An Alternative to Obama's Economic Stimulus Plan

[toddghall]

Why is corporate America going to hire more people with a tax break? They already have tons of tax credits and write-offs. How about give additional tax breaks to companies that actually do hire more people.

[ab1tchslap]

This is way better than Obama's video. Obama's speeches are always so full of shit.

[NYvenomX19]

Well said and finally some real advice.

[groberts0429]

"Economic stimulus" has never worked as well as politicians want you to believe. It failed in Japan in the 1980's and it failed during the New Deal. Gov't spending did not end the great depression, WWII contracts for war materiel from Europe did. In fact, Gov't spending has been blamed for the Depression of 1937. The economy recovered briefly before WWII but collapsed again just as Gov't spending decreased. To sum up: even when "stimulus" works, it doesn't work as well as private investment.

[botaaurreragogor]

idiots

[toddghall]

@groberts0429

Wow if you think government spending led to the depression of the 30's you need to go back an review your history. Not to over simplify, but it was a few bankers abusing the stock market.

[groberts1776]

@toddghall

Government spending did not create the Depression; several factors including the expansion and contraction of the money supply by the Fed were crucial.

Perhaps the best evidence that government spending does not help is the fact that President Harding cut spending roughly in half to balance the budget during the recession of 1920 and the economy recovered within a year.

The stock mkt is a "leading indicator". Many historians w/o economic knowledge have merely assumed causality.

[toddghall]

@groberts1776

It would be interesting to see what cutting our spending in half would do. What would they cut?

I think more people should focus on the relationship between outsourcing labor and our current recession. I believe the two walk hand in hand.

As for government bailouts, I heard GM has already repaid their debt, yet I have not confirmed this. If so, it demonstrates the usefulness of government not letting major companies in the industry die.

[groberts1776]

@toddghall

I would cut the following:

-HeadStart has no scientifically proven benefits that last beyond 1 year.

-The Department of Education has spent billions and our test scores have not improved.

-Vouchers for public education: According to the DoE, private education costs 1/2 as much while being much more effective.

-Farm subsidies result in the destruction of tons of produce. We pay for this twice, once as taxpayers, then as consumers.

-Obamaphone (misnamed) but that's what they call it

[groberts1776]

@toddghall

GM payed back the 6.7 Billion loan but the government gave them about 7x that through stock purchase. We are still on the hook for about 87.5% of what the government gave them. The taxpayers have not been reimbursed, the money went back to Treasury and has already been spent.

The media has created a false dichotomy: gov't bailout or else people lose their jobs. On the contrary, it is more likely that another company would have bought and run GM. They would have done a better job...

[groberts1776]

@toddghall

This recession was caused by a credit crunch with the government's fingers all over it. Fan and Fred were created by the gov't, got "too big to fail", dominated the secondary market and created tons of ultimately worthless paper which they sold to investors (mortgage backed securities). The CRA lowered lending standards by mandating lending by zip code. The Fed printed too much money which drove up home prices putting many "underwater"...

[groberts1776]

@toddghall

I was referring to the Depression of 1937 which happened during FDR's 5th year in office. The "undistributed profits tax" and a new Agricultural Adjustment Act. Strikes were encouraged by "pro-labor" policies and the general anti-business climate made investment risky. It was safer to put money into municipal bonds where returns were guaranteed than to risk losing 100% if your business went under and losing most of your profit even if you succeeded. The New Deal was a costly failure

[toddghall]

@groberts1776

So how does all of this relate to a continually shrinking middle class, a shrinking upper class, and an expanding lower class?

Would you rather Walmart run our country or elected officials?

[groberts1776]

@toddghall

There is no evidence of an expanding lower class. The poor get richer all the time. Now the poor have color TVs, cars and Internet access. The hyperbolic charge of lower class expansion can only be made by moving the goalposts faster than the advance of prosperity.

The poor got richer long before the rise of big government and actually did so at a faster rate. The # of people living in poverty was decreasing at about 1% before the misnamed "Great Society" but has stagnated since.

[toddghall]

@groberts1776

I guess it is how you define rich. I don't call a color TV rich. I prefer to compare incomes.

[toddghall]

@groberts1776

I see an expanding lower class all around me, and it doesn't take anything fancy to back it up. There are WAY less single income families. Kids are having to live with their parents well into their 20's. Even when they do get out, most can't afford to live on their own. Families sharing houses. The amount of people uninsured. There are LOTS of simple examples to show that the divide continues to grow.

[groberts1776]

@toddghall

Whether the country is run by elected officials or Walmart is a false dichotomy. The argument was devised by elected officials want to run Walmart and haven't the integrity to admit that our Constitution grants them absolutely no power to do so. If elected officials wanted to run a business, they should have gotten MBAs and worked their way up the corporate ladder.

To be clear, I want elected officials running the government and I want Walmart running Walmart.

[toddghall]

@groberts1776

I think the opposition can just as easily look at it the other way. What came first the chicken or the egg. Did business approach government first or did government approach business.

Capitalism is proven to need regulation, else monopolies will rule all.

Government is not looking to run anything. I think this is where your intelligence goes to far.

[groberts1776]

@toddghall

Gov't approaches business and vice versa, the point is that regulations are simplistically portrayed as being anti-business when in fact they are often anti-competitive and pro-big business. The New Deal actually created and maintained anti-competitive cartels. So much for competition.

The government currently runs GM and even before the Orwellian financial stability act passed, the administration wanted to take $50 Bn from TARP to "bail out" and take over failing financial firms.

[groberts1776]

@toddghall

Do you realize that the "financial stability" bill was sponsored by "Countrywide" Chris Dodd and that Goldman Sachs has endorsed many of its provisions? Democrats want you to believe that they control business, but what actually happens is that the companies with the best lobbyists get giveaways and carve-outs that are anti-competitive and hurt small businesses which are the real engine of job creation. The Democrats are the party of crony capitalism

Dems blocked GSE regulations...

[toddghall]

@groberts1776

And only Democrats give into lobbyists right? It has to be our job to get the bad officials out. We need to argue for better government transparency. Amazingly, something Obama supports.

[groberts1776]

@toddghall

The President always does the opposite of what he says:

On Transparency:

-HHS Sec Sibelius delayed a report detailing how Obamacare will cost much more than expected.

-Blocked two judicial inquiries into warrant-less wiretapping.

-Fired IG Walpin because he found corruption that made Obama look bad

-Paid vote-fraudsters ACORN $800 M to corrupt voter regisistration records

-Packed town halls with "plants"

Virtually every article that comes up for "Obama transparency" is critical

[toddghall]

@groberts1776

See, you make lots of good points, but then you go to far. Just because there was some bad eggs in ACORN doesn't mean the organization did not do good things.

You can't control who is going to go to town halls. I would need proof that insiders planted them specifically.

I'm sure there was more to Walpin, there always is; however, I am not going to go look it up.

[groberts1776]

@toddghall

Lobbyists are all around. The solution is nonpartisan. We need smaller, constitutionally-restrained government. If Congress kept to Art I Sec VIII there would be virtually no lobbyists. No need for them. Nothing they could accomplish. Wouldn't be worth paying them.

Not to say Republicans are perfect, but the whole aim of Democrats is to increase the reach of gov't. Therefore it is a predetermined conclusion that Dems will increase the scope for lobbying by expanding gov't.

[toddghall]

@groberts1776

I totally agree with nonpartisan.

That's one way to look at Democrats. I look at it as putting safe guards in place to prevent abuse by big businesses. If we lived in a truly free capitalistic market, monopolies would rain supreme. Look at a company like Monsanto, who owns the seeds, the fertilizers, the farmers debts, even the genetics of plants. Not to mention the smaller companies that turn corn into commodities. That's just one example.

[groberts1776]

@toddghall

"Monsanto, who owns the seeds, the fertilizers, the farmers debts, even the genetics of plants..."

You forgot one - Monsanto owns the politicians too! Without subsidies, tariffs and price supports Corn Inc. would be a paper tiger and Coke would be sweeter. Most people prefer Mexican Coke because it has real cane sugar, not HFCS.

The gov't has a very poor record of resisting monopolies. By the time a monopoly is prosecuted, it is usually no longer dominant; IBM is a great example.