Well, the House passes the gigantic $819Billion Stimulus Bill...

[Investing First Steps]

So I'll bet that somewhere in China they are arguing at this moment that their beautiful system is eroding in the evil throes of capitalism

It's startling how many countries see this as an indication of the "failure of capitalism," which is of course ludicrous. Particularly many European countries who are far less free-market, and yet somehow seem to be caught up in the same chaos.

It may be an indictment of fractional reserve banking, however.

[kork13]

So I'll bet that somewhere in China they are arguing at this moment that their beautiful system is eroding in the evil throes of capitalism

Actually, yes. A close friend just returned in Dec. from working in Hong Kong and Beijing for about 6 months, and he told me that he saw alot of that feeling. Part of his job included doing some research about the Chinese government, and there are many in China who are afraid of China's "descent" into capitalism. Businessmen, however, are loving it; rural Chinese citizens (living away from the major governmental and/or business cities) are completely unaware, and couldn't care less.

[GREENBACK]

I know we're not 100% capitalists but whatever label you give to the USA; it's the best system around to this point. If other systems are so much better then they should step up and take the lead. They don't do this. They carefully follow behind us and watch our every move because it pretty much determines their next move.

[GREENBACK]

Actually, yes. A close friend just returned in Dec. from working in Hong Kong and Beijing for about 6 months, and he told me that he saw alot of that feeling. Part of his job included doing some research about the Chinese government, and there are many in China who are afraid of China's "descent" into capitalism. Businessmen, however, are loving it; rural Chinese citizens (living away from the major governmental and/or business cities) are completely unaware, and couldn't care less.

I meant that to be tongue in cheek. I know that many feel that way. Hard to change something you've lived with your whole life.

[maat55]

Well I tend to believe in small government, but I'm skeptical of sizing it down during a historic financial crisis. While I hope that more bureaucracy is not a result of it, this type of event would be about the only time I'd agree with increased spending and decreased taxes.

I can't think of a better time to downsize it. IMO, they need to cut all taxes and spending.

My point is that simply raising the specter of Socialism doesn't do a very good job of really addressing the issues of the situation.

Screaming socialism is our only way to say they are off track. We are either a free capitalist country or not.

During our boom we should have been lowering our national debt, in the same counter-cyclical policy we are implementing now, but that doesn't change the fact that we didn't and may need to spend now. Once again I can't promise you that counter-cyclical spending works, but if you look at the developing world, their inability to do it seems to cause very severe downturns.

The government does not know how to lower the debt. Adding to it is insane. There will be a piper to pay, I would rather it be this generation than the ones who had no say in it.

I know you mean well, but I cannot agree with you in any form. Take a look at California, that's what the government is quickly doing to the whole nation.

Part of me likes the idea of cutting everyone a check, but I fear that that's sort of like giving banks money to improve credit markets. They'll be happy to take the money, but that doesn't mean they'll let it flow.

Backing the banks destroys good business sense, these banks need to fail. Giving them my grand childrens money is not going to help. Those idiots are giving billions in bonuses, WTH.

The gov. cannot fix this, they are only making the inevitable worse.

[Investing First Steps]

Why would you want the government to cut spending when you are in a deflationary cycle? I'm fine with tax cuts right now, but ultimately creating external demand is a way to limit how much the size of the economy contracts. Why now, of all times, reduce spending?

I think it's quite clear that pretty much every country is somewhere on a spectrum of "capitalist" to "socialist." I don't think there is a black and white line. If there is one what is it? Does a graduated income tax cross it? What about a flat tax?

The government knows quite well how to lower the debt and will do it whether we like it or not. They will print money. Unless we have a massive growth in GDP they will have to do it anyway.

As far as the comparison to California, I'd say they suffer from similar problems that you'll see across the board. Namely they didn't save anything during the boom, so they're screwed in the bust. The nation as a whole is in the same situation, except we have a worldwide reserve currency, so we will basically "solve" the problem through inflation. I think you'll find California the first in a long line of insolvent states.

I quite honestly can't say whether backing the banks is a good idea or not. The moral hazard is obvious and terrifying, but the potential for the breakdown of social order was fairly scary too.

Once again the one thing that the government can do that other entities can't is provide a degree of demand to halt the cycle. Cutting demand by shrinking the government seems counter-productive now. This is one of the few times in history I'd disagree with cutting government spending.

[Angio333]

The package is filled with Pork and money for Obama's cronies.

ACORN is getting a portion of 4.19 BILLION dollars.

Remember, Obama use to work for Obama, theywere caught doing massive voter fraud, and now they are getting billions. However, there is no outrage in the media.

$50 million is going to the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA). What a waste of taxpayer money. Our country is drowning in debt, and we burrowing this money...so we do not need to spend $50 million dollars so some artists can sing a song, paint a picture, etc


----------------------
Republicans Object to Stimulus Dollars for ACORN - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

[Goldy1]

Giving money to the arts when people have no health care and need retraining is so absurd it is unthinkable.
Why don't they work on long term policies. They want to give Medicaid to unemployed people for a year or so. What about people who work and can't afford healthcare or just sacrifice to pay it like I do? How about working on a long term policy for everyone?

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

Why would you want the government to cut spending when you are in a deflationary cycle? I'm fine with tax cuts right now, but ultimately creating external demand is a way to limit how much the size of the economy contracts. Why now, of all times, reduce spending?

The main reason we are where we are today is because government was dictating lending in the housing market. The government has no concept of how to manage a profitable business. Every dollar that goes to washington is at risk of poor management. The fewer the better.

The reason I want the states to manage themselves is because many of them are bound to balance budgets, and are getting along just fine.

Spending money that can never be paid back is insanity. The last time that the government paid back all the money it owed was in the 1800's.

I think it's quite clear that pretty much every country is somewhere on a spectrum of "capitalist" to "socialist." I don't think there is a black and white line. If there is one what is it? Does a graduated income tax cross it? What about a flat tax?

Government is excepted as an necessary evil, to be as limited as possible. The line you are describing, by our forefathers standards, was crossed long ago.

As far as the comparison to California, I'd say they suffer from similar problems that you'll see across the board. Namely they didn't save anything during the boom, so they're screwed in the bust. The nation as a whole is in the same situation, except we have a worldwide reserve currency, so we will basically "solve" the problem through inflation. I think you'll find California the first in a long line of insolvent states.

California is not only a victom of it's own liberal stupidty, but that of the government as well. When was the last time you heard an elected official tell his voters that we can't fix your problem, you need to get up and do it yourself. It is not designed for efficiency, it has to be limited. Today it is out of control.

Once again the one thing that the government can do that other entities can't is provide a degree of demand to halt the cycle. Cutting demand by shrinking the government seems counter-productive now. This is one of the few times in history I'd disagree with cutting government spending.[/

QUOTE]

Since when is it a good idea, when you are near bankrupt, to borrow and spend more. The cycle has to stop, it is gutless to pass the problem to future generations who are innocent.

[Investing First Steps]

The main reason we are where we are today is because government was dictating lending in the housing market. The government has no concept of how to manage a profitable business. Every dollar that goes to washington is at risk of poor management. The fewer the better.

The reason I want the states to manage themselves is because many of them are bound to balance budgets, and are getting along just fine.

Spending money that can never be paid back is insanity. The last time that the government paid back all the money it owed was in the 1800's.

Government is excepted as an necessary evil, to be as limited as possible. The line you are describing, by our forefathers standards, was crossed long ago.

California is not only a victom of it's own liberal stupidty, but that of the government as well. When was the last time you heard an elected official tell his voters that we can't fix your problem, you need to get up and do it yourself. It is not designed for efficiency, it has to be limited. Today it is out of control.

Since when is it a good idea, when you are near bankrupt, to borrow and spend more. The cycle has to stop, it is gutless to pass the problem to future generations who are innocent.

I think it's a dramatic oversimplification to claim that the interference of the government in lending practices is the "main reason." I'd lay at least as much blame at Fed Policy and the Moral Hazard of rescuing Long Term Capital Management.

The question isn't really whether government is efficient or not, of course it is not. The question is why you would cut back government "now." Like if I were pitching the plan, why would I pick in the middle of an economic recession to reduce spending. It seems counterintuitive, what would be your reasoning?

As far as the debt never being repaid, I really can't say whether it's realistic or not. The most likely outcome will be rampant inflation, so that the value of that debt is not as significant. However, after World War II our debt was at 120% of GDP (considerably higher than now), so I don't think it's unfathomable that we will repay it one day.

I agree that the Government is a necessary evil, but are you saying there should be no income tax at all? There wasn't one for quite a while, but I'm not sure it's realistic to run a modern society without either income or consumption taxes. Are you suggesting that we should go strictly with Tariffs as the founding fathers did?

I think it's a serious problem that the people look to the government to solve their issues, particularly as a "first resort." However, I don't really think that's a fallacy limited to liberals. I think rhetoric aside, both parties are quite happy to reroute funds to their supporters. So I wouldn't jump to harshly on "liberals." If you want to attribute a source to our national debt, it was largely Republicans who wanted to spend the money first so that the Democrats couldn't spend it. I certainly don't consider myself a liberal, but I'm unlikely to say any ideology is particularly more to blame.

As far as bankruptcy of the country, I'm once again not sure we're that close to that. We basically have the option that other countries don't have to perform "Monetary Easing." (Which of course I'm terrified of), but largely if your economy is in a bad spiral:

Less Cash -> Less Consumption -> Less Employment -> Less Cash

You may need an external party like the government to help break that cycle. As I said, I can't promise you it will work, but I certainly think it's dangerous to go the other way. Cutting spending at a time when the private sector is also cutting spending, seems like a dangerous proposition if you ever want to get tax revenues back up to a level to help repay your already absurd debts.

[maat55]

The question isn't really whether government is efficient or not, of course it is not. The question is why you would cut back government "now." Like if I were pitching the plan, why would I pick in the middle of an economic recession to reduce spending. It seems counterintuitive, what would be your reasoning?

The more the government borrows and spends, the bigger this problem gets. If gov. were to drastically cut taxes and only spend on profit driven industries such as: Coal plants, nuclear plants and oil refineries, it would create good jobs and lessen our needs abroad. All these industries are crippled by gov.

The banking industry has become oversized. Banks keep gobbling up smaller banks until you end up with entities that mimic the gov. Efficiency happens on a small level, when the numbers get too big, big waste follows. Most your smaller banks are doing fine because they lend like there existence depends on it.

As far as the debt never being repaid, I really can't say whether it's realistic or not. The most likely outcome will be rampant inflation, so that the value of that debt is not as significant. However, after World War II our debt was at 120% of GDP (considerably higher than now), so I don't think it's unfathomable that we will repay it one day.

Earlier generations were less exceptant of federal debt, today's society has slowing became complacent, and only a few are screaming to end this nonsense.

I agree that the Government is a necessary evil, but are you saying there should be no income tax at all? There wasn't one for quite a while, but I'm not sure it's realistic to run a modern society without either income or consumption taxes. Are you suggesting that we should go strictly with Tariffs as the founding fathers did?

I'm more acceptable to a consumption tax. This is fair across the board. With much less goverment and much more money in the economy, I think the infrastructure will be satisfied.

I think it's a serious problem that the people look to the government to solve their issues, particularly as a "first resort." However, I don't really think that's a fallacy limited to liberals. I think rhetoric aside, both parties are quite happy to reroute funds to their supporters. So I wouldn't jump to harshly on "liberals." If you want to attribute a source to our national debt, it was largely Republicans who wanted to spend the money first so that the Democrats couldn't spend it. I certainly don't consider myself a liberal, but I'm unlikely to say any ideology is particularly more to blame.

I didn't mean to leave out the irresponsibility of the Republicans. California is primarily a liberal state much like Texas & Ok. are conservative. I'm disgusted with Bush as well. There was a book written in 2003 that discribed this situation to the T, I was reading through it at Goodwill and almost bought it. They all knew we were on this path and did nothing.

Less Cash -> Less Consumption -> Less Employment -> Less Cash

I don't buy into the idea that more irresponsible spending by individuals or gov. is the solution. We are like junkies who believe that we will get well if we take more drugs. It's time to deal with the problem a different way,IMO.

You may need an external party like the government to help break that cycle. As I said, I can't promise you it will work, but I certainly think it's dangerous to go the other way. Cutting spending at a time when the private sector is also cutting spending, seems like a dangerous proposition if you ever want to get tax revenues back up to a level to help repay your already absurd debts.

When your car breaks down, you don't take it to a doctor(Sorry Steve). When you need energy, you don't go to PITA for the solution. When you need to revive the economy, the gov. is the last place we should look.

The gov. is tying our hands behind our backs with restrictions. A strong push to become energy independant would be the spark this economy needs. This can be done along side some of the other ideas. Like some Unions are strangling our companies, the gov. is strangling our economy. Why on earth would they be the ones to fix this?

In short, cut taxes dramatically, deregulate the energy industry, allow big companies to fail and restructure in order to become much more competative, down size gov., eliminate this mind boggling tax structure, ban all lobbying in Congress. Why on earth is it not a travesty that Obama was able to raise 600 million dollars to run for a 400k job? Government is way to big.

[GREENBACK]

It's not so much that the Gov't shouldn't spend money. They're going to do that. It's how it's being spent. As has already been stated here, this plan offers little to help an ailing economy.

[maat55]

It's not so much that the Gov't shouldn't spend money. They're going to do that. It's how it's being spent. As has already been stated here, this plan offers little to help an ailing economy.

I disagree, how much the government spends, is a problem. We have had a 700+ billion emergency spending plan with little success, we have an 819 billion plan that is not any better, and you will see more to come. In the end, our future generations will drag a ball & chain their whole life.

As you mentioned above, gov. will spend. That's what they do, and they are not known to do it wisely, hence another 819b down the tubes.

IMO, the government needs to take the shackels off capitalism and let it work.

[GREENBACK]

I disagree, how much the government spends, is a problem. We have had a 700+ billion emergency spending plan with little success, we have an 819 billion plan that is not any better, and you will see more to come. In the end, our future generations will drag a ball & chain their whole life.

As you mentioned above, gov. will spend. That's what they do, and they are not known to do it wisely, hence another 819b down the tubes.

IMO, the government needs to take the shackels off capitalism and let it work.

I agree Maat. Money is going to be spent though. I'm merely addressing how it's being spent. If the Gov't is hell bent on passing a stimulus package(and they are) it should at least make some sense. In a perfect world they wouldn't and shouldn't be involved but "big brother " is involved and won't go away so I'd like to at least see wise choices made.

[kork13]

ooo, if they could get the political will to call for dozens of nuclear energy plants across the nation, that would make me very happy. What? Cheap, safe, clean energy? (I know this statement would be argued by many, but it really is accurate.) Shoot, I'd go for it in a heartbeat. Long term jobs (first construction, then operation), energy independence from oil (and coal), and so on... Problem is that there's a strong NIMBY sentiment--NOT IN MY BACK YARD!!! Yea, problem is that even to work INSIDE a nuclear power plant, you get less harmful radiation in a year than you get while sitting outside getting a tan for an hour.... but hey, let's not have proven science and fact get in the way of tree huggers crying about the word "nuclear".....