This is a novel idea. Stop spending money on a quagmire (I mean seriously, has anyone EVER won a war in or against Afghanistan?) and invest that money in American jobs.
(CBS News)
"The U.S. Conference of Mayors said Monday that there are 48 metropolitan areas that won't see the jobs lost in this recession return until 2020.
At a meeting in Baltimore, the mayors voted to ask the president to end the war in Afghanistan and to spend that money on jobs at home.
Unemployment has surged across the country and stayed higher, longer than in any past recession."
"Today's report predicts 75 metropolitan areas will still have double digit unemployment through the end of this year. And nationally, unemployment won't go below 8 percent until 2013."
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/20/eveningnews/main20072742.shtml#ixzz1Prhb06PA
I realize these mayors are not economists, but they are on the ground and can see what's actually going on in their communities. I think President Obama has a serious problem getting re-elected if unemployment remains above 8% through 2013. If he is beaten, whomever it is gets to enjoy somewhat of a natural recovery, as no doubt if it's someone seen as being more business-friendly, a lot of those trillions of dollars reputedly sitting on the sidelines will come back into play.
The mayors are saying its costing us about 126 Billion dollars a year to be in Afghanistan and Iraq. That would be about a couple billion dollars per metro area, PER YEAR, if we were to spend it here instead of there. Wow, the Tulsa metro could fix a LOT of crumbling infrastructure, improve schools, invest in research, etc. with 2 Billion each year.
The U.S. population is 311,583,000 today.
$126 billion divided by 311,583,000 is over $400 dollars per U.S. citizen per year.
My family of four is paying $1,600 per year or $133 per month.
We can't afford these two wars.
But as soon as that money is reapplied domestically, it's no longer war funding, it's stimulus. And as we are all aware, stimulus doesn't work. So we've obviously got a problem here.
Quote from: we vs us on June 20, 2011, 11:14:06 PM
But as soon as that money is reapplied domestically, it's no longer war funding, it's stimulus. And as we are all aware, stimulus doesn't work. So we've obviously got a problem here.
The problem
lies in the fable of "the stimulus doesn't work."
Quote from: Conan71 on June 20, 2011, 07:21:11 PM
I think President Obama has a serious problem getting re-elected if unemployment remains above 8% through 2013.
Let's bet....if you make it 2012.
Quote from: we vs us on June 20, 2011, 11:14:06 PM
But as soon as that money is reapplied domestically, it's no longer war funding, it's stimulus. And as we are all aware, stimulus doesn't work. So we've obviously got a problem here.
What about if the money is not "reapplied?"
Just because it's a number doesn't mean it's money that actually exists.
The idea is not to save money that you don't have just so you can spend it elsewhere.
The idea is to not spend money that you don't have!
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 21, 2011, 12:17:34 AM
Let's bet....if you make it 2012.
If unemployment drops below 8% in 2012, then President Obama gets to claim success in turning around the economy and it will make it far easier for him to get re-elected. However, four years of economic malaise will bring all sorts of comparisons to President Carter.
And as The Homely Poodle has now proclaimed, the Democrats now own this economy. Time for them to put up or shut up.
So what's the ante?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2011, 10:56:11 AM
If unemployment drops below 8% in 2012, then President Obama gets to claim success in turning around the economy and it will make it far easier for him to get re-elected. However, four years of economic malaise will bring all sorts of comparisons to President Carter.
And as The Homely Poodle has now proclaimed, the Democrats now own this economy. Time for them to put up or shut up.
So what's the ante?
It is really inappropriate to make fun of the way she looks. She is the cream of the crop for the DNC, and I am very pleased with her performance thus far.
(http://www.rightwingmuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Wasserman-Schultz.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2011, 10:56:11 AM
If unemployment drops below 8% in 2012, then President Obama gets to claim success in turning around the economy and it will make it far easier for him to get re-elected. However, four years of economic malaise will bring all sorts of comparisons to President Carter.
And as The Homely Poodle has now proclaimed, the Democrats now own this economy. Time for them to put up or shut up.
So what's the ante?
You REALLY want that Carter thing despite the economic comparisons being on separate universes and 30 years apart. I don't need to repeat what I just put down on the economic reality thread, but to sum it up: the game is obstinate to frustrate brought on by the corporatist Republicans to win back their lost power. Shallow, self righteous, greedy, and un American processing.
Name your price. Despite POTUS OBAMA's inability to get employment below your magic number because of the republican hold on the house (and SCOTUS) there will be no cure. But the republicans have cash in the bank while the unemployed continue to be pawns in their game.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 21, 2011, 03:11:25 PM
You REALLY want that Carter thing despite the economic comparisons being on separate universes and 30 years apart. I don't need to repeat what I just put down on the economic reality thread, but to sum it up: the game is obstinate to frustrate brought on by the corporatist Republicans to win back their lost power. Shallow, self righteous, greedy, and un American processing.
Name your price. Despite POTUS OBAMA's inability to get employment below your magic number because of the republican hold on the house (and SCOTUS) there will be no cure. But the republicans have cash in the bank while the unemployed continue to be pawns in their game.
You are the man!
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 21, 2011, 03:11:25 PM
You REALLY want that Carter thing despite the economic comparisons being on separate universes and 30 years apart. I don't need to repeat what I just put down on the economic reality thread, but to sum it up: the game is obstinate to frustrate brought on by the corporatist Republicans to win back their lost power. Shallow, self righteous, greedy, and un American processing.
Name your price. Despite POTUS OBAMA's inability to get employment below your magic number because of the republican hold on the house (and SCOTUS) there will be no cure. But the republicans have cash in the bank while the unemployed continue to be pawns in their game.
You keep trying to render thoughts out of my head which simply are not there, TTAC.
You realize what this looks like don't you? More excuses for President Obama's failed policies. Prior to the GOP Congress, it was all Bush's fault. In your world it's always the Republican's fault. How about the idea that we elected someone with zero leadership experience based on a cult of personality? Predictably, his leadership has been schizophrenic at best. When he first got into office, he kept beating down the economy for the first two months in office. He galavants around the world like royalty, all the while ignoring what small business says they need to grow.
That said, Obama enjoyed a majority in both houses for two years. He pursued his social agenda while more and more people lost their jobs. He wanted to secure his legacy before he worried about the real issues facing Americans. That's why there was a massive tidal wave last November, in case you don't remember.
I don't hold the GOP in Congress above reproach at all. I think they harbor some of the worst scum on the planet. However, a strong leader can overcome opposition. President Obama's problem is, he's not a strong leader. Neither are Boehner or Reid either. They are all for sale to the highest bidder.
I wish Obama's policies worked. I'd be whistling Zippity Do Dah out my a$$ right now if he'd succeeded in bringing unemployment back down to even 7% by now. Hell, I would vote for him in 2012 if we were enjoying $2.00 gas, 7% u/e, and slow but steady GDP growth. I don't want America to fail!
President Obama doesn't understand how the private sector creates jobs because he's never created a private sector job. Neither have most of his advisors. The only way they can think to do it is by various temporary means or by creating whole new bureaucracies for the government to hire people.
You think people lost jobs due to his pursuance of a social agenda? Evidently, you've forgotten the Teabaggers or you've melded. :o
All Obama did was offer a dumpster full of personal and corporate hand-outs. "Here's nearly $800 billion, that will fix the economy and u/e will never exceed 8%". Then he went on with healthcare and his other legacy issues. The record is laid bare for all to see, including you.
I had high hopes for you. Instead you've gone back to mumbling nonsensical BS when the argument doesn't suit you.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2011, 03:53:41 PM
All Obama did was offer a dumpster full of personal and corporate hand-outs. "Here's nearly $800 billion$400 billion, that will fix the economy and u/e will never exceed 8%". Then he went on with healthcare and his other legacy issues. The record is laid bare for all to see, including you.
I had high hopes for you. Instead you've gone back to mumbling nonsensical BS when the argument doesn't suit you.
FTFY.
By the way, people who actually believe in Keynes' models were all saying that the stimulus was too small by half. Just so you know. What we got was better than nothing, or it was until it was declared a failure despite arresting the sharp decline we were experiencing.
Regarding comparisons to Carter, comparisons to Carter are stupid
at best. Carter's job creation was second only to Clinton. Obama already has a better average than Bush, despite his first year seeing one of the largest losses since the depression.
It's pretty sad..we have better access to hard data than we have at any time in our history, yet there is also more made up smile peddled than at any time in history. It's like most of us don't have access to the Internet. Or maybe we just don't know how to use Google.
Quote from: nathanm on June 21, 2011, 05:25:50 PM
FTFY.
By the way, people who actually believe in Keynes' models were all saying that the stimulus was too small by half. Just so you know. What we got was better than nothing, or it was until it was declared a failure despite arresting the sharp decline we were experiencing.
Regarding comparisons to Carter, comparisons to Carter are stupid at best. Carter's job creation was second only to Clinton. Obama already has a better average than Bush, despite his first year seeing one of the largest losses since the depression.
It's pretty sad..we have better access to hard data than we have at any time in our history, yet there is also more made up smile peddled than at any time in history. It's like most of us don't have access to the Internet. Or maybe we just don't know how to use Google.
We could have spent a trillion on stimulus and Keynesians would still be saying we should have doubled that rather than to simply admit they were wrong.
If jobs were the ONLY metric which matters, Carter would have looked like a genius. Jobs mean little when mortgage interest rates are approaching 20% and we were suffering with stagflation. Carter's economic policies were a complete and utter disaster. Yes we do have better data available read more than the job data under Carter.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2011, 05:32:48 PM
We could have spent a trillion on stimulus and Keynesians would still be saying we should have doubled that rather than to simply admit they were wrong.
If jobs were the ONLY metric which matters, Carter would have looked like a genius. Jobs mean little when mortgage interest rates are approaching 20% and we were suffering with stagflation. Carter's economic policies were a complete and utter disaster. Yes we do have better data available read more than the job data under Carter.
I agree that times were tough, but wages were increasing even relative to inflation until 1978 or so, despite the entry of women into the workforce (which was likely a large driver of the inflation).
And I'm not talking about people who claim
now that the stimulus should have been bigger. I'm talking about people who claimed
before the fact it should have been bigger. Not everyone is into revisionist history.
You may be onto something....revisionism from a dreamer....dangerous combo.
ConanDreamer, don't you think an Eisenhower public works initiative coupled with a Nixon printing press might make this country high speed and technologically ready for when computers rule?
edit: Can you revise this?
CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/20/249061/chart-taxes-economic-growth/
You don't want to, I know.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2011, 03:44:43 PM
I'd be whistling Zippity Do Dah out my a$$ right now if he'd succeeded in bringing unemployment back down to even 7% by now. Hell, I would vote for him in 2012 if we were enjoying $2.00 gas, 7% u/e, and slow but steady GDP growth. I don't want America to fail!
I'm holding out for $2.00 AV Gas.