KCRag Forum

Slappy the Wang wrote: To update the $20,000 per person Construction Guy threw out, it is now estimated the total stim package will equate to $43,000 per citizen.  I hate to say it (I'm typically opposed to govt handouts), but if they'd send every adult $40k...put $$$ in the hands of the people and not another layer of government, more good will be done than by building roads.  The jobs created are mainly project specific construction gigs, not long term employment.  Most of america would piss the cash right back into the economy by catching up on debt or frivilous purchases.  Giddy up.

And what would that leave us with? Far more households with Playstations? If we invest in infrastructure, we're investing in the public good AND creating jobs and economic activity. Infrastructure is a key part of our economic engine, better equipping ourselves to get back to the work of producing, not just consuming. We have already seen that we can't sustain a consumption economy.

Of course, I'd prefer to see us invest in our future by building transit, inter-city rail, bike lanes, etc, as well as roads -- but this is a good start.

Also, since when is Keynes discredited? His ideas are still the basis of our economic system.

Slappy the Wang wrote: To update the $20,000 per person Construction Guy threw out, it is now estimated the total stim package will equate to $43,000 per citizen.  I hate to say it (I'm typically opposed to govt handouts), but if they'd send every adult $40k...put $$$ in the hands of the people and not another layer of government, more good will be done than by building roads.  The jobs created are mainly project specific construction gigs, not long term employment.  Most of america would piss the cash right back into the economy by catching up on debt or frivilous purchases.  Giddy up.

This would cause inflation that would be so out of control the economy would collapse.

Maitre D wrote: The stimulus bill is also a time machine in the sense that it's based on an old, and largely discredited, economic theory. As Harvard economist Robert Barro pointed out on these pages last Thursday, the "stimulus" claim is based on something called the Keynesian "multiplier," which is that each $1 of spending the government "injects" into the economy yields 1.5 times that in greater output. There's little evidence to support this theory, but you have to admire its beauty because it assumes the government can create wealth out of thin air. If it were true, the government should spend $10 trillion and we'd all live in paradise.




http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budget ... me-Machine

MD, we all know why Democrats perpetuate the idea that tax cuts are unproven to stimulate the economy... because they want to use government money to choose winners and losers in the economy.  FDR used this to perfection to buy democrats votes which led to 50 years of Democrat domination in government.  

Even Bill Clinton's economic advisors admitted Reagan's tax cuts laid the foundation for the vast economic expansion during his Presidency.

jlbomega wrote: MD, we all know why Democrats perpetuate the idea that tax cuts are unproven to stimulate the economy... because they want to use government money to choose winners and losers in the economy.  FDR used this to perfection to buy democrats votes which led to 50 years of Democrat domination in government.  

Even Bill Clinton's economic advisors admitted Reagan's tax cuts laid the foundation for the vast economic expansion during his Presidency.

Exactly right.  Dems want this monster 800B "stimulus" plan so they can control the economy.  Soviet-style.  And they're trying to rush  it thru (even tho only 10% of it will be spent in the next 2 years!) on scared Americans suffering a bad economic time.    Just like FDR did.



That POS Robert Reich said that this will also be the Government's chance to choose what kind of workers get the jobs on these public works projects.  Just amazing.

staubio wrote: And what would that leave us with? Far more households with Playstations? If we invest in infrastructure, we're investing in the public good AND creating jobs and economic activity. Infrastructure is a key part of our economic engine, better equipping ourselves to get back to the work of producing, not just consuming. We have already seen that we can't sustain a consumption economy.

Of course, I'd prefer to see us invest in our future by building transit, inter-city rail, bike lanes, etc, as well as roads -- but this is a good start.

Also, since when is Keynes discredited? His ideas are still the basis of our economic system.

That's great and all, but if we have new road and a great infrastructure, but firms/citizens are still bankrupt where exactly is all the stimulus gonna come from.  BTW, as soon as the project is done, Joe the Builder is looking for another job (again).  I'd suggest an immediate mass playstation buying spree is more significant than the window-dressing we're being sold right now.

This guise of "investing in infrastructure" is total BS.  The government should have never stopped investing in infrastructure.  The truth is such investments have been set aside so we can run around third world countries looking for terrorists and subsidize/bail out industry. 

Here is an amazing concept.  If we just no longer used tax payer dollars to subsidize energy and transportation industry maybe... just maybe it would be economically feasible for the private sector to create new jobs and new business without government interference. 

Moral of the story... we are so far behind on green energy and infrastructure because of government intervention in the marketplace.  Now we are supposed to believe more government intervention is needed to solve our current problems.  Absolutely unbelieveable. 

jlbomega wrote: Moral of the story... we are so far behind on green energy and infrastructure because of government intervention in the marketplace.  Now we are supposed to believe more government intervention is needed to solve our current problems.  Absolutely unbelieveable. 

We wouldn't even have begun any sort of green policies or infrastructure if it wasn't for govt intervention.  As long as oil was plentiful and the easiest way to extract energy, the private sector wasn't going to step in and take it upon themselves to change that.  We need the govt now more than ever, because some things need to be subsidized because there's less profit in them (such as rail transit and other green initiatives).

And why do we "need" those things?  Let the free market determine what we need and don't need.  Not some dreamer in Washington.


Frankly, global warming/environment has fallen totally off the list of citizen concerns the past year.  Even in Europe it has.

kcmetro wrote: We wouldn't even have begun any sort of green policies or infrastructure if it wasn't for govt intervention.  As long as oil was plentiful and the easiest way to extract energy, the private sector wasn't going to step in and take it upon themselves to change that.  We need the govt now more than ever, because some things need to be subsidized because there's less profit in them (such as rail transit and other green initiatives).

Aparetly you have not seen what T Boone Pickens is doing with his wind energy.  Fact is there are a lot of people working on renewable energy initiatives in this country.  The government is making it too difficult for green energy to go mainstream due to regulations and subsidies directed toward traditional energy companies that make it impossible for new energy co's to compete with the landed aristocracy of energy.

It's cool though.  Obama will send billions to selected green energy companies to buy more votes.

Maitre D wrote: And why do we "need" those things?   Let the free market determine what we need and don't need.   Not some dreamer in Washington.


Frankly, global warming/environment has fallen totally off the list of citizen concerns the past year.   Even in Europe it has.

What are you going to do is oil goes to $200/barrel next summer?  Or $300/barrel the summer after that?  What's going to happen to our utilities and mode of transportation if something like that happened?  It's not necessarily the environment we should be concerned with.  I'm more concerned with shortages in all areas (food, blackouts, transportation) due to oil price.

kcmetro wrote: What are you going to do is oil goes to $200/barrel next summer?  Or $300/barrel the summer after that?  What's going to happen to our utilities and mode of transportation if something like that happened?  It's not necessarily the environment we should be concerned with.  I'm more concerned with shortages in all areas (food, blackouts, transportation) due to oil price.

I'm not sure I understand where you're getting $300/barrel oil.    Besides, suppose that happened - doesn't transportation run on oil anyway?  How do mass transit trains run, electricity?  From coal-burning power plants?


The market dictates supply & demand.  Governments don't.  That is why they couldn't do anything about oil hitting $150 or it collapsing to $35 now.  People who blamed the govt for gas prices were just plain dumb.

Maitre D wrote: People who blamed the govt for gas prices were just plain dumb.

But Bush had to pay off his big oil buddies!!!!!!!!!!!!

kcmetro wrote: What are you going to do is oil goes to $200/barrel next summer?  Or $300/barrel the summer after that?  

If that happens nothing, and I mean nothing, we do now would have much of an impact.  There will be hard times, very hard times for all.  Now, if you are talking $200 5 years from now we can do much in the present and in that time frame to adjust and adapt.  But in 6 months time - nothing.

Maitre D wrote: Frankly, global warming/environment has fallen totally off the list of citizen concerns the past year.   Even in Europe it has.

Can someone tell me what temperature the earth is SUPPOSED to be at?  Is there an IDEAL TEMPERATURE we're striving for?

jlbomega wrote: This would cause inflation that would be so out of control the economy would collapse.

Hell has indeed frozen over. I agree with jlb. 

The government should stay out of the economy as much as possible. A major problem is that the bureaucracies aren't held accountable for failure. In fact, failure often leads to 'success' in the form of increased funding (eg. education). Politicians theoretically are accoutable, but we all know how they can game the system.

Gladstoner wrote: The government should stay out of the economy as much as possible. A major problem is that the bureaucracies aren't held accountable for failure. In fact, failure often leads to 'success' in the form of increased funding (eg. education). Politicians theoretically are accoutable, but we all know how they can game the system.

Staying out of the way doesn't buy you votes.  The only way to solve this problem is term limits in the house to 3 terms.  The House needs to achieve its original purpose which was truely a government body of the people, not professional politicians. 

jlbomega wrote: Staying out of the way doesn't buy you votes.  The only way to solve this problem is term limits in the house to 3 terms.  The House needs to achieve its original purpose which was truely a government body of the people, not professional politicians. 

Yeah, but good luck with getting congress to fire itself.....

Gladstoner wrote: Yeah, but good luck with getting congress to fire itself.....

And there is so much damn money behind it that even with short term limits we are still going to get a pack of pre-packaged, corrupted, do-nothings. 

Gladstoner wrote: The government should stay out of the economy as much as possible. A major problem is that the bureaucracies aren't held accountable for failure. In fact, failure often leads to 'success' in the form of increased funding (eg. education). Politicians theoretically are accoutable, but we all know how they can game the system.

True until the last part.  Politicians don't "game" anything - major special interests lobby them to "game" the sytem for them.  That's why Big Govt intervention often leads to perverse results for idealists.    The powerful get a foothold into policy making, rather than having to fight tooth & nail in our free market system.


That's what's so funny about Libs who want Big Govt to "protect" us from the powerful.

Slappy the Wang wrote: Can someone tell me what temperature the earth is SUPPOSED to be at?  Is there an IDEAL TEMPERATURE we're striving for?

That is one thing I have with global warming or climate change or whatever it is called.  At various times in the life of this planer earth most of the land was covered with ice and at other times the ice retreated to a point that even Greenland was mostly green.

And don't forget, 30 some odd years ago many thought we were in a global cooling period.


So are we in a period of warming that may be accelerated by the activities of man?  And if so, how much of that warming is natural and how much of it is due to man?