"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
It does appear that some of you simply fail to see the picture.
Perhaps a visit to this clip on facebook might change your mind.
There again, perhaps not.
So let me put it another way.
If the US prints money and thus increases the money supply without making any wealth, what happens is that INFLATION sets in, do not believe me?, ask your wife or whoever buys your groceries.
YouTube - Inconvenient Debt - Glenn Beck
Obama lied... Ambassador Stevens died!
Putin got his degree in international law when the USSR was a strong player on the international stage.
His degree in economics was awarded to him when there was no USSR, it was not about economics of the USSR or socialism in any way or measure. It included Western and American literature in references and quotes. He speaks and reads German BTW.
Both degrees are backed up by his very successful practical achievements in the both fields, - you can hardly find a professor with such a record. Actually you will not find any here.
Just a reminder for the public - each time you and your friend open your mouths about Russia you spit nothing else but lies.
Last edited by justone; 02-07-09 at 11:39 PM.
CBO: Obama Stimulus Plan Lowers Long-Run Growth - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)
And here's the actual report:
Congressional Budget Office - Estimated Macroeconomic Effects of the Inouye-Baucus Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1
Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com
Vote by income:
Under $15k - 75% O, 25% M
$15k-30k - 60% O, 37% M
Vote by education:
No High School: 63% O - 35% M
1) Income is a proxy for intelligence/understanding the economy
2) Absolute income is a good way to measure earning potential (If a dishwasher earns $6/hr in rural alabama but $10/hour in manhattan due to COL, is the dishwasher in manhattan really richer than the guy in alabama?)
3) States/counties are monolithic entities, and the south is generically Republican while the north is generically liberal (In reality, the places with the greatest income disparity and highest levels of poverty are generally large cities, wherever they are found.)
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Right in NY, I looked it up after I saw your post. And I do think there are legit concerns as with anything else. The Wash Times is just creepy. I would never use it as a primary source.
Last edited by winston53660; 02-08-09 at 03:13 AM.
This is actually so unsurprising it is laughable that anyone would think that anyone would think otherwise. Of course having money invested in debt in the future is going to harm future GDP to some extent. But, the cost of NOT doing an effective stimulus is considered more harmful than that future harm to the GDP. It would be even more harmful to the overall short-term and medium term future GDP than the debt will be.
You do realize that all of our debt is having precisely the same effect, right, except that that debt was not focused on stimulating the economy? Pondering that, it doesn't seem plausible that we would be intoxicatingly more prosperous if there was no national debt... which, to me, calls into question whether the study has the entire picture.
In my view, one of the biggest problems we have right now is that we have a vast amount of wealth that is sitting on the sidelines, doing nothing to generate prosperity. In order to preserve jobs, we must replace the 'work' that that missing wealth would normally be doing.
I also think that people forget that we are in a spiral. People are losing jobs, which is causing more investors to put money on the sidelines, which is causing more people to lose jobs, and so on. We can stop that spiral, but not by "Letting people keep more of their 'own' money", when all they are going to do is to follow suit and put that money on the sidelines, rather than spend it.
We simply must assist the flow of money through the economic system. The most politically palatable way to do that is to deficit spend.
Of course, I think we should implement a temporary tax on 'idle' wealth. That would provide a way for there to be no deficit spending as well as an incentive for people to get money into the job creation system. But, you can imagine the offense so many would take toward such a heavy handed approach, however effective it would be.