>At least the war created manufacturing jobs in the steel, weapon, and aircraft industry.

Broken window parable. We're spending money on shit that'll either get blown up in Iraq or sit in a warehouse. At least using said steel and money towards something like, oh, a bridge might get returns by NOT COLLAPSING AND SLOWING DOWN TRADE AND COMMUTERS.

>>3108240
>tripfag = stupidity
Not necessarily, it just highlights stupidity because the idiot spouting it has a name and it is easier to rally.

>>3108279

I'll explain this in little words for you, because you are clearly one of the stupidest creatures to inhabit this planet.

This crisis started with the sub-prime crisis, that is, banks suddenly realised that the securities (linked to the sub-prime houses) they were holding onto were useless. Because they didn't want to risk trading and getting useless securities, market liquidity (the amount of trading happening) locked up. This meant banks stopped lending money - known as the CREDIT CRUNCH. When banks stop lending money and start calling in their current loans to try and remain viable, businesses can't invest in new profitable projects, and instead are now losing money to bank debts. So businesses start cutting workers - and since workers are consumers, consumers start spending less. This bounces back on businesses, who lose even more money because they have fewer customers. It's a perfect shitstorm.

Meanwhile, Joe Public is watching this on the news and is starting to panic. They pull their money out of the stock market (DEVISTATION) and pay off rising debts (some have lost their jobs, and the banks they're mortgaged to start charging a little more).

The central problem here is LOW CONFIDENCE/LOW LIQUIDITY. So, to fix it, they have to restore liquidity/confidence in the market. To do this, they have to start spending money, so people will stop freaking out and support businesses, so businesses stop freaking out, so banks stop freaking out, and the whole mess unravels. This is "keyensian economics", and it's how America was the first out of the Great Depression (FDR/New Deal), which was a similar situation.

>>3108297
Whether you think its fair or not, its not stimulus. It's stimulus if it creates new jobs and/or has a multiplier effect so that one dollar of spending results in a lot more than a dollar of growth. Hench why food stamps, extending unemployment benefits, building infrastructure, etc. ARE stimulus and raising public sector workers salaries is not. It's expansionary government policy, but with no multiplier, kick, or significant job creation power. It just doesn't produce an effective stimulus effect.

And screw Bush most of all. He's why I and a lot of people who generally vote republican and rarely democrat gave the democrats a chance this time, foolishly.

>>3108344

In b4 someone says "Lol Keynesian economics did you learn that in high school?" and proceeds to offer no alternative economic strategy accepted by any top economists for recovering from a nationwide recession (because... you know.... another one doesn't exist).

>>3108328

A stimulus should stimulate, spending money by itself is a very poor way of solving a specific problem. The Acorn example is just a way of showing how the current bill lacks refinement, you are just taking it out of context.

>>3108333

Not true, military spending pumps money into the local economy through the form of local taxes, thereby providing money for infrastructure. Having the government give money directly to the states is bad for state sovereignty, not to mention that it gives money to places indiscriminately regardless of economic development.

>>3108360
That's incorrect. Even a single dollar of investment without any multiplying effect is stimulus at this point because it is preventing a further recession which would further devalue our economy. Stimulus is synonymous with spending, it is NOT necessarily an investment.

See other posts itt, the necessity to inject liquid capital into our system is a very real necessity, and this cannot be accomplished solely through the narrow scope of programs you deem to be "true stimulus."

>>3108200
It's like being trapped in some strange Orwellian nightmare: Jack-ass good! Elephant bad!*
*repeat ad infinitum
And lol to the people calling this bill a stimulus. It's a consolidation of power. FDR did something similar and the dems had a majority in congress for four decades. It certainly doesn't inspire confidence when the senate votes to end discussion on a bill that spans hundreds of pages and hundreds of billions of dollars. What exactly is on this thing?

Sadly, even if this plan manages to do good in the long run, there's no stopping the soaring world population problem. People are going to starve and kill each other for fresh water in the near future if they're desperate enough.

In a nutshell, we're fucked either way.

>>3108344
WORLD

WAR

2
bro

>>3108314
Fiscal conservatism died in 1964, along with Goldwater's presidential bid.

>>3108344

tl;dr

Confidence cannot be restored by a poorly designed stimulus nor is it upheld in the long term by aggressive inflationary spending. Government involvement in the economy should be discrete and efficient, the average Joe is not going to become more confident when the government spends trillions of dollars that does not exist.

>>3108372

Thanks dude, yeah, should have put that in.

The reason people think Keyensian economics is a big joke only held onto by immature people is that it kind of is. If you think it will work outside of emergency situations like this, then you're a bloody moron. We haven't had an emergency situation like this for at least 50 years, so in the meantime, everyone who cried "keyensian" in the last 50 years got (rightly) shouted down for being extremist and insane. However, sensible economists who actually know what they're talking about realise that this is the right time for it, which is why you see so few non-partisan respected economists shouting against it.

Think of keyensism as a "morning after" pill - it's great when the situation's right for it, but if you take it at any other time (eg, as an alterative to proper contraception), then you're a fucking idiot (those pills have nasty side effects, just like keyensism does - see: massive spending).

>>3108344
except the new deal did more to prolong the depression than alleviate it

>>3108372
The criticism of the bill that sane people take is that it's a bunch of democratic spending priorities without high multiplier effects that would result in solving the credit crisis efficiently (efficiency does matter, trillions of dollars of long term debt is bad too).

If it was a REAL stimulus (immediate benefits for the poor, extension of unemployment benefits, payroll tax reduction, and infrastructure spending (which is really good since we need to spend like 2tril here eventually regardless of the crisis) which would have 1.5x+ the impact for the same cost) you wouldn't see the right and center RAGE against the bill. Just the far right, and the far right is as marginal as the far left and can be safely ignored.

>>3108419

Haha oh god this post.

Yes Dems must have somehow tricked their way into that lengthy majority, it couldn't possibly have been an honest response to recovery from the worst financial disaster that ever faced our nation.

>What exactly is on this thing?

I mean jesus christ you do realize Obama specifically called for the entire bill to be posted online so that anyone could view it? As in, you can read it anytime you like and answer this question for yourself?

The only one wearing Orwellian blinders is you.

So what happens if the country can never recover?

>>3108372

There is, it's called supply side economics.

In b4 some college hippie spouts off verbatim from stoner professor about Regan. What Regan did was not even close to supply side.

>>3108383
Too bad the taxes the gov't get doesn't even come close to breaking even with the amount of money we're hemorraging for this ME occupation.

>>3108492

Obama's pork infused pet project will be no different.

>>3108434

>Confidence cannot be restored by a poorly designed stimulus
Yes it can.

>nor is it upheld in the long term
Doing nothing is worse.
>by aggressive inflationary spending.
>I'm using big words to make it seem like I know what I'm saying

>Government involvement in the economy should be discrete and efficient,
Translation: I am a big LOLBERTARIAN retard.

>the average Joe is not going to become more confident
He will if THE GOVERNMENT IS GIVING HIM MONEY, OR HIS EMPLOYER MONEY TO GIVE HIM A JOB. That's what the god damn stimulus package is for, giving people money to spend. But I'm sure LOLBERTARIAN retards like you will complain about high taxes, even though you got it back either directly or indirectly through stimulus. (Yes, the take-then-give is better than dont-take-at-all, people don't spend tax cuts, but they spend bonuses).

>when the government spends trillions of dollars
HA HA HA HA HA. Do the 7 years prior to 2007 not count?You'll notice that we were 10 TRILLION dollars in debt by the time bush left, most of which was BORROWED MONEY SPEND ON WAR. You idiot.
> that does not exist.
You idiot. It's borrowed money, it still EXISTS. It's not fucking magic money.

>>3108413
Except to fill the gap in potential outcome the stimulus is about half the size it would need to be, so every dollar of non-stimulus program passed is half a dollar of lost opportunity given the same money. If the real intent and effect was to fill the output hole with stimulus, it would be high-multiplier stimulus not random spending.

>>3108456
If you take a moment to read the thread you'll see several people have already pointed out that a stimulus bill IS actually a spending bill, it does NOT have to have a multiplicative effect to conform to Keynesian economics.

Once more, Obama has repeatedly named as PRIORITY NUMBER ONE the creation of enough jobs to restore unemployment in America to a reasonable level. So that type of spending is a given in the current bill.

Beyond that, your claim that ALL infrastructure spending is "more" stimulative (moreso than, say, school spending) is unsubstantiated and invalid for the current discussion. The stimulus is not supposed to be an 800 billion dollar bail-out for construction workers, it needs to affect the entire population. This requires broad spending, on a variety of subjects.

>>3108483
>>3108500

BUTTHURT REPUBLICANFAG DETECTED. Can you just grow the fuck up and admit that your stupid ideas of LOL FREE MARKET economics have failed in the most spectacular way imaginable? For the last time, free market depends on an informed, non-apathetic consumer. That consumer ran off with Santa and the Tooth Fairy to Fictional Character Land.

>There is, it's called supply side economics.
Holy god, you are deluded. Businesses can not be trusted to act in the best interests of the consumer. Hell, banks are still posting record profits! How the fuck is that helpful to the current situation, you dirty tolling double-nigger?

>>3108500
At least it's for fixing shit, which can ALWAYS improve economic conditions.

War is only profitable if A) you're trying to protect yourself from invasion, or B) you're the one doing the invading trying to steal another nation's shit. Of course, our clusterfuck of a war belongs in B, and so far, there's nothing worthwhile, not even the so-called oil brought us wealth. Bush took a gamble, and he lost, so the logical thing to do is to backpedal and say it was a moral war against TEH EVOL SADAM HUSSAIN.

>>3108517
Really?

Half a dollar of lost opportunity?

So you are claiming that you know, with certainty, projects that we can start today that will, when they finish, be worth double their value? What the fuck are you doing on 4chan??? Seriously, the level of theory-spending going on in this thread has reached critical limits, spending on infrastructure is not the magic bullet you think it is, it is ONE PART of a NATIONWIDE stimulus. This is not called the "construction worker stimulus bill."

Let's make this clear:
We do not NEED to make money on the stimulus. If we weren't in a certain fucking war, we would have enough surplus to pay off even the current national debt within this generation. What we NEED to do is stop the downward spiral, immediately. Repaving every highway in America is not going to do that.

>>3108560
Hey now, at least he's not fucking CapitalistBastard.

>>3108536
Its not just my claim that some stimulus is much, much better than other. The information on how stimulative various things are is easy to find and some of the data was posted by someone earlier in this thread in graphical form for my ease: >>3106601

And I don't support an all-infrastructure bailout, there are even better and equally important things that are on the whole aimed at the working poor, funny enough. And while an all-construction jobs effect wouldn't be good, neither is trying to create jobs that require completely different skills from those held by the people being made unemployed by the crisis (which do include a lot of construction workers but almost no teachers, and would you feel comfortable with a random construction worker or businessperson teaching in your kids classroom?)

>>3108586
If you could be putting more stimulus funding into food stamps but are not you are wasting the difference between what you are spending on's multiplier effect and that of food stamps for stimulus purposes.

After you have all the food stamps you require, unemployment benefits and other ways to inject money to working poor without current jobs (like extending COBRA, which is thankfully being done for example) becomes the thing to fill up, and the like.

Once you get down to infrastructure at 1.5x effect, that can swallow the entire stimulus or more if we needed it to, so assuming that 1.5x is the best that can be done (its probably not we could probably still do more like foodstamps and the like which would be even better), than a dollar without any multiplier is half a dollar of lost opportunity.

So actually the half a dollar of lost opportunity per dollar spent is an optimistically low figure for how much we're losing out in effectiveness for how crappy the stimulus contents are.

>>3108594
Haha jesus christ this has already been covered almost exactly, and starts here:
>>3107878
>>3107928

There are arguments for all kinds of spending, and as another posts points out even teachers are suffering from the current recession. Even if you aren't fired, you sure as hell aren't getting a raise, and products aren't going to be getting any cheaper. As I posted earlier, our main goal is not to make money. Our main goal is to inject enough money over a broad enough area to raise consumer confidence and restore spending habits. America is still a profitable country (after we've got our banks regulated/credit crisis averted), we do not NEED to have this stimulus bill be a moneymaker. We just need to stop ourselves from bleeding to death.

>>3108634

Ah, but infrastructure ties into Obama's LOL CLIMATE CHANGE promises. Because these stimulus packages that should be non-partisan can totally be twisted into delivering on election promises. Isn't politics fun?

THE BEST WAY TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY SURE IS TO SPEND ROUGHLY 400 BILLION DOLLARS OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY ON OR THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT.

TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE MAKING IT AND SPENDING IT SO THAT IT CAN BE REDISTRIBUTED IN AN INDIRECT FASHION THAT LACKS BOTH COST-EFFICIENCY AND ANY FORM OF TRUE REGULATION AFTER THE BILL HAS BEEN PASSED.

BYE BYE 400 BILLION DOLLARS. DON'T WORRY WE WILL BE SENDING YOU FRIENDS LATER WHEN THE DEMOCRATS COMING BEGGING FOR MORE MONEY BECAUSE THIS "JUST WASN'T ENOUGH."

IT WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH. NEVER HAS GOVERNMENT SPENDING SOLVED ANYTHING. EVER. IF IT HAD, THE SOVIET UNION WOULD HAVE WON THE COLD WAR.

GOODBYE MONEY, HELLO BULLSHIT DEMOCRAT SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

>>3108634

But you're still missing the point, which is that we cannot spend 800 billion on food stamps and infrastructure and the 4 other equally profitable areas and expect to recover from this crisis.

First and foremost, there simply aren't enough laborers/facilities to USE that much funding, if we were to allocate the funds to only 1.5x and higher. Second of all, you need to have a broad effect in order to raise consumer confidence throughout the nation. Stop thinking like this stimulus bill is a chance to make money. It's not. That's not Keynesian economics. It's a band-aid of emergency spending to restore the country to a state of normalcy.

>>3108586
Also, just because Republicans and Bush pushed Iraq does not mean I do support it or supported it beforehand in 03, because I don't and didn't, so don't pull out that ad hominem bullshit, we should be getting out of Iraq too no questions.

And I'm guessing from your posts you aren't good with math and don't think in numbers, but, the amount of infrastructure spending we need to do to maintain our decaying systems is slightly over two trillion dollars, which would create over three trillion in stimulus effect, which is more than enough to fill the whole gap. Now, doing that would be stupid because other people than construction workers have lost their jobs and because there are even better forms of stimulus such as unemployment benefit extension, COBRA extension, food-stamp benefit program expansion, etc. But it could do the trick alone on the factual level, it just would not be the best way to go about it (but better than the current POS).

i thought you kids were smarter than this. actually, i should never have high expectations for 4chan.

let me break it down for you. this crosses party lines. best bet is to break free from repub/dem/libertarian or whatever you are, mindset.

now what is happening right now is the greatest transfer of money in the history of the world. timmy geithner had a press conference today and explained that like the first bailout, more monies would be going to the banks. there would be some few minor revisions, but for the most party they would be able to do as they see fit with it.

now, the first bank monies have not been accounted for and that which was not spent of christmas parties or executive bonuses actually vanished into thin air because the toxic assets that paulson said was and even trade was worth about 66 cents on the dollar according to the oversight committee which released its findings today. btw, this is actually optimistic. the value has fallen since the bailout and even before the bailout most honest assessments had the toxic paper worth about 30 cents on the dollar. what this means is that you and I, the taxpayers, basically gave the banks
around 100 billion for the first bailout and they gave us back a box full of shit, nothing, zilch, nada.

anyone with any common sense says that we should nationalize the banks so the taxpayers dont just incur the loss but also have the opportunity to reap with rewards, should any profits be there in the future. this would cut the profits of the banks and so there are restraints to keep obama in place so he doesnt nationalize. also he is from chicago schools and all that friedman/hayek bullshit rubbed off on him.

we will eventually have to nationalize by around mid summer when everything goes to shit.

>3108678

I AM OF COURSE "ROUNDING DOWN" AND ASSUMING THAT 400 BILLION DOLLARS IS A GOOD ENOUGH ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE MONEY IN THE BILL THAT IS GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

>>3108678

It's not 400 billion of the taxpayer's money, it's 400 billion of China's money. It's not being redistributed, it's being injected. Big surprise, an all caps poster with zero knowledge of the topic at hand. Aren't the youtube comments pages missing you?

Boy, I can't wait for the rich to get taxed six ways from Sunday.

80% tax bracket, baby!

>>3108656
"products aren't going to be getting any cheaper."

Okay, now I understand you just don't know what you're talking about. Not only are prices dropping, but the greatest fear of serious economists and policy makers is the danger of a deflationary cycle.

Good thing it worked in the 30s and will work now.

>>3108560
>LOL FREE MARKET
please read
>>3108302

Fine with me. There's gonna be a huge fucking war sometime in my lifetime, so we might as well get into a massive debt with the country we're gonna fight and then refuse to pay it back when we go to war. They'll spend it here and that means yay for me.

continued...

Now, here we are today and geithner is calling for more
money to go to the banks virtually unregulated. this is basically a bank robber, taking public weath and putting it directly into the hands of the elites. it doesnt matter if you republican, democrat, green, or whatever, we are all getting fucked. and here was are sitting around bickering over partisan politics. in china and russia they are rioting in the streets.

its time to rise up as a nation and show the government who is really in charge. they cant just take
our money and give it to these bankers without a fight.
step up to the plate.

>>3106972
actualy governments are shitty at allocating money because big corporations lobby them and rip them off to shit. In certain departments (most)

>>3108692
correct.

nationalization will one of the few bipartisan positions after Geithner's TARP 2.

>>3108692

>anyone with any common sense says that we should nationalize the banks

Are you fucking insane? We need to NATIONALIZE the banks? You think that the solution to the problems caused by the spending habits of the American people, corporate greed, and slimy politicians is to allow the GOVERNMENT more control?

You want to give control of our monetary resources to a Democratic President, Senate, and House of Representatives? Are you fucking insane?

We already have a recipe for massive overspending and big government getting bigger. You are advocating throwing fucking Nitro Glycerin onto the fire!

>>3108692
This is a good post but it's talking about the banking crisis which is really kind of a separate issue from the stimulus package. I mean, they're both fucking our economy, but the stimulus package isn't aimed at preventing bank nationalization so much as its aimed at preventing job loss and total recession hell.

>>3108716
Rofl, another free market moron. Do you honestly believe that any of the surviving banks did not exploit or benefit from the bubble of false loan evaluations that predicated this crisis, or what the results would be if every bank were allowed to fail? Do you even understand the sentence I just typed?

>>3108681
multiplier does not equal make money.

It means how much it expands economic production. It's a purely Keynesian concept.

>>3108560

No, it doesn't. Keynesian economics does, the whole idea that a helicopter drop won't spark inflation is based on the notion that people will chose to save in an initial economic downturn (which they do) but it negates the fact of aggressive, initial price restructure which levels out shortly thereafter (prices are higher than they would have been, if people saved).

A free market would work just fine provided that sensible laws are actually enforced (lol). i.e. those that involve a victim (egregious pollution, being an example).

>>3108703
Deflationary cycle refers to products getting cheaper along with wages decreasing, so if such a cycle does occur then the teachers in my example will STILL see their products not get any cheaper and be fucked over by an unincreased wage, gj failing at your attempt to show off basic, rudimentary knowledge.

>>3108775
do you not realize that the government just REWARDED that practice? we went from a situation where where the predatory practices were a shortcut to going out of business to one where they meant free money even if you fuck up

>>3108749

We need to deal with our problems one at a time. The man has a valid point, we need to deal with these corrupt banks. But right now, nationalizing the banks would be suicide. There's simply too much going on to be able to handle everything effectively.

We need to break down the problems we are facing and solve them one at a time. Any other solution will result in slip-ups, money going to pet-projects, and billions upon billions of dollars being wasted.

We should be ashamed that we, as a nation, are letting these fuckers play these games. We need to hold them accountable and grab them by their balls and shake them like an english terrier shaking a fucking hamster.

This shit ends when America starts owning up to the fact that WE are the ones ultimately responsible for our own problems because WE have the power and the rights in America. The politicians have power because we grant them power. That's what our Declaration says, that's what our Constitution says. And until people stop whining, pointing fingers, and complaining about how their voices don't matter, NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

I say we hold these fuckers accountable to how they spend the money in the spending bill and based on how they voted. It's time we all got more actively involved and started contacting our Senators and Representatives.

>>3108775

Here's where you're stupid. You forget the fact that the banks were only afforded luxury because they were able to fall back on daddy-government with just one phone call to a congressman. This safety-net is not afforded in a free market.

Also, people need to learn that there loss of money/property for bad decisions (signing the dotted line) will have repercussions. That's how they learn to save and make better decisions. They would be more incentivized to do this, if there was a sound currency standard.

continued again...

now if we want to get into the details of the partisan bickering lets just say that anyone who is arguing for tax cuts is an idiot. republicans are negotiating in bad faith because they know that their only hand to play is to lead this nation to failure so they can get reelected. the proof is that most of them didnt fight the exact same bill when i came from george bush.

anyone that is arguing that keneysian economics trumps friedmans bullshit is in essence right. let me ask you a real question? do you believe that without any interference there is some "magical invisible hand" of the economy that self regulates? of course not, there are simply monopolies and huge corporations raping common peoples and the land.

that being said, there is no way to spend our way out of this mess. and even though the social projects that the stimulus has are not pork there is simply not enough of them to do any good, and unemployment is moving to fast for govt to keep up with it. and basically
this big band aid isnt going to fix the main problems with our system which are:

corruption between govt and corporations
neoliberal economics
stratification between the haves and have nots
imperial tendencies and expansionist goals
etc etc etc

let the system fall apart. we will have a 5 year depression, riot in the streets, break down the old social and governmental structures and rebuild in 2014 or so with a sustainable framework for our society.

>>3108803

He's just a dumbfounded Obamaphile trying to backpedal-justify his vote and vehement statism.

>>3108778
I can assure you that the idea of spending designed to boost a nation's industry is in no way a "purely keynesian concept," though it certainly fits into that paradigm.

Read this post >>3108442 and realize that Keynesian econ is not used in the real world to multiply economies via rigorous spending, it is only used as an emergency counter to rapid economic deflation, where the idea of "multiplying" in order to expand industrial production is not necessary (it's also, I would add, not the context in which the previous pro-infrastructure spending poster was using the phrase multiply).

>>3108838
>>3108803

Haha you think eventual nationalization of banks is a reward. I suppose you'd rather see every bank in America collapse than see those bank execs "rewarded," eh? Enjoy dying on the street you pathetic internet-libertarian.

>>3108829

You got some sense to your words man.

People are acting on fear. We need to embrace the destruction, expel the infections, and start over.

Fuck yes.

>>3108716
>>3108302

If that's not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I don't know what is. What you are saying is like saying "Well, I was trying out this engine, but it exploded, killing 200 people, and launched itself about half a mile in the process. GREAT SUCCESS! I wouldn't use the term "success of the free market" to describe the shitstorm that's happening. Yes, it did TECHNICALLY kill the bad banks (only because they exclusively loan-sharked, other banks might have profited in the long term if they had been loansharking or got out early), but not without collateral damage. That collateral damage is evident, just look at the state of the economy.

And therein lies the difference between libertarian/free-marketeers and the rest of us. The rest of understand an imperfect system is better than a "perfect" system with outrageous amounts of collateral damage, libertarians/free-marketeers apparently do not.

>>3108692
Yeah, I've been mostly arguing with republicans/lolbertarians ITT (which I guess makes me a libtard) - but even I think nationalising the bank is kind of extreme.

>>3108912
>look at the state of the economy.
seems about the same to me. Except for the media saying the sky is falling

>>3108912
>"Well, I was trying out this engine, but it exploded, killing 200 people, and launched itself about half a mile in the process. GREAT SUCCESS!"

Replace "GREAT SUCCESS" with "Oh gee, better not use that engine anymore"

And what actually happened was "GET AS MANY OF THOSE ENGINES AS YOU CAN FOR A BILLION ZILLION DOLLARS"

>>3108829
Decent first post, slightly crazy second post, but sorry revolutionary third post has hit a nine point o on the crazy-meter. Sorry, but America itself is too big to fail at this point. We'd loan out our grandchildren's futures before we'd ever hit the kind of recession that would actually lead to revolution.

Sentences like these:

>even though the social projects that the stimulus has are not pork there is simply not enough of them to do any good

are just wishful thinking on your part. We may end up needing to spend more, but the money will get borrowed before Americans are willing to cue the next revolution.

>>3108972
Haha yes we better not use a "BANKING SYSTEM" anymore.

>>3108912
Lol, good try man, but you're arguing with people who respond to your paragraphs with one sentence replies that are hilariously ignorant.

>>3108912

BAAAWWW much? It's not your debt until the government bought it. It's not your house in foreclosure.

These are stupid people, making stupid mistakes and becoming just as bloated as the banks that lent them the money. Prove me wrong. In a free-market, these fuck-ups would not affect you or I. But you'd rather steal my money along with everyone's to compensate for a few morons.

Yeah, makes sense you pinko cock-sucker.

>>3108784

Uh... free market absolutely relies on an informed and non-apathetic consumer. If people don't know or care that nike shoes are functionally and aesthetically identical to the much cheaper $GENERICSHOE, how is that competition? The best product is not successful, the inferior product doesn't collapse and disappear . it's a weird artificial monopoly. Sure, you could argue that Nike are using valid techniques (eg, marketing) to have people remain loyal, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that Nike have effectively dominated a market and can't be bested by a superior. That stifles innovation and hurts everyone but Nike.

And it's naive to deny that such an example never happens IRL. Happens all the time - a lot of consumers simply can't be bothered shopping around, and go with familiar names or imagine that expensive products must be better.

>>3109010
no, we just better not use a banking system that trades around shit loans trying to make a quick buck

>>3108471
>Yes Dems must have somehow tricked their way into that lengthy majority, it couldn't possibly have been an honest response to recovery from the worst financial disaster that ever faced our nation.
If by "honest response" you mean "Dems and labor unions became attached at the hip" then I agree.
>you can read it anytime you like and answer this question for yourself?
778 pages of fluff isn't my idea of a good time, but my fault for being a slowbro. I don't exactly live on the internet.

>>3109044

And the problem with that is what?

Corporatism is what stifles creativity. Only businesses with the capital to meet compliance costs have any chance of competing, or stacking up to mountains of government regulation.

If people want stifled creativity and all buy nikes (which they don't, your making shit up) then so? If you want a different pair of shoes they'll still be out there. You may have use the internet to get them, but damn if that isn't petty.

>>3109059
Again, every banking system did this. Every banking system trades loans in an attempt to make a profit. So it would be "all banking systems."

Also, they did it because it was profitable. They were pursuing free market interests. Government regulation should have stopped the practice, but then again that's another one of those things libertarians aren't so keen on.

You still fail to grasp what it would mean for the government to not step in on these banks. Businesses take loans out from banks in order to pay their employees, before a product is sold or the next PO comes in. If the credit market dies (as in, was hurt worse than the current freeze, which is still pretty bad) you would have nothing less than the death of American employment.

>>3109010
<3 anon, that is some epic meta. <3

>>3109023
You're right, innocent people should be allowed to suffer in deference to THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR. Because there are no collaterals in the real world - no dependants, everyone is isolated from one another. When a bank collapses or raises it's interest rates to respond to excess toxic securities, it's OK - I bank at SMART PERSONS BANK, which is completely isolated from FIRST BANK OF IDIOT. My home loan totally isn't devastated. And everyone knows, free markets always tend to isolate themselves from one another, and always drifts towards dozens of tiny entities rather than one monolith - that's why "anti trust" and "monopoly" laws are pointless!

Yeah, that makes sense, you naive 12 year old trust fund shithead.

You guys remember the scene in Pulp Fiction where Mia Wallace overdoses and has to get the needle into the heart?

This is what is happening to our economy.

>>3109280

Except the needle is filled with a sedative instead of adrenaline. Prolonging the chick's death.

There. Now your analysis is functional.

>3110018

I know this was a fundamentally inaccurate statement but I'm tired as fuck.

So mootblock me.

I think it's odd that Obama is hailed as a here, while his performance is comparable to that of Bush. Of course, McCain would have been even worse than Bush (I didn't think it possible before last election) but still... Obama is no superman, he isn't one of you, he is part of the same clique that has always and will always govern the US. Elections are just organized for the entertainment value I guess.

>>3110145

McCain would have been worse in the short term and better in the long term.

Obongo is going to be better in the short term and worse in the long-term.

>>3110246
In what way would McCain have been better in the long term? McCain would have been on the side of the creationists, and bad education is a long-term problem. And he is obviously going senile, which doesn't get better over time either.

>>3110840

You should elect someone based on their qualifications and abilities, not discriminate against them based on age.

McCain had been tested personally and professionally. What he said to get elected, just like Obama, wasn't necessarily what he was going to do. Internationally and financially he would have made better decisions. And I think that with a Democratic majority in the Senate and House he would have balanced the system out making for less extreme decisions. Like, for instance, this insane spending bill that won't work very well and will bring the Democrats back begging for more money later.

McCain would have forced the legislature to pass more balanced bills, which would hurt us less in the long-term because we would see less over-spending.

>>3114017

It's hard for any president to live up to the standards of imaginary alternative administrations.

>>3114017
>>this insane spending bill that won't work very well and will bring the Democrats back begging for more money later.

Didn't the republicans authorize the first bailout package? And since that shit didn't work, a new one has to be established...this time with limitations on where the money goes and who gets to spend it.

Party's over pal, deal with it.

>>3114017
McCain would have given little in the way of stimulus and loads and loads of tax cuts. Much worse in my opinion, but then I'm not a libertarian. And what the fuck is that about better internationally? About the last thing the rest of the world wanted was another republican president. Just by getting elected Obama restored much of America's credibility. Suck on it republicunt.

ITT: Any spending is good spending.

Reality: False, dumping money without restraint is irresponsible and counterproductive. The current bill is filled with projects unrelated to the problem at hand. Inconsistent regulation and lack of enforcement caused the problem, the solution should be re-regulation and moderate spending at most to "prime the pump."

>>3114217

This is also untrue, regulation itself was one of the leading factors of the situation you're in, however, I agree with you regarding spending. Personally, I think the last the government should be doing is bailing out the market. Let the fucker bottom out so it can start going back up again.

>>3114181

Did I defend the Republican spending bill? No. It was a desperate, ill-planned and overall stupid move.

But it passed both the Senate and the House of representatives. So maybe you should go check who, exactly, voted for that bill so we can have a more substantive discourse instead of bringing it up as a red herring.

>>3114189

Exactly. Short-term restoration of credibility. That's why we elected Obama. We wanted a message of hope, change. No, it goes deeper than that. We wanted something different. We wanted to feel better about ourselves and our nation, we wanted an articulate man who gives us flowery lies as gifts during his speeches. We wanted a man who was everything George Bush wasn't. Only no one ever really understood Bush, because we were all so busy blaming him for our problems.

Obama being elected speaks to the short-sightedness and ignorance and malleability of the American people. We can't feel better about our country by working on improving it, oh no. That would require admitting personal responsibility for our country's mistakes and that takes effort. We can only feel better about it if we elect a person who we have convinced ourselves is going to make things better.

Obama may have restored our credibility in the short-term but I am worried about the long term. You know, the thing no Americans consider because our nation has become a culture of immediate gratification and chronic, myopic short-sightedness.

>>3114367

It passed under heavy scrutiny. Most were against it, but since something HAD to be done to attempt to fix the problem that this country was in, it went through.

I'm not saying that this new package will fix the problems, but hopefully it will help...unlike the last bailout.

I refuse to read the article or any of the posts preceding mine.

Is he LITERALLY burning the money? Because that's awesome and would also probably do a great deal to help the economy.

Looks like we outdid Bush this guy even wants to ban guns bye bye 2nd amendment rest in peace.

>>3105327

Good. Get us out of this mess and on track to paying back the money we owe.

Currently we have no plan to pay back what we do owe. I would rather have our money spent getting on track to pay back what we owe than to wallow in debt forever.

It's a gamble, but hey, I believe that if we make smart investments that they will pay off and if we don't do it we'll lose to the Chinese anyways, unless they fail to grow at targeted GDP which could destabilize their government and relative to them the US and EU will raise in value.

>>3114415

Nothing HAD to be done. That money, that 700 billion dollars, vanished. It's gone. We threw that money away. It accomplished nothing.

>>3114241
See, you imagine an economics in a vacuum, rather than an economics that takes place within a competitive and hostile state framework. If we "let it bottom out" there are plenty who would use their policies to try to keep us there.

It is more than a silly "HEEE HEE MARKETS CORRECT THEMSELVES" issue. It's about power. And the players in this game can influence markets and will.

So either, we protect our own market, or we let our influence in the world wane and find out what its like to be a third world country.

You can also look at the post-soviet eastern europe states to read what happens when you let markets bottom out. I promise you, it's terrible.

The true problem here, the real problem, is the American people's willingness to be walked on, exploited, and used by politicians. We do nothing about it. Sure we whine and complain and organize a protest or two, but we never really take any steps to change anything.

No one takes personal responsibility for their actions anymore. People are just trying to find someone to blame, someone to sue, or someone to solve their problems for them.

Americans have become accustomed to appointing politicians and expecting those politicians to solve all our problems. And when they don't, we wail and moan and gnash our teeth and find someone to blame.

I am proud of my country, but I am ashamed of the people living in it. It's a nation of people sitting around and doing nothing, we are the ones to blame for the crisis we are in now. No one else.

The American people created this situation and they are the only ones who can truly solve it. By spending within our means, not making stupid decisions, and not turning to politicians to solve problems that we, ourselves have created.

HOW TO SAVE A SYSTEM BASED ON BORROWED MONEY, THE AMERICAN WAY:

BORROW MORE MONEY

JESUS FUCK MR PRESIDENT, YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS.

>>3114451

There's a difference between a government intervening on behalf of a market's best interests in a crisis, which in necessary. And a government intervening in a crisis and spending billions of dollars to promote the agendas of political parties.

What we have is a little of both, which means all the good being done with tax cuts and incentives will likely be negated by all the pork spending and billions of wasted dollars on pet projects.

The politicians aren't truly interested in fixing this from an economic perspective. The well-being of the American people is nothing more than a bargaining chip for both sides. Otherwise, we'd be hearing more about the economic side of things and less about the political side of things.

It's not that the politicians are all stupid and don't understand economics. It's that they don't care.

>>3107454
How about finding BETTER ways to spend what we already spend?

>>3114492

There is not a whole lot of actual "Pork Barrel" spending and most "Pet Projects" are actually worthwhile endeavors.

They end up in bills because certain senators need to vote on a piece of legislation. So if you want their vote you need to put it in the bill so that they will vote for it.

Still, the senators need those projects because it is either:

1) good for their state and they need to improve their state.
2) Good for an important interest group in their state... and thus, likely, good for their state.

The alternatives are that its good for campaign financiers, but most of the time those are important interest groups in the state anyways, and supporting them is good for the economy anyways.

A relatively tiny tiny sum of money goes to causes that are entirely un-worthwhile and is lost to corruption.

Tax cuts are generally a complete waste of money.

First, the government buys things with taxes it collects, thus when a business is taxed, it will probably have a few GSA contracts that will bring in revenue to make up for a good percentage of the taxing.

Second, tax cuts facilitate wealth transfer and can often lead to increased importation and transfer of wealth outside the US.

Third, in a time where there is great paranoia about asset depreciation there is huge incentive to hoard cash, so taxes cut will not lead to spending and will lead to safe-saving without investing which will not stimulate our economy.

Fourth, Taxes are not the largest factor in where you do business -- Infrastructure is. There are extremely low tax rates in a lot of portions of Africa. There's also a good chance the roads are not functional, there's no electricity, and you may get shot.

Having working things matters more than having lower taxes. A spending bill to make things work better will improve our competativeness.

Fifth, we need a major export and if we make it energy that would save our asses. If not, we need something else and the computer stuff is going to India, so that's not it.

Sixth, we need to put people to work and get money circulating again within our country, the best way to do that is to spend money, some of these projects could be half the people digging holes and the other people filling them and it would probably still be an okay idea because if we let unemployment reach a tipping point it will shock the whole system.

GRANTED -- The projects in the proposal are all much cooler than that, they are for useful things, but assuming a few of them (about 1 or 2%) are useless even then its a good idea.

Seventh, the moral boost of spending can encourage more corporate spending. Altering a market psychology with this bill would be good for the overall fiscal health of our country. Tax cuts would not do the same thing because spending actually increases the rewards of MORE investment whereas tax cuts actually make it safer to pull out and get more money. They may seem to increase overall profit, but they do not encourage SPECIFIC INVESTMENT.

>>3107928
Or not being able to get a job doing anything else. ALl you need to be a teacher in some states is a 4 year degree in anything and the ability to pass a test.