Economic outlook for 2009

[txa1265]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091101/ap_on_bi_ge/us_stimulus_jobs

Sorta speaks for itself, but in a nutshell, the stimulus isn't doing much to help the people that need it most.

Doesn't that go with the old adage that when you throw money at a problem, the ones who benefit are those best at catching money?

 

[magerette]

Here in the UK we've got some interesting plans for the breakup of taxpayer rescued banks.

I don't think we ever funded anything useful with our massive borrowing anyway so I wouldn't complain.

Thanks for that, Benedict. Obviously we need to follow your lead over here, though with the soaring price of cat food, perhaps turning them into pet rocks would be cheaper, and there wouldn't be much difference in effect; accumulating too many would lead to devastating rockslides, and grandiose, 'too big to fail' rocks would simply smash in people's skulls when they fall off the shelf.

 

[redman5427]

Really nice map of how stimulus is being awarded- who gets what right down to your exact county hehe we are getting new buses in ours

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33498869#/all/all/us/all/

 

[magerette]

Hey, redman--I almost posted that myself a minute ago. Here we're getting new sewers. Good times.

 

[Thrasher]

Yay! New carpool lanes for us all!

 

[Rithrandil]

I want my coast-to-coast bullet train network!

 

[Thrasher]

That would be sweet! I'll settle for refurbishment of the interstate highway system though...

 

[dteowner]

Hmmm, a buttload of asphalt and 6 buses. There's less than 20,000 people in the metroplex that is the Bustling Metropolis and all nearby bergs--what the hell do we need with 6 buses? We've already got 2 taxis, and that pretty well covers the surprisingly large "suspended license - DUI's" crowd.

 

[redman5427]

I looked further, mostly highway and road repair, extending bike lanes and a few new ovens for our prisons and schools

Bike lanes! I hope thats not a growing trend. I still remember going to Bejiing and experiencing the 5 million or so people on bicycles every day

 

[Ubereil]

I looked further, mostly highway and road repair, extending bike lanes and a few new ovens for our prisons and schools

Bike lanes! I hope thats not a growing trend. I still remember going to Bejiing and experiencing the 5 million or so people on bicycles every day

Eh... Bikes are good for your health and good for the enviroment. What's not to like?

Übereil

 

[Zaleukos]

Bike lanes have the advantage of keeping bikes out of motorists' faces, I dont think the Asian cities have been very successful at that

 

[Rithrandil]

We've always had bike lanes where I lived in California. I thought everyone had them. When I moved to Jersey (and later DC) I was really disturbed by their absence.

 

[dteowner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_jobs

The article itself is pretty pointless, but there's one section at the end which is an excellent example of why I didn't, don't, and won't trust Barack and the lefties to show the slightest bit of fiscal restraint, regardless of the raft of promises he made.

While acknowledging increasing concerns in Congress and among the public over the nation's growing debt, Obama said critics present a "false choice" between paying down deficits and investing in job creation and economic growth.

To pay for the new programs, the administration is citing the Treasury Department's report on Monday that it expects to get back $200 billion in taxpayer-approved bank bailout funds faster than expected.

Obama suggested this windfall would both help the government spend money on job creation while also paying down the nation's $12 trillion debt.

I would remind you that the sugar to make the medicine go down on the financial bailouts is that we'd get much of the money back. That allowed Barack to show a smaller budget deficit, which he paraded everywhere. Now, before that money's even back in the bank, he's already got plans to spend it. Which means that, just as I told y'all when it happened, the fiscal plan surrounding the bailout was utter crap and we're right back to the lefty trend of spending money we don't have, and then spending the money we lied about saving (which we don't actually have, either).

 

[magerette]

Judging by their track record over the last decade, I wouldn't trust your boys to show any fiscal restraint either, so I guess we're totally screwed—not that I want to make this one of those adversarial "you did it! no they did it!" arguments that go nowhere, but I do occasionally feel everyone's memory about the last eight years seems to be extremely short.

I'm no fan of the bail out, and of all Obama's work so far, I dislike what his administration's done with TARP and the total being in bed with the big financial interests it demonstrates, but I'll do my part to defend the side by saying that TARP began with Bush and Paulsen, and was passed by both sides in the panic mode. The fiscal plan surrounding the bailout is now pretty clearly revealed to be basically no plan—just give big heaps of money away.

But it has to be asked at this point which is more important—keeping unemployment from escalating past 20 percent(real unemployment including part-time, under employed, etc is closer to 17% atm) or paying down the deficit?

I'm not enough of an economist to make that call, but I do understand it's political suicide not to talk up job creation right now.

 

[dteowner]

Judging by their track record over the last decade, I wouldn't trust your boys to show any fiscal restraint either, so I guess we're totally screwed—not that I want to make this one of those adversarial "you did it! no they did it!" arguments that go nowhere, but I do occasionally feel everyone's memory about the last eight years seems to be extremely short.

Guilty as charged, without question. Now there is some question whether the numbers would look awful (as opposed to moderately bad) without the war spending and the post-9/11 slump, but I've got no problem admitting that Saint Ron would have beat Dubya within an inch of his life over all the spending.

I'm no fan of the bail out, and of all Obama's work so far, I dislike what his administration's done with TARP and the total being in bed with the big financial interests it demonstrates, but I'll do my part to defend the side by saying that TARP began with Bush and Paulsen, and was passed by both sides in the panic mode. The fiscal plan surrounding the bailout is now pretty clearly revealed to be basically no plan—just give big heaps of money away.

But it has to be asked at this point which is more important—keeping unemployment from escalating past 20 percent(real unemployment including part-time, under employed, etc is closer to 17% atm) or paying down the deficit?

I'm not enough of an economist to make that call, but I do understand it's political suicide not to talk up job creation right now.

It's not really the program that's giving me stomach pains, it's more about the attitude. Consider a parallel. I borrow 100 bucks from you, loan 50 to Rith, and spend the rest on Muppet dvds. A week later, you want your 100 back. I tell you not to worry, because Rith is going to pay me back in a couple days and I'll at least have half of what I owe you. The other 50 is tomorrow's problem, I guess, but apparently you're very patient and you figure you're only out 50 if I don't come thru. Rith pays me back a day early (he's a fiscally responsible rightie, doncha know). Cool, I gots da phat lewt! I'm astounded to find 50 in my hand when I wasn't expecting it, so I promptly go out and buy more Muppet dvds. I'm totally baffled when the day comes that Rith's supposed to pay me and I don't get anything, and I give you neither the 100 I owe you, nor even the 50 I promised.

It's a scam that the lefties have been doing for years and it totally chaps my ass. Even if we say the spending is "good", it's the principle of the thing.

 

[magerette]

I can agree in general and totally understand your being ticked; Jon Stewart even did a little schtick on the same subject last night, and no one can call him a rightie—but I do question this meme of the dems being the only significant entries in the 'spending like a drunken sailor' sweepstakes.

I admit to not having paid much attention to politics in the past, but from what I've gathered in the last eighteen months this idea of the taxpayers' pockets having no bottom doesn't seem either new or restricted to any one flavor of politician. To me, the dems do indeed tax and spend, but the repubs cut revenue and then spend even more. I don't see how this gives repubs any real moral edge when it comes to frugality.

I *am* willing to give you points in that traditional conservative theory/philosophy opposes big government and desires fiscal integrity—I just wonder if it hasn't long ago become a soundbyte and not a real policy.

I'm not saying the dems are any better, but I think we're all very used to dealing in stereotypes when we think of dems and repubs, and frequently the differences between them look more cosmetic than functional.

 

[Corwin]

I see a mass emmigration to Australia in the near future by all you disillusioned Yanks!!

 

[Rithrandil]

No way, dude. I'm moving to New Zealand so I can visit Mordor.

 

[Corwin]

Plenty of room there, most of them have moved here!!

Oh, advance notice; I will need to close this thread soon, we're running out of 2009!!

 

[dteowner]

I can agree in general and totally understand your being ticked; Jon Stewart even did a little schtick on the same subject last night, and no one can call him a rightie—but I do question this meme of the dems being the only significant entries in the 'spending like a drunken sailor' sweepstakes.

That was one of the better bits from Stewart I've seen. Thanks for the pointer. I find it rather scary when I find myself agreeing with him. It must be some sort of plot to brainwash me.

I admit to not having paid much attention to politics in the past, but from what I've gathered in the last eighteen months this idea of the taxpayers' pockets having no bottom doesn't seem either new or restricted to any one flavor of politician. To me, the dems do indeed tax and spend, but the repubs cut revenue and then spend even more. I don't see how this gives repubs any real moral edge when it comes to frugality.

I *am* willing to give you points in that traditional conservative theory/philosophy opposes big government and desires fiscal integrity—I just wonder if it hasn't long ago become a soundbyte and not a real policy.

The Contract With America was really the last gasp for that whole paradigm. Newt's gigantic ego and Willie's teflon pretty well destroyed that momentum. Dubya and the neocons pissed all over it to finish the job.

I'm not saying the dems are any better, but I think we're all very used to dealing in stereotypes when we think of dems and repubs, and frequently the differences between them look more cosmetic than functional.

These days, I'd probably have to agree with you.