Serious Business

I'm inclined to believe the latter is true. Because in the end, it was government spending that brought us out of the depression. And we payed our debt over time with the momentum that spending gave us.

Economies don't bounce back on their own. They do fail. Inaction is not an option. We can't let the unemployment rate continue to fall. It will spiral. Or topple like dominoes...whatever analogy you prefer.
Government spending on social programs and infrastructure can keep people earning and spending money in the private sector, but it will also bring this nation up to code on multiple levels. Just a few examples, our roads, electricity and cable grids, public transit... they all pretty much suck when compared to other western nations. Education could use a lot of money. Teachers are being asked to voluntarily give back their bonuses so schools can afford books. That's pathetic for a first world nation. There's a lot of technological upgrades the government can be doing through private contractors and retailers. The money being given to community organizations will help people find jobs and homes.

i'm disappointed in you.  you think that government spending saved us from the depression because government spending saved us from the depression?  did i get that right?

as to your second point, you are just plain wrong.  economies do generally bounce back.  and yes, there are examples of economies collapsing, but in the huge bulk of those cases, it was because of poorly planning and ill-thought out government intervention.

you mentioned up at molly's being in favor of the government just printing up an extra trillion dollars and passing it out.  i can not stress how terrible an idea this is.  our economy works on a fiat money system.  the dollar is worth nothing in and of itself, it only has value because we all say that it has value.  run this little thought experiment.  suppose that everyone in the country was suddenly handed 1 million dollars.  there would be a rush on the mercedes dealership.  there are only a few mercedes to go around, and everyone showing up there has the cash to pay for one, so what would happen?  they would raise the prices of the mercedes.  now imagine this happening across the entire economy.  all of a sudden prices on everything would shoot through the roof.  this isn't so bad, as most incomes would come up to match it, so a net effect of 0.  the people who would get screwed would be those with savings or investments.  someone who spent their entire life working and saving and has $1,000,000 in the bank for retirement, would end up having to go back to work, as their million would buy them much less than it would before the huge inflation.  this chases people away from saving and investing which would absolutely cripple the business market, and really would bring on a giant crash.  the other effect is that it scares off investors, both foreign and domestic.  its what's called destabilizing the economy.  the only economies in world where you see this is those little third world countries run by dictators who have never taken any econ courses.  they figure they can just print up money and make everyone rich.

this leads me into a tangential thread where i argue that we need to return to gold or silver backed money.  did you know that up until the 1975 you could take any US currency to a US a mint and exchange it for a fixed amount of gold?  by going to fiat money the government can print more money (the only thing that causes inflation) and finance its own debts.

Ack. You some how completely misunderstood me. You should have known something was wrong when you thought I justified my position with the position. Haha.

I only read half of what you wrote, to be honest, because of two major misunderstandings.
Let me see if I can do better this time.

I did not properly put this into context:

I'm inclined to believe the latter is true. Because in the end, it was government spending that brought us out of the depression. And we payed our debt over time with the momentum that spending gave us.
You mentioned at Mollys that the war was what brought us out of the great depression. I agree. If the government going to war isn't government spending on a massive scale, then what is it?  I don't think there is anything special about war spending that helps the economy. I think it's any spending that employs people in multiple industries across the country.

I'm inclined to believe that FDR's spending plan would have worked, because it was government war spending that got us out. Both were government spending, however FDR's never got a chance to see fruition because it was stopped short.
I hope that clear up that part of my position.

The second misunderstanding:
And I never, ever said I'd be cool with the government just printing a trillion dollars to hand out. That might have been Ryan, but I'm not sure he'd still advocate that sober. lol
I am OK with a trillion or two of government spending! But those are very different things.

OK, I just finished reading the rest of your post, about the fiat system. We've had this discussion before, I do understand what you're saying. And since I am not in favor of printing bunches of money to simply hand out, this point may actually be moot.
However, I'd like to point out that a trillion dollars of government spending in technology, education, infrastructure, community organizing, etc... That wouldn't cause quite the craze you suggest. The bulk of the infrastructure spending is already allocated to specific states for specific expenses and is targeted at places that genuinely need it. And once the states get the money, it will take time to spend it. So it isn't as if this money will suddenly be flooding the market in a huge wave. More like small ripple.

A trillion is a fuck load, however, right now it's only a fraction of what we will be spending to stimulate this economy. As I said, this bill is just the start of many. And they're spaced out for reasons like the one you mentioned. It would cause excessive inflation.

It's going to cause inflation anyway, but the reality is we fucked up and if we're going to make it right we're going to have to sacrifice a little in the long run to not die in the short term. There is no perfect fix for this. Shits fucked. Yes, economies have their ebbs and flows, but this is not the normal circumstances.  And even if it did eventually recover all on it's own, in the mean time millions of people will be suffering in preventable ways.
Stimulus bills focused on both government programs and the private sector will create job growth, I don't think there is any argument there, right?. From what I understand, what is really being debated is whether or not people keeping and getting jobs will actually help us get out of this deepening recession. My very basic understanding is that it will. People being able to provide for them selves and their families makes them happy, and makes them more able and secure in spending money, which then creates economic growth. Am I mistaken?

speaking of republicans, didn't obama accuse them of fear mongering?  have you heard him lately?  according to him unless we pass this exact plan, exactly as he has presented it, the whole economy will fall apart.  that is some fucking fear mongering if i've ever seen it.  all to further socialize the government.

[/quote]

So I remember this town hall meeting Bush held three or four years ago about the economy. A woman gets up and says "Mr. President, I'm a single mother working three jobs to support my family-" at this point Bush interupts her and replys "Now isn't that fantastic. That's a true American right there. Ma'am, I'm proud of you."
Today Obama is holding a town hall meeting about the economy. A woman gets up and says "Mr. President, I've lost my job. My family is living out of our van. We're hurting. Please help." At this point Obama walks over to her, hugs her, kisses her on the cheek and says, "We're going to do what we can. There are a lot of people like you out there right now."

Yeah, he's pushing some fear, but he has to. It's what people respond to. But at the same time, he gets it. It's not a game to him. He's honestly trying. It's more than I've seen in a long damn time.

speaking of republicans, didn't obama accuse them of fear mongering?  have you heard him lately?  according to him unless we pass this exact plan, exactly as he has presented it, the whole economy will fall apart.  that is some fucking fear mongering if i've ever seen it.  all to further socialize the government.

So I remember this town hall meeting Bush held three or four years ago about the economy. A woman gets up and says "Mr. President, I'm a single mother working three jobs to support my family-" at this point Bush interupts her and replys "Now isn't that fantastic. That's a true American right there. Ma'am, I'm proud of you."
Today Obama is holding a town hall meeting about the economy. A woman gets up and says "Mr. President, I've lost my job. My family is living out of our van. We're hurting. Please help." At this point Obama walks over to her, hugs her, kisses her on the cheek and says, "We're going to do what we can. There are a lot of people like you out there right now."

Yeah, he's pushing some fear, but he has to. It's what people respond to. But at the same time, he gets it. It's not a game to him. He's honestly trying. It's more than I've seen in a long damn time.
[/quote]

funny, i used to hear almost the same thing out of my republican friends when bush was in office.

all i'm saying is that he is just another politician.  not jesus.

Ack. You some how completely misunderstood me. You should have known something was wrong when you thought I justified my position with the position. Haha.

I only read half of what you wrote, to be honest, because of two major misunderstandings.
Let me see if I can do better this time.

I did not properly put this into context:

I'm inclined to believe the latter is true. Because in the end, it was government spending that brought us out of the depression. And we payed our debt over time with the momentum that spending gave us.
You mentioned at Mollys that the war was what brought us out of the great depression. I agree. If the government going to war isn't government spending on a massive scale, then what is it?  I don't think there is anything special about war spending that helps the economy. I think it's any spending that employs people in multiple industries across the country.

I'm inclined to believe that FDR's spending plan would have worked, because it was government war spending that got us out. Both were government spending, however FDR's never got a chance to see fruition because it was stopped short.
I hope that clear up that part of my position.

The second misunderstanding:
And I never, ever said I'd be cool with the government just printing a trillion dollars to hand out. That might have been Ryan, but I'm not sure he'd still advocate that sober. lol
I am OK with a trillion or two of government spending! But those are very different things.

OK, I just finished reading the rest of your post, about the fiat system. We've had this discussion before, I do understand what you're saying. And since I am not in favor of printing bunches of money to simply hand out, this point may actually be moot.
However, I'd like to point out that a trillion dollars of government spending in technology, education, infrastructure, community organizing, etc... That wouldn't cause quite the craze you suggest. The bulk of the infrastructure spending is already allocated to specific states for specific expenses and is targeted at places that genuinely need it. And once the states get the money, it will take time to spend it. So it isn't as if this money will suddenly be flooding the market in a huge wave. More like small ripple.

A trillion is a fuck load, however, right now it's only a fraction of what we will be spending to stimulate this economy. As I said, this bill is just the start of many. And they're spaced out for reasons like the one you mentioned. It would cause excessive inflation.

It's going to cause inflation anyway, but the reality is we fucked up and if we're going to make it right we're going to have to sacrifice a little in the long run to not die in the short term. There is no perfect fix for this. Shits fucked. Yes, economies have their ebbs and flows, but this is not the normal circumstances.  And even if it did eventually recover all on it's own, in the mean time millions of people will be suffering in preventable ways.
Stimulus bills focused on both government programs and the private sector will create job growth, I don't think there is any argument there, right?. From what I understand, what is really being debated is whether or not people keeping and getting jobs will actually help us get out of this deepening recession. My very basic understanding is that it will. People being able to provide for them selves and their families makes them happy, and makes them more able and secure in spending money, which then creates economic growth. Am I mistaken?

ok, my bad.  i totally misunderstood you.

i may have off-handedly mentioned WWII ending the depression, but in reality, we were easing out of it by the start of WWII anyway.

economist still argue about this tooth and nail.  there are some they say he fixed it, some that say he prolonged it.  there isn't any real science to say that it conclusively happened one way or the other.  i'm inclined to think that he did not fix anything, but that probably my libertarian perspective.

what worries me is this:  i am not sure that this economy will not fix itself (uncertain of this "certain doom") and then that is multiplied by the fact that i am not certain that this "fix" will actually fix the problem (that may or may not actually be a problem) and then multiplied by that fact that even if this problem really is as urgent as we are being told that it is, and this fix actually fixes it, will it be worth it.  dude that is a shit ton of money.  that i will be paying back in the form of my taxes, alot of them.  for the rest of my life.  its not a little pain down the road.  its gonna be alot of pain as some point.  we already can't fund social security past what? 2020?  where is that money gonna come from?  we cannot spend without end, and just finance everything.

ok, my bad.  i totally misunderstood you.

i may have off-handedly mentioned WWII ending the depression, but in reality, we were easing out of it by the start of WWII anyway.

economist still argue about this tooth and nail.  there are some they say he fixed it, some that say he prolonged it.  there isn't any real science to say that it conclusively happened one way or the other.  i'm inclined to think that he did not fix anything, but that probably my libertarian perspective.

what worries me is this:  i am not sure that this economy will not fix itself (uncertain of this "certain doom") and then that is multiplied by the fact that i am not certain that this "fix" will actually fix the problem (that may or may not actually be a problem) and then multiplied by that fact that even if this problem really is as urgent as we are being told that it is, and this fix actually fixes it, will it be worth it.  dude that is a shit ton of money.  that i will be paying back in the form of my taxes, alot of them.  for the rest of my life.  its not a little pain down the road.  its gonna be alot of pain as some point.  we already can't fund social security past what? 2020?  where is that money gonna come from?  we cannot spend without end, and just finance everything.

I agree, it sounds like a scary proposition, dealing with this deficit in the future. And I'll agree that the stimulus plan probably isn't a great plan. But we're on the cutting edge of economics... Something exactly like this has never really happened. The closest similarity was the American Great Depression. So we're doing our best to learn from history. FDR's New Deal made a huge impact on job growth at the time. We're hoping those weren't just short term results with no good lasting impact. But we don't know because the plan was never fully implemented. This is the best we know how to do.  The alternative is to do nothing. With so many expert economists saying this would lead to full collapse, I think it's wise to do the best we can to avoid that, even if our best sucks.

Obama tells all the governors and mayors set to recieve large chunks of stimulus dollars that the money must be accounted for, to the cent, on every bit spent. So six states, all with republican governors, are saying they can't accept these "strings" the president has attached.
Yep. Texas is one of them.
Other states include Louisiana, South Carolina and (suprise) Alaska.

In the interview I saw with one of those Governors, he said he wouldn't accept his state's share of the plan because he simply didn't agree with the whole plan, not just the strings. And actually, he disagreed with the plan for the exact reason Dave disagrees with it. Which, in my mind, is a good reason to closely consider the opinion. Republican or not, the governor of a state is more likely to be aware of the finer details and alternative possabilities than I am.

However. I've still not seen anything that would suggest that we have any better options.
With that in mind, these Governors are purposefully sabotaging the best plan. I think their actions will likely prolong the economic decline of the entire nation. It won't just hurt their own state's economy but anyone that does business with companies operating in that state.
It's not unlike what the Republicans did during the Great Depression. The methods for sabotage were different, yet the effect will probably be very similar.

This string is depressing me. I'm off to break open my piggy bank to pay for flogging molly tickets