Economic Stimulus.. Where are the jobs?

Just as someone else put it a while back about "priming the pump" in reference to a mass infusion of cash into the public sector [[Stimulus) to get things rolling again, And I said it was a wasted effort until trade was addressed, I was right.


Our "pumping" system has a huge leak on the suction side, and that leak Ladies and Gentlemen [[you too Cheddar), is trade.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_221852.html



""WASHINGTON — Republicans concerned about the Obama administration's big spending on economic stimulus, energy and health care are asking, "Where are the jobs?"
"The president and Democrats in Congress claim this spending binge is necessary to put Americans back to work," House Republican Leader John Boehner said Saturday in the Republican radio and Internet address. "They promised unemployment would not rise above 8 percent if their trillion-dollar stimulus was passed.
The administration was wrong, Boehner said. "Unemployment has soared above 9 percent. And now the president admits that unemployment will soon reach double digits.
"After all of this spending, after all of this borrowing from China, the Middle East, our children and our grandchildren, where are the jobs?" he said.""

""Since President Barack Obama's stimulus plan to trigger job creation was passed, the economy has shed 1.6 million jobs. The administration has focused instead on its estimate that the stimulus has created or saved 150,000 jobs.""

We've lost 10 times more jobs than they have created. I wonder if those jobs were created like Bush's in his first term by the upstart collection agencies.

I agree that we must start making things or finding some other way to put money in middle class tradespeople's pockets. It doesn't do much good to tell people they need to train for the jobs of tomorrow when no one has any idea what they may be or when they might be plentiful enough to make a difference. Also, we still need people who know how to design and build things and support for same.

The guy's been in office less than six months and you expect him to turn around a ship that's been gaining momentum in the wrong direction for almost 30 years.

How many economic stimulus plans have we had in the last few years? They don't work when the conditions still exist that caused the slow down in the first place. 6 months is 180 days. I still see Chinese goods flowing in unabated, Nafta has continued on virtually untouched. The two key issues ailing our economy. He only has about a year left to really do anything because he'll spend the last two years of his Presidency running for office again. So when do they plan on doing something about our most important issues? I mean I could have borrowed a Trillion dollars and gave it away, no skill or talent there. The unemployment rate is just skyrocketing, and they seem more worried about building the country's infrastructure. Am I the only the one that thinks they have their priorities badly aligned?

It is so sadly simple that it astounds me how intelligent liberals can be so easily duped. Real jobs, come from real business and prosperity which means free trade and enterprise ONLY. Everything else is a waste of time AT BEST, and an accelerator of the problem more realistically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilpup

The guy's been in office less than six months and you expect him to turn around a ship that's been gaining momentum in the wrong direction for almost 30 years.

---

Wow. The Republicans really won seven and a half Presidential elections in a row!

Lilpup...you understand that the executive branch is one branch of government, and not the one that writes laws, don't you?

Obama doesn't get that concept at all [[like you Lilpup), he directs legislators as to what they should do, and pressures the judicial system to legislate [[with liberal bias) from the bench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

How many economic stimulus plans have we had in the last few years? They don't work when the conditions still exist that caused the slow down in the first place. 6 months is 180 days. I still see Chinese goods flowing in unabated, Nafta has continued on virtually untouched. The two key issues ailing our economy. He only has about a year left to really do anything because he'll spend the last two years of his Presidency running for office again. So when do they plan on doing something about our most important issues? I mean I could have borrowed a Trillion dollars and gave it away, no skill or talent there. The unemployment rate is just skyrocketing, and they seem more worried about building the country's infrastructure. Am I the only the one that thinks they have their priorities badly aligned?

---

Problem is, economic stimulus packages don't work when Rethugnican propose and pass them. Did Tush's 600 bucks really do that much to help you? It was ruse into buying loyalty to the fascist brand.

Building the country's infrastructure creates jobs. The problem with this, is there was not enough stimulus for infrastructure allotted.

Obama's stimulus is really too little, too late. There will be some benefit, but until the banks are natioalized and forced to start lending again, rather than holding parties and dumping millions on their totalatarian CEO's, then little will change.

Now that most of the banks have had their bacon saved, what money they have left will be used to shore up their bottom lines. Corporations will benefit most from lending going forward, individuals are screwed again.

So, comrade, now that we are on the verge of socializing American's health, you also wish we nationalize their finances? Shall we also set their gasoline prices or is it time to nationalize their oil companies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjs

So, comrade, now that we are on the verge of socializing American's health, you also wish we nationalize their finances? Shall we also set their gasoline prices or is it time to nationalize their oil companies?

---

Well, Comrade, now that you bring it up, yeah, it would be a great idea. It works well in Venezuela where CITGO is the nationalized oil company, and gas, I last heard is 85 cents a gallon.

It'a amazing how people fall in love with corporations who could care less whether you live or die. Then the CEO worship is another thing which I will never understand, no matter how long I live.

Socialized health care is the gold standard in all industrialized nations except ours. All of these other nations have some form of socialized medicine, and it works just fine, thank you very much.

We already have a socialized Social Security Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Socialized medicine for all is the natural next step. And it's long overdue.

Nationalize the banks? You mean like our government running them? You know they are almost eleven trillion dollars in debt, right? They haven't had a balanced budget in at least 30 years, unless you want to cite the book-cooking of the Clinton era. Several programs like SS they screwed up are mathematically impossible to sustain. Businesses need to stay in the private sector with regulation.

""It'a amazing how people fall in love with corporations who could care less whether you live or die. ""

You claim you have a business, then you would have no complaints with the Government coming in and taking over?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

There will be some benefit, but until the banks are natioalized and forced to start lending again, rather than holding parties and dumping millions on their totalatarian CEO's, then little will change.

---

When I look up the definition of totalitarian, I'm confused as to how the rest of your post doesn't show support for totalitarianism, but they didn't have a listing for "totalatarian" or "natioalized". Do they mean something different?

1. Of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures. [[as censorship and terrorism)

2. Completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency.

Please, move back to Venezuela so the rest of us evil Americans can enjoy the American way of life. Were you the one that recommended Chavez give Obama that book? It seems he read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjs

When I look up the definition of totalitarian, I'm confused as to how the rest of your post doesn't show support for totalitarianism, but they didn't have a listing for "totalatarian" or "natioalized". Do they mean something different?

1. Of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures. [[as censorship and terrorism)

2. Completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency.

---

Yeah, child, I got you on "Aynn Rand" which is even more of a mistake since you were taking a direct quote.

I type at 70 wpm, so at least I have a good excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjs

Please, move back to Venezuela so the rest of us evil Americans can enjoy the American way of life. Were you the one that recommended Chavez give Obama that book? It seems he read it.

---

Since I've never lived in Venezuela, it seems somehow strange to move back.

Who said Americans were evil? Not me. That was you, Sparky.

Most Rethugnicans have read "Mein Kampf" as well, but does that make them Nazis?

If Chavez or Osama Bin Laden gave me a book to read, I would probably read it, rather than act like a Rethugnican knuckledragger and toss it back at him.

That's because I'm intellectually curious, not some psycophantic zealot.

Ok this is getting too bizarre.

Its childish to want a clear dialogue? If two people are using the same words, but attributing them different meanings, how can they have an effective exchange of ideas?

I thank you comrade for the correction of my misspelling of Ayn, but her name was outside the quotation marks so it wasn't what was being quoted.

If Osama Bin Laden was close enough to give me a book to read, I'd kill him. Not because I wasn't interested interested in the book or I have anything against the free exchange of ideas, but because I wouldn't be in much of a mood to exchange gifts, negotiate, or talk world affairs with a mass murder.

One thing to consider is that duration of unemployment is a lagging rather than leading indicator of the economy. The economic stimulus will take months to have effect in the economy and it will take months to see the results in terms of more jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

If Chavez or Osama Bin Laden gave me a book to read, I would probably read it, rather than act like a Rethugnican knuckledragger and toss it back at him.

That's because I'm intellectually curious, not some sycophantic zealot.

---

Since I'm also intellectually curious, I look up words I don't know. When I look up "sycophantic" I find several definitions including flattering influential people for personal gain and falsely persecuting people so they'll bribe you to quit persecuting them. Which definition were you using and are you implying that others are labeling you sycophantic or that the knuckle dragging something or anothers are psychophantic? Once again, that childish thing I have about desiring clear communication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

One thing to consider is that duration of unemployment is a lagging rather than leading indicator of the economy. The economic stimulus will take months to have effect in the economy and it will take months to see the results in terms of more jobs.

---

You are an optimist. You said 'months' rather than 'years'. Since you seem to have it narrowed down, any guess on how many months it will take before President Obama turns this around with Porkulus, Cap and Trade, UN taxes, and anything else he might have up his sleep? If he hasn't made solid progress by July 2010, I think we should re-label the 'Bush recession' the 'Obama recession'. He has already passed bills to spend more than WWII or the Great Depression adjusted for inflation. Give us an approximate month when you expect to see strong evidence of a resulting economic turnaround without even considering debt.

The problem I see with the stimulus package [[or GWB's $600 giveaway for that matter)... is that when individual people spend extra money that they might get for ANY stimulus package... if they go to a Walmart, or a dollar store or appliance store... much of their money ends up going for Asian made goods. So the effect on the US economy is minimal at best.

Now granted fixing the USA infrastructure may not be the most ideal way of promoting job growths... but it may be preferable to the alternative. At least we [[not China) would get some jobs and infrastructure benefits out of it.

But that's one of the major problems with having a "global" economy.... the benefits of any stimulus package often becomes difffused and goes well beyond the USA.

We made our proverbial beds... and now we have to suffer the consequences of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

You are an optimist. You said 'months' rather than 'years'. Since you seem to have it narrowed down, any guess on how many months it will take before President Obama turns this around with Porkulus, Cap and Trade, UN taxes, and anything else he might have up his sleep? If he hasn't made solid progress by July 2010, I think we should re-label the 'Bush recession' the 'Obama recession'. He has already passed bills to spend more than WWII or the Great Depression adjusted for inflation. Give us an approximate month when you expect to see strong evidence of a resulting economic turnaround without even considering debt.

---

Let's go with the date you have July 2010 , if we haven't seen progress by then you can call it Obama's recession and I won't say a word. And as far as debt I'm going to go with his word " deficit cut in half by end of first term."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjs

Its childish to want a clear dialogue? If two people are using the same words, but attributing them different meanings, how can they have an effective exchange of ideas?

I thank you comrade for the correction of my misspelling of Ayn, but her name was outside the quotation marks so it wasn't what was being quoted.

If Osama Bin Laden was close enough to give me a book to read, I'd kill him. Not because I wasn't interested interested in the book or I have anything against the free exchange of ideas, but because I wouldn't be in much of a mood to exchange gifts, negotiate, or talk world affairs with a mass murder.

---

Problem is, it's only Rthugnicans who love to shape-shift the meaning of words. Just listen to your friends Rush & Hannity who constantly label Obama a fascist, when he's just the opposite of a fascist.

He may be more of a socialist, but really, only Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich could be termed socialists. Which is not a dirty word in my book, so it's not an insult to call me one.

Even George Tush's domestic policy agenda was always labeled the opposite of what the particular legislation was designed to effect.

Clean Air Act = dirty air
Patriot Act = anti-American values
Healthy Forests Initiative = freebie to logging interests
Enhanced Interrogation = torture

And when you hear any Rethugnican talking about "jobs" keep an eye out for the nets and the slave ships, since their idea of an "ownership" society involves them owning all the labor, i.e. non-unionized slave labor.

Just look to China or any other far east sweat shop that makes your sneakers or clothes your family, and you'll have the ultimate economic model of the Rethugnican Reich and how they prefer to operate. Funny how the Reich has no problem with China or Viet Nam being communists, when they can benefit from the cheap labor. Hypocrites.

You need to live up to the obvious and continuous twisting of the meaning of words by the Reich.

Read Thomm Hartmann's book "Cracking the Code" and it will shed all the sunlight you need to disinfect he Rethugnican lie machine.

You are just kidding, right? You, the biggest lexicographer and most colorful writter on the forum is accusing others of shifting the definitions of words for dramatic effect? "Rethugican knuckle draggers" was a proper literal description and not a visciously figurative one? You still haven't answered any of the questions regarding what definitions apply to your words. I don't want to twist the clear honest dialogue you meant to convey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

Just look to China or any other far east sweat shop that makes your sneakers or clothes your family, and you'll have the ultimate economic model of the Rethugnican Reich and how they prefer to operate. Funny how the Reich has no problem with China or Viet Nam being communists, when they can benefit from the cheap labor. Hypocrites.

---

I thought your issue was that the American capitalist pigs and the Rethugicans views were too different from that of China and Viet Nam. Socialism, your political idealogy, not mine, is the one thats next to communism. If the united workers of the world have it better under communism, why aren't they getting paid more over there? I favor tougher trade policies on China until they start treating their citizens and the environment better. With a free Russia, we no longer need detante to weaken China. We just need to cut our support and let their economic models do them in.

Obama is, in fact a liberal fascist in the truest sense. Proof, his own words will suffice. Start with the definition of fascism and apply it to Obama...bingo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjs

You are just kidding, right? You, the biggest lexicographer and most colorful writter on the forum is accusing others of shifting the definitions of words for dramatic effect? "Rethugican knuckle draggers" was a proper literal description and not a visciously figurative one? You still haven't answered any of the questions regarding what definitions apply to your words. I don't want to twist the clear honest dialogue you meant to convey.

---

Of course terms like "Rethugnican knuckle dragger" are figurative, decorative, whatever adjective you choose to use will do.

But it's not dishonest.

The ideas and ideology of the right is in keeping with a Neanderthal mindset.

It is used as a metaphor for looking backward, or being backward. Not viscious as you say, but witty and descriptive.

I haven't answered any questions regarding my words, since I don't remember being asked. If it's so important for you to understand the meaning of my words, then you need to return to the second grade and try playing a round of "similie" with your friends again.

I think the word associations I use are fairly self-explainatory to anyone who's been awake and absorbed a modicum of history.

You say I'm a colorful "writter"- is that some sort of shape-shifting of the words "writer" and "twitter"?

That would be very modern and thoughful of you. I may use that one while "writtering". :D

Lorax, I was about to take you seriously for a moment, but then I recalled that in another thread you just claimed that capitalism is the root of our economic troubles...and all your credibility went bye bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjs

I thought your issue was that the American capitalist pigs and the Rethugicans views were too different from that of China and Viet Nam. Socialism, your political idealogy, not mine, is the one thats next to communism. If the united workers of the world have it better under communism, why aren't they getting paid more over there? I favor tougher trade policies on China until they start treating their citizens and the environment better. With a free Russia, we no longer need detante to weaken China. We just need to cut our support and let their economic models do them in.

---

That's not what I said or even inferred.

Fascism and Communism are flip-sides of the same coin. Both are dogmatic, and extreme by nature. One represents the extreme views of the far fascist right, the other, the extreme ideology of the far left. If they turn around and face each other they may as well be twins. It's like saying there is no difference between a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation and the bureaucracy of a government.

Both operate in their own world, are accountable to practially no one, and are allowed to operate with impunity toward those they employ.

A socialist democracy, which is what the United States was arguably founded as, and the current crop of socialist democracies in Europe are more alike than different.

France has been socialist for years now, as has much of Scandanavia. There is nothing inherently evil in a nation taking care of it's people with socialized medicine, transporation, what have you.

The Chinese has socialized medicine, public transportation, job programs, subsidized farming, and have made a tacit agreement with American corporations to produce the goods to be resold to us, with the understanding that American corporations are willing to destroy the manufacturing bas of their own nation in order to turn a larger profit, in most cases and obscene profit, while throwing Americans out on the street for lack of work.

That's what gave rise to our credit-based economy which allowed people who's income constantly has trailed the rate of inflation [[cost of goods and services) that credit was the only way anyone was going to be able to buy things going forward.

And look where that has gotten us. Unregulated banks and lenders nationwide were allowed to gut the system for their own personal gain, leaving the American taxpayer holding the sack.

That's why I refer to American corporations as largely run by fascists, since, as my favorite so-called "american" corporation, Halliburton, ended up moving it's HQ from Texas to Dubai in order to avoid paying ANY taxes as it relates to their overseas businessses. And this was after 8 years of getting billions in no-bid contracts from the Bush Administration! How much corporate welfare are we suppose to hand out to these fascists?

And these are Americans?

Your belief system is that when government controls or manages something, it cannot possibly work.

Funny how I never hear any outrage at the way our military has been funded or managed, our postal system, Social Security, etc.

These are all proven to work well, especially when funded properly, and most often when Democrats are in charge in Washington.

When Republicans get in control, they work feverishly to break government by underfunding it, slashing needed programs, then point to it at election time and shout "look, it's broken, it doesn't work, get rid of it!"

This is their MO for privatizing everything, proving that worship of the CEO supplants all other loves.

The same metric is not applied to the military, which in spite of years of wasteful spending bordering on the obscene, has no one willing to blow the whistle on it.

Republicans don't do it because they believe in using the military as a personal police force, bringing down dictators they don't like in order to set up phony governments which will allow the corporations to operate with ease and impunity in getting what they want, in the case of Iraq, oil.

The Democrats don't do it for fear of being labeled weak on national security.

Basically our system is broken, and fixing it will require choices that will send the Republicans screwing themselves into the ground. Problem for them, is that just about every negative thing to impact our economy, our nation's prestige, and our inability to chart our own destiny in the last thrity years has happend on their watch.

If Republicans were so great at managing economies, we wouldn't find ourselves bankrupt and exposed to the vagaries of the Chinese and the Russians.

Republicans did this to us- with this last year being the harvest we've reaped from thrity years of Reagan/Bush trickle down economics, led by cheerleading stooges like Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan.

If fascism and communism are on a continuum [[they are not necessarily, however, for sake of argument), and socialism is a milder form of communism [[on a continuum with it, which is true), then socialism necessarily leads to fascism.

Your logic, not mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Lorax, I was about to take you seriously for a moment, but then I recalled that in another thread you just claimed that capitalism is the root of our economic troubles...and all your credibility went bye bye.

---

Capitalism is the root of the problem. When it is unregulated, and allowed to operate with impunity.

You need to stop reading only sound bites, and read the qualifiers that go with the statements.

This is Fox Noise trick, they love to pull out a few words of a statement, making it look black and white, when there are shades of gray- the qualifiers.

This reduces the dialogue to sound bites, which is intellectually dishonest. :[[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

A socialist democracy, which is what the United States was arguably founded as, and the current crop of socialist democracies in Europe are more alike than different.

---

I'm shocked and perplexed by everything you put into that post, but this is the one that really blew me away. If you think the founding federal government, which wasn't trusted with a big enough budget to make the interest payments on the debt from Obama's programs was socialist, I'm sorry I argued with you. Please don't blow up any buildings. Just take your meds and call your doctor. All will be fine comrade.

Lorax, my thoughts on definitions. The English language being what it is, words mean different things to different people. "Fascism" is a particularly problematic word. When I mean it as a synonym for "corporatism" I use it with an adjective, economic fascism = corporatism; a collusion of big business and big government. e.g. Bush's Wall Street Bailout. Mussolini and Hitler's brands of fascism began as economic fascism. Other people use fascism as a synonym for Nazism with suggestions of gas chambers. Others just use it to mean 'bad'.

'Authoritarianism' or 'autocracy' are sometimes better words to describe what many of us do not like about fascism and communism. They are both economically authoritarian and autocratic. One is an especially autocratic version of socialism. Under socialism, the government owns means of production such as banks and auto companies. The other is, as previously stated, a collusion of government and business control although the businesses are nominally independent entities.

I prefer at least a two dimensional map showing Democrats to be more socially libertarian and economically authoritarian and Republicans more socially authoritarian while being a little more economically libertarian.

I wouldn't declare Sweden to be socialist. Sweden has more socialist institutions than we do but it also is the home of capitalist Ingvar Kamprad the fourth richest man in the world.

Two things for you oladub.

First, I think your date of July 2010 may be too generous. After all, there are a fair number of people who believe that Bush could have acted to stop 9/11 [[8 months after his inaugaration). If so, why give Obama any longer?

Second, the problem with everyone throwing terms around is that their actual definitions get lost. Capitalism, socialism and communism are forms of economic systems dealing with who owns and/or controls the means to supply goods and services. Democracies [[in various forms) and other types of representative-based systems, facism, totalitarianism, monarchies, etc. are forms of governance. In theory, any type of economic can exist under any type of governance. Although, in practice, those societies with communism as their economic system have tended to be totalitarian.

Labeling folks as only left or right, or only Dem or Repub, is equally nonsensical, as a minority of people hold to that status on all issues. It makes it easy to call others names [[as many here do), but it doean't add anything to the discussion.

We were founded as a socialist democracy?? That is insane...we fought a revolution to get away from that kind of system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jiminnm

Labeling folks as only left or right, or only Dem or Repub, is equally nonsensical, as a minority of people hold to that status on all issues. It makes it easy to call others names [[as many here do), but it doean't add anything to the discussion.

---

That is a major problem with people. Both sides engage in this stupid name calling, but the right seems to have it down to a science, if only because of all the blowhards on AM radio and Fox News.

One of America's biggest problems today is this great divide between the two camps. Until we come together and stop the foolish finger pointing and name calling, don't expect much of the SOP to change for the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gistok

The problem I see with the stimulus package [[or GWB's $600 giveaway for that matter)... is that when individual people spend extra money that they might get for ANY stimulus package... if they go to a Walmart, or a dollar store or appliance store... much of their money ends up going for Asian made goods. So the effect on the US economy is minimal at best.

But that's one of the major problems with having a "global" economy.... the benefits of any stimulus package often becomes difffused and goes well beyond the USA.

We made our proverbial beds... and now we have to suffer the consequences of it.

---

That is an excellent example of why this county is doomed to be relegated to second tier status. If we don't have the manufacturing base to provide us with our essential products, we will continue to be at the mercy of countries such as China. That may be fine if you support a global economy, but we need to think in terms of what's best for America. Are we going to buy our military weapons from the Chinese?

Its no coincidence that this country enjoyed its best prosperity when we were a manufacturing powerhouse. Then the big companies started merging and buying out weaker and smaller ones. To maximize profits, it was cheaper to move production to third world counties. Combine that with the lack of patriotism on behalf of the corporate officials, and we now far more dependent upon others for our basic goods.

That is why we need to scrape this whole global economy farce that is being implemented in the boardrooms. Its time to go back to an "America First" trade policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

We were founded as a socialist democracy?? That is insane...we fought a revolution to get away from that kind of system.

---

Funny, I thought the American Revolution was about a monarchy oppressing the colonies with taxation and trade restrictions.

Quote: "Its time to go back to an "America First" trade policy."

DJ, You are right again...

Sometimes I think all this hawkishness, i.e. Iran, Korea etc. is just a diversion, and as anyone that knows anything about scams, diversion is the key element. Diverting our attention away as our economy is fleeced head to toe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Sometimes I think all this hawkishness, i.e. Iran, Korea etc. is just a diversion, and as anyone that knows anything about scams, diversion is the key element. Diverting our attention away as our economy is fleeced head to toe.

---

You may be onto something there...

Interesting points here, and some good replies. I agree with Oladub on these points, as the majority of people are rarely fixated 100% in their ideology, save, of course the most reactionary of the religious right.

Further to the point, there is a blending of terms, which I'm sure we all have to describe ourselves.

When I refer to socialist democracies, I refer to many European nations which operate as such, and have had great success in blending the public need with regulated free enterprise.

As for this country being founded as a socialist democracy, if those of you care to read the writings of Jefferson and Madison, you'll see how it was their intent for government to serve the people- since in the truest sense, it was government of, by, and for the people.

People were not as far removed from their government as they are today. This model can still work with a population of over 300 million, as it did with the original 13 colonies.

The model laid out by Franklin Roosevelt was the beginning of this, and it was cut short abruptly, and should have been expanded to keep up with the progress of our society, and especially in recent years with technology. We would have enjoyed 60+ years of socialized medicine had it not gone down to defeat by 1 vote in the Senate under Harry Truman.

European socialist democracies have passed us in this area, with socialized medicine, taxes used for culture and infrastructure, such as museums, trains, green technologies, medical research, etc.

There is no disputing this. We trail the world in so many of these areas.

The problem with some of you guys, is you still view the word "socialist" and "socialism" as dirty words.

We are already largely socialized, as we pay taxes to fund our police, fire departments, parks, schools, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.

If you feel more comfortable re-naming it, then do so, but socialism when designed correctly, works very well.

People think of the old USSR as being socialist, when it really was communist, terms which can be about as far apart as it gets.

Quote: "We are already largely socialized, as we pay taxes to fund our police, fire departments, parks, schools, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc."

Yeah, and there all broke, any other great ideas?

So glad you finally argee on what is already established fact.

They may be broken in many places, thanks to the bankrupted ideology of the Rethugnican Reich.

Better start voting for progressives like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders an admitted and true [[gasp) socialist!

This person makes no sense.

Them: "I'm for socialism"

Me: "It doesn't work"

Them: "At least we agree on that"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

This person makes no sense.

Them: "I'm for socialism"

Me: "It doesn't work"

Them: "At least we agree on that"

---

You had a thought, and thankfully for the rest of us, let it go.:o

Quote: "You had a thought, and thankfully for the rest of us, let it go."

On your next session of clarity, if that ever happens, you should take a minute and read your own posts, they look like four people typing on the same keyboard.

And yours look as though they were typed without opposing thumbs.

So what's your point, Sparkles?

Sstashmoo has this one exactly correct.

"It’s no surprise therefore that the country is already being prepped for a second stimulus. Sure, Washington would like to act tough and tell the States to clean up their act. This is the moral hectoring version of Ben Bernanke saying in 2006 he doubts US real estate will ever decline year over year, or Treasury Secty Paulson saying that the front-end of the crisis was just a problem contained to sub-prime. We’ve seen this script before. If California issuing IOUs in a state where banks refuse to accept them doesn’t get the message across, nothing will. We are on the front end, not the back end, of a crisis within the States."
https://www.kitcomm.com/showthread.php?t=46492

The country can't withstand another stimulus....heck, I am not sure we can handle the first pork laden, liberal power grabbing nonstimulus package that has yet to be paid for and will cost 1 trillion in INTEREST ALONE each year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

The country can't withstand another stimulus....heck, I am not sure we can handle the first pork laden, liberal power grabbing nonstimulus package that has yet to be paid for and will cost 1 trillion in INTEREST ALONE each year.

---

Do you enjoy making up numbers as a hobby?

The interest on the federal debt was $451B in 2008. I came across estimates of between $500-565B for 2009. Dividing 306M Americans into $500B = $1,634/American.

The Federal debt per citizen = $37,400
Federal annual spending per citizen = $6,890
US unfunded liabilities per citizen = $189,326
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Does www.usdebtclock.org also explain how principal of approximately $800 billion has such an astronomical interest rate that the annual interest payments exceed 120% of that amount?

:-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilpup

The guy's been in office less than six months and you expect him to turn around a ship that's been gaining momentum in the wrong direction for almost 30 years.

---

He said he had a plan when he was running for office.
He pushed and passed the stimulus
No excuses

Thanks to cap and trade and health care, there wont be any employers anyway.

Companies are going to move where carbon isn't taxed and they can pollute as they please [[about 1/2 the world's countries fall into that category), and thanks to our free trade policies they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing it.
Private Health Insurance companies are going to be dropping like flies, and tens of thousands of Americans are going to be out of work, due to the cheaper government backed insurance coming onto the scene.

The recovery is a long way away, every time things start to turn around, the government does something to put it back in the tank again.

people wanted change, they got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Does www.usdebtclock.org also explain how principal of approximately $800 billion has such an astronomical interest rate that the annual interest payments exceed 120% of that amount?

:-)

---

Upper left corner - The US National debt is $11.4T, and increasing rapidly under Obama.

If the interest is $500B this year on just $11.4T then the interest rate would be 4.38%. Recent treasuries have been selling for over 4% so that sounds about right.

The real question will be, how do we reverse Obama's legacy and recover from THAT. No easy task.