Obama has done a terrible job so far.

[kthx]

If the stimulus had been 3 or 4 times larger, I believe we would actually have see massive job creation on the state level, mostly through bidding to private contractors for construction projects. Instead, we just plugged a bunch of holes that had to be plugged. A stimulus round 2 will be needed in early spring of 2010 or else you're going to see some real pain in state government and some really medieval tax increases. If it helps, think of it as your federal taxdollars coming back to your state.

The stimulus was ultimately something that helped soften the blow to state infrastructure - which I think is a good thing. Unless, of course, you're in favor of slashing education funds and health care funds which I guess is your own prerogative. Have fun selling that to the majority of Americans though.

I give Obama a B on substance, an A for effort.

I agree with most of what you said, not much I can say about the truth but at the end there I guess I could argue a bit of what you are saying.

The stimulus package being three to four times larger might have helped some things, but unfortunately most of it didn't go to anything beyond paying backed debts owed by governments who tried to do so much for their constituents than they knew what to do with. There in lies the problem with Obama's and the liberal governments ideals, they want to create a generation of people who are completely reliant on the government rather than being self reliant because it makes us as a people easier to control as they take away the freedoms that we enjoy. I am sure that sounds a bit conspiracy theorist but it is what I believe is happening, slowly by slowly as to not piss off any group of people enough that riots might happen.

Anyways, it should be pretty obvious that state governments and the federal government have made far too many promises to keep, and instead of admitting the mistake the fed is now printing infinite piles of money that we honestly do not have, and is not collected through taxes to make more promises that will end up lying in ruin. This government run private sector health care idea for instance is just one more example of this. How can a government entity enter into a competitive market such as health care, and offer rock bottom prices while never being able to go bankrupt due to it being a government agency, and expect the thousands of other health care businesses to remain intact? So the government is willing to sacrifice thousands if not more of jobs in order to provide health care to people who don't work and chances are are on welfare to provide cheap health care to America? Sorry but I honestly don't buy it, nothing our country has done has been successful lately, especially monetarily.

What really seals to deal to me is the fact that I live in Texas, and living in Texas I do have pride in my belief in conservative values due to the fact that Texas happens to be doing so well financially even during this tough time. In fact we are one of the few states that sends more in taxes to the federal government than we get back. The fact that we both drill and refine oil in my state, have one of the larger ports in the United States, and have a ton of really large energy companies in Houston alone means that we are almost in a bubble that protects us from the economic and employment problems that are currently plaguing the rest of the nation. So although maybe gas and oil are not long term solutions to energy dependence, I don't see the problem with going ahead and tapping this resources while we have them, and while developing more advanced technologies. What is the point of going on a crusade against oil and gas companies, large car/truck/suv making companies, and tons of other fields by appearing to be on the side of Al Gore and his cronies. It is obvious that we are stuck with it right now, so why not support these companies, instead of basically politically fucking them and then having to bail them out because they fail, due to the message you are sending to the masses.

Anyways back to the main point, lets say we give California a hundred billion dollars instead of 25 billion dollars, the only difference in the end will be that California will be able to last twice as long with 100 billion than 25 billion, and no that math isn't wrong but I figure if they have the money they will just make more expensive promises. We can't just give people money because our political leaders don't know how to spend it wisely, in general they think money grows on trees because we keep giving them tons of money no matter how poorly they invest it. So.. I disagree, 10x the stimulus we already gave wouldn't have helped, it would have just given us a few more months until the market crashed once more, unemployment was back up, and our country was even more fucked and in debt than it was before, with even less consumer confidence in the markets and our political leaders.

[Infrared]

I only survived reading the first page and a half or so of this...

I agree with kthx.

[Apocalypse WOW!]

It is pretty ignorant to say Obama had nothing to do with it when both him and McCain took a few days off the campaign trail to go to Washington DC to try to convince their fellow compatriots to do the bailout.

And the bailout wasn't necessary, never before in the history of the United States have we ever done anything as stupid, illogical, and moronic as throwing billions of dollars into companies that failed because of their bad ideas and terrible management.

Anyone with half a brain, you don't even need to know anything about economics knows about supply and demand, and when there is an unlimited supply of U.S. Dollars, the demand for them is lower because there are already so many out there, it will eventually cause hyperinflation, and all we did was prolong the inevitable and probably make it much worse than it would have been if we had just accepted the fact that we were going to sink into a depression but in the end when we got out of it things would be much better.

This is the first vaguely intelligent thing you've posted in in this thread. Here's my shot at seeing if you're interested in substantive debate.

I'd like to point out that we're not really printing huge amounts of new dollars. Rather, we're continuing to swipe our debit card courtesy of China. Of course it's pretty well documented now that China is as dependent on us as we are on them - if we do experience a hyperinflationary period and massive devaluation of the dollar, China's massive savings account becomes just as worthless. Also as a huge importer of Chinese goods, it is in China's interest that we don't go completely belly up.

Additionally, I think it is also good to try and maintain a weak dollar since that helps our manufacturing sector out in a time when they definitely need all the help they can get. As you point out, intentionally or not, this does create kind of a slippery slope towards inflation.

In regards to the stimulus (not the bailout mind you where I tend to agree with you), it "hasn't worked" since it's mainly gone to backfilling state budgets. And whenever you're talking about state budgets, you're always talking about Health Care and Education. (Very) generally speaking, about 2/3rds of all states' budgets go to health care and education. So, any genuine discussion regarding the reining in on state spending must include those two issues.

If the stimulus had been 3 or 4 times larger, I believe we would actually have see massive job creation on the state level, mostly through bidding to private contractors for construction projects. Instead, we just plugged a bunch of holes that had to be plugged. A stimulus round 2 will be needed in early spring of 2010 or else you're going to see some real pain in state government and some really medieval tax increases. If it helps, think of it as your federal taxdollars coming back to your state.

The stimulus was ultimately something that helped soften the blow to state infrastructure - which I think is a good thing. Unless, of course, you're in favor of slashing education funds and health care funds which I guess is your own prerogative. Have fun selling that to the majority of Americans though.

I give Obama a B on substance, an A for effort.

[Kontrolz]

And some people aren't buying green because there is nothing wrong with the planet and they don't buy into the shit spewing from the mouth of environmentalists and tree huggers.

"Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase. "

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html

Just wondering if you think the Earth isn't getting warmer, or if you think man isn't the main cause of it.

If you think the Earth's overall temperature isn't rising then you must believe that NASA is involved in some type of conspiracy. And also that the thinning of the polar ice cap is a coincidence.

Regardless of whether or not man is the cause we can at least realize the potential for disaster and attempt to do something about it. Besides, as an American I would like to see us off our dependency of foreign fuel.

[Jerome Scuggs]

epi, people buy products for multitudes of reasons, which is why it's very hard to say that people are or aren't adopting the technology. but, once again, i will say this: these technologies' prices fall every day. this allows more tech to be purchased/adopted, right now, and tomorrow, the next day, and after that as well. the market is acting now, you should take a look at it.

your second argument is... confusing. you grant that tech is moving forwards every day, but then you go on to say that if the status quo remains exactly the same, we will experience global warming in 30 years. but it doesn't, as per my first argument. btw, what genius calculated 30 years? what's the science on that?

as for your third point: here, let me give you some examples of people who adopted green practices before it was economically feasible. i will simply copy/paste from their respective mission statements.

Citigroup: At Citi, we believe that working to promote environmental and social sustainability is good business practice. As a global corporate citizen, we view sustainability issues from both a risk and an opportunity perspective. We analyze the potential impacts of our business activities and take action to reduce environmental risk and impact. We also look for opportunities to make sustainable investments and develop products and services with positive environmental and social impacts.

Lehman Brothers: As a global corporate citizen, Lehman Brothers is committed to addressing the challenges of climate change and other environmental issues which affect our employees, clients, and shareholders alike. It is critical that we continue to develop initiatives to focus on these challenges facing our environment now and in the future.

Merrill Lynch: At Merrill Lynch, a longstanding commitment to the fundamental principles of corporate social responsibility underpins our recognition that protecting our global ecosystem is of vital importance to us as a commercial enterprise as well as a good corporate citizen.

We are strongly committed to reducing unnecessary or wasteful exploitation of scarce nonrenewable resources. And we are committed to providing sound investment analysis, guidance and capital to enterprises dedicated to promoting environmentally responsible and sustainable economic development.

Wachovia Corporation: Wachovia is committed to being the best, most trusted and admired financial services company. We carefully consider the impact of our business activities on shareholders, customers, communities, employees, and the environment. We leverage our social, economic, and human assets to deliver business results in a way that supports fair business practices and sustainability. Our Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Report highlights our social responsibility commitment and values in action.

once again, the prices of these new technologies are falling as we speak. if you push for action now - in the middle of a recession - you'll only destroy more industries, businesses, and livelihoods. and that, in turn, will slow down development, which will keep prices high, and high prices + falling wages... is not good. especially if the tech is forced on us. if we're forced to buy it, then the companies offering it have no incentive to make it cheaper - because we can't say no.

ignoring reality in favor of a lofty goal will lead to disastrous consequences.

[Cops]

Kind of important to keep in mind that the great majority of top economic minds in this country supported massive stimulus, not just the president. Any candidate, republican or democrat, would have been providing a ton of bailout/stimulus funds... the question is only the scope. The difference between what republicans in congress wanted and democrats wanted was not by any means an order of magnitude.

So 1st I think its ridiculous to say the bailout has done nothing, because no one knows how bad things would have gotten had it not taken place. No one said it would whisk us away to immediate recovery.

Second, its dumb to put the bailout on Obama, when most everyone who knows anything about the economy (not politicians) said it was necessary.

Nailed it, neither party was against the bailout. The main issue isn't why did Obama create a stimulus bill, rather did he in fact do it effectively. Economists told him to hand out a lot of the bailout money as quick as possible, thus having the most effect. The allocation of funds weren't done as quickly as they could have been done. Industires still got hit really fucking hard. The point was to lessen the blow, this was suppose to be a coordinated liferaft of money that would stop the sinking ships known as businesses. Some got saved, but a lot sunk or are still sinking.

[kthx]

Best decision I ever made during my seven year stint on these forums;

This message is hidden because kthx is on your ignore list.

LOL this guy has to ignore me because I am always right about everything, man Canada sucks.

[saetep]

"Kind of important to keep in mind that the great majority of top economic minds in this country supported massive stimulus,"

http://www.cato.org/fiscalreality

Check out that link. How many economists do you need to have a majority? And how many would you consider to be the "top."

"More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s."

Taken right from the article, and if you look it up it's the truth. The Great Depression ended with the war economy of World War 2 and Japan still hasn't recovered. Congratulations massive government spending.

You should also read this article; Feldstein was one of the few economists Obama could actually show that supported the stimulus, but after seeing what the stimulus contained these were his thoughts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012802938.html

[Bioture]

Not saying that's not true, but it seems hard to believe. The pentagon is just one building. How could it produce more pollution than the top 5 polluting businesses when those businesses include Exxon, Shell, manufacturing companies, etc. It just doesn't seem possible that one building can produce more pollution than an entire power plant, especially one in China or India.

As probably the only federal employee and former federal contractor, I feel like I should clear up this bit of misunderstanding.

While it is TRUE that the government's spending results in pollution that's heavier than some of our top manufactures combined, the government also funds an overwhelming amount of these manufactures for their products, which drives the contracting business.

Let's say that the DHS decides to purchase some fighter planes, each at one billion dollars a piece. The plane will probably be designed by Lockheed, it's electric systems by SAIC, weapons systems by Raytheon, it's planning by IBM, and its parts by GM, etc etc. Which nets some exorbant amount of pollution. Is it the government's fault that they've decided we need planes? Maybe, maybe not - maybe some of you here would like the U.S. to be the next France, I don't know. But the kicker is this: certain industries depend on Gov't AND consumer spending in order to stay alive. So its not necessarily the gov't who makes all the pollution, but rather corporations that realize they can capitalize on manufacturing what the Gov't needs. Which is why regulation of those corporations are necessary. Unfortunately that also means restrictions on the general population.

[Cops]

Best decision I ever made during my seven year stint on these forums;

This message is hidden because kthx is on your ignore list.

[kthx]

It is pretty ignorant to say Obama had nothing to do with it when both him and McCain took a few days off the campaign trail to go to Washington DC to try to convince their fellow compatriots to do the bailout.

And the bailout wasn't necessary, never before in the history of the United States have we ever done anything as stupid, illogical, and moronic as throwing billions of dollars into companies that failed because of their bad ideas and terrible management.

Anyone with half a brain, you don't even need to know anything about economics knows about supply and demand, and when there is an unlimited supply of U.S. Dollars, the demand for them is lower because there are already so many out there, it will eventually cause hyperinflation, and all we did was prolong the inevitable and probably make it much worse than it would have been if we had just accepted the fact that we were going to sink into a depression but in the end when we got out of it things would be much better.

[Escalate]

Obama has done nothing, hes acted like a huge pussy in front of the other nations, and instead of respecting the US more they just think we are dumbasses and pussies now. Unemployment is up, the stock market is about to crash unless we do what Biden wants and toss another trillion dollars into it like fucking morons, like that will work this time. Seriously, how could any single one of you Obama supporters honestly tell me that you approve of what he has done since getting into office, or honestly tell me that things have gotten better. Is this the change you wanted or expected.

Kind of important to keep in mind that the great majority of top economic minds in this country supported massive stimulus, not just the president. Any candidate, republican or democrat, would have been providing a ton of bailout/stimulus funds... the question is only the scope. The difference between what republicans in congress wanted and democrats wanted was not by any means an order of magnitude.

So 1st I think its ridiculous to say the bailout has done nothing, because no one knows how bad things would have gotten had it not taken place. No one said it would whisk us away to immediate recovery.

Second, its dumb to put the bailout on Obama, when most everyone who knows anything about the economy (not politicians) said it was necessary.

[Cops]

It's like how BP made a huge deal about being a 'green' energy company a few years ago. In the end, they only did it because they made themselves more efficient to save money, and the vast majority of their resources still only goes toward oil.

It doesn't matter how much they try to dress up their company, they're still on the opposite end of being green. The problem is that it's not big businesses problem to find new and better technology, an oil company makes money selling oil why would they dump money into running themselves out of business? I get what you're saying about the government expediting the process to push regulation and fund research as much as possible. I just hope the public sector is semi lucrative for those who wish to be on the cutting edge of this research, considering the private sector seems to be overwhelmingly lucrative for these types of jobs. Good ol' brain drain.

[raizin]

name of this thread is accurate. Not reading 3 pages of back and forth bullshit.

[Epinephrine]

Good point about corporations acting out of self interest. If being green was lucrative ten years ago then businesses would have already implemented the changes that are being made today. It's also great for public relations by doing something all around good for the environment. The government is going to give you tax breaks and you can claim the moral high ground on other businesses. That's all it really is.

I don't really see the green movement being spearheaded by the rich, it's the young, the old, the rich, the poor, and the middle class who have made it a point to influence their politicians to care about their cause. Saying that the changes were all made by those with wealth undermines the people who have been on the front lines of this fight since the very beginning.

It's like how BP made a huge deal about being a 'green' energy company a few years ago. In the end, they only did it because they made themselves more efficient to save money, and the vast majority of their resources still only goes toward oil.