Remember: the "Recovery Plan" line was drawn by the Intellectualoids in the White House and used the $750BN++ porkulus.IOW, according to the Intellectualoids-de-Obozo, nothing more was needed.
So you Keynesians who shout "More, More, More!" are arguing against the Smartest, the Most Gifted, the Most Formidable Brain Trust ever assembled in one room.
HT: AOSHQ
17 comments:
I disagree. Many economists argued at the time that a much bigger stimulus, one with more spending would be needed to avoid a slow economy or double dip.
Obama could not get that through Congress at that time. As it was, the $750 Billion was nearly 40% tax cuts and incentives instead of spending, when more spending would have produced the demand that was required.
Yep, once the stimulus money was spent the job creators were sposed to step it up. But even with the extension of Bush tax cuts they failed to act. Greed riven anti-patriots...
Whatever. I'm throwing the bullshit flag. The stimulus did nothing more than pay off the administration's friends. GE, the UAW, SEIU,Planned Parenthood and "Wall Street Fat Cats" all benefited. The regulatory uncertainty from this administration (Obamacare, Cap & Tax, new Internet taxes and regulation, NLRB rulings against Boeing) has business holding their cards.
Expect to see a big economic hit to manufacturing beginning with the numbers for August. I'm just sayin'.
"Compromise" is always in the direction of bigger government, more spending and greater debt.
If business is holding their cards (along with trillions in job creating tax cuts) why don't we stop handing them that money and apply it to the debt? It's only going to get worse because Obozo extended the Bush cuts despite overwhelming evidence that corporate welfare has failed to create any new jobs...and yet Treasury keeps funneling them more of our tax dollars.
I'm throwing the bullshit flag on this "uncertainty" crap. You people make it seem like this is the first time in over 200 years that American business has had to deal with uncertainty, as if there's never been regulations before; as if there's never been oil embargoes, hurricanes, 500 year floods, earthquakes, droughts; as if there's never been a free trade agreement, a strike, or change of administration, or a recession, or an increase or decrease in taxes.
How are YOU able to provide for your families with all these uncertainties plus accidents, diseases and stupid neighbors?
Well, Jimbo, there are some things which are KNOWN unknowns...and then there's the Obozo Gang, which represent real and present danger called "UNKNOWN unknowns."
The Boeing Block. The HealthCare Hell (2400 pages of legislation, several TIMES that in regulations--so far.) The CO2 Cramp.
We could go on but it's pointless.
Anony: they are NOT "your" dollars when a business earns them.
However, Gummint HAS spent 'your' dollars to save the UAW at GM and Chrysler--not to mention Citibank, Wells Fargo, (et al.)
The government has spent no dollars to save Wells Fargo.
Did Wells/Fargo take TARP money?
Did the GSE's purchase W/F's mortgage portfolio--or any parts thereof?
Does W/F borrow from the Fed at near-zero and purchase T-bonds at 3%?
Answers, please!
Wells Fargo was forced to accept $25B in TARP. It didn't want it and refused it but was threatened with a downgrade from FDIC if it didn't. WF paid back the TARP at its first opportunity to do so. That money did not "save" Wells Fargo.
I don't know anything about GSEs so would be happy to read anything you can point to about it.
WFC borrows from the Fed like everyone other financial institution. That has nothing to do with tax payer money "saving" Wells Fargo.
W/F's carry-trade profiteering (just like that of Chase, Citi, et al) IS a very nice little subsidy, ain'a?
W/F officers and you SAY 'they didn't want it,' and that may be true; nice that they paid it back!
You can look around for who bought W/F-originated mortgages, but 99-1 bet is that they were sold to the GSEs. It is DAMN sure that they are not on W/F books.
"Wells Fargo was forced to accept $25B in TARP. It didn't want it and refused it but was threatened with a downgrade from FDIC if it didn't."
That's the kind of government you want Jimbo?
"That's the kind of government you want Jimbo?"
What kind of government is that, Deekbo? The national and world economies were teetering on the brink of total chaos. Nobody knew exactly what to do, but people in charge did what they thought was best to avoid catastrophe (as much for the banks as anything, many would argue).
So I don't have a problem with "that kind of government". I consider what they did to be a desperate act of national defense. People can disagree on whether it was the right thing to, but I'm glad they took bold action to prevent economic ruin.
So you are also ok with the patriot Act, secret renditions, waterboarding and pre-emptive war, right? "Desperate acts of national defense", I believe.
I really don't want my government businesses to take government money at the point of a gun.
But you go ahead with that twisted logic to believe it's ok.
"I really don't want my government businesses to take government money at the point of a gun." Should be:
"I really don't want my government FORCING businesses to take government money at the point of a gun."
Twisted logic? Is it possible, Deekaman, that there are legitimate differences of opinion about US policy and not simply logic vs. "twisted" logic?
Moving on, while I wasn't crazy about the Patriot Act, I did and do concede that at the time, the government was justified in temporarily taking actions for the security of the country based on circumstances which were very unheard of at the time. Just like the financial meltdown in 2008.
Secret renditions and waterboarding I would never support. Torture is ineffective, even often counter productive. It degrades our country. And I believe the "ticking time bomb" only exists on "24". Rendition and torture were not "desperate acts of national defense."
Pre-emptive war is the act of an aggressor, not a "desperate act of national defense". There was no justification for it and there was no great evidence that there was anything to "pre-empt". I was and always will be against the Iraq war. Afghanistan was not a pre-emptive war.
"I really don't want my government FORCING businesses to take government money at the point of a gun."
I'm certain there were no guns involved. I "saw" the movie. :-)
Post a Comment