Page 31 of 63 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 628

Thread: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

  1. #301
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    I never said that WWII ended the Depression.
    Didn't say you. Those who do say it, say it.

    But while I have you, what did end it?

  2. #302
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by carlkay58 View Post
    Speaking from the unemployed state of Michigan, where the last economic growth was in 1997, yep, it is a depression!
    Take a trip to your local mall and tell me if that looks to you like a depression

    Another note - the point was made that the ratio for banks funds to reserve rate is currently 17:1. That means banks are holding onto 17 times the required funds by law. Do you know where those funds are held that are not out on loan? Federal Reserve Notes - i.e. loaned to the government, where they earn interest.
    Do you have a credible source to match this comment?

    So the money is currently on loan to the government rather than the private sector. Without this money on loan to the government, the government would not be able to raise the funds to spend on the stimulus.
    Wrong! The capital to secure deficit spending is handled through the sovereign debt market, of which foreign direct investment (FDI) is currently the primary purchaser of Treasury debt. Of course, other private banks do direct bidding for treasuries to be held in the form of assets, however the big players in the US sovereign debt market are the foreign trading interests that are holding dollars year in and year out. They are the ones who are financing US deficit spending for the most part.

    And with all these record level spending projects; guess what? There is record demand and interest from foreigners to purchase our debt. Why? Because of fear. Holding dollars is risky business given the relative currency volatility we have experienced this past year, and guaranteed US debt is the choice by the majority of banking institutions and foreign governments.


    So the money is flowing from the private sector to the government sector because the banks are being actively encouraged by the rate on the Fed Notes over the risk of making loans.
    The interest paid on reserves is currently held constant to the FFR, of which is quite close to zero. However, this tool will be extremely helpful years ahead because of the eventual need to drain excess liquidity without invoking a recession ala Volker.

    Also remember that an estimated 25% or so of the existing mortgages still outstanding are considered 'at risk'. If the banks do not hold sufficient reserves to handle when these loans go bad, then we are right back where we were in the fall of 2008. So the FED is encouraging the build up of reserves.
    While i certainly agree that capital is needed in the event of further defaults, there are a slew of Fed and government programs (namely TARP and TALF) that facilitate such a need. If banks are so worried about risk, why the scramble to pay back TARP?

    Also, do you have a credible source to back up your assertion?

    After all is said and done, the government is soaking up capital from the system to be spent in the manner that the government wishes rather than the private sector directing the investment. Since some of this is payments of $6 Million to the PR firm that ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign to save all of 3 jobs, among other abuses, the 'stimulus' is not really stimulating the economy but rather paying off supporters. Not very efficient now is it? Oh, and what type of infrastructure for the benefit of the US is that?
    How much of the infrastructure aspect is has been appropriated, planned, and spent? The above post is really just a rant without sound economic analysis.

    Let's also look at the distribution of the stimulus spending. My company applied for a portion to help build high speed internet access for the thumb of Michigan - supplying a high speed internet option to over 1 million people who currently do not have an option short of satellite - at a cost less than one third the cost of satellite. Other companies applied for the same program in Michigan that could have covered the entire state with cheap high speed internet. Michigan, where the growth has been missing for over 10 years and leading the US in unemployment figures, no matter how you calculate it. How much of that stimulus money has reached Michigan? Less than $3 Million over the entire economy. Our project saw no awards in Michigan. There were only four states that got awards in our category: California, Illinois, New York, and Rhode Island. Yep, good stimulus there.[/quote]

    Michigan stimulus came in the form of bailing out GM, and Chrysler. However, i have little doubt that the remaining stimulus money, if there is a need, will be appropriated accordingly.

    If we actually were spending the stimulus money on infrastructure, I would not be as anti-stimulus as I am. But the stimulus money is being gifted to the Democratic supporters in obscene amounts that are not 'trickling down' or 'trickling up' or anything other than lining the pockets of many rich Democrats at the expense of everyone else in the US.
    My largest qualm was the tax cut aspect, of which represents nearly a third of the entire act. But investing in health care and education is what as known as an indirect infrastructure investment, building more schools, offering more research grants, providing state funding shortfalls due to declining revenue, etc.... If you go back one year, you will see posts of mine arguing for a $1 trillion infrastructure stimulus alone, and my pissedoffness. Here, ill give you an example: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1057927304

    Looking back, March of 2009 changed everything....
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #303
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    I never said that WWII ended the Depression.
    Have you looked at the unemployment rates in that era? Look from 1937-1945 and tell me what you see
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #304
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Exactly! They always say "it was WWII, not the New Deal," as if WWII wasn't about government spending too.
    Then as now, only the government has the capacity to spend the money necessary to get our economy moving again. Of course, our debt was much greater this time before the emergency spending began thanks to our two optional wars.

    So, after the economy has improved, it will be very important to start paying down our national debt as quickly as possible. Our fore fathers used a war tax to help accomplish this. I think the same thing will be necessary this time.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #305
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    01-03-10 @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    88

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Take a trip to your local mall and tell me if that looks to you like a depression
    My local mall is over 50% empty and has more employees than shoppers for most of the day. When it does have shoppers, over 3/4 of them are Canadian (I live next to the border). If it was not for Canadian shoppers, my county would be much worse off. As it is we have an official unemployment rate of 24% with the unoffical rate of 39%.

    Do you have a credible source to match this comment?
    Yes, check with your local banking sources. As a bank investor I have the bank's annual report in front of me. It tells me that at any one time it could have as much as 90% of its "Cash on Hand" in FED paper. I figure my bank is not too different from other banks and it makes sense. After all the FED is in charge of handling money transfers between banks and by just switching funds in their balances makes it very easy to do.

    Wrong! The capital to secure deficit spending is handled through the sovereign debt market, of which foreign direct investment (FDI) is currently the primary purchaser of Treasury debt. Of course, other private banks do direct bidding for treasuries to be held in the form of assets, however the big players in the US sovereign debt market are the foreign trading interests that are holding dollars year in and year out. They are the ones who are financing US deficit spending for the most part.

    And with all these record level spending projects; guess what? There is record demand and interest from foreigners to purchase our debt. Why? Because of fear. Holding dollars is risky business given the relative currency volatility we have experienced this past year, and guaranteed US debt is the choice by the majority of banking institutions and foreign governments.
    That may be, but the FED is still holding on to the local banks' money and that helps it maintain credit lines for both private and government. Currently the majority of the out go seems to be Government, but we can't prove or disprove this because the FED is above approach and audit.

    The interest paid on reserves is currently held constant to the FFR, of which is quite close to zero. However, this tool will be extremely helpful years ahead because of the eventual need to drain excess liquidity without invoking a recession ala Volker.
    I agree that that is the theory and practice. As to how well it works, that is personal opinion and we probably don't agree on.

    While i certainly agree that capital is needed in the event of further defaults, there are a slew of Fed and government programs (namely TARP and TALF) that facilitate such a need. If banks are so worried about risk, why the scramble to pay back TARP?
    So they can continue to collect income over $500,000 per year and maintain their huge bonuses? To get out from under the Government's Banking Czar's arbitrary, populist, and very visible public oversight?

    Also, do you have a credible source to back up your assertion?
    Several:

    InvestorCentric: Leaked Document Shows Fed Preparing For Next Mortgage Crisis

    The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter - tracking the housing finance breakdown, related to Alt-A and subprime mortgages, lending fraud, predatory lending, housing bubble, mortgage banking, foreclosures, debt, consolidation, lawyers, class-action lawsui - although maybe not exactly credible

    Pam Martens: Judges Start Nixing Foreclosures - possibly the same

    I don't have too much more time to search for more, but I recall reading many MSN Money articles over the past few months detailing the fact that the new wave of foreclosures are people who lost their jobs and can no longer make the payments. Add in the new credit card rules coming up and banks are wisely building up their cash reserves.

    How much of the infrastructure aspect is has been appropriated, planned, and spent? The above post is really just a rant without sound economic analysis.
    Yep it was a rant. I think a justified one, but that is personal opinion again.

    Michigan stimulus came in the form of bailing out GM, and Chrysler. However, i have little doubt that the remaining stimulus money, if there is a need, will be appropriated accordingly.
    Really? Bailout of GM and Chrysler? What bailout? Oh - you mean the forced bankruptcy of GM? You remember, where the President of the US fired the CEO of GM for saying that if the US wanted GM to go bankrupt then why did they lend any money to GM in the first place? In return for the $25 billion bailout money the US now owns about 59% of GM? That was no bailout - that was a straight up purchase of GM at a steep discount. And none of that money came to Michigan, it was mostly spent by the government studying how to break up GM as fast and profitable as possible. Michigan has received less than $4 million from the currently $157 BILLION handed out from the stimulus. Yep perfectly fair there.

    My largest qualm was the tax cut aspect, of which represents nearly a third of the entire act. But investing in health care and education is what as known as an indirect infrastructure investment, building more schools, offering more research grants, providing state funding shortfalls due to declining revenue, etc.... If you go back one year, you will see posts of mine arguing for a $1 trillion infrastructure stimulus alone, and my pissedoffness. Here, ill give you an example: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1057927304

    Looking back, March of 2009 changed everything....
    And I would have been there with the same opinion as you at the time. But politics is politics and unless palms are greased and pockets lined, forget it. Both parties are pretty much the same in that regard.

  6. #306
    Professor
    Dutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Arkansas
    Last Seen
    08-23-17 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,808

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by niftydrifty View Post
    It's about time you stopped reading that whacky rag. Not all of the money has been received yet.
    Still, right now the average is about a quarter mill per job created.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  7. #307
    Professor
    Dutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Arkansas
    Last Seen
    08-23-17 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,808

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Didn't say you. Those who do say it, say it.

    But while I have you, what did end it?
    WW2
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  8. #308
    Sage
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,483

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Yeah, I'm the one with no clue.
    I am in perfect agreement with you on this issue.


    Of course there is an argument. Unfortunately You must have some ethics against taking other peoples money without their permission to see it.
    Thank you

  9. #309
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    WW2


    .........

  10. #310
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by akyron View Post
    Of course there is an argument. Unfortunately You must have some ethics against taking other peoples money without their permission to see it.
    That's another thread, dude.

Page 31 of 63 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •