I am watching CNN and they talked about fixing the osage bridge, and I seriously wonder what the point is? This is a huge waste of money.
Their target is like a 3% GDP increase with a 3-4 million job "save" or growth. Even if the actual numbers were like 2% and 2 million jobs, that might be better than nothing. The works projects will likely kick in the 2nd half of the stimulus plan next year, and with states hurting for funds, the initial boost will give them some breathing space. Regardless of the stimulus funds, a lot will still be heavy in debt. I realize the appeal to a hard landing, but getting the public to change gears that abruptly isn't usually met with great results. And with states that planned their budgets on last years tax receipts, they would've (will still) likely run to Uncle Sam anyways.
Why? The bridge was going to be repaired eventually anyway - why not do it when you have cheap labor and supplies?
I'd like to know the answer to this as well - there is a difference between the proverbial/actual "Bridge to Nowhere" and bridges that people use.
By the way, I think if the Obama administration had a vote they would probably say, "It will help somewhat." Maybe "It will help a lot." I don't think they are claiming that it will get us out of this mess all by itself. Their greater goal seems to be to stop it from getting horribly worse over the next year or two as they believe it would if they did nothing.
They believe the multiplier effect is greater than 1. But I don't believe the source of the best ideas and capital resides in the government so they need to create a scenario in which the private sector can bring it to the table.
I saw that piece too and found it very bizarre. That bridge was 75 years old! It had clearly had some significant work done to it maybe 50 years ago, but it was in such bad shape that there were holes in the concrete exposing severely rusted rebar. Yikes! That’s exactly the kind of project that should be done. The mayor of St. Louis was upset because he thinks more money should be going to St. Louis, but that’s a separate issue. There isn’t a shadow of a doubt that bridge badly needs to be replaced. The mayor’s issue was that the bill states that projects should be done in areas where there is high unemployment, but this bridge is only 3 hours outside of St. Louis. It wouldn’t surprise me if much of the labour and materials will come from St. Louis, but that issue was never addressed. It was a very poor piece, but it was Campbell Brown and I find that a large percentage of what she does is biased and spun, and I think that’s what she was trying to do here. The mayor was upset, but she was trying to imply that his complaints were about something they weren’t, and she didn’t follow up at all on the real substance of his complaints.
It will fail miserably. GDP will have to grow an extra 8% to just make up for the added wasteful spending and huge deficits. A capital gains tax cut would have immediate impacts on the stock market, which would bolster investor confidence and get people spending money again. Most of these spending programs are for social projects which don't stimulate anything except poverty, alcoholism, abortions and drug use. Furthermore, the actual public works projects won't begin until a lot of engineering, permitting, and preparations are done -- in other words, there will be no immediate impact. All the while, our currency will become weaker, our debt larger, and our dependence on foreign governments much higher. It's tough to restore confidence in Wall Street when you have a President who makes Wall Street the enemy. 53% of our great nation lacks good decision making skills.
Interesting take- Same Old New Deal By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:20 PM Fiscal Policy: Fidelity Investments' CEO calls President Obama's economic plan "New Deal II" and says it won't work any better than it did for FDR. We fear he may be right on both counts. "During the '30s, Congress — with guidance from the president and the same kind of good intentions — shifted the country's cash flow away from productive business to government make-work projects, which most likely prolonged the Great Depression," Fidelity's Ned Johnson said. In fact, many economists agree that the New Deal was a formula for institutionalizing unemployment, not reducing it. Seventy-five years later, with unemployment heading to 10%, government has prescribed a similar formula. "We can only hope that the government's cure doesn't further sicken the patient," Johnson added. The odds aren't good, though. FDR proved that we can't spend our way back to prosperity, and we certainly can't tax our way back. Yet Obama's long-term budget calls for massive new spending along with $1.4 trillion in net new taxes. The president's insistence on soaking the rich in a severe downturn is also troubling. He may be dooming us to repeat FDR's mistakes. Even Roosevelt's loyal Treasury secretary confessed that New Deal policies failed. By 1939, a frustrated Henry Morgenthau had concluded that massive tax-and-spend programs hadn't made a dent in structural unemployment, which was at 20%. "We have tried spending money," Morgenthau lamented. "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. We have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!" Will Timothy Geithner be lamenting the same thing four years from now? While Obama says he doesn't want to reprise FDR's policies, he sure is a big fan of them. In fact, in his 2006 memoir he explicitly said he wanted to resurrect them. And this was long before the recession. "Today the social compact FDR helped construct is beginning to crumble," Obama wrote. He proposed an "alternative approach" to what he felt was the GOP's flint-hearted "ownership society." He offered a path that "recasts FDR's social compact to meet the needs of a new century." Obama mistakenly credits FDR's policies — not World War II, and the reversal of many of FDR's policies — with the postwar economic boom. Referring to globalization, he wrote: "The last time we faced an economic transformation as disruptive as the one we face today, FDR led the nation to a new social compact — a bargain between government, business and workers that resulted in widespread prosperity and economic security for more than 50 years." Now he has a full-blown economic crisis to help justify returning to such a state (as his chief of staff says, never let a good crisis go to waste). The parallels between his policies and those of FDR are numerous — and ominous. 1. FDR raised the top marginal income-tax rate (to 79%, then again to 90%), discouraging entrepreneurs from investing and starting new businesses. Obama vows to hike income taxes (while limiting deductions) for couples and businesses earning more than $250,000. Ronald Reagan, in contrast, incentivized entrepreneurs with tax cuts, and they led us out of the last recession that was this bad. (Interestingly, Reagan now ranks as the greatest president of all time, easily surpassing Roosevelt, who ranked fourth, according to a recent Gallup poll.) 2. FDR tried massive new government programs, and while they created jobs, they were largely make-work jobs that didn't last. And every dollar that went to create a federal job had to come from taxpayers who could have spent those dollars in the private sector. The programs also created a mammoth new bureaucracy that freighted the economy with even more inefficiencies. For his part, Obama hopes to create 3.5 million jobs to build, among other things, "wind turbines and solar panels." He's betting that the industries of the future are green. But in his 2006 book, he bet wrong when he championed ethanol as the energy source of the future. So will his "green collar" jobs really be the jobs of the future, or just another boondoggle? 3. FDR re-regulated the economy, including the banking and finance industries, which are square in Obama's sights. Under FDR, the Federal Reserve let the money supply contract. He burdened businesses with onerous rules and price-support schemes and diminished competition across industries. The economy remained mired. Now Obama plans similar meddling. 4. FDR talked down free trade and talked up protectionism, which only hurt exports. Obama is singing the same tune for the benefit of the unions to whom he admits he's greatly indebted. "I owe unions," he said in 2006. "When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don't consider this corrupting in any way; I don't mind feeling obligated toward (them). . . . I got into politics to fight for these folks." That was back when he was a senator. Imagine the debt he owes unions now. 5. Obama, like FDR, wants to set wages. He wants to put in place federal rules that require businesses to pay above-market, union-level wages, meaning fewer jobs will be created. "FDR understood that decent wages and benefits for workers could create the middle-class base of consumers that would stabilize the U.S. economy and drive its expansion," Obama wrote of his hero, failing to understand that wage mandates always cost jobs, and without jobs, consumers stop consuming. 6. FDR eventually employed Keynesian deficit spending. That didn't work either. It just piled up a massive debt that we had to inflate our way out of. When Obama is done with his own New Deal, we could find ourselves with a staggering $15 trillion gross national debt, which, combined with contracting GDP, could push the total debt burden well above 70% of GDP. 7. FDR created massive welfare programs without means-testing, and it just created a dole that prolonged unemployment. Obama is mandating that states dole out federal stimulus money based on census data alone. It's stealth welfare, just like his tax credits. Federal health care is next; in fact, Obama's budget proposes $1 trillion in new health and other entitlements. The reason the New Deal didn't work was not that government didn't do enough, but that it did too much. The economic growth and job creation that this country so sorely needs now must ultimately come from the private sector. The markets know this. That's why they're sending distress signals. The problem is, Obama's too busy plowing ahead with New Deal II to listen.
If possible, IBD's editorials are even more knee-jerk anti-Democrat than Rush Limbaugh. Whatever the Dem's do, they are against it.
I honestly don't think there's much anyone can do to curb the tide so to speak. Obama's plan will help ease a lot of people's pain, but it's not what will get the economy back on track. The only thing the gov't can do is keep business and banking afloat, and help people survive. Ultimately it's our economy having to get rid of the negative factors before it can correct itself. But two key ingredients for a recover are at least on the horizon.... Savings have increased...people are saving money. It hurts now, but once people feel a bit more confident, they will have the money to pushing consumer spending up quickly. Inventories and productions are cutting faster than sales. This is a very good sign. Because it implies that we'll reach a point where production will have to increase in order to meet demand - and that will stimulate hiring and job growth.
The fact that anybody can actually write this with a straight face is the funny part: Yeah 25-79 and 79-90 = 36-39, which actually isn't even a raise, it's just letting previous tax cuts expire. What kind of person writes this and expects to be taken seriously? Asinine. Just asinine.
Link? From all accounts it seems clear that Obama has no intention of raising taxes until the economy recovers. Given that, what is the point of this paragraph? In fact, the same argument is repeated several times... raising taxes is bad for recovering from a recession. Why does the author overlook that fact that Obama has proposed only tax cuts during this recession and that his tax increases are based on a presumption that the economy will be getting better in two years?
If Obama thinks he can tax his way out of this recession, he has truly lost his marbles. Judging by all of his proposed tax increases, that appears to be the case. $1.4 trillion in new taxes? Wow, that's making me want to go on a SPENDING SPREE. Actually it's not. It's no wonder that the market is sending distress signals to Obama. Too bad he's deaf.
Did you even read my post? Are you aware of Obama's proposal? He is proposing to raise taxes after the economy recovers. Do you understand the difference?
Did you ever see the movie the Sixth Sense - you kinda of remind me of the dead people. Just seeing and hearing what they want to see and hear...not reality.
As soon as I see some substance instead of spurious comparisons, intentionally deceptive statements, and accusations ranging between unfounded to patently absurd phrased as open ended questions to avoid providing any semblance of proof, I will be glad to comment on said substance. It isn't even right wing propaganda. It is a reconstituted regurgitation of right wing propaganda from the pens of dull and obtuse hacks at a vanity press publication designed to look like a real news outlet. At least when the RNC mouthpieces put this stuff out last month, it had some degree of sophistication and nuance to perfume up the fact that it was a load of crap. This is just pure, unadulterated stinky bull poop. If this s--t didn't get any traction then, it certainly won't now. The absurd strategy of trying to paint Barak Obama as a commie pinko socialist is a proven loser. And the only people who buy the meme that Herbert Hoover's recovery scheme was working great until FDR ruined the master plan are the 'true believers' on the right. I hope the wingnuts keep it up for the next four years, as it will only ensure another term.
