LA Times article touches on the problem, but doesn't address the 300lb gorilla. Every business owner knows that his/her tax burden increases significantly in January, and on top of that, it is becoming increasingly more expensive to hire new employees. Add that to the uncertainty of how much Obamacare is going to cost the small business person, and you have the perfect storm. The risk of hiring a single employee is not worth taking.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0709-smallbiz-slowdown-20100709,0,1513075.story
Anyone for a 10% across the board tax cut yet? ;)
And from the Washington Post today:
President Obama may be about to repeat Franklin D. Roosevelt's mistakes -- but not the ones captured in this narrow discussion.
By fixating on the debt and stimulus plans, Obama and Congress are overlooking challenges to the economy from taxes, employment and the entrepreneurial environment. President Roosevelt's great error was to ignore such factors -- and the result was that sickening double dip.
Taxation is an obvious area the Obama administration ought to reconsider. Income taxes, the dividend tax and capital gains taxes are all set to rise as the Bush tax cuts expire. The Obama administration portrays these increases as necessary for budgetary and social reasons. A society in which the wealthy pay their share, the message goes, has a stronger economy. The administration and congressional Democrats are also striving to ensure that businesses pony up. The carried-interest provision in the tax extender bill seeks to raise rates on gains by private equity and hedge funds. If that were not enough, a so-called enterprise value tax would be levied on partnerships that sought to elude the new high taxes by selling their companies.
Roosevelt, too, pursued the dual purposes of revenue and social good. In 1935 he signed legislation known as the "soak the rich" law. FDR, more radical than Obama in his class hostility, spoke explicitly of the need for "very high taxes." Roosevelt's tax trap was the undistributed-profits tax, which hit businesses that chose not to disgorge their cash as dividends or wages. The idea was to goad companies into action.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070804272.html
That is pretty much exactly what I have been bitching about all along. I would love a 10% cut. I would also like to see all those rich CEO's get to pay even half of the rate we have to pay! There would be no more deficit. The debt would start to disappear. And since they really do very little comparatively to add jobs in the small business sector, it would be a huge win/win.
And if it is that big a risk - an unacceptable risk - to add an employee for your company, then don't. But you WILL completely miss that opportunity that led you to think about that hiring in the first place. Oh, well; if you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
Through indecision, many an opportunity is lost.
- Chinese fortune cookie.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 09, 2010, 08:11:18 AM
President Roosevelt's great error was to ignore such factors -- and the result was that sickening double dip.
If a person can't even get the basic undisputed (aside from herself) facts correct, I'm not too interested in reading the rest of their screed.
We already got a big tax cut, as was noted in another thread recently.
Also, the LA Times is apparently not aware that it's still difficult for many small businesses to get credit, which makes it hard for them to add expense. There's still a lot of hoarding of cash going on at the moment. Banks can get better returns doing prop trading than lending to small business and big companies are afraid the banks will shut off their lines of credit again.
The traditional ideological views completely ignore these facts. Stimulus alone won't help, although it eases the effects. Tax cuts won't do a damn thing except give the hoarders more money to hoard, so that's a net loss to the economy. Where does that leave us?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 09, 2010, 08:11:18 AM
Every business owner knows that his/her tax burden increases significantly in January.
I am a small business owner and my taxes will increase 0% in January if Obama's plan passes. You must sell a lot of bbq sauce.
This is getting tiresome.
I see you've replaced FOTD as the daily harbinger of inflammatory, cynical, doomsday movie plots. Only yours come from the far right instead of the far left. You and Guido, among others, have turned this forum into "all anti-Obama....all the time". I have done my best to ignore them, but it occurred to me this morning, people might actually believe there is a basis to this hogwash and join in the downword cynical commentary whose main purpose is to make sure the midterms are secured for conservatives and Republicans.
Please, folks. Much of this stuff is derived from the same brain trusts who idolize the Michael Douglas character in "Wall Street". They would have you believe that this lovely hangover we're all enjoying from the financial meltdown is Obama's fault. Or FDR or Johnson or Clinton. But certainly not either of the Bushes. They believe in tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts as the solution to all problems. They fail to note that before the "Bush tax cuts" we had just left a decade of the most steady business and job growth the country had ever seen. Under Clinton. And budgets that were balanced or close to it. It was a decade of affluence and growth for the middle class. But of course, we needed tax cuts.
Take note, this same crowd has now zeroed in on the Interior and Justice dept.'s failures to effectively regulate and control oil drilling as yet another Obama failure in leadership. Like his administration had staffed these depts back in the Bush era. The fantasies are never ending and the rewrites ever imaginative.
But your latest one, Gas, reminds me of listening to David on KRMG a couple weeks ago. He sounded pretty normal and level headed till someone inadvertantly hit one of his "crazy" buttons. Then I was assaulted with the weirdest re-writes of history I have ever heard. Turns out FDR was a communist and a traitor to his country!! The guy who re-instilled confidence in our country, who actually tried to analyze and battle the factors of the depression (and had some success), the guy who successfully lead us in battle against the greatest evil of his time and who was so popular he could have won a fourth term had he lived.....WAS A FAILURE, A COMMUNIST AND A TRAITOR!! Yeah, that makes sense. Cause he didn't favor tax cuts.
You as well as anyone Gas, know the power of self talk. Of self perpetuation. Of a lack of confidence in our country's ability to transcend petty politics and systemic problems. If you continue to paint our president like David interprets FDR, it is likely you will get the depression and failed presidency you seem to desire. We'll all suffer, but you guys will get your Libertarians and "true" Conservatives and the corporate elites will once again ascend to their dominant positions.
As for me, I prefer to look for positive solutions and people who offer them.
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 09:03:23 AM
Please, folks. Much of this stuff is derived from the same brain trusts who idolize the Michael Douglas character in "Wall Street".
Now wait a minute, #1 Greed is Good, and #2 I idolize Gordon Gekko and he wouldn't pay these taxes.
Kudos waterboy.
Btw, he did win a 4th term in '44. He died soon after and Truman took over.
Quote from: Trogdor on July 09, 2010, 08:54:47 AM
I am a small business owner and my taxes will increase 0% in January if Obama's plan passes. You must sell a lot of bbq sauce.
Bush tax cuts expire.
Business Taxes. In addition, various business taxes will change including the payroll tax credit and section 179 expense deduction.
The current six rate brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%.
This means if you are an LLC and your rate is 28%, you will start paying 33% - 36%.
Even if you are a very small business, you will see a 5% increase in taxes.
That would buy a lot of sauce!
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 09:03:23 AM
This is getting tiresome.
As for me, I prefer to look for positive solutions and people who offer them.
Come on, it's got to be getting harder and harder to be an apologist for Obama, but I'll give you this one.
Provide a concise list of the positive economic solutions that the administration has provided. We can take the debate that way. Set em up!
Quote from: Trogdor on July 09, 2010, 08:54:47 AM
You must sell a lot of bbq sauce.
Perhaps, but he's (probably) been counting what would be to the rest of us wages as unearned income to avoid self employment tax, and he's pissed that his loophole of choice might be closed.
The thing I find most galling is the constant harping on the budget deficit, followed by loud complaints when something is done about it.
Edited to add: And based on the later posts, that he will actually have to amortize capital expenditures rather than taking the entire deduction at once. And the Bush tax cuts expire. And I can't figure out what he's talking about re: payroll tax.
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 09:03:23 AM
This is getting tiresome.
I see you've replaced FOTD as the daily harbinger of inflammatory, cynical, doomsday movie plots. Only yours come from the far right instead of the far left. You and Guido, among others, have turned this forum into "all anti-Obama....all the time". I have done my best to ignore them, but it occurred to me this morning, people might actually believe there is a basis to this hogwash and join in the downword cynical commentary whose main purpose is to make sure the midterms are secured for conservatives and Republicans.
Please, folks. Much of this stuff is derived from the same brain trusts who idolize the Michael Douglas character in "Wall Street". They would have you believe that this lovely hangover we're all enjoying from the financial meltdown is Obama's fault. Or FDR or Johnson or Clinton. But certainly not either of the Bushes. They believe in tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts as the solution to all problems. They fail to note that before the "Bush tax cuts" we had just left a decade of the most steady business and job growth the country had ever seen. Under Clinton. And budgets that were balanced or close to it. It was a decade of affluence and growth for the middle class. But of course, we needed tax cuts.
Take note, this same crowd has now zeroed in on the Interior and Justice dept.'s failures to effectively regulate and control oil drilling as yet another Obama failure in leadership. Like his administration had staffed these depts back in the Bush era. The fantasies are never ending and the rewrites ever imaginative.
But your latest one, Gas, reminds me of listening to David on KRMG a couple weeks ago. He sounded pretty normal and level headed till someone inadvertantly hit one of his "crazy" buttons. Then I was assaulted with the weirdest re-writes of history I have ever heard. Turns out FDR was a communist and a traitor to his country!! The guy who re-instilled confidence in our country, who actually tried to analyze and battle the factors of the depression (and had some success), the guy who successfully lead us in battle against the greatest evil of his time and who was so popular he could have won a fourth term had he lived.....WAS A FAILURE, A COMMUNIST AND A TRAITOR!! Yeah, that makes sense. Cause he didn't favor tax cuts.
You as well as anyone Gas, know the power of self talk. Of self perpetuation. Of a lack of confidence in our country's ability to transcend petty politics and systemic problems. If you continue to paint our president like David interprets FDR, it is likely you will get the depression and failed presidency you seem to desire. We'll all suffer, but you guys will get your Libertarians and "true" Conservatives and the corporate elites will once again ascend to their dominant positions.
As for me, I prefer to look for positive solutions and people who offer them.
You are correct, we did have great growth under President Clinton. But, why did that segue toward a recession at the end of his second term with thousands of very high paying jobs being lost? I suspect mainly because much of that growth was on borrowed funds for companies jumping into rapidly over-crowded frontier technologies like the .coms, telecom, and bio-tech. Lax financial regulations? I dunno, but I'd like to at least hear from you something other than President Bush managed to cause the start of a downturn before he even came into office. The events which rapidly followed like 9/11 didn't help, but the downturn was on prior to his innauguration.
I give President Clinton his due. His fiscal policy was very good. He reduced government employment by over 300K (might have been closer to 400K I don't remember), and worked toward a balanced budget. Aside from his personal foibles, I think history will be kind to him.
If you don't like the topics coming up on the national politics part of TNF then don't click on it, it's that simple. You've participated in GOP bashing for as long as I've been coming on here. When President Bush was still in office the forum topic headers read like anti Bush all the time. Epithets like "Baby Bush" or "Shrub", calling Senator McCain "Cotton" and "McCaint" during the 2008 race. I hope you'll note even though I don't think he's doing a great job and many of his initiatives are mis-guided, I still respect the office and I still respect what a challenge President Obama walked into.
It's obvioulsy irritating you that President Obama can't seem to catch a break on here but even admitted libs are starting to turn on him. He became President at one of the more challenging junctures in American History but he's still playing idealist when pragmatist is called for.
Quote from: nathanm on July 09, 2010, 09:19:34 AM
The thing I find most galling is the constant harping on the budget deficit, followed by loud complaints when something is done about it.
Why? Do you think the ever-increasing deficit is good? Do you think using poor fiscal restraint by the previous administration as an excuse for even poorer restraint is a sound excuse for this behavior?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 09, 2010, 09:31:58 AM
Why? Do you think the ever-increasing deficit is good? Do you think using poor fiscal restraint by the previous administration as an excuse for even poorer restraint is a sound excuse for this behavior?
No, I don't think it's a good thing, and that's why I find it annoying when those who profess to be so concerned with it complain about increases in revenue.
Also, no. The business cycle peaked, and thus the recession began, in March 2001 (it ended in November of that same year). ;)
Quote from: nathanm on July 09, 2010, 09:43:32 AM
No, I don't think it's a good thing, and that's why I find it annoying when those who profess to be so concerned with it complain about increases in revenue.
Also, no. The business cycle peaked, and thus the recession began, in March 2001 (it ended in November of that same year). ;)
It is possible to reduce the deficit without shifting the burden to the tax payers. Instead of increasing revenue, what is wrong with decreasing spending? Too bad that comes down to who's toast oaties are we going to piss in and reduce what they think is important.
Quote from: custosnox on July 09, 2010, 10:23:14 AM
It is possible to reduce the deficit without shifting the burden to the tax payers. Instead of increasing revenue, what is wrong with decreasing spending? Too bad that comes down to who's toast oaties are we going to piss in and reduce what they think is important.
And that honestly is the most pallatable solution of all- cutting spending. Of course that comes with a price as well because government buys from private enterprize, puts people on the payroll etc. Of course if those are essential jobs the government is providing, then it seems those jobs would be needed on the "outside" world.
No one wants to go through their department and voluntarily look for waste and redundant jobs because it means they will have less money to spend the following year and beyond. The government needs to find a way to reward those who can find ways to reduce spending within their ranks as I think that's the only way to get tangible results. I don't like the idea of paying a "ransom" to get people to respond, but let's say they offered 5 or 10% of the total savings to an individual who identifies waste it would be a good investment.
Cutting means the biggest cuts have to come from the biggest spending. That starts with military. Not sure how I feel about that, but I do know that the whole Iraq thing was a horrendous waste of money and tragic loss of 4,000 of our kids. Plus injuries! Absolutely shameful!
So, where we gonna cut??
Oh, and saying "cut out waste" is worse than meaningless, it is irrelevant and counterproductive.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 09, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
Cutting means the biggest cuts have to come from the biggest spending. That starts with military. Not sure how I feel about that, but I do know that the whole Iraq thing was a horrendous waste of money and tragic loss of 4,000 of our kids. Plus injuries! Absolutely shameful!
So, where we gonna cut??
Oh, and saying "cut out waste" is worse than meaningless, it is irrelevant and counterproductive.
Instead of "cut out waste" it might be a better approach to go with "more cost effecient". I think if all area's, military included, took this approach, it would make a huge dent in things. This does not mean go with the cheapest thing you can find, but what will cost you less in the long run. But as it has been said many times before, everyone in the government is so worried about loosing their funding next year that they will spend every bit of their budget on whatever they can justify (paperclips anyone?) just to make sure they get their cut the following fiscal year.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 09, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
Cutting means the biggest cuts have to come from the biggest spending. That starts with military. Not sure how I feel about that, but I do know that the whole Iraq thing was a horrendous waste of money and tragic loss of 4,000 of our kids. Plus injuries! Absolutely shameful!
So, where we gonna cut??
Oh, and saying "cut out waste" is worse than meaningless, it is irrelevant and counterproductive.
Huh?
Why is that meaningless? That's where the taxpayer gets ripped off the most.
Here's some areas to start:
How many taxpayer paid staffers does each Senator and Representative need?
How many people are needed to research the mating behaviors of bats?
How many pounds of paper and printing costs could each department save a year?
Airshows paid for by the military?
Presidential press junkets or stump speeches all over the country?
How about ending preferential vendor programs which necessarily cost the government more for doing business?
I posted a few weeks ago about how the legally-defined small hub-zone disadvantaged business I work for could have done a project at the VA center in Muskogee for 1/2 of what the gov't eventually paid another company for providing essentially one supervisor to watch our guys work for three weeks as their sub-contractor because it was a "set-aside" and wound up going to a "minority-owned" business. The fellow who owns that company is like 1/8 Cherokee. Quite literally the U.S. Government paid double what they needed to for this work out of "fairness". This is not an isolated incident, I assure you.
I got some sort of paper questionaire from the Postal Service several weeks ago, then a reminder card a week later. The USPS is raising rates again because they are losing money like crazy but yet they can spend the money to print and send out a stupid survey?
Little steps can produce the largest results. People are resistant to going after the largest recipient because it looks insurmountable, yet they ignore all the little parasitic expenditures all over the place. Millions add up to billions eventually Heir.
I'm not a debater Gas, you and Conan are. Though it is exciting for those involved, it rarely accomplishes anything because it is not an investigation of facts and truth. It is an exercise in defending what is already held dear. Some are so good at it that they can win the battles but lose any sense of reality. That explains why I rarely visit the political threads anymore. From what I have seen though, they haven't engendered much solutions oriented thinking.
Its also not fair to lump me in with those that constantly berated Bush & co. During the election all namecalling and cuteness was fair. But during his administration I did not constantly find fault with every move, every attempt to govern or personally belittle him. Frankly, i was too busy. Self employed and loving it. Even when he took office under questionable circumstances, I secretly applauded his truly American way of seizing the moment and using the system to bull his way in. I like him personally. He enjoyed great support in his first term but squandered it by letting Cheney and others dominate his decisionmaking. Then his deficits in intellect and his propensity to take the company line began to show.
Conan, your remarks about the economy peaking then diving shortly after Bush came into office are important to note. It was a business cycle more than any one administrations policies that were in play. It always is. And those cycles are complicated. Lots of factors in deciding their depth and length. However, how one responds to those cycles is more important. Bush lowered taxes and exacerbated the deficits. That helped those at the top but screwed a lot of those in the middle. He oversaw a frenzy of appointments to the Interior dept (minerals/mining) and Justice of people who were directed to really not do much regulating or enforcement. I don't believe history will be kind to his style of management.
Gas, don't bs a bs'r. LLC's were designed for accounting firms and law firms. They are now widely used instead of traditional corporations because they are simple to construct and allow you to avoid more taxes. They eliminate or reduce personal responsibility for the actions of the firm. That is their function. The partners are able to take write-offs of company expenditures on personal taxes. They are so unaccountable that some banks won't lend to them without a personal guarantee and they are at a higher risk of being audited by the IRS. Someone with accounting skills help me here cause I know I'm simplifying but truth is LLC's are great for reducing or eliminating taxes. That means less tax revenue to operate government which means brackets get adjusted etc. A very wise professor once told me that its the poor businessman who spends his time being in business to reduce taxes. Make the money, pay a reasonable tax and go make more.
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 09:03:23 AM
This is getting tiresome.
I see you've replaced FOTD as the daily harbinger of inflammatory, cynical, doomsday movie plots. Only yours come from the far right instead of the far left. You and Guido, among others, have turned this forum into "all anti-Obama....all the time". I have done my best to ignore them, but it occurred to me this morning, people might actually believe there is a basis to this hogwash and join in the downword cynical commentary whose main purpose is to make sure the midterms are secured for conservatives and Republicans.
...
As for me, I prefer to look for positive solutions and people who offer them.
My gosh, you are such an unbelievable hypocrite and abject phony. Let's stroll down memory lane a bit and just look at some of your attacks on Bush and your "positive solutions" you espoused when "Bushie" was president:
QuoteWe do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=2049.0
QuoteHave you guys no interest in truth and reality? You just seem to ignore anything that doesn't fit your little world. Kind of like Bushies and neo-cons.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=7629.msg46197#msg46197
QuoteGeez, what a bunch of malarkey. The RNC loves sending stuff out about Palin, she even made the cover of People, which as you know is probably a plant. This is the best thing that could happen and they are making hay. As long as this is front and center, real issues like a sucking economy, cutting and running from a war, poor military preparedness for any other wars, health care, etc. are being ignored.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=11204.msg97955#msg97955
QuoteUnfortunately for a lot of black soldiers, and any woman, there was no Affirmative Action in the Air Force unless you considered the legacees that got placed because of their father's influence. Guys like McCain and Bush.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=11273.msg99258#msg99258
Quote
Bush's failures already ensure that the neo-cons are discredited by default. If the Palin wing, which is the evangelical values crowd, ends up being trashed, the party can restructure along a more traditional conservative path and start to recapture its fiscal, defense, business leaning identity. That identity is more likely to attract the Ron Paul voter. Fox can't do it by themselves though. MSM is more than happy to help out if it means a juicy story.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=12065.msg109799#msg109799
The "search" option is a b!tch. But please, feel free to post your glowing comments about Bush and other repubs to defend yourself. FAIL.
I will eventually check all of your links. I think some are bogus because I know my writing style and they look wrong. Noting context is not one of your strengths either. Nonetheless they appear to be during the election which as I noted, everything is fair. But, meanwhile..right back at ya. Doubled.
Quote from: guido911 on July 09, 2010, 12:05:36 PM
My gosh, you are such an unbelievable hypocrite and abject phony. Let's stroll down memory lane a bit and just look at some of your attacks on Bush and your "positive solutions" you espoused when "Bushie" was president:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=2049.0
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=7629.msg46197#msg46197
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=11204.msg97955#msg97955
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=11273.msg99258#msg99258
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=12065.msg109799#msg109799
The "search" option is a b!tch. But please, feel free to post your glowing comments about Bush and other repubs to defend yourself. FAIL.
Doesn't look good trdblossom. The first topic you posted only had one sentence from me noting an e-mail to Cubs that was circulating. Totally taken out of context and the quote wasn't mine.
Waterboy, that was kinda lame. Please note, I've been slacking a bit lately, but I usually refer to President Obama by his title and with respect, even though I'm very critical of his poor performance. As I once mentioned to FOTD, name-calling, derogatory pet names, profanity, and personal attacks have a negative effect on your argument. That goes for everyone!
I have an idea, lets discuss what some of the solutions would be rather than talking about each other. What is the best way to stimulate the economy?
What has had the most profound effect in the past?
What should the president do?
Quote from: guido911 on July 09, 2010, 12:05:36 PM
My gosh, you are such an unbelievable hypocrite and abject phony. Let's stroll down memory lane a bit and just look at some of your attacks on Bush and your "positive solutions" you espoused when "Bushie" was president:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=2049.0
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=7629.msg46197#msg46197
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=11204.msg97955#msg97955
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=11273.msg99258#msg99258
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=12065.msg109799#msg109799
The "search" option is a b!tch. But please, feel free to post your glowing comments about Bush and other repubs to defend yourself. FAIL.
Jeez man! Do context much?
The second one was in response to a nasty attack about THE ARKANSAS RIVER DEVELOPMENT vote. Horrors, the only deprecating word I used was I called his followers BUSHIES! And out of touch with reality. How dare me! AND during an election year no less!
Quote from: Gaspar on July 09, 2010, 09:16:19 AM
Bush tax cuts expire.
Business Taxes. In addition, various business taxes will change including the payroll tax credit and section 179 expense deduction.
The current six rate brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%.
This means if you are an LLC and your rate is 28%, you will start paying 33% - 36%.
Even if you are a very small business, you will see a 5% increase in taxes.
That would buy a lot of sauce!
You are of course HALF right. You are saying this is what is going to happen. But not if Obama has anything to say about it. He wants people in the 28% to stay in the 28%. In fact his plan has the taxes on 212k-235k going down 5% (you end up being neutral at 250k when the taxes actually do start going up)
(http://www.smartonmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/tax-cuts-expire-462x1024.jpg)
http://www.smartonmoney.com/bush-tax-cuts-set-to-expire-in-2011-will-you-be-paying-more/
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 12:13:08 PM
I will eventually check all of your links. I think some are bogus because I know my writing style and they look wrong. Noting context is not one of your strengths either. Nonetheless they appear to be during the election which as I noted, everything is fair. But, meanwhile..right back at ya. Doubled.
If I cut/pasted wrong, then I will apologize. Still, I am waiting for the positive comments you made about Bush. And, incidentally, you started this crap against me in a thread where I had not even commented. And, screw your bs slap about context.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 09, 2010, 12:21:47 PM
Waterboy, that was kinda lame. Please note, I've been slacking a bit lately, but I usually refer to President Obama by his title and with respect, even though I'm very critical of his poor performance. As I once mentioned to FOTD, name-calling, derogatory pet names, profanity, and personal attacks have a negative effect on your argument. That goes for everyone!
I have an idea, lets discuss what some of the solutions would be rather than talking about each other. What is the best way to stimulate the economy?
What has had the most profound effect in the past?
What should the president do?
Yeah, yeah. My apologies if I was off base. Calls em as I sees em.
The best thing Obama could do right now is stay focussed on jobs. To do that money has to be flowing into and out of lenders. Ignoring the chaff and building confidence in our systems is more important than politics right now.
Now, I have to go fight an name calling idealogue. An abject hypocrit.
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 12:24:13 PM
Jeez man! Do context much?
The second one was in response to a nasty attack about THE ARKANSAS RIVER DEVELOPMENT vote. Horrors, the only deprecating word I used was I called his followers BUSHIES! And out of touch with reality. How dare me! AND during an election year no less!
Still waiting for the "positive" stuff you said about Bush....
Quote from: guido911 on July 09, 2010, 12:28:18 PM
If I cut/pasted wrong, then I will apologize. Still, I am waiting for the positive comments you made about Bush. And, incidentally, you started this crap against me in a thread where I had not even commented. And, screw your bs slap about context.
Your apology is wasted. Context is important and you abused it. I brought your name up because you have noted that you intend to spend this presidential term doing to Obama what you thought his critics did to Bush the last 8 years. You then did just what FOTD and others did to prove that you are no better than they are. Shrewd.
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 12:18:43 PM
Doesn't look good trdblossom. The first topic you posted only had one sentence from me noting an e-mail to Cubs that was circulating. Totally taken out of context and the quote wasn't mine.
(http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bgleason/pt/Backpedal.jpg)
You posted the damned e-mail so, in my opinion, you freakin own it. It's also thoroughly consistent with my other posts and the numerous others I left out.
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 12:33:03 PM
Your apology is wasted. Context is important and you abused it. I brought your name up because you have noted that you intend to spend this presidential term doing to Obama what you thought his critics did to Bush the last 8 years. You then did just what FOTD and others did to prove that you are no better than they are. Shrewd.
Still waiting for the "positive" stuff you said about Bush....
Quote from: guido911 on July 09, 2010, 12:30:21 PM
Still waiting for the "positive" stuff you said about Bush....
If you're waiting for me to do a word search, please, hold your breath till you turn blue and pass out. I made them but I don't respond to bullies who twist words.
I was referring to remarks during my life the last 12 years. Not just references on these political threads. But I will repeat for you my assertions- I liked Bush. I liked his response in Afghanistan to 911. I liked his family and his father. His wife is nice. His daughters are to be proud of. I like what he said he was going to do, which was to bring the country toghether and avoid divisiness. I didn't like his failure to do so.
You suck man.
Quote from: guido911 on July 09, 2010, 12:35:42 PM
(http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bgleason/pt/Backpedal.jpg)
You posted the damned e-mail so, in my opinion, you freakin own it. It's also thoroughly consistent with my other posts and the numerous others I left out.
You damned moron. I posted the e-mail to show what kind of crap was floating around during that time.
Turning you off.
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 12:33:03 PM
Your apology is wasted. Context is important and you abused it. I brought your name up because you have noted that you intend to spend this presidential term doing to Obama what you thought his critics did to Bush the last 8 years. You then did just what FOTD and others did to prove that you are no better than they are. Shrewd.
My apology was in advance of a possible errant cut/paste job and in response to your genius rebuttal: "I think some are bogus because I know my writing style and they look wrong". So much for knowing your own "writing style".
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 12:41:41 PM
You damned moron. I posted the e-mail to show what kind of crap was floating around during that time.
Turning you off.
You started this crap with me. Buh-bye then. I guess all that looking for "positive solutions" you flat out misled about in an earlier post only works with a dem in the white house.
Quote from: Trogdor on July 09, 2010, 12:25:28 PM
You are of course HALF right. You are saying this is what is going to happen. But not if Obama has anything to say about it. He wants people in the 28% to stay in the 28%. In fact his plan has the taxes on 212k-235k going down 5% (you end up being neutral at 250k when the taxes actually do start going up)
(http://www.smartonmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/tax-cuts-expire-462x1024.jpg)
http://www.smartonmoney.com/bush-tax-cuts-set-to-expire-in-2011-will-you-be-paying-more/
Excellent! That was published in April. The $3.6 Trillion Budget has changed, and been shelved. You are correct the blame cannot all be laid on the President. Congress' spending spree has much to do with it. If the preservation of the Middle-class cuts survives now it will be miraculous. Correction- If a budget is passed at all it will be miraculous. Congress already passed enough emergency spending measures, and now is focused squarely on other matters. They are facing a lame-duck session with the public outrage against their spending and their choice to ignore the economy. Now they have to get all of their dirty laundry passed before they lose control of the House and possibly the Senate too (but not likely).
The CBO predicts that if Congress approves Obama's budget — including keeping the lower tax rates for families under $250,000 — the federal treasury will lose a staggering $2.2 trillion in the next 10 years. If they do revisit the Budget, they will use this estimate as reasoning to eliminate the tax cuts.
Rather than curtail their spending and add incentive to the economy, they will choose to expand spending and pull as much money out of the economy as possible to fuel spending. They have become completely disconnected.
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 12:39:39 PM
If you're waiting for me to do a word search, please, hold your breath till you turn blue and pass out. I made them but I don't respond to bullies who twist words.
I was referring to remarks during my life the last 12 years. Not just references on these political threads. But I will repeat for you my assertions- I liked Bush. I liked his response in Afghanistan to 911. I liked his family and his father. His wife is nice. His daughters are to be proud of. I like what he said he was going to do, which was to bring the country toghether and avoid divisiness. I didn't like his failure to do so.
You suck man.
Get lost then. Again, you started this whole mess by taking a slap at me. When I respond, suddenly
I'm the bully. Coward.
Conan,
It's meaningless because of the nearly 300 million definitions of waste.
As for mating bats (flying rats), I would much rather spend $300,000 to study birds and bats than $1 trillion + to get back at BushBabies Daddy's insulter.
http://www.blockislandtimes.com/view/full_story/2568339/article-Deepwater-nets-a-federal-grant-for-bird--bat-studies-
You, apparently, think it was ok to spend the trillion and kill 4,000 of our kids for that little irrelevant escapade.
How are you going to determine the staffer, printing costs, or amount of toilet paper needed by Congress?? I can assure you that as full of it as they are, there is a dramatic, critical need for the latter!
I couldn't really care less about air shows - and am guessing you couldn't either - but there are contributors to the effort that may. And it does provide some direct interaction and contact with our military that I DO believe is very beneficial for civilian/military relations. How much is it worth? I don't know. At least $50. Probably not $20 billion.
How about national parks? I love them and go to every one I can as often as I can. I know people who have never been to one an couldn't care less. But then, then like going to the Smithsonian, which I haven't seen in 40 years.
Preferential business set asides? Well, I guess I can live with 5% set asides if it redresses in some tiny measure the more grotesque mockeries of the past.
How about $ 50 billion in no-bid contract awards to Haliburton?? I resent that abominable waste of my money. Most right winger extremists think it is not only ok, but probably their due! As well as so many other government welfare programs for CEO's and mega-corporations.
As far as Bushies, etc. - well the left attacked Bush II because the right attacked Clinton because the left attacked Bush I and Reagan because the right attacked Carter because the left attacked Ford and Nixon because the right attacked Johnson and Kennedy because the left attacked Eisenhour because the right attacked Truman and Roosevelt because -- well, you can see a trend here, can't you???
Back O/T, like Trogdor, I am a small business owner. But contrary to his point, my taxes have already gone up (and no, I do not sell bbq sauce). I am seriously curious what business he is in. Maybe I am doing something wrong here.
Quote from: guido911 on July 09, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
My apology was in advance of a possible errant cut/paste job and in response to your genius rebuttal: "I think some are bogus because I know my writing style and they look wrong". So much for knowing your own "writing style".
My gawd man! How did you make it through law school? TU?
The quote you used was NOT my writing style. It was an e-mail floating around that you neglected to put in quotes even though I had done so.
You leave first then I'll consider it.
Quote from: guido911 on July 09, 2010, 12:44:41 PM
You started this crap with me. Buh-bye then. I guess all that looking for "positive solutions" you flat out misled about in an earlier post only works with a dem in the white house.
Heh, like you missed when I said "all is fair during an election".
go back to your cave. Oh, yeah, I'll never mention your name again, but I'll be thinking of you. Just look for the code words....context, bully, neo, fantacist, freeper...
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 01:18:44 PM
Heh, like you missed when I said "all is fair during an election".
go back to your cave. Oh, yeah, I'll never mention your name again, but I'll be thinking of you. Just look for the code words....context, bully, neo, fantacist, freeper...
Don't feel bad; he never replies to me directly. He'll reply to topics I'm in or even start, but won't use my name. Like it will burn his tongue or set him aflame or something...
8)
Ok, I think that to stimulate the economy, you need to get money in the hands of businesses. The consumer dollar is shrinking, because of unemployment, and the longer we wait, the less effect any injection of cash or incentive will have. Had we taken action earlier we wouldn't' be in this predicament.
What has worked in the past? We have reduced marginal tax rates. Dropped fuel prices by lowering fuel taxes. Relaxed wage and price controls on multiple markets. Deregulated multiple markets.
To do any of these correctly we would need to be prepared to shrink government.
Freedman, Mises, Hayek et. al. would agree that we cannot stay on this path without collapse. The Keynesian model always has to be discounted or temporarily abandoned to stimulate an economy in crises.
There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final total catastrophe of the currency involved."
"If they do not plan new aggressions, they are not in need of arms." -Ludwig von Mises
So, what should the President do?
First of all he needs to halt Congress in their tracks before they can do any more damage. Not sign a single bill unless it obey's PAYGO, and creates immediate and tangible benefits to businesses (you know, the places where paychecks come from?).
Second, freeze the stimulus, use the $580 Billion currently unspent by reducing the tax burden on any business that employ 5 people or more, and make that incremental based on the number of employees on their payroll by the end of 2010, and an additional deferred tax incentive for retention of those employees for each year after.
Third, lift restrictions that make it damn near impossible to build a refinery, and shift the tax burden for refining domestic fuel. Use 100% of the taxes collected at new refining facilities for research on alternative energy sources.
(we still haven't spent any new money)
I can think of a few more too.
The first two were fine. I always enjoy it when Congress is humbled. That is where the fruitcakes are assembled. Difficult to do but admirable. The third one is based on some myths that persist about the oil industry. Namely, that govt. is fatally hindering the construction of refineries and that they have any interest in alternative energies (unless or until they hold the rights to them). Talk to Boone about that. He has been pretty much ignored by the industry he hails from with his ideas.
Truth is we are a distribution and consumption country when it comes to oil. Even the oil we drill for goes into the open market. The cost of building refineries is immense, the exposure and reclamation costs severe and the companies know the return is not there for us. That bears repeating. It is more cost efficient to have third world countries who have weaker governments do the refining for us and then work with those governments to protect our assets. It has been that way since the 60's at least (Aramco?). If ever there was a time and a motive to build refineries in America, the Bushes could have pulled it off during their terms. Nothing happened. The absence of building leads one to believe that govt. stopped them. But we haven't built any dams since the Keystone dam in 1964. Would you draw the same conclusion?
This is oil country so I expect a lot of grief for those statements. But is any of it untrue? There are plenty of small drillers and refiners who are doing just fine but the big guys have decided against domestic refining and I think they are correct to do so. I think they know Boone is correct but are patiently waiting to the last drop of oil and a share of the new pie before admitting it.
Quote from: Hoss on July 09, 2010, 01:23:04 PM
Don't feel bad; he never replies to me directly. He'll reply to topics I'm in or even start, but won't use my name. Like it will burn his tongue or set him aflame or something...
8)
If anyone really cares, I checked each link. They were all preposterously out of context and ALL during the election cycle. No one challenged me at the time about their factual nature either.
Well, lets shift the incentive then. Add a large enough tax incentive for fuel refined in the united states to mitigate the expense of building more small clean refineries.
Additionally, each barrel of oil yields around $16 in end user consumer fuel tax. That's $320million in tax dollars a day. Of that, a tiny tiny fraction is devoted to alternative energy research or incentives for domestic fuel production.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 09, 2010, 01:30:24 PM
Ok, I think that to stimulate the economy, you need to get money in the hands of businesses. The consumer dollar is shrinking, because of unemployment, and the longer we wait, the less effect any injection of cash or incentive will have. Had we taken action earlier we wouldn't' be in this predicament.
...
Freedman, Mises, Hayek et. al. would agree that we cannot stay on this path without collapse. The Keynesian model always has to be discounted or temporarily abandoned to stimulate an economy in crises.
Friedman, Mises, Hayek, et. al. are the ones whose writings got us into this mess. Alan Greenspan, being one of their disciples, just couldn't believe that he could be wrong about economics. Turned out he was. Thanks, Alan, for your bubble.
Also, while I need to dig up a link, I've read many news articles lately pointing out that most businesses are hoarding cash right now. Cutting their taxes will be absolutely useless to the end of increasing economic activity. Unless perhaps you figure out a way to make it hit only the very small businesses who don't have the money to hoard because the banks are still holding on to their money tighter than a Rottweiler holds on to a burglar's leg.
One needs to examine the economic situation carefully before relying on dogmatic approaches. Right now, Keynesian spending puts a lot more money into the economy than tax cuts are simply because people and businesses are holding on to their money as much as possible. They're worried, so they don't spend. This is why I think the stimulus was too small by about half. It simply wasn't big enough to have a large impact on our economy. I believe I pointed that out at the time it was being debated.
Quote from: waterboy on July 09, 2010, 01:18:44 PM
Heh, like you missed when I said "all is fair during an election".
go back to your cave. Oh, yeah, I'll never mention your name again, but I'll be thinking of you. Just look for the code words....context, bully, neo, fantacist, freeper...
Back at you. Look for code words...phony, coward, and in particular, crybaby. The latter of course being the real source of your handle.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 09, 2010, 02:07:42 PM
Well, lets shift the incentive then. Add a large enough tax incentive for fuel refined in the united states to mitigate the expense of building more small clean refineries.
Additionally, each barrel of oil yields around $16 in end user consumer fuel tax. That's $320million in tax dollars a day. Of that, a tiny tiny fraction is devoted to alternative energy research or incentives for domestic fuel production.
I like tax incentives when used correctly. However, we seem to be stuck in the paradigm that more oil, more refining, more drilling is the answer. I think we should pay attention to how countries who have never had large oil reserves or refineries have survived. Oil isn't the only answer to our needs. We probably produce and refine enough for our product manufacturing needs or can find substitutes. For instance the amount of plastic in products is unnecessary and can often be replaced with more natural and abundant fibers from bamboo, corn silk etc. Germany is currently a leader in electrical energy from solar, batteries etc. They actually water ski behind solar electric powered boats. England has one of the most efficient electric motors ever produced. It is difficult to even buy it here in the states due to protectionist attitudes. Instead we produce lookalike motors and market them as E-tec. The Scandinavian countries are also into alternatives but they use a lot of natural gas too. I read where they have mini-hydrogen stations placed strategically along highways that convert water to hydrogen to power experimental clean engined cars.
If anything needs incentivized right now, its a move towards industries that will create new bases of employment and less reliance on early 20th century technologies and non-renewable resources. Using your question as to what actions in the past have created more jobs and stable growth, I would point to governments' past encouragement of new technologies like steam engines, railroads, and space exploration as examples. We actually led the world in those endeavors and prospered for more than a century afterwards.
Quote from: waterboy on July 11, 2010, 10:33:59 AM
I read where they have mini-hydrogen stations placed strategically along highways that convert water to hydrogen to power experimental clean engined cars.
All interesting ideas, great to pursue in times of prosperity. . .and here the problem lies, we are facing a full on depression, and we need to make energy very very cheep to prime the economy. All of these solutions are an additional investment in energy that produces fewer watts of power at a higher expense. This administration is basically following your line of thought, using a crisis to promote policy. Whether you agree with this or not, the product does not address the problem. Our economy is not "too big to fail."
I would be just fine if we were to go "organic" on all soda bottles with cornstarch plastics and use paper containers for all other beverages and food packaging. I prefer cotton to synthetic fabric. I love the idea of using trees. They are, after all, a crop just like corn or wheat.
Some tree varieties such as royal palawan are already being used to replace native American species because they grow 10 feet a year and produce high quality pulp for packaging in the natural products industry.
I think it is unrealistic to think we can replace petroleum based plastics. Doing so would cause environmentalists to simply shift back to crying over trees. We consume. That will never change. As long as we exist there will be the elite mentality that seeks to persecute us for consuming (existing). Take 300 million people and convert them to driving electric vehicles, and there will be an outcry over the thousands of coal, oil, hydro, and nuclear facilities that have to be built to produce enough electricity to fuel those vehicles. The average American already uses about 11,000kwh of electricity a year. I'm sure this would nearly double if we rely on electric transportation. Wind power is an option, but it requires constant wind, and most mills only produce 1mw of power at peak output. Even the larger ones only produce 10mw at peak.
So that's basically my point, we have a long way to go before renewable energy becomes cheap, and even when we get there, and we will, it will be an expensive journey. We need to head that direction, but not right now. We need to get back on our feet and walk before we can run.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 12, 2010, 07:59:58 AM
So that's basically my point, we have a long way to go before renewable energy becomes cheap, and even when we get there, and we will, it will be an expensive journey. We need to head that direction, but not right now. We need to get back on our feet and walk before we can run.
I agree with your larger point that we've got a long way to go figuratively and technologically with renewable energy. But I disagree that little can be done now.
One thing that can be done even in hard times is conservation. If you conserve energy, you'll spend less on it, and leaving more money in your wallet. That's something everyone can do, and it's the most overlooked factor in all this.
And I'm not talking about living like cavemen. I'm talking about basic things such as programmable thermostats, making sure your water heater is set at an energy-saving setting, and putting compact fluorescent lightbulbs in your house. These are things that take very little money and save you a lot on your utility bills down the road.
According to EnergyStar in 2009, just 11 percent of households in America use CFLs. That is pathetically low, and CFLs make a big impact in energy consumption. When with the bulbs' price going down to as low as a buck apiece, there's no more excuse for not buying them. Even if you have concerns about the bulbs' infinitesimal amount of mercury, dead bulbs can be recycled at Home Depots and recycling centers.
And look out in the next decade or so when the relatively mild problems and costs with LED lighting get ironed out.
Having done a lot of renewable energy research the past 10 years or so, I can tell you from experience that people put the cart before the horse regarding solar panels, wind turbines, etc. One needs to conserve energy
first, so you won't need to spend as much money on those solar panels or wind turbines to power your home. Obviously, such a policy can be incentivized nationwide.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 12, 2010, 10:43:47 AM
I agree with your larger point that we've got a long way to go figuratively and technologically with renewable energy. But I disagree that little can be done now.
One thing that can be done even in hard times is conservation. If you conserve energy, you'll spend less on it, and leaving more money in your wallet. That's something everyone can do, and it's the most overlooked factor in all this.
And I'm not talking about living like cavemen. I'm talking about basic things such as programmable thermostats, making sure your water heater is set at an energy-saving setting, and putting compact fluorescent lightbulbs in your house. These are things that take very little money and save you a lot on your utility bills down the road.
According to EnergyStar in 2009, just 11 percent of households in America use CFLs. That is pathetically low, and CFLs make a big impact in energy consumption. When with the bulbs' price going down to as low as a buck apiece, there's no more excuse for not buying them. Even if you have concerns about the bulbs' infinitesimal amount of mercury, dead bulbs can be recycled at Home Depots and recycling centers.
And look out in the next decade or so when the relatively mild problems and costs with LED lighting get ironed out.
Having done a lot of renewable energy research the past 10 years or so, I can tell you from experience that people put the cart before the horse regarding solar panels, wind turbines, etc. One needs to conserve energy first, so you won't need to spend as much money on those solar panels or wind turbines to power your home. Obviously, such a policy can be incentivized nationwide.
All good points. I'm totally shocked at how much less I'm paying in electricity than I was at my old house with a more efficient cooling system, high-end thermal windows and CFL's in just about every fixture with the exception of two which had to be halogens to get the amount of light I needed. I put those on rheostats so I didn't have to blare them all the time, only at brief spurts if I'm digging around for something in either of those rooms.
For 200 more square feet, I'm averaging about $100 to $125 less per month in electric expenses, though part of that may also be that my new house does not have a pool and I was running a recirculating pump about 10 hours a day at the old house, that still shouldn't have added up to the entire difference, especially considering the ancient A/C and drafty windows. My gas usage savings wasn't quite as impressive as I would have thought, but it was still an improvement.
Edit to add: To this point the biodiesel tax credit had supposedly renewed in March, but as of July
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1268256494183.xml
http://brownfieldagnews.com/2010/07/02/biodiesel-tax-credit-situation-still-unresolved/
"The biodiesel tax credit situation is still unresolved.
Several attempts by the Senate to pass a tax extenders package have failed to get the 60 votes need to proceed. Most of those Senators who opposed the package cite the fact that a significant level of the cost was not offset with cuts or savings and thus would add to the federal deficit. The biodiesel tax credit and other tax credits were fully offset, but an unemployment benefits extension and some other items were not offset.
The American Soybean Association says it will make every effort to revive the tax extenders bill or have the biodiesel credit included in any other measure that moves forward. One possibility is a potential energy bill that could move in the Senate in late July."
Perhaps they should try and pass this as a stand-alone instead of sausage stuffing with other bills. This has left some large bio-diesel plants in total limbo for months. The Prairie Pride plant in Deerfield, Mo. is one of my clients and they are still shut down. It's costly to start up and shut down due to a fuel needing to be so heavily subsidized to compete with petroleum fuels. We've got the technology and capacity to make plenty of ethanol and bio-D, they simply are not competitive with fossil fuels, but pushing gas and diesel prices to $5.00 a gallon would drive the final nail into our economic coffin right now.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 12, 2010, 10:43:47 AM
I agree with your larger point that we've got a long way to go figuratively and technologically with renewable energy. But I disagree that little can be done now.
One thing that can be done even in hard times is conservation. If you conserve energy, you'll spend less on it, and leaving more money in your wallet. That's something everyone can do, and it's the most overlooked factor in all this.
And I'm not talking about living like cavemen. I'm talking about basic things such as programmable thermostats, making sure your water heater is set at an energy-saving setting, and putting compact fluorescent lightbulbs in your house. These are things that take very little money and save you a lot on your utility bills down the road.
According to EnergyStar in 2009, just 11 percent of households in America use CFLs. That is pathetically low, and CFLs make a big impact in energy consumption. When with the bulbs' price going down to as low as a buck apiece, there's no more excuse for not buying them. Even if you have concerns about the bulbs' infinitesimal amount of mercury, dead bulbs can be recycled at Home Depots and recycling centers.
And look out in the next decade or so when the relatively mild problems and costs with LED lighting get ironed out.
Having done a lot of renewable energy research the past 10 years or so, I can tell you from experience that people put the cart before the horse regarding solar panels, wind turbines, etc. One needs to conserve energy first, so you won't need to spend as much money on those solar panels or wind turbines to power your home. Obviously, such a policy can be incentivized nationwide.
Two factors have changed the CFL market and made the product more appealing.
First the price has been lowered. As of last year I took a count, went to Walmart, and spent $240 to replace all of the bulbs (not on rheostats) in my house. Had I done that the year before it would have cost me well over $600.
Second, and the most important to me, they now have bulbs with the soft friendly warm temperature that I am used to with incandescent. They used to only produce that harsh blue/white 7000k tone that made everyone look like zombies.
My electric bills went from well over $300/mo to under $200 (we have tons of can lights).
As for conservation in general, that should be driven by technology & innovation, not by sacrifice. As capitalists, conservation of resources must be profitable to be viable. In other countries where resources are at a premium, conservation is big business. We have a long way to go before the longterm payback becomes more attractive than the initial investment. We're getting there.
The worst mistake is to apply government force to attain conservation, doing so circumvents the free market creating irresponsible industry. I think we know what that causes. ;)
The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it. – Harry Browne
Quote from: Gaspar on July 12, 2010, 12:38:11 PM
As for conservation in general, that should be driven by technology & innovation, not by sacrifice.
But, again, what conservation methods did I mention require sacrifice? Conservation and sacrifice aren't inextricably linked by a long shot.
Just look at computers ... they're accomplish more tasks with less power, and it's happening all the time.
I think the failure for the public to embrace CFLs is a lack of education of the product, not because it's a bad product. The pluses are enormous compared to the minuses.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 12, 2010, 01:19:38 PM
But, again, what conservation methods did I mention require sacrifice? Conservation and sacrifice aren't inextricably linked by a long shot.
Just look at computers ... they're accomplish more tasks with less power, and it's happening all the time.
I think the failure for the public to embrace CFLs is a lack of education of the product, not because it's a bad product. The pluses are enormous compared to the minuses.
Just wish they'd hurry up and get a dimmable CFL...the only two incandescents left in my house ... or even outside of it now, are the two in my ceiling fan lights. Too bad the technology won't allow if, from my understanding of it.
Quote from: Hoss on July 12, 2010, 01:31:24 PM
Just wish they'd hurry up and get a dimmable CFL...the only two incandescents left in my house ... or even outside of it now, are the two in my ceiling fan lights. Too bad the technology won't allow if, from my understanding of it.
Dude, they've been on the market for quite a while.
http://www.amazon.com/Dimmable-Compact-Fluorescent-Light-Bulbs-15w/dp/B000XSKD4C
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 12, 2010, 01:32:56 PM
Dude, they've been on the market for quite a while.
http://www.amazon.com/Dimmable-Compact-Fluorescent-Light-Bulbs-15w/dp/B000XSKD4C
Hmm..I just assumed they didn't exist because I couldn't find one at ANY hardware store/big box store....I'm going to have to read up a little on them, since it appears they don't all work the same. Some seem to suggest not dimming until after they've been on for an hour??
Quote from: Hoss on July 12, 2010, 02:06:23 PM
Hmm..I just assumed they didn't exist because I couldn't find one at ANY hardware store/big box store....I'm going to have to read up a little on them, since it appears they don't all work the same. Some seem to suggest not dimming until after they've been on for an hour??
They're expensive and they don't work yet. Especially on a ceiling fan. They require the full voltage to come on, and buzz horribly when you dim them. You also notice the 60 cycle flicker when dimmed. We tried some in the living room and went back to incandescent. It also seems like they don't actually dim, but rather they step up and down three or four levels between off and bright.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 12, 2010, 02:54:07 PM
They're expensive and they don't work yet. Especially on a ceiling fan. They require the full voltage to come on, and buzz horribly when you dim them. You also notice the 60 cycle flicker when dimmed. We tried some in the living room and went back to incandescent. It also seems like they don't actually dim, but rather they step up and down three or four levels between off and bright.
Thanks for that, Scott...likely why the big box and hardware stores don't stock them. I'll stick with my 60W incandescents in there...those lights get used pretty rarely anyway..
Gaspar, you have discovered the economies of scale.
Solar cells have gone from a couple hundred dollars per watt to about $2.70 per watt. Wind has been doing the same thing. This has been going on for 30 years. In other countries. We have walked away from innovation and economic development for decades just to preserve the power and interests of big oil.
Again, puullllleeeeezzzzeeee!!! Need to walk before we run?? Geez, where does Rupert Murdoch come up with this crap?? We have a running economy. We HAVE been stifling it all right - since the first week of his regime when Reagan took the solar cells off the White House. So big oil can continue with their capitalistic monopolism. (There is a prime example of that economic model.)
As far as energy? You think it might go up in the future? Then WHY on God's green earth would ANYONE resist developing new ways to make it?? Like the US has done for decades? And the rest of the world has NOT for decades? Where do you think all those massive towers made up by Tiger station in Tulsa are going? They are for wind generators by the hundreds.
And energy IS cheap. Very cheap. Cheaper in 'real dollars' - whatever those are - than it has been in anyone's life on this board. Electricity is running about $0.07 per kilowatt hour - at least from PSO. It was about the same in 2000. And 1990. And 1980. While everything else has skyrocketed. If Chevy had done the same way, that new Corvette all the aging middle age guys need for their ego boost would still cost about $ 10,000. And gasoline is still an unbelievable bargain.
That is the lame, plaintive bleat of reactionary revisionists use to keep us from innovation and developing new technology, jobs and economic activity. As we have lost out on solar, wind, etc.
And trees as a solution are unbelievable. But that is the ignorant kind of example "alternative solution" Murdoch and company use to keep people believing nothing can be done now - we must wait until the future. Blech!! As the lame little 15 year old California girl might say, "Gag me with a spoon". 10 feet a year?? How many tons per acre per year of biomass is that? (Not as much as plain old corn and corn is miserable - couple tons per year per acre.) How about switchgrass and marijuana? Both 10 to 12 to 15 tons per year per acre. Without the massive infusions of insecticides and fertilizer and fuels required by corn. Let me repeat; WITHOUT the massive infusions of insecticides and fertilizer and fuels required by corn. Or palm trees or palawa (shiipping from where?) Just imagine what a little cultivation and care would create!!
Use marijuana based plastics instead. Or switchgrass based plastics. (Oops...there is another economic development opportunity that we must walk away from..)
Good times or bad, we have systematically, consciously and ridiculously walked away from the great growth opportunities of the energy future. As well as the environmental future.
As far as a crisis to promote policy, well there was never a more extreme example of that then in 2001 - 2003 when crisis was used to promote one of the most ridiculous examples of policy this country has ever seen - even worse than the Spanish-American war! Iraq. (We never learn from history, so are doomed to repeat it...and since we expect different results from the same old tire crap, we are by definition, insane.)
Wind power as "option" already provides over 10% of German electricity. As does solar. Just think what we could do with extra 20% electricity. And at least most of it at times - peak times - when electricity is already at a premium (highest load on grid) - in the afternoon when sun is strongest and would bring the biggest benefit to relieving the grid - sun is strongest and would give the most solar watts. (I repeat to make it easier to understand.)
Yes, alternatives will be expensive. But what do you think the current grid cost? It was and is massively expensive!
And so we return to economies of scale. The more solar and wind, the cheaper it gets - especially at peak times. Wow, a win/win!! How about that?? That's how it has gone from $100+ to $2.70.
And I almost hate to even mention this, but if we did have a 200 million gallon marijuana oil spill, how long would it impact the environment?? Until it could decay naturally - about a year - give or take. Where the gulf will not recover for decades. Just like Prince William Sound.
I think what we really need is to deport Rupert Murdoch and all his propaganda back to Australia. Having been raised upside down on this planet gives one an upside down view of the world.
Uh, Heroin, we were having a productive discussion before you arrived with your GIANT ANGRY BONG.
(http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/627067/80880030.jpg)
You are really trolling lately. If you would like to contribute, please do, but do so without your silly anger and insulting tone.
Wait a minute Gas. Being factual in a passionate way is trolling? Lamenting the failure of our country to use logic instead of protectionism of an existing energy establishment is silly and insulting?
I think your posts show true analysis and intellect, but his is just as valuable. I have seen a lot worse go down around here, by true bullies, and be regarded as thoughtful patriotism.
Actually Waterboy, Heir shows incredible ignorance at great strides the country has made toward alternative fuels. Anyone who doesn't believe we aren't exploiting those technologies as much as is practical at this point isn't very observant. One only has to drive as far west as the Clinton and Weatherford area to see working wind farms. Solar is in use for many different heating and electrical gathering applications. In my particular field, geothermal is being exploited more and more. Anyone aware we were generating electricity with geothermal plants in the 1970's?
Natural gas is being exploited as a clean technology, in fact it heats and makes electricty for much of our state and region. We have capacity to make millions of barrels of bio-fuels, apparently the need or demand for them has not eclipsed that for petroleum or they would not require a $1 a gallon subsidy from the federal government.
Much of this technology has either been invented or refined and perfected in the United States. I don't think we run interferance for big oil, it's simply that the industrial engine of our country and the rest of the world was fueled by fossil fuels for the entire last century, that's a hard habit to break when you consider the BTU content of fossil fuels and how dangerous some of the alternatives are percieved as being to move really big machinery (like small nuke reactors to power large ocean-going ships).
Like everything else we seem to do though, apparently our standard of living is too high as much of the solar and wind equipment production is happening in China along with so much other production of industrial and consumer goods these days. Perhaps we all need to get out of our cars, hop on bikes and be willing to work for $5 a day so we can partake in this great alternative energy bonanza.
Quote from: waterboy on July 13, 2010, 08:44:48 AM
Wait a minute Gas. Being factual in a passionate way is trolling? Lamenting the failure of our country to use logic instead of protectionism of an existing energy establishment is silly and insulting?
I think your posts show true analysis and intellect, but his is just as valuable. I have seen a lot worse go down around here, by true bullies, and be regarded as thoughtful patriotism.
I disagree. Heroin is angry in a 3AM intoxicated way. He is reverting back to FOTD. Already he has begun to disintegrate interesting threads into name calling garbage.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2010, 09:27:43 AM
I disagree. Heroin is angry in a 3AM intoxicated way. He is reverting back to FOTD. Already he has begun to disintegrate interesting threads into name calling garbage.
And calling another poster "Heroin" in the same paragraph somehow
isn't name-calling garbage. ::)
Talk about hypocrisy.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 13, 2010, 10:21:00 AM
And calling another poster "Heroin" in the same paragraph somehow isn't name-calling garbage. ::)
Talk about hypocrisy.
Sorry, I'm dyslexic. I thought it was heroin. My bad. :o
When we reach 20% of our economy powered by alternative energy, and he is still making such statements, then Heironymus could be called ignorant. Until then he's just another poster with a differing view.
We're looking at alternatives right now but the question I was hoping to have answered is why we don't incentivise it along with roadbuilding, bankers and oil? In the seventies there were incentives to homeowners that started to stimulate solar industries, geo-thermal etc. But something happened in the 80's that ended the movement and left a lot of businesses holding an empty bag. Remember?
Wow, FOTD must be quite happy at the attention he still generates and the standards of activity he established. :D
Quote from: waterboy on July 13, 2010, 11:19:50 AM
When we reach 20% of our economy powered by alternative energy, and he is still making such statements, then Heironymus could be called ignorant. Until then he's just another poster with a differing view.
We're looking at alternatives right now but the question I was hoping to have answered is why we don't incentivise it along with roadbuilding, bankers and oil? In the seventies there were incentives to homeowners that started to stimulate solar industries, geo-thermal etc. But something happened in the 80's that ended the movement and left a lot of businesses holding an empty bag. Remember?
Wow, FOTD must be quite happy at the attention he still generates and the standards of activity he established. :D
You don't consider $1.00 a gallon subsidy for bio-diesel production an incentive?
Only problem is, the extension of those "credits" for this year are on hold still apparently which has idled many bio-d plants. Congressional Democrats and the Administration are paying very weak lip service to alt fuels in this instance.
Bio-diesel? Isn't that food used to make traditional diesel fuel? I honestly think using weeds is a better idea. I'm hoping to see a movement away from diesel anyway. Its low grade fuel that costs more than higher grades and is more polluting.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 13, 2010, 11:23:28 AM
Only problem is, the extension of those "credits" for this year are on hold still apparently which has idled many bio-d plants. Congressional Democrats and the Administration are paying very weak lip service to alt fuels in this instance.
Yeah, it's the Democrats, not the Republican filibuster that kept them from passing that bill. Even if Ben Nelson had voted for it, it wouldn't have mattered.
Everyone gets that Congress is dysfunctional (look at their approval ratings!), but the story isn't being told as to why.
FOTD never left.
What IS truly ignorant is the way we have sand bagged, blocked and in general avoided the use of solar and wind in this country for the last 30 years, such that we get a couple percent of our energy from these while the people who have embraced them are well into the double digits and growing much faster than we. Even China has gotten on the bandwagon, since they, too recognize the future of oil.
We invented solar, by definition. Shockley created the PN junction that led to a diode, then transistor. The diode IS a solar cell.
We invented the wind generator technology. Way over 100 years ago.
And in solar, we have let Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Siemens, and Fuji go blasting past us like we were standing still. Actually, like we were backing up.
Talk about ignorant. It's Rupert Murdoch script time again.
I drove through the entire west to California over Christmas and saw literally thousands of wind turbines. We have made good progress in the last few years - no thanks to Exxon, BP, or Chesapeake. In fact, in spite of them. And others. But we have lagged FAR behind the rest of the world and instead of being the manufacturer's and beneficiaries of that economic activity, we are paying others. They get the benefit of the profits generated instead of us.
Come on Conan, you argue this economic side all the time... can't go the other way now.
Natural gas is great and here for the long haul. One small problem is the lack of diversification. You buy all one stock for your portfolio? Why would you depend so exclusively on one fuel?? Sounds like an ignorant thing to do, having all eggs in one basket.
If nat gas and oil don't "need" subsidies, then why are they subsidized??
And then the ignorant jump to $5 a day for energy bonanza... gawd, give me a break...
Our energy useage;
Solar making 20%. Wind making 20%. That's 40%. Marijuana and switchgrass cultivation 120%. 160% with 3 EASY things. Reasonable and practical. Today. Just think how much of the heavy fuels that would free up for critical uses like military (airplanes, ships, tanks, Humvees, etc). And don't even need nukes. Plenty of room for expansion, too. Just grow more grass, since less than 10% of our land (about 6) would be needed to grow all the fuel we need for long into the future.
There is nothing more dangerous about a marijuana derived fuel than an oil derived fuel. Specious ignorance complements of Rupert Murdoch script again.
I realize most of the Rupert Murdoch cult members don't hear any of this. That's ok. There are some that do. And everyone else is using their brain in spite of the force (nay, not just force, perhaps even radicalism) used to make this argument. Unlike Murdoch, I happen to love the United States. Yeah, I bet that Aussie really loves it too... not.
Oh, yeah.... love the bong! Way cool!
Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2010, 12:01:46 PM
FOTD never left.
Yeah, everyone who doesn't agree with you is a nutjob. ::)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 13, 2010, 12:10:23 PM
Just grow more grass, since less than 10% of our land (about 6) would be needed to grow all the fuel we need for long into the future.
Is there enough water in the Aquifer (sp?) to grow that much grass? A lot of our land is kind of dry without irrigation. We have already been warned about water shortages, especially in areas fed by the Rocky Mountains.
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2010, 12:11:12 PM
Yeah, everyone who doesn't agree with you is a nutjob. ::)
No. I meant that FOTD never left. ;)
Yeah, there is more than enough water for grass. Have you seen the kind of effort it takes to try to eradicate it? It grows in the near desert of central Oklahoma in massive quantities with no real attention. Think what just a little kindness would do.
ANY of the two would take fractions of what corn takes. Would be on a par with dry wheat farming - which we do well here. And the yields would be much greater.
And if water is gonna be a problem with grass, then it is just that much worse with other cultivated crops. Rocky Mountains - like beets, sunflowers, cantaloupe (Rocky Ford). All those heavily irrigated plants of the central valley of California. Well, maybe we better keep growing all that stuff - how would all our illegals make a living otherwise?
Why is it that whenever the conversation turns to alternative energy the major focus of some becomes Marijuana?
It only yields 39 gallons per acre of bio-diesel oil.
Soybeans yield 48 gallons and meal as a byproduct.
Flax 51 gallons.
Sunflower 102 gallons and yield meal.
Peanuts 113 gallons and yield meal.
Caster Bean 151 gallons.
In fact hemp is quite meager in it's usefulness outside of a fiber crop. Rice produces more than twice the oil per acre and tastes great with black beans! :) Sorry to say, but marijuana is not the cure.
Now when it comes to Cellulosic Ethanol, switchgrass is the way to go, but we'd have to grow a hell of a lot of it, and it would be expensive to produce. Far far more expensive than bio-diesel. IC engines cannot run on ethanol alone, at least not the ones we now have. It's more of a supplement or filler than a solution at this point.
Quote from: waterboy on July 13, 2010, 11:27:13 AM
Bio-diesel? Isn't that food used to make traditional diesel fuel? I honestly think using weeds is a better idea. I'm hoping to see a movement away from diesel anyway. Its low grade fuel that costs more than higher grades and is more polluting.
It costs more because they tax the smile out of it.
Diesel takes less energy to refine. It fuels ocean going ships, aircraft (basically similar to #1 oil) and it's BTU content per gallon is great. Jus a guess but 30 to 50% of our transportation infrastructure plus construction equipment runs on it.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 13, 2010, 01:58:41 PM
It costs more because they tax the smile out of it.
Diesel takes less energy to refine. It fuels ocean going ships, aircraft (basically similar to #1 oil) and it's BTU content per gallon is great. Jus a guess but 30 to 50% of our transportation infrastructure plus construction equipment runs on it.
One thing to note is that the production of Bio-diesel is also friendlier.
While burning of ethanol is relatively clean, fermentation of cellulose into ethanol releases significant amounts of Carbon Dioxide, and waste products.
Production of bio-diesel is carbon neutral. Soda ash is added to separate the glycerin, and it's essentially ready to go into the gas tank. The byproduct (glycerin) can be sold for many other uses including cosmetics.
The new diesel engines are the cleanest IC engines on the market. Even the carbon soot that used to be the trademark of a diesel has been eliminated.
I will miss my old 190TD, with it's smoke screen capability. ;D
Sorry I was sitting at Rocket Lube with my iPhone earlier and missed a few other points.
Bio Diesel can be made with waste stocks like used (and plentiful) restaurant grease, tallow, and chicken fat.
Here's a great article from Popular Mechanics on diesel. I was not aware that 50% of the car market in Europe was diesel. I was commenting that up to 50% of our total transportation needs are based on diesel including over the road trucks, ocean-going ships (other than the nuke fleets of navies the ocean fleet is virtually all diesel powered), trains, and personal vehicles.
"The Future of Diesel in the US: Analysis
Concerns over fuel economy and carbon-dioxide emissions have left many wondering why more cars with diesel engines aren't available in America. After all, diesel-engined cars are 20 to 40 percent more efficient, and they're cleaner than ever. Diesels are wildly popular in Europe, accounting for roughly 50 percent of the car market there. So why don't automakers simply bring the European cars here? It comes down to intrinsic differences between U.S. and European governmental policies, consumer demand and fuel prices. Here is a primer on the future of diesel in the United States."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/diesel/4330313
Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2010, 02:19:42 PM
I will miss my old 190TD, with it's smoke screen capability. ;D
Nice car!
It's been some time now since passenger cars with diesel engines produced much soot. Now that ultra-low sulfur fuel is required, they produce even less emissions. They've always been better on the carbon dioxide front thanks to their fuel efficiency, despite diesel fuel containing more carbon than gasoline.
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2010, 03:03:26 PM
Nice car!
It's been some time now since passenger cars with diesel engines produced much soot. Now that ultra-low sulfur fuel is required, they produce even less emissions. They've always been better on the carbon dioxide front thanks to their fuel efficiency, despite diesel fuel containing more carbon than gasoline.
I put 260,000 miles on that car without a single visit to the mechanic. Sold it because I needed a truck. Could have put another 260K on it.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2010, 03:24:25 PM
I put 260,000 miles on that car without a single visit to the mechanic. Sold it because I needed a truck. Could have put another 260K on it.
Yeah, they don't make 'em like they used to. I guess the same could be said about many Japanese cars these days, too. :P
I am going by 1914 information where the British and Americans were able to get 50 gallons per ton from "grassy" type biomass, including grass and switchgrass. (If some had been paying attention, there are ample references to both. Shorthand "grass" is easier to type.)
Do you think we could maybe refine the processes a little to do better than was done a century ago???
Maybe not...
If this AEI person is right, the answer is yes, the jobs outlook will indeed get worse.
http://www.aei.org/outlook/100971
He argues for the Fed to take action, although his arguments are actually more supportive of another stimulus. He rightly points out that banks aren't lending a lot of money. For that reason, government spending would be a more effective tool. Tax cuts would be an option, but households are also hanging on to cash. Nobody wants to spend.
Too bad there's no political will for another stimulus. Maybe there will be when deflation sets in and we really see the job losses mount.
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2010, 07:53:03 PM
If this AEI person is right, the answer is yes, the jobs outlook will indeed get worse.
http://www.aei.org/outlook/100971
He argues for the Fed to take action, although his arguments are actually more supportive of another stimulus. He rightly points out that banks aren't lending a lot of money. For that reason, government spending would be a more effective tool. Tax cuts would be an option, but households are also hanging on to cash. Nobody wants to spend.
Too bad there's no political will for another stimulus. Maybe there will be when deflation sets in and we really see the job losses mount.
I think the disconnect is related to the term "stimulus." As we saw with the previous bill, just because you label it "stimulus" does not make it so. Another bill full of government programs, infrastructure improvement projects, and congressional pork will only waste more money.
Unfortunately we will most likely not see a another stimulus bill because the terminology has been trashed. We will have to wait until after the mid-term elections, or perhaps even the next presidential election to repair the economy now.
The banks are hunkering down to ride this thing out. There's been a huge shift to Gold which is a sign that banks and investors are boarding up the windows until the storm passes.
The blame falls mostly on congress. The Pelosi/Reid led congress is the most dysfunctional disconnected group I've seen in my lifetime. It was unfortunate for all of those Hopy Changie people that President Obama had to operate under the finger of this group.
The President is guilty too, but his crime is based more in inexperience, idealism, and naiveté than corruption. In Chicago, the "Cult of Personality" is king, and you can say anything to get elected, this doesn't get you so far in Washington, as he is learning.
I think the President would do better with a more diverse congress, I also think that he needs to surround himself with a better group of advisors. His drive to include everyone from the Chicago Machine has done more harm than good. The national spotlight is much brighter than the Chicago stage lamp.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 14, 2010, 07:37:27 AM
I think the disconnect is related to the term "stimulus." As we saw with the previous bill, just because you label it "stimulus" does not make it so. Another bill full of government programs, infrastructure improvement projects, and congressional pork will only waste more money.
This is a perfect example of why our political system kinda sucks. Half of our country is bound up in an ideology that proudly has no grasp of history, and no grasp of basic economics.
Gaspar, "government programs and infrastructure improvement projects" are quintessential economic stimuli, and have been since the Depression. What's more, they work to bring the economy around, albeit slowly. And, of course, one man's hand out is another man's hand up, but it's obvious that 99% of the stuff you see around you is the former.
Keynes, who helped pioneer this approach, has yet to be debunked. In fact, he's broadly considered to be the guy who saved us from the Great Depression (Keynes came up with the theory, FDR implemented it with policy). Why suddenly it's so heinous to follow that same path now is absolutely beyond me.
I haven't yet heard any sort of proof as to why getting money back into the system through government programs is actually a bad thing. Like, actual proof. I've heard a smile-ton of ideological spew that has absolutely no backing beyond what Fox News or the Talk Radio Kuiper belt vomits forth. I've also heard a lot of hyperventilation about why this somehow makes us unAmerican, or saps our Vital Bodily Fluids. It completely ignores that fact that we have had it this bad in the past, only worse, and that we fixed it by doing what Obama is doing now. This is not controversial by historical standards, but if you know no history and don't care a whit for it then it will seem as radical as the anarchist bomb-throwers of 1848.
No one has been able to refute this. Why the Great Depression solution is not also the Great Recession solution. Until that happens, all of this is just half of the electorate being afraid of the dark.
Edited to add: I think this fear stuff is being mainlined through certain media outlets directly into peoples' brains. It's being ginned up in certain think tanks, and on certain radio shows. It's being pushed by certain politicians, all of whom have something to gain from more, rather than less fear. It's not news but we forget in each of these threads. But I suppose I should be surprised. (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/)
Quote from: Gaspar on July 14, 2010, 07:37:27 AM
The Pelosi/Reid led congress is the most dysfunctional disconnected group I've seen in my lifetime. It was unfortunate for all of those Hopy Changie people that President Obama had to operate under the finger of this group.
The President is guilty too, but his crime is based more in inexperience, idealism, and naiveté than corruption.
His drive to include everyone from the Chicago Machine has done more harm than good. The national spotlight is much brighter than the Chicago stage lamp.
Your blind partisanship is showing.
Congress has been disfunctional for a long time, even when the republicans were in charge. The difference now is the amount of coverage it gets from bloggers and the internet.
And former President Bush's appointees mostly came from Texas and the oil industry. I guess you must have just been unaware or uninformed of that.
Quote from: we vs us on July 14, 2010, 09:26:44 AM
This is a perfect example of why our political system kinda sucks. Half of our country is bound up in an ideology that proudly has no grasp of history, and no grasp of basic economics.
Gaspar, "government programs and infrastructure improvement projects" are quintessential economic stimuli, and have been since the Depression. What's more, they work to bring the economy around, albeit slowly. And, of course, one man's hand out is another man's hand up, but it's obvious that 99% of the stuff you see around you is the former.
Keynes, who helped pioneer this approach, has yet to be debunked. In fact, he's broadly considered to be the guy who saved us from the Great Depression (Keynes came up with the theory, FDR implemented it with policy). Why suddenly it's so heinous to follow that same path now is absolutely beyond me.
I haven't yet heard any sort of proof as to why getting money back into the system through government programs is actually a bad thing. Like, actual proof. I've heard a smile-ton of ideological spew that has absolutely no backing beyond what Fox News or the Talk Radio Kuiper belt vomits forth. I've also heard a lot of hyperventilation about why this somehow makes us unAmerican, or saps our Vital Bodily Fluids. It completely ignores that fact that we have had it this bad in the past, only worse, and that we fixed it by doing what Obama is doing now. This is not controversial by historical standards, but if you know no history and don't care a whit for it then it will seem as radical as the bomb-throwers of 1848.
No one has been able to refute this. Why the Great Depression solution is not also the Great Recession solution. Until that happens, all of this is just half of the electorate being afraid of the dark.
I'll go so far as to agree that recessions and depressions are great for our countries infrastructure needs. One important factor you are ignoring when comparing what President Obama and our current Congress is doing to what FDR did is all the hand-outs to special interest groups and wasteful pet projects which benefit few these days. Something else the government did different back then is they were not paying millions of people to look for work, they put shovels in people's hands and gave them work. We paid for productivity, today it's acceptible to pay people to exist in mediocrity and squalor. What favors is the government doing to society to pay people to be unproductive?
There's also considerable thought that defense spending for WWII is what eventually brought the country out of the economic funk. It also provided U.S. workers with new, more technical skill sets from building defense equipment like aircraft, vehicles, communication equipment, firearms, etc. as well as bringing new people into the workforce like "Rosie the riveter". We created a generation of people who had valuable skill sets, rather than a generation of people who learned to hold their hand out and recieve manna from Heaven.
Some of the flaws in Keynes theories is the idea that saving is a bad thing:
"Keynesian economics warns against the practice of too much saving, or underconsumption, and not enough consumption, or spending, in the economy. It also supports considerable redistribution of wealth, when needed. Keynesian economics further concludes that there is a pragmatic reason for the massive redistribution of wealth: if the poorer segments of society are given sums of money, they will likely spend it, rather than save it, thus promoting economic growth. Another central idea of Keynesian economics is that trends in the macroeconomic level can disproportionately influence consumer behavior at the micro-level. Keynesian economics, also called macroeconomics for it's wide look at the economy as a whole, remains one of the important schools in economic thought today."
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-keynesian-economics.htm
Interestingly, the majority of the people of my grandparent's generation who lived through the Great Depression were generally frugal savers always mindful that another Depression could happen, not the sort of people who would ascribe to Keynesian thought. Keynesian economics, I think, advocates spending to reckless levels and makes people think of debt as being more acceptible. It all works until it's time to start paying it back, then what?
I believe strongly in the psychological effects of recession. If you start talking about an impending recession enough, you will eventually have one because banks will slow down lending and people will slow down spending and horde cash. As long as the press keeps beating down the economy and President Obama's foes want to keep beating down the economy, people and companies will continue to horde cash. People are afraid of more joblessness and the government making it even harder to find jobs via new regulations which are going to make it more costly for companies to put people on their payrolls.
I agree that some of the money could have been spent better, but it doesn't matter. As long as it's getting spent, it stimulates the economy. Even Jindal's failed sand berms did that, despite every red cent of the $360 million going to his fourth largest campaign contributor. ;)
And really, saving is a bad thing. On the large scale. It's good for your or me individually, but collectively, it's just money that's sitting idle. That's why we let banks loan it. When banks are loaning, that works pretty well.
And actually, Keynes did address the end game. What to do when the economy is better, and why debt doesn't actually matter as long as we can keep borrowing. The extra spending, through its stimulation of the economy, increases GDP compared to what it would have been without the spending. That effect lasts through the entire business cycle, which then gives more revenue with which to pay off debt. Also, with a well-managed economy, inflation will slowly eat away at real value of the debt, making it more manageable.
Government should be countercyclical. In the good times, taxes should be raised and debts should be paid off. (what Clinton was doing in the late 90s) It both pays off government debt and helps prevent the economy from getting too good, which leads to rampant inflation. In a recession, the government should lower taxes and spend money. The concepts are simple, although understanding all of the nuance of Keynes' position takes a long time.
It's painfully obvious that fiscal austerity has done nothing for the Irish, the Greeks, or any of the Baltic countries, yet somehow we're still being sold this bill of goods. If there were some indication (other than talking head yammering..you know, technical indicators) that the market was the least bit concerned about our current borrowing, I'd be more amenable to that line of thinking. They're not. We really can't afford another 1937 right now. Not unless we want to end up like Japan, whose currency is deflating and looks to be on track for a second lost decade.
What we need to do in the short term is either grant the states a big block of cash or lend them said big block of cash. The massive cuts coming in many state governments will only serve to deepen the recession as state employees lose their jobs and states cut back on other expenditures as well.
Out of curiosity, Conan, what do you think we should have spent the stimulus money on? What do you see on stimulus.gov that you think was an utter waste? Personally, I'd like to see more funding for rail and more loan guarantees and/or grants for rural broadband, nuclear power plants, and real electric cars. As in ones that can go 150-200 miles on a charge. We should shore up our levees, and probably even move forward with marshland restoration projects in Louisiana. Concrete things that will improve our infrastructure and economy going forward. Much better than make-work, although if all that can pass Congress is digging holes and filling them in again, that would be better than nothing, at least until we're no longer staring deflation in the face.
And Conan, if anything, WWII bringing us out of the funk, as you say, is probably one of the clearest and most obvious signs that Keynes was fundamentally correct.
Quote from: nathanm on July 14, 2010, 04:21:39 PM
What we need to do in the short term is either grant the states a big block of cash or lend them said big block of cash. The massive cuts coming in many state governments will only serve to deepen the recession as state employees lose their jobs and states cut back on other expenditures as well.
That's an interesting angle, and one I don't necessarily disagree with, but. . .of the states that have been hit hardest, many have taken a hit for different reasons, most related to their own internal mismanagement of finances compounded by a tight economy.
California-was failing under the burden of massive social systems even before the housing crisis. They continue to attempt more spending now even though they are broke.
Arizona-had such inflated home prices and was experiencing development on a massive scale when the bubble burst. The growth rate was the highest in the country and many were moving there to flee housing prices in California and enjoy the strong growing economy. They literally got caught with their pants down. The landscape is now littered with new empty or half finished homes, and the problem is compounded by a massive influx of illegal aliens, drugs, and the social burdens that come with that.
Nevada-was very much in competition with Arizona in the housing arena and shares many of the same economic woes. Boom to bust.
New York-more like the California model with layer upon layer of social programs and the tax burdens that come with them. As unemployment grows, they have less to pay for programs, but they are unwilling to suspend spending. California and New York have an addiction.
Alaska-population is sparse, and most workers in Alaska are seasonal. Logging, petroleum, and tourism rule the realm. When the season ends, workers dig into savings or just go on unemployment until next spring. Any small hiccup in the construction materials industry or tourism impacts them ferociously. Trickle down.
New Jersey-in much the same condition as it's neighbor, but they are actually beginning to turn things around. They are cutting programs left & Right. Decreasing spending and offering tax incentives to businesses and tax payers in general. They may not need any help.
Oregon & Washington-nothing more than "Northern California." Social programs too expensive to fund by taxing an unemployed workforce. No willingness to reform.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 14, 2010, 04:57:12 PM
That's an interesting angle, and one I don't necessarily disagree with, but. . .of the states that have been hit hardest, many have taken a hit for different reasons, most related to their own internal mismanagement of finances compounded by a tight economy.
California-was failing under the burden of massive social systems even before the housing crisis. They continue to attempt more spending now even though they are broke.
Uh, no. California's problem is the initiative system there. It takes something like 2/3rds of the voters to approve a tax increase, but only half to approve a spending increase. Voters constantly vote themselves new programs without new taxes, and there's not a damn thing the state government can do about it.
Besides, you're missing the point that cuts are exactly the opposite of what we need to do right now. The problem is that when we need to be making the cuts after the economy recovers, everything seems like sunshine and roses, so why cut? In any event, all the states are suffering mightily with the twin shrinkages in property and sales tax, not just the ones you enumerated.
Interestingly, sales tax receipts are back up YoY in many states, although the loss of so many state government jobs will certainly not help that situation.
Quote from: nathanm on July 14, 2010, 05:18:47 PM
Uh, no. California's problem is the initiative system there. It takes something like 2/3rds of the voters to approve a tax increase, but only half to approve a spending increase. Voters constantly vote themselves new programs without new taxes, and there's not a damn thing the state government can do about it.
Besides, you're missing the point that cuts are exactly the opposite of what we need to do right now. The problem is that when we need to be making the cuts after the economy recovers, everything seems like sunshine and roses, so why cut? In any event, all the states are suffering mightily with the twin shrinkages in property and sales tax, not just the ones you enumerated.
Interestingly, sales tax receipts are back up YoY in many states, although the loss of so many state government jobs will certainly not help that situation.
Well that's our division in philosophy. In my opinion and experience, cuts in government spending and taxation cause economic growth.
To most liberals, it is important to increase government spending and taxation to increase economic growth. The problem is that the tax base necessary for funding programs is shrinks, the liberal solution is to shift the tax burden to businesses and the wealthy. In anticipation, businesses and the wealthy eliminate jobs (layoffs) to compensate for loss in income and decreased demand. Production levels decrease.
Businesses and the wealthy have one thing in common, they are planners, so even an anticipated or threatened increase in taxation or regulation will result in decreased growth as resources are shifted to shelter the entity from harm.
As for the programs themselves, each new spending program creates a legacy that must be fed, and because spending always exceeds production in government endeavors, the spending becomes another burden on taxpayers of every level.
As for the increased regulation, the Keyneasian model functions only in situations where regulation and stimulation can be applied and then removed. The best analogy is a
traffic signal.
(http://image.ec21.com/image/ketc/oimg_GC03652535_CA03652540/LED_Traffic_Signal_Light.jpg)
The problem in the real world is that regulation and the government programs/projects created in the stimulation process don't go away, and most function more like a
toll booth than a traffic signal. What we end up with is a tollway with booths, and stop lights every few feet. This is where the keynesian model breaks down. Intervention is not retractable and has an ongoing cost associated to it.
(http://sherbornmarealestate.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/toll-booth.jpg)
IMO the two things are diabolically opposite. You can choose to stimulate the economy or you can choose to regulate it. I have recently changed my view on regulation, some is necessary, and s
hould be applied when the economy is in a state of boom to reduce recklessness and avoid bubbles. Otherwise you have a thousand cars speeding down the Autobahn. I used to discount all regulation but I recently got schooled by an extremely wise economic sage and could pose no effective argument against his philosophy.
Stimulation is a combination of the relaxation (or retraction) of regulation and infusing money into the economy in the most effective manner. The majority of this capital has to go to those who employ, produce, distribute, and innovate.
So that's my philosophy and it differs greatly from yours. We have a host of examples emerging on the state level now. Lets see which model works.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 15, 2010, 08:03:09 AM
Businesses and the wealthy have one thing in common, they are planners, so even an anticipated or threatened increase in taxation or regulation will result in decreased growth as resources are shifted to shelter the entity from harm.
There's the problem. Businesses and the wealthy aren't following the program. They need to get with it. What are they thinking?
;D
Here is one of the better "quick overviews" of early 20th century history.
I thought it was particularly interesting to note the Republicans raised tax rates from 25% to 63% during that time. Bigger than ANY Democrat tax hike ever.
Unemployment at about 25% by the time Roosevelt is elected/inaugurated.
In Roosevelt's first four years, unemployment was down under 15%. Then he stopped deficit spending and we went right back into it.
Wow! How did Sweden do it? Keynesian style.
And then from 1945 to 1963 we had tax rate of at least 88%. And the greatest booming economy the world has ever seen, before or since.
So, I guess from the historical results, the best thing that could be done now would be a tax hike. Just like fueled the greatest boom in the history of the world. And the mid 60's expansion. And Reagan's "good times". And the Bush I and Clinton expansion. In fact, every boom we have had. Ever.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
This is reality. Not the tea bagger ranting and ravings.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 15, 2010, 01:01:50 PM
Here is one of the better "quick overviews" of early 20th century history.
I thought it was particularly interesting to note the Republicans raised tax rates from 25% to 63% during that time. Bigger than ANY Democrat tax hike ever.
Unemployment at about 25% by the time Roosevelt is elected/inaugurated.
In Roosevelt's first four years, unemployment was down under 15%. Then he stopped deficit spending and we went right back into it.
Wow! How did Sweden do it? Keynesian style.
And then from 1945 to 1963 we had tax rate of at least 88%. And the greatest booming economy the world has ever seen, before or since.
So, I guess from the historical results, the best thing that could be done now would be a tax hike. Just like fueled the greatest boom in the history of the world. And the mid 60's expansion. And Reagan's "good times". And the Bush I and Clinton expansion. In fact, every boom we have had. Ever.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
This is reality. Not the tea bagger ranting and ravings.
Wow! So it should follow that if we were to raise the effective tax rate to say 95% the economy should really boom and there would be tons of opportunity?
Why not simply do away with income all together? The government could take 100% and then distribute food, clothing, and housing.
heron, it's easy to take bits and pieces of information and assemble funky timelines. The man you are quoting, Mr. Steve Kangas was very fond of the old Russian style of governance under the Soviets. I hardly consider him an economic philosopher.
FAIL!
Quote from: Gaspar on July 15, 2010, 01:11:51 PM
Wow! So it should follow that if we were to raise the effective tax rate to say 95% the economy should really boom and there would be tons of opportunity?
Why not simply do away with income all together? The government could take 100% and then distribute food, clothing, and housing.
This is one of rhetorical problems underlying a lot of conservatism: a wildly misinterpreted slippery slope argument. It actually DOESN'T follow that total confiscation would improve the economy 100%, and the argument isn't, and never has been, that. No Democrat anywhere is suggesting what you're saying we're suggesting.
Quote from: we vs us on July 15, 2010, 01:37:50 PM
This is one of rhetorical problems underlying a lot of conservatism: a wildly misinterpreted slippery slope argument. It actually DOESN'T follow that total confiscation would improve the economy 100%, and the argument isn't, and never has been, that. No Democrat anywhere is suggesting what you're saying we're suggesting.
I know, no Democrat, or any sane person would. Contemporaries of the late Kangas, such as FOTD who first suggested a 95% taxation rate, on this very forum, and now our "new" friend Heron see things differently.
Democrats and Republicans are only teams playing the same game. There are Liberals and Conservatives in each group, here is where the division lies.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 15, 2010, 01:01:50 PM
So, I guess from the historical results, the best thing that could be done now would be a tax hike. Just like fueled the greatest boom in the history of the world. And the mid 60's expansion.
I must have missed a tax hike that fueled the mid 60s expansion after the JF Kennedy tax cuts. I know he wasn't a Republican but he cut personal income taxes anyway.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 15, 2010, 02:43:40 PM
I must have missed a tax hike that fueled the mid 60s expansion after the JF Kennedy tax cuts. I know he wasn't a Republican but he cut personal income taxes anyway.
Disregard. Heron was quoting a moonbat.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 15, 2010, 08:03:09 AM
Well that's our division in philosophy. In my opinion and experience, cuts in government spending and taxation cause economic growth.
Unfortunately, the dogmatic conservative approach is no better than the dogmatic liberal approach. There is, in fact, very little correlation between economic growth and the top marginal income tax rate.
(http://img.slate.com/media/86/marginalGrowth.jpg)
http://www.slate.com/id/2245781
I hadn't seen these quotes before:
Quote
Leaders of a century ago invoked justice in remarkable language that is unimaginable today. President Woodrow Wilson called paying taxes "a glorious privilege." Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. observed that "taxes are what we pay for civilized society." In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt said, "In this time of grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war; no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000." That $25,000 is the equivalent of $323,208 in today's dollars. Can you conceive of a modern president suggesting that no American should earn more than $323,000 after taxes? (President George W. Bush went to war twice without once calling for such a common sacrifice to pay for it.) And President Harry Truman in 1948 vetoed a broad-based tax cut, even in the face of an expected and eventual congressional override, and then asked for a tax increase following his upset victory.
My opinion is that tax rates should be as high as needed to fund the government's operations (whatever they may be) and no higher.
I read it that the escalating tax hikes during and after the depression, which were used as much to punish the wealthy (who had the reputation of putting us in a depression), as much as to stimulate the post war economy, had the effect of throwing fuel on the fire during the 50's-60's. Remember, people weren't too sure that the depression might come back. They didn't realize that the ramp up for the war had already assured us a B12 shot of stimulus.
By pouring money into roadbuilding, funding suburban development (FHA, VA etc) and feeding the military to defend against Communism, we were stimulating the economy at the same time we had close to a 80% upper tax bracket. Kennedy did effect some cuts but nothing like the Bush giveaway. Besides, nobody ever paid the marginal tax rates on purpose.
...but I could be wrong about what Heironymous meant..... ;)
Quote from: nathanm on July 15, 2010, 04:42:53 PM
My opinion is that tax rates should be as high as needed to fund the government's operations (whatever they may be) and no higher.
LOL :D Don't worry, they will never be any higher than what is needed to fund the government's operations.
The problem is that the "government's operations" continue to grow uncontrolled.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 15, 2010, 04:49:12 PM
LOL :D Don't worry, they will never be any higher than what is needed to fund the government's operations.
The problem is that the "government's operations" continue to grow uncontrolled.
Well, no, that's not actually true, as a percentage of GDP.
(http://media.share.ovi.com/m1/s/2268/87ea4882701a41eabae772a876143763.jpg)
I couldn't get OpenOffice to put the actual year on the X axis, so you'll have to count. Year 1 is 1930. As you can see, until the financial meltdown of 2008, we were running significantly below the Reagan/Bush41/Clinton plateau. Receipts last year, as a percentage of GDP, were at their lowest level since WWII.
Red Arrow,
Actually, Kennedy/Johnson was the event. Even if one was too young to have lived through it, there is a lot of information out there in the world about the consequent tax hikes. In part, one that particularly irked me were the "surcharge" taxes of about 1964 or 65 - am old, so can't remember the exact date. That is an LAE for the reader. (LAE = left as excercise)
Every tax cut we have celebrated has been followed by tax hikes within 18 months or so. THAT is the combination, in conjunction with deficit spending (at least until BabyBush) that has given us the standard of living we had until the last couple dozen years. It has, by any valid economic measure - as in non-Murdoch measure, been downhill for the last 30 years.
Goes to the lack of knowledge of history argument going around here for some time.
As for FOTD, I guess people here think he is me. I think I addressed that before, but as then, I remain not him. I saw some of his posts when I first got here, and he definitely seems much more liberal than I. And I would bet you money that he would never be a lifetime member of the NRA. (I am and have been for many years.) And as I have said, I will not resign my membership like Bush I did - purely for political gain.
Applauding heiron's ability to get the word Murdoch in every post :D.
Well done!
Quote from: nathanm on July 14, 2010, 04:21:39 PM
I agree that some of the money could have been spent better, but it doesn't matter. As long as it's getting spent, it stimulates the economy. Even Jindal's failed sand berms did that, despite every red cent of the $360 million going to his fourth largest campaign contributor. ;)
And really, saving is a bad thing. On the large scale. It's good for your or me individually, but collectively, it's just money that's sitting idle. That's why we let banks loan it. When banks are loaning, that works pretty well.
And actually, Keynes did address the end game. What to do when the economy is better, and why debt doesn't actually matter as long as we can keep borrowing. The extra spending, through its stimulation of the economy, increases GDP compared to what it would have been without the spending. That effect lasts through the entire business cycle, which then gives more revenue with which to pay off debt. Also, with a well-managed economy, inflation will slowly eat away at real value of the debt, making it more manageable.
Government should be countercyclical. In the good times, taxes should be raised and debts should be paid off. (what Clinton was doing in the late 90s) It both pays off government debt and helps prevent the economy from getting too good, which leads to rampant inflation. In a recession, the government should lower taxes and spend money. The concepts are simple, although understanding all of the nuance of Keynes' position takes a long time.
It's painfully obvious that fiscal austerity has done nothing for the Irish, the Greeks, or any of the Baltic countries, yet somehow we're still being sold this bill of goods. If there were some indication (other than talking head yammering..you know, technical indicators) that the market was the least bit concerned about our current borrowing, I'd be more amenable to that line of thinking. They're not. We really can't afford another 1937 right now. Not unless we want to end up like Japan, whose currency is deflating and looks to be on track for a second lost decade.
What we need to do in the short term is either grant the states a big block of cash or lend them said big block of cash. The massive cuts coming in many state governments will only serve to deepen the recession as state employees lose their jobs and states cut back on other expenditures as well.
Out of curiosity, Conan, what do you think we should have spent the stimulus money on? What do you see on stimulus.gov that you think was an utter waste? Personally, I'd like to see more funding for rail and more loan guarantees and/or grants for rural broadband, nuclear power plants, and real electric cars. As in ones that can go 150-200 miles on a charge. We should shore up our levees, and probably even move forward with marshland restoration projects in Louisiana. Concrete things that will improve our infrastructure and economy going forward. Much better than make-work, although if all that can pass Congress is digging holes and filling them in again, that would be better than nothing, at least until we're no longer staring deflation in the face.
And Conan, if anything, WWII bringing us out of the funk, as you say, is probably one of the clearest and most obvious signs that Keynes was fundamentally correct.
Good post Nathan, some thought-provoking material. I'll scan stimulus.gov further when I've got time.
Sorry for the delay, I was down in Texas with a client yesterday trying to stimulate the economy via private enterprise ;)
I understand how responsible borrowing increases growth and growth opportunities, that's not lost on me. Many great companies were started with seed debt and have used debt to finance larger operations which have been able to grow employment from a handful to 30,000+.
But what we've also learned from this economic crisis is there are un-sustainable level of debt at some point. Once the cost of debt service starts to outrun income and no one else is willing to loan additional funds, the jig is up. Usually borrowing money to pay debt is considered a bad idea in business and a pretty good sign of instability and a potential for failure. It's not a 100% guarantee of it, but certainly not a good sign of on-going fiscal health of a company, Nathan. A government can continue printing money all it wants, but eventually there's going to be issues with inflation, deflation, and a gradual erosion of our debt ratings. You simply cannot continue to borrow ad infinitum.
My industry is seeing benefit from the stimulus projects so from a business stand-point it's good (lower emission, higher efficiency large-scale heating equipment). As a taxpayer I have to question how some of this is meted out. A lot of the stimulus seems to be construction industry heavy on the benefits. If this is the way we are going to go about cobbling the economy long enough for it to finally recover on it's own (I will be laissez faire to the end, I'm afraid ;) ) I would have liked to have seen more spent on education for grants to keep teachers employed, and utilizing unemployment benefits to do contracting with unemployed people who have marketable skills currently valuable to some government department much like you or Wevus proposed a week or so back.
I also agree that at a time when everyone seems to be at least partially in agreement that we need energy and transportation alternatives which will reduce emissions and our dependence on foreign oil that more should have found it's way into alt fuels and light rail projects. That's the kind of incubation which could help build new companies in the U.S. That doesn't even have to take place as grants, low interest loans are great incentives.
We've got infrastructure needs, don't get me wrong, but the stimulus seems to have been heavy on construction. I've simply lost faith in all but very few members of the Congress to cast aside their own special interests in managing our tax dollars. I continute to be stunned at the waste and corruption.
The healthcare bill is full of crap too if you look at the $100 million set-aside for a new hosptial controlled by UConn (thanks Sen. Dodd!)
Eliminate the "Dodd Clinic" Earmark From Obamacare
Savings of $100 million over ten years
Section 10502(a) of the over 2,000 page recently enacted Obamacare government healthcare bill provides $100 million for construction at an unnamed "health care facility." However, the language in health bill is tailored in such a way as to ensure the funding is earmarked for the University of Connecticut. By eliminating this special interest funding, we can protect taxpayers while we work to repeal the entire health care law.
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/
As far as waste directly from the stimulus, here's an interesting item:
"Prohibit Stimulus Funding for Promotional Signage And Recoup Previously Spent Funds
Saves: Tens of millions
Across the country, signs have been erected to alert citizens that certain projects are being funded by last year's stimulus bill. These signs, often along highways, provide no meaningful information, create no jobs, and have been criticized as taxpayer funded advertisements for the stimulus bill. Unfortunately, no accurate information exists on the total number of signs erected and their cost to taxpayers. Press reports from across the country indicate, however, that the costs could well be in the millions of dollars. This proposal would prohibit funding for any additional signs, would require agencies to report on the amount already spent on signs, and would recapture those funds for taxpayers by reducing the agencies' administrative expenses by an amount equal to that spent on signs. "
Everyone, except the government seems to be engaging in austerity. How much did we over-spend on the census? Why is the post office sending out a costly printed survey and follow up cards when it's mulling over yet another .02 rate increase on first class mail? Why exactly are we having expensive signs made to declare progress on stimulus projects?
I'll look over the stimulus.gov site when I've got more time and reply further.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 16, 2010, 11:46:42 AM
Sorry for the delay, I was down in Texas with a client yesterday trying to stimulate the economy via private enterprise ;)
Businessmans lunch at Cabaret Royale in Dallas? ;)
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 16, 2010, 11:56:38 AM
Businessmans lunch at Cabaret Royale in Dallas? ;)
Strippers put lots of money back into the economy as to their dealers and pimps ;D
You make good points, Conan. I just want to make it clear that nobody (other than folks who are still deep into the "tax cut, tax cut, tax cut" mentality) is interested in seeing the current level of deficit spending go on forever. I fully agree that there be dragons down that road. My basic point is that now is not the time to reduce spending. As private businesses take up the slack, stimulus spending should be eliminated. That just hasn't happened quite yet. It's not helping that indicators are strongly favoring deflation at the moment and the Fed, despite finally acknowledging the threat this week, seems content to stay the course.
Deflation is simply not a risk worth taking. It leads to a full on depression or a long stagnation, and once it takes hold, it's nearly impossible to shake. Last time we were in that situation we had WWII to force investment in productive capacity.
Regarding the stimulus package being construction heavy, it is true that the most visible and obvious impacts are construction related. Do keep in mind that construction has been one of the hardest hit industries, though. It's a logically defensible choice, even if you or I would have made a different one.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not an unabashed fan of ARRA any more than I am of the health care bill or the financial reform bill. They're all obviously the result of sausage making. For better or for worse, that's how things get done in Washington. In any event, in each case they are better than doing nothing would have been. As far as waste goes, I've long resigned myself to the reality that there will be things the government does with my money that I consider waste. I try to do two things to keep from getting depressed or angry about it: First, I try not to sweat the small stuff. Big waste is a big problem. Small waste is a small problem. I'm more concerned with outright corruption. Secondly, I try to find the redeeming quality. What I may initially classify as waste may actually be filling a great need for some people. I'm sure the people of California, New York, Connecticut, and the rest of the 21 donor states see a lot of waste in the federal dollars we get.
One more thing I think would be useful for an extension of UE benefits (if we have to have them) which can also put $$ into the economy is the government increasing grant funds for people to return to college or a technical program to give them better marketability or job skills to help find a job or to be prepared when hiring takes off at some point down the road. More education is not a bad thing within communities.
Thanks Gaspar! I pride myself on being able to inject reality into virtually any situation! Even one so weirdly bizarre and convoluted (read that as "warped and twisted") as American politics.
As an aside; have you hired anyone this week? Me neither. Sucks big time. I am ready to expand.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 16, 2010, 12:47:06 PM
One more thing I think would be useful for an extension of UE benefits (if we have to have them) which can also put $$ into the economy is the government increasing grant funds for people to return to college or a technical program to give them better marketability or job skills to help find a job or to be prepared when hiring takes off at some point down the road. More education is not a bad thing within communities.
I also agree with you on that, although the stimulus did increase funding for Pell Grants and simplified and increased the size of the tuition tax credit(s), although the latter isn't much help if you don't have the money to pay for it in the first place. It also created a new scholarship worth $10,000 a year to single fathers.
But yes, we do need to do whatever we can to help people get the skills they need to get a new job. We are in a time of rapid change, after all.
Quote from: nathanm on July 16, 2010, 12:25:52 PM
You make good points, Conan. I just want to make it clear that nobody (other than folks who are still deep into the "tax cut, tax cut, tax cut" mentality) is interested in seeing the current level of deficit spending go on forever. I fully agree that there be dragons down that road. My basic point is that now is not the time to reduce spending. As private businesses take up the slack, stimulus spending should be eliminated. That just hasn't happened quite yet. It's not helping that indicators are strongly favoring deflation at the moment and the Fed, despite finally acknowledging the threat this week, seems content to stay the course.
Deflation is simply not a risk worth taking. It leads to a full on depression or a long stagnation, and once it takes hold, it's nearly impossible to shake. Last time we were in that situation we had WWII to force investment in productive capacity.
Regarding the stimulus package being construction heavy, it is true that the most visible and obvious impacts are construction related. Do keep in mind that construction has been one of the hardest hit industries, though. It's a logically defensible choice, even if you or I would have made a different one.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not an unabashed fan of ARRA any more than I am of the health care bill or the financial reform bill. They're all obviously the result of sausage making. For better or for worse, that's how things get done in Washington. In any event, in each case they are better than doing nothing would have been. As far as waste goes, I've long resigned myself to the reality that there will be things the government does with my money that I consider waste. I try to do two things to keep from getting depressed or angry about it: First, I try not to sweat the small stuff. Big waste is a big problem. Small waste is a small problem. I'm more concerned with outright corruption. Secondly, I try to find the redeeming quality. What I may initially classify as waste may actually be filling a great need for some people. I'm sure the people of California, New York, Connecticut, and the rest of the 21 donor states see a lot of waste in the federal dollars we get.
Spot on. +1
I might bellyache about the cost but I would still support educational opportunities for those with obsolete skills.