• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

$780,000,000,000 give or take

kallsop

Unregistered
K
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
755
Thank goodness we are in a new era of prudent spending and no fear and panic. Right?

Avoid reading this if you want to keep your blood pressure at healthy levels:

50 De-Stimulating Facts

Looks like it's a done deal. If you thought Bush was a big wasteful spender, hold on to your shorts because there is a pro team in there now.

Hoping for Change, instead got MORE of the same bad.
 
What's the problem?


I see that Obama also believes in nation building, just like Bush. Except that he's building our nation.
 
Last edited:
Texas said:
And it took only 3 weeks to get there. Obama is a miracle worker.
Click to expand...

Can't be too mad if it gets the money circulating in this country instead of messing about elsewhere.

That said, I agree with about half of the cuts the republicans proposed and wouldn't mind it being trimmed.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Can't be too mad if it gets the money circulating in this country instead of messing about elsewhere.

That said, I agree with about half of the cuts the republicans proposed and wouldn't mind it being trimmed.
Click to expand...
Well that's a problem. When it is tax money being spent on government projects it is circulating in a closed loop system. Up to now this country was based on a free market that was funded by private sector investment and investors and when one or both screwed up the Darwinism of the market took over and the weak fell by the wayside. If the only investor of any magnitude is the government and the only employer of any magnitude is the government then the only money available to invest or to pay salaries is the tax payer and it takes ever increasing money from tax payers to keep the system going. That is why the CBO stated that this "stimulus" was worse than doing nothing at all since it will eventually squeeze out private investment due to the government dominating the credit markets, inflation running rampant and a crushing tax burden.
 
Texas said:
Well that's a problem. When it is tax money being spent on government projects it is circulating in a closed loop system.
Click to expand...

Well I'm going to stop you right there, and you can get after me if that's a problem.

I say it's not a closed loop.

If they buy a fleet of cars, the money flows through the car dealership, the manufacturer, the parts suppliers, and the transport system.

If they pay for office renovations, the money flows through the construction workers; decor and furnishing retailers, manufacturers, component suppliers; designers; etc.

All those businesses now have funding to try and continue and increase their operations and are less likely to fire employees.

All those businesses have employees who are paid and have more job security and are more likely money to spend money on goods and services instead of saving, leading back to the point above.

In the past i've been something of an economic liberal, but I'm coming around to the idea that as long as goods and services keep being produced and exchanged, as long as money circulates, everyone ends up being better off. That's true whether it's government or business doing the investing.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Well I'm going to stop you right there, and you can get after me if that's a problem.

I say it's not a closed loop.

If they buy a fleet of cars, the money flows through the car dealership, the manufacturer, the parts suppliers, and the transport system.

If they pay for office renovations, the money flows through the construction workers; decor and furnishing retailers, manufacturers, component suppliers; designers; etc.

All those businesses now have funding to try and continue and increase their operations and are less likely to fire employees.

All those businesses have employees who are paid and have more job security and are more likely money to spend money on goods and services instead of saving, leading back to the point above.

In the past i've been something of an economic liberal, but I'm coming around to the idea that as long as goods and services keep being produced and exchanged, as long as money circulates, everyone ends up being better off. That's true whether it's government or business doing the investing.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Yes if the government buys a fleet of cars that provides work for the auto-companies and suppliers BUT if the government is the only one buying a fleet of cars then that is a BIG problem.
The same goes for any other government expenditure. If the government is the only customer then private enterprise as we know it is dead. The best example of that is the defense industry, the government is essentially its only customer and if the government decides to slash defense spending that means that the defense industry will slash its workforce accordingly. We saw that in the 1970's when the Aerospace industry went belly up due to government cutbacks and Aerospace engineers were driving taxis.
 
Texas said:
Not quite. Yes if the government buys a fleet of cars that provides work for the auto-companies and suppliers BUT if the government is the only one buying a fleet of cars then that is a BIG problem.
The same goes for any other government expenditure. If the government is the only customer then private enterprise as we know it is dead.
Click to expand...

Then it's not a problem, because the government is not the only customer.

The best example of that is the defense industry, the government is essentially its only customer and if the government decides to slash defense spending that means that the defense industry will slash its workforce accordingly. We saw that in the 1970's when the Aerospace industry went belly up due to government cutbacks and Aerospace engineers were driving taxis.
Click to expand...

I don't agree.

The defense industry did not lose customers to the point that the government was their only investor. It's quite the opposite. The government had a need that it couldn't fulfill, and as a result, an industry grew up around it. Thus, the defense industry caters to a single customer (for the most part, they are diversifying), simply because that is how the market came to be.

The problem won't be the fact that the government isn't the only investor, the problem would be that the companies were set up so that they only HAD one investor.

In other words, they needed to diversify.
 
quixotecoyote said:
I hear it's actually getting close to what we spent on Iraq.
Click to expand...

I was just going to post on that very subject, but you beat me to it. Maybe if this huge amount hadn't been spent on slaughtering brown people, bombing their infrastructure and stealing their oil and water there wouldn't such a fuss about giving it bankers and others who have more than enough money.

How much healthcare would $1.4 TRILLION provide?
 
TriskettheKid said:
Then it's not a problem, because the government is not the only customer.



I don't agree.

The defense industry did not lose customers to the point that the government was their only investor. It's quite the opposite. The government had a need that it couldn't fulfill, and as a result, an industry grew up around it. Thus, the defense industry caters to a single customer (for the most part, they are diversifying), simply because that is how the market came to be.

The problem won't be the fact that the government isn't the only investor, the problem would be that the companies were set up so that they only HAD one investor.

In other words, they needed to diversify.
Click to expand...
Yes a free market system allows diversification but that is not what we are talking about here. The free market has been frozen out to an extent we cannot even comprehend. We are now on track to have a deficit of 1.5 trillion in 2009 and according to some that is only a down payment. We still have Social Security, Medicare and the holy grail of the left, Universal health care to deal with.
 
Texas said:
Yes a free market system allows diversification but that is not what we are talking about here. The free market has been frozen out to an extent we cannot even comprehend. We are now on track to have a deficit of 1.5 trillion in 2009 and according to some that is only a down payment. We still have Social Security, Medicare and the holy grail of the left, Universal health care to deal with.
Click to expand...

The free market (to slightly abuse a term) has not been frozen out so much as collapsed. That's the whole point of government spending. Economic activity and circulation has slowed down too far and the government is trying to kick it in the ass so it gets up and going again and the free market can get going.

Also, take the universal healthcare stuff to another thread. Other nations can do cheaper per captia universally what we do for a minority and do as good or better a job. So if we follow one of those models, we'd be saving money.
 
quixotecoyote said:
The free market (to slightly abuse a term) has not been frozen out so much as collapsed. That's the whole point of government spending. Economic activity and circulation has slowed down too far and the government is trying to kick it in the ass so it gets up and going again and the free market can get going.

Also, take the universal healthcare stuff to another thread. Other nations can do cheaper per captia universally what we do for a minority and do as good or better a job. So if we follow one of those models, we'd be saving money.
Click to expand...
No what has collapsed is the idea that markets find their own equilibrium. If a bank is too large to fail then it is too large to exist so let it fail. If a company like GM is too vital to the economy due to number of employees but is bankrupt don't save it from bankruptcy let it go bankrupt and then emerge stronger. Universal Health Care is part and parcel of what the democrats are pushing and it is completely relevant to the discussion.

For the first time in our history, serious questions are being raised as to the credit worthiness of US debt by the holders of that debt. Should a single ratings agency or major holder of treasuries put US debt on even a negative watch that would shake this country to its core and if you don't think that could happen, ask the folks in Iceland. I am resigned to the fact that the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they wish and the rest of us are just along for the ride but Obama and the Congress are pouring gasoline on the fire Bush started with Tarp 1 but that was only 350 billion and this bill is 3 times the size while it doesn't even include the vast expenditures promised by Obama in the campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom