Is the tide turning against Obama already?

[kernel crash]

And this from Newsweek

* The $787 billion stimulus, gargantuan as it was, was in fact too small and not aimed clearly enough at only immediate job-creation.
* The $275 billion home-mortgage-refinancing plan, assembled by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is too complex and indirect.
* The president gave up the moral high ground on spending not so much with the "stim" but with the $400 billion supplemental spending bill, larded as it was with 9,000 earmarks.
* The administration is throwing good money after bad in at least two cases—the sinkhole that is Citigroup (there are many healthy banks) and General Motors (they deserve what they get).
* The failure to call for genuine sacrifice on the part of all Americans, despite the rhetorical claim that everyone would have to "give up" something.
* A willingness to give too much leeway to Congress to handle crucial details, from the stim to the vague promise to "reform" medical care without stating what costs could be cut.
* A 2010 budget that tries to do far too much, with way too rosy predictions on future revenues and growth of the economy. This led those who fear we are about to go over Niagara Falls to deride Obama as a paddler who'd rather redesign the canoe.
* A treasury secretary who has been ridiculed on "Saturday Night Live" and compared to Doogie Howser, Barney Fife and Macaulay Culkin in "Home Alone"—and those are the nice ones.
* A seeming paralysis in the face of the banking crisis: unwilling to nationalize banks, yet unable to figure out how to handle toxic assets in another way—by, say, setting up a "bad bank" catch basin.
* A seeming reluctance to seek punishing prosecutions of the malefactors of the last 15 years—and even considering a plea bargain for Bernie Madoff, the poster thief who stole from charities and Nobel laureates and all the grandparents of Boca. Yes, prosecutors are in charge, but the president is entitled—some would say required—to demand harsh justice.
* The president, known for his eloquence and attention to detail, seemingly unwilling or unable to patiently, carefully explain how the world works—or more important, how it failed. Using FDR's fireside chats as a model, Obama needs to explain the banking system in laymen's terms. An ongoing seminar would be great.
* Obama is no socialist, but critics argue that now is not the time for costly, upfront spending on social engineering in health care, energy or education.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188565/output/print

[Slider]

Let's start at the top: "The $787 billion stimulus, gargantuan as it was, was in fact too small and not aimed clearly enough at only immediate job-creation."

So you're saying we should spend more?

Slider

[Slappy]

Might as well stick to what one knows best right?
Wasting money growing the gubment.

[kernel crash]

Hey did you see how outraged Obama was last night about the AIG bonusus. Why he was fit to be tied. Why he was... LYING through his teeth. His man Tim Geithner was one of the principle architects of this plan along with Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke. Now we get this from Democrat Chris Dodd from CT.


March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said the Obama administration asked him to insert a provision in last month’s $787 billion economic- stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing American International Group Inc.’s bonuses.

Dodd said he had wanted to limit executive compensation at companies that got money from the government’s financial-rescue fund. AIG has received $173 billion in bailout money. His provision was changed as the stimulus legislation was negotiated between the House and Senate.

“I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate- passed amendment” to the stimulus bill, “but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG,” Dodd said in a statement released last night. “Let me be clear -- I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week.” He didn’t name the administration officials who made the request.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aT_tMXRy2vDs

Does Obama have a clue as to whats going on in his own administration? Why this was suppose to be the smartest Presdent we've had in a long time. Why since Abraham Lincoln. In less than two months this President has spread as much BS and sleeze as the Bush administration did in 6 years. And were just getting started. Is it time to talk impeachment.

[GeepNutt]

http://www.zazzle.com/welcome_back_carter_obama_tshirt-235638889903387037

[Slider]

Um, impeachment. Uh, yeah. You're rabid, man. You are clealy joking in any comparison to Bush.

At worst, we're talking about overcaution on the legislative side to forestall laswuits that would slow the recovery process. If that lead to a bad draft of the law, sometimes it happens. Many, many laws we pass have unforseen consequences.

It could have been done better, sure. Does that compare to treason, perjury, war-mongering, profiteering, and torture? I don't think so.

Slider


Geithner defends bonus action
The Treasury Secretary takes responsibility for a loophole in the stimulus bill that allowed $165 million in bonuses to go to AIG executives.
By Catherine Clifford, CNNMoney.com staff writerLast Updated: March 19, 2009: 6:28 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told CNN Thursday his department asked Sen. Christopher Dodd to include a loophole in the stimulus bill that allowed bailed-out insurance giant American International Group to keep its bonuses.

In an interview with CNN's Ali Velshi, Geithner said the Treasury Department was concerned the government would face lawsuits if contracts were breached for the bonuses that totaled $165 million.

"We wanted to make sure it was strong enough to survive legal challenge," Geithner said. "But we also worked with [Dodd] to strengthen the overall framework, and his bill has this very important provision we're relying on now to go back and see if we can recoup payments that were made that there was no legal ability to block.

Sen. Dodd, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, admitted to CNN Wednesday he'd added the controversial provision after a Treasury official pushed for it. Earlier in the week, Dodd had said he had not played any role in the addition of the loophole.

Geithner told Velshi Thursday the bonus situation is his issue to deal with. "You know, it's my responsibility," he said. "I was in a position where I didn't know about those sooner, I take full responsibility for that."

The Treasury Secretary has been under scrutiny as to when he became aware of the bonus cash going to AIG executives. Testifying before a House Financial Services subcommittee on Wednesday, AIG chief executive Edward Liddy said Geithner was aware of the bonuses two weeks ago - a week before the secretary has said he first heard of the bonuses from his staff.

But Geithner reiterated when he knew about the payments. "I was informed by my staff of the full scale of these specific things on Tuesday, March 10th," he told CNN.

Ali Velshi's fulll interview with Secretary Geithner airs tonight on Campbell Brown: No Bias No Bull at 8 p.m. ET.

First Published: March 19, 2009: 5:08 PM ET







Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/19/news/economy/geithner_interview/index.htm

[kernel crash]

It could have been done better, sure. Does that compare to treason, perjury, war-mongering, profiteering, and torture? I don't think so.

Slider


Hey its only been 6 weeks. Give him time. Treason? Has GWB been convicted of treason? I must have missed that. War-Mongering? Hey he's ramping up in Afganistan. Let check back in a couple of years. Profiteering? Ya. Check the money trail from AIG, Fannie, Freddie, ACORN, Wall Street, etc right back to Obama and company. Torture? Seeing this gang that can't shoot straight on my TV every night is pure torture. This is amateur hour at its worst. Watching Tim Geithner who still has that deer in the headlights look is torture. Watching the press fawn over Michelles buff biceps is like being waterboarded with urine. Torture, ya there's plenty of that to go around.

[Slider]

Hey its only been 6 weeks. Give him time.

What you said was "In less than two months this President has spread as much BS and sleeze as the Bush administration did in 6 years." I am saying you have lost touch with reality, and the other shoe has ont yet dropped on criminal prosecution on the Bush gang. Torture will lead the hit parade on that one, with an international court likely to conduct the proceedings.

There are no profits from the meltdown going anywhere newar Obama. Pure fantasy, especially since there ARE no profits from the Bush meltdown, other than what was taken during the last administration. On the other hand, the no-bid $Billions paid to Halliburton, and the quashing of accounting oversight, is very well documented.

Slider

[Slappy]

. Watching the press fawn over Michelles buff biceps is like being waterboarded with urine.


:har::har::har::har::har:

[p_coutermarsh]

Happy to say I received my "Welcome Back Carter" T-shirt today. Hurry up 2012!

[Slider]

Seems more like the tide is heading in Obama's direction. The poll respondents seem to have had enough of the Republican obstructive negativity.

Slider
------
April 7, 2009
Poll Finds New Optimism on Economy Since Inauguration
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
Americans have grown more optimistic about the economy and the direction of the country in the 11 weeks since President Obama was inaugurated, suggesting that Mr. Obama is enjoying some success in his critical task of rebuilding the nation’s confidence, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

These sometimes turbulent weeks — marked by new initiatives by Mr. Obama, attacks by Republicans and more than a few missteps by the White House — do not appear to have hurt the president. Americans said they approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy, foreign policy, Iraq and Afghanistan; fully two-thirds said they approve of his overall job performance.

By contrast, Republican fortunes have dropped in the first weeks of the Obama presidency; just 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest in the 25 years the question has been asked in New York Times/CBS News polls.

It is not unusual for new presidents to enjoy a period of public support. Still, the durability of Mr. Obama’s support contrasts with that of some other new presidents, and is striking at a time when anxiety has gripped households across the country and Mr. Obama has alternately sought to rally Americans’ spirits and warn against economic collapse as he seeks Congressional support for his programs. The poll found that 70 percent of respondents are very or somewhat concerned that someone in their household will be out of work and looking for a job over the next 12 months; 40 percent said they had cut back spending on luxuries, and 10 percent on necessities; 31 percent said they had cut both.

For all that, the number of people who think the country is heading in the right direction has jumped from 15 percent in mid-January, just before Mr. Obama took office, to 39 percent today, while the number who think it is heading in the wrong direction has dropped from 79 to 53 percent. That is the highest percentage of Americans who said the country is heading in the right direction since February of 2005, the second month of the second term of former President George W. Bush.

The percentage of people who think the economy is getting worse has declined from 54 percent just before Mr. Obama took office to 34 percent today. At the same time, 20 percent now think the economy is getting better, compared with 7 percent in mid-January. “It’s psychology more than anything else,” Arthur Gilman, a Republican from Ridgewood, N.J., said in a follow-up interview after participating in the Times/CBS News Poll. “President Obama has turned around the negative feeling in this country. He’s given everything an impetus because he’s very upbeat, like Roosevelt was. It’s too soon to tell if the spending stuff works but some things have improved.”

Frank Henwood, an independent from Amarillo, Texas, said: “Hopefully, the stock market has bottomed out and is on the rise. Once the stock market shapes up, I think the economy will come back and then jobs will come back and people will start buying automobiles made in America.”

With the poll finding that an overwhelming number think the recession will last a year or more, Mr. Obama may find he has an unusually deep well of patience to draw on. The poll found that Mr. Obama shoulders virtually none of the public blame for the economic crisis: 33 percent blame Mr. Bush, 21 percent blame financial institutions, and 11 percent blame Congress.

By a margin of 63 to 20, voters said they trusted Mr. Obama more than they trust Congressional Republicans to make the right decision about the nation’s economy.And by a margin 61 to 27, they said they trusted Mr. Obama to keep the nation safe, typically a Republican strong-suit, the poll found. Nearly one-quarter of Republicans said that they trusted Mr. Obama more than Congressional Republicans to make the right decisions about the economy.

“As far as acting like adults and getting things done, the Democrat Party has done better,” said Rachel Beeson, an independent voter from Hawaii. “The Republican Party seems to have decided that they are going to turn down anything that comes out of the White House and nothing will get done that way. “

The poll suggested evidence of continued political division: 57 percent of people who said they voted for John McCainlast November said they disapproved of Mr. Obama’s performance. While Mr. Obama’s budget proposal enjoys the support of 56 percent of Americans overall, sentiments splinter along party lines: 79 percent of Democrats said Mr. Obama’s budget had the right priorities, compared with 27 percent of Republicans.

The survey was conducted Wednesday through Sunday, while Mr. Obama was traveling through Europe to attend the Group of 20 summit of the world’s largest economies. Two-thirds of respondents said that leaders of other countries around the world have respect for Mr. Obama; when a similar question was asked in July 2006, 30 percent of respondents said foreign leaders had respect for Mr. Bush.

The national telephone poll was conducted with 998 adults. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Even as Americans strongly support their new president, they do not necessarily support all of his initiatives. In one example of that, 58 percent disapprove of Mr. Obama’s proposal to bail-out banks. But the percentage of respondents who think that it will benefit all Americans, rather than only bankers, has jumped from 29 percent in February to 47 percent now, signaling that the White House might be making some progress in changing perceptions of the plan.

And at a time when Mr. Obama has proposed a vast expansion in government spending and programs, 48 percent of all Americans said they prefer a smaller government providing fewer services, while 41 percent prefer a bigger government providing more services.

Americans remain concerned about the growing national debt that is being passed on to future generations, but in the face of the current economic troubles, they are divided over whether it is necessary to increase debt. Forty-six percent said the government should not incur further debt, but 45 percent of those surveyed said the government should spend money to stimulate the economy even though it will increase the budget deficit.

At a time where there is evidence of a surge of populism among many Americans in response to abuses on Wall Street, respondents by more than a two-to-one margin said that Democrats care more about the needs of people like themselves than Republicans do. Seventy-one percent of Americans said Mr. Obama cared more about the interests of ordinary people than about large corporations.

Mr. Obama’s push to increase income taxes on people making over $250,000 a year is supported by 74 percent of respondents. When presented with the possibility that taxing those in the higher income bracket might hurt the economy, 39 percent of those polled still support the plan.

[kernel crash]

Seems more like the tide is heading in Obama's direction. The poll respondents seem to have had enough of the Republican obstructive negativity.



What a joke. Look at Slider referring to a slanted poll to feel better about Obama.

"Conservatives have debates over whether they should cite Rasmussen poll data because it is too divergent from other surveys. If that's the case, then why accept the new CBS/New York Times poll, which is out of step with other recent polls? Keep in mind, Rasmussen polls "likely voters," where CBS/NYT interviewed "adults." The distinction is critical. The latest CBS/NYT numbers show a very wide 42-percent gap for Obama: 66 percent approve, only 24 percent disapprove. The current average gap on Real Clear Politics is around 30 percent. Are the liberals cooking the party-ID books again for these polls? Yep.

It’s not unusual for the Gray Lady to cook the numbers, either, to make sure their poll shows that support. This is the breakout in their demographics on page 23:
Democrats - 39%
Republicans - 23%
Independents - 30%

Morrissey added:
Unfortunately, they’re not the only news agencies using ridiculous sampling to bolster their contentions of wild popularity for Barack Obama. Newsweek used a 19-point gap in its latest polling. CNN thus far has neglected to publish the internals of its poll. It’s just another round of dishonesty from the media.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/04/07/cbs-n-y-times-poll-believable-or-too-tilted

[Slider]

You started this thread, remember, with some sort of non-sensical compilation from Newsweek, presented as evidence of the national opinion. And you have the balls to critcize the methodology. Unbelievable.

What makes the opinion of the voters more important than non-voters? This is an opinion poll, not a pre-election poll. It isn't designed to see who'll win next time, but to act as a gauge for measuring the approval of the population. That means more than just voters.

And you can't be serious about citing Rasmussen OR Newsbusters as some sort of untainted independent source. They publish nothing but right wing propaganda, 100% of the time.

Sorry that the country seems to be strongly behind Obama, unlike the Republican party as a whole. Must be pretty painful to see such pronounced rejection of nearly everything that was done over the last eight years.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Rasmussen seems pretty down the middle to me. Show me where one of their published polls equals propaganda. Or is your statement more of an incredulous response to anyone suggesting that all of America is not in love with the President. Just saying it doesn't make it true. I don't blame you for showing some hautiness. It's the partisan way. But Obama still has SO MUCH to prove. That the media is infatuated with this President is not surprising considering his youth and media savvy. Don't get ahead of yourself by suggesting that he's rescued this country out of any doldrums. He hasn't... not by a longshot.

[Slider]

What I've said, so far, is that Obama has ovewhelming support in this country, and it is true. Support and confidence are absolute requirements for lifting us out of this recession. The herd mentality is a well-known factor in the markets, among other places.

I read up a bit more on Rasmussen. I'd thought they used self-selected site visitors for the polls, but they do use outbound phone calls. Still, limiting the results to likely voters does limit the application of the results.

Slider

[kernel crash]

This gets to the point I was trying to make. If you poll significantly more democrats than Republicans you get the poll results that the New York Times was looking for. Enough said.

"Partisan Gap in Obama Job Approval Widest in Modern Era

For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama's job performance is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the president -- 88% job approval among Democrats -- and relatively low approval ratings among Republicans (27%).

By comparison, there was a somewhat smaller 51-point partisan gap in views of George W. Bush's job performance in April 2001, a few months into his first term. At that time, Republican enthusiasm for Bush was comparable to how Democrats feel about Obama today, but there was substantially less criticism from members of the opposition party. Among Democrats, 36% approved of Bush's job performance in April 2001; that compares with a 27% job approval rating for Obama among Republicans today."

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-historic

Besides lets wait a few months when Obama voters realize that he won't be making their car payments and filling up their tanks. Then lets see the fallout from the brain dead masses.

[Slider]

The poll was a random phone poll, not one targeting any particular party. It wasn't skewed, as it would have been if they used only those who they determined to be likely voters. I don't see the mechanism that you think is there.

As for partisanship - Obama tried several times to get Republicans on board. There is a point where you gotta do what you gotta do. Screw the bipartisanship if the opposition has nothing to offer but more of the same idiocy that created the mess in the first place. Seen any of the Cheney interviews? Followed any of the criticism of the stimulus package? There was NOTHING constructive there, just condemnation.

All we had left to set the economy straight was government spending. Want a say in how it is spent, fine. That's the political process. Try to stop the spending itself - sorry, the voters spoke on that one, and continue to do so now, and they support it.

As for Cheney and the terrorist threat - he created it, almost single handedly, but now has the nerve to complain about the clean up effort. His input and approval is no longer needed or appreciated.

Slider

[kernel crash]

All we had left to set the economy straight was government spending. Want a say in how it is spent, fine. That's the political process. Try to stop the spending itself - sorry, the voters spoke on that one, and continue to do so now, and they support it.

Slider

"All we had left to set the economy straight was government spending."

Wow. Spoken like a true Democrat/Liberal. When has that ever worked???

"Want a say in how it is spent, fine. That's the political process. "

Ah the Republicans wanted a say in how it was spent and look where it got them. Shut out. That's the real political process. Partisanship. I suspect if the shoe was on the other foot you'd be asking for more accountability for where 100's of million have already slipped through the cracks. You would be outraged but yet your strangely quiet. Meanwhile Obama returns from his European coming out party having insulted the British Royalty, the European Union (by suggesting Turkey become a member), and the rest of the civilized world by getting on his knees to the King of Saudia Arabia. Remember during the campaign how he criticize Bush for going it alone in Iraq/Afghanistan? How he would get our overseas partners involved in the war? How did that go? Time for a reality check here. This team ain't ready to remove the training wheels just yet.

[Slider]

It took a lot longer to get to it, but the Great Depression was ended with government spending, via the WPA, TVA, etc. We are a lot more sophisticated now, instead putting the money toward those with a throttle hold on credit and the employers themselves. Still, the idea of priming the pump is the same. Proven, not fantasy like, say, trickle down economics. Or, better, tax cuts for the upper classes.

One thing I really like about the stimulus was just floated recently, the idea of letting small investors buy into the upside, when it comes. It is a great way to generate more revenue to pay back off the deficit, which will be painful, but not nearly as painful as a prolonged slump. Economic activity means tax revenue. Without it, even a small deficit is a huge burden.

As for money 'slipping through the cracks', there isn't any. Unlike the complete lack of accounting on hundreds of $billions in Iraq, the money is fully accounted for. You'd have to be specific to make your point, but there is no data to support it.

You're rabid again regarding Obama. If you can't sense the turnaround in tone among the Europeans and others that he meet with, you need to pay more attention.

Slider

[kernel crash]

If you can't sense the turnaround in tone among the Europeans and others that he meet with, you need to pay more attention.

Slider

Cmon. Get serious here. He's still in the honeymoon phase even with the Europeans. They still don't know what to make of him. As far as turnaround in tone your just picking up on the fact that they see in him, another socialist, like what they see when they look in the mirror.

[Slider]

You're point was that he had blown it, along with our national prestige or something. Where does this honeymoon thing fit in?

Slider

[kernel crash]

You're rabid again regarding Obama. If you can't sense the turnaround in tone among the Europeans and others that he meet with, you need to pay more attention.

Slider

Actually I am paying attention. Lets look at the turnaround in tone.

"Mr Sarkozy is pouring cold water on President Obama's efforts to recast American leadership on the world stage, depicting them as unoriginal, unsubstantial and overrated."

"The American President's call "to free the world of the menace of a nuclear nightmare" was hot air, Mr Sarkozy's diplomatic staff told him in a report. "It was rhetoric – not a speech on American security policy but an export model aimed at improving the image of the United States," they said. Most of Mr Obama's proposals had already been made by the Bush administration and Washington was dragging its feet on disarmament and treaties against nuclear proliferation, the leaked report said."

"the French President is needled by the adulation for an unproven US leader whose stardom has eclipsed what he sees as his established record as a world troubleshooter. "The President is annoyed by what he sees as the naivety and the herd mentality of the media," said a journalist who is privy to Elysée thinking. "

"This is to counter last week's reports of Mr Obama saving the day by persuading President Hu of China to accept Mr Sarkozy's demands for naming tax havens. According to the leaks, Mr Sarkozy shamed Mr Obama into intervening: "You were elected to build a new world. Tax havens are the embodiment of the old world," he is quoted as saying. He also reprimanded Mr Obama for setting US goals for climate change that were inferior to Europe's, according to his staff. "

"Again, according to the Sarkozy version, at the Nato summit in Strasbourg, Mr Obama was meekly yielding to Turkey's refusal to endorse Anders Fogh Rasmussen as the alliance's new Secretary-General. It took pressure from Mr Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel of Germany to stiffen him up and change his mind, say the French. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article6098836.ece

[Slider]

When Sarkozy's staff says says "Washington was dragging its feet on disarmament", what, exactly, do you think they are referring to? All the Obama proposals that have addressed international relations? Which ones? What, in the last five months, should he have done differently? The only feet dragging occured over the last eight years, and it wasn't Obama OR the Democrats that were leading the way.

Obama hasn't had the time to do more than set the tone. That was the point of his speech. But you prefer to give more weight to an obviously self-serving leak of an internal French report than to the stated position of the President. Seems to me that you haven't really thought it through.

Slider

I couldn't resist adding this. THIS is what the French memo referred to, and it ain't Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXTN3h-b9nU

[Mr_Cheeze]

It took a lot longer to get to it, but the Great Depression was ended with government spending, via the WPA, TVA, etc. We are a lot more sophisticated now, instead putting the money toward those with a throttle hold on credit and the employers themselves. Still, the idea of priming the pump is the same. Proven, not fantasy like, say, trickle down economics. Or, better, tax cuts for the upper classes.

One thing I really like about the stimulus was just floated recently, the idea of letting small investors buy into the upside, when it comes. It is a great way to generate more revenue to pay back off the deficit, which will be painful, but not nearly as painful as a prolonged slump. Economic activity means tax revenue. Without it, even a small deficit is a huge burden.

As for money 'slipping through the cracks', there isn't any. Unlike the complete lack of accounting on hundreds of $billions in Iraq, the money is fully accounted for. You'd have to be specific to make your point, but there is no data to support it.

You're rabid again regarding Obama. If you can't sense the turnaround in tone among the Europeans and others that he meet with, you need to pay more attention.

Slider

Time to read up on your history. Most of those New Deal programs were shot down by the Republicans. That's not to say that spending didn't help, but it wasn't the reason why the depression ended. How did it end? A little conflict called WWII had pretty much everything to do with it. Tanks, weapons, ships, planes, subs... lots and lots and lots of jobs created in order to build a war machine. I know Democrats like to think it was socialist programs that did it, but that's just not accurate in the least. Roosevelt "lucked" out with the war.

[Slider]

Pick your spending. Either type, or both, make the same point.

The WPA pumped money into the economy that would not have been there otherwise, so did the war. The net result of all that government spending was job production and a major lift to disposable income and manufacturing. But, from a timeline perspective, we started to climb out of the depression before Hitler invaded Poland. In 1939, the GNP rose and unemployment fell enough to show the end was near.

So you'd prefer a war to infrastructure improvements and funding of social programs?

Slider

[Slappy]

I would.

[Slider]

Why?

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I didn't say that I preferred a war. Just that stating the New Deal programs are what beat the depression was inaccurate. Any downplaying of the war's overwhelming effect is simply an effort in revisionism.

As for social programs... it remains to be seen if any of it helps. Frankly, giving tax breaks to people who pay little or no taxes won't solve anything. Until ways are found to either give incentive or disincentive for industries that send jobs overseas and retail conglomerates that buy mostly from China, this jobless hole is going to be real tough to dig out of.

[Slider]

Just that stating the New Deal programs are what beat the depression was inaccurate. Any downplaying of the war's overwhelming effect is simply an effort in revisionism.

This is inaccurate, or at least incomplete. At the peak of the Depression, unemployment stood at 24.9%. By 1939, it was at 17.4% or thereabouts, and this followed the recession of 1937. No war spending was involved, mostly deficit spending via the WPA. The war sent us into overdrive, but it didn't 'end' the Depression.


As for social programs... it remains to be seen if any of it helps. Frankly, giving tax breaks to people who pay little or no taxes won't solve anything. Until ways are found to either give incentive or disincentive for industries that send jobs overseas and retail conglomerates that buy mostly from China, this jobless hole is going to be real tough to dig out of.

Spending is spending, and it all fuels the economy. With the credit markets in recoil, there is no alternative to government spending. None.

We've been losing jobs to China and other markets for years, and they aren't what sent us into this collapse. It is a worldwide downturn, remember, and all markets are suffering. A quick $trillion pumped back into the US market will sure help, no matter what we buy with it.

Slider

[kernel crash]

A quick $trillion pumped back into the US market will sure help, no matter what we buy with it.

Slider

Purely temporary. All smoke and mirrors. But the ignorant masses will surely eat it up.

[Slider]

Yeah, what's a few $trillion?

Slider

[Slappy]

. A quick $trillion pumped back into the US market will sure help, no matter what we buy with it.

Slider

Guns and bombs > caulk + inuslation


I harken again to the 'wisdom' of Tommy Chong:
'I'm my own best customer man'

Printing money to buy **** from yourself. Hmmm....why doesn't that sound very bright to me? I guess math must've changed since I went to school.
:confused:

[Slider]

Better that we spend it bombing someone into the stone age?

But you are completely missing the point. You gotta prime a pump.

Slider