Things just got veryinteresting. The bill was killed and won't be open for another vote until next year.
Looks like we're finally going to make companies responsible for their decisions. What a concept. Following the now-almost-certain bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM, we are finally going to see the restructuring that the auto industry needs.
It's about time we stopped privatizing profits and socializing the losses.
How is this any different than stealing $20 out of somebody's wallet? Both are crooks.
I love it. Support the businesses that have made bad decisions at the expense of businesses that are smart. Just great. I understand the desire to save jobs, but here's a newsflash: There will be banking jobs. It's not like the industry is going away. If I were the CEO of a bank that made the correct decisions, and could have used this opportunity (and my liquidity) to substantially grow my market share, I would feel like I was living in communist Russia right now.
Creative destruction: Sometimes it's good to let the old institutions die, to make way for nimbler, smarter business models. The question is whether we want to suffer the growing pains to get the big payoff; it's that money-in-the-bowl experiment from John Stossel's Greed.
I keep posting it, but I don't think anybody ever watches it.
I'm the first to accuse people of crying wolf. In this case they aren't. The economy is in the crapper. Period.
However, I'm not terribly upset that retail spending has declined. We can't continue to prop up the US economy with reckless consumer spending. It's about time that people start saving some of their money. While I'm sure that many people have less money to spend overall, I hope that at least some people are choosing to spend less so they can save more.
@ Kilarney: I am right there with you. It terrifies me that so many people live off of credit for their basic expenses. Seriously, did the past two generations forget how to budget, spend wisely, and save a set percentage of their income out of every paycheck (allocating the funds to whatever accounts had the highest interest yield that would allow them to access the funds at the time of anticipated need)? It isn't difficult. Sometimes it means that you sacrifice some luxuries and comforts, but it allows you to put decent down payments on homes and cars, have a retirement, send your kid to college, start a business you've always wanted, or leave a legacy to family/charitable organizations.
However, I'm not terribly upset that retail spending has declined. We can't continue to prop up the US economy with reckless consumer spending. It's about time that people start saving some of their money. While I'm sure that many people have less money to spend overall, I hope that at least some people are choosing to spend less so they can save more.
While this is true, it goes back to the problem of there not being enough work for everyone. If we don't all spend like nutjobs, there aren't enough jobs for everybody.
Think of it like this. I've got a farm. With 5 workers, I can feed everyone in town. However, there are five workers who have no jobs. Should I let them eat for free? If everyone in town starts eating extra food they can't afford, and becoming fatties, then I've got to make more food, and I can hire the five workers. However, those five workers only have jobs because other people are overspending. When the bottom falls out, those workers lose their jobs again.
We have technology such that the work of few can provide for many. However, only people who work are permitted to partake.
I actually had an idea yesterday that could work, even if on the surface it sounds silly. Step one is for the government to buy a shit ton of bicycles. This creates jobs at the bicycle factory. We can buy Cannondales, they are made in the USA. Next, we buy empty warehouses all over the country, just to have space. We setup all the bicycles to create electricity when pedaled. We allow anyone who is unemployed to come pedal for cash. This silly idea will do many things. First, it will provide unskilled jobs for the unemployed. Second, it will help our obesity problem. Three, since anyone can just come in and pedal at anytime, teenagers (according to labor laws), college students, senior citizens, etc. can come in on their own schedules.
The only negative I see is that it will compete with gyms. Why pay for a membership when you can get paid?
I actually had an idea yesterday that could work, even if on the surface it sounds silly. Step one is for the government to buy a shit ton of bicycles. This creates jobs at the bicycle factory. We can buy Cannondales, they are made in the USA. Next, we buy empty warehouses all over the country, just to have space. We setup all the bicycles to create electricity when pedaled. We allow anyone who is unemployed to come pedal for cash. This silly idea will do many things. First, it will provide unskilled jobs for the unemployed. Second, it will help our obesity problem. Three, since anyone can just come in and pedal at anytime, teenagers (according to labor laws), college students, senior citizens, etc. can come in on their own schedules.
I went through these calculations a while ago. A person in very good shape (think Lance Armstrong) can put out about 300 watts for a few hours. That's about 1/3 of a kW.
If he does this for 8 hours that's 2.5 kW-hr of electricity. Which you can buy from the power company for 25 cents (US).
Well, is there some other more efficient mechanism? What if with all the bicycles were linked, and there was some sort of flywheel mechanism?
Instead of one person pedaling and generating electricity with one little motor, all the bicycles are connected to one big turbine with a series of gears. The combined power of all the people might spin it as fast as say, a turbine in a hydroelectric dam.
If the person who said he calculated that a very fit person could generate 2.5 kW-hrs of electricity if he pedaled for 8 hours is right, then you'd have to increase the efficiency by a very, very large factor to make it feasible. I just don't see it happening, at least not with the pedalers being voluntary workers.
The idea is interesting, however. It's pretty easy to imagine it being featured in a dystopic science fiction story.
The actress who performs as Jenna Presley said her Web site has seen a 20 percent decline in customers, about 1,000 of whom pay $19.99 a month to watch the 22-year-old perform online.
I did not realize people still paid for online porn.
Obama says that this stimulus package should just be passed. The other guys keep talking about tax cuts. Is that their only idea? Wasn't that idea rejected by the voters? Hasn't that idea been discredited by recent history? Finally, how much more can taxes be cut?
Are people behind the proposed stimulus? There are aspects I like, and aspects I do not like. I think it is irresponsible to give stimulus checks directly to the public. Unless you give most people a substantial amount of money (thousands of dollars), it will be of no help at all and it will add to our deficit unnecessarily. It is only an appeasement measure and it hasn't helped when done in the past.
I wish there were more spending on infrastructure. We desperately need it, and it would create a lot of jobs.
I just don't get the tax cut thing, though. It seems like that's the only idea these people have ever had and they just keep repeating it over and over.
What does everyone think about outsourcing? Has anyone had any first-hand experience with its costs/benefits?
Starting the economy is like starting a car. The starter cranks the engine until it runs on its own. If your starter is messed up, you can crank and crank and crank without ever starting the engine. We need to get the engine started with at little cranking as possible. Every crank costs us money. But if we don't point that money in the right direction, it won't start the engine.
So the question is, this. We can get money from taxes. Should we distribute that money as congress sees fit, or as the individual citizens see fit? Who is going to put the money in the right place to get the engine started most efficiently? What is the right place? If citizens can be trusted to put it in the right place, then it's probably best to give it to them because it also means people will benefit directly. If people are not going to put it in the right place, then perhaps the government should decide. But then again, do they know the right place either? All the congresspeople just want as much money as possible for their districts to get reelected.
If it's a choice between people spending it poorly and congress spending it poorly, maybe we're better off not spending it?
And Joe, just because people vote for someone doesn't mean the government should follow that person. That's why we have a representative government, and not a direct democracy. We need to filter the idiocy of the masses, and have checks and balances in govt., so that hopefully only good ideas can win out even when everyone's a shithead. It doesn't work, but it's better than nothing.
And Joe, just because people vote for someone doesn't mean the government should follow that person.
You might have a point if Obama was the only democrat who won in the '08 election. However, nearly the whole democratic slate was elected. Furthermore, the economy was one of the central issues. In voting overwhelmingly for the democrats, people were clearly telling the government that they were sick of the constant refrain of "tax cut, tax cut, tax cut". They don't want that solution any longer.
You might have a point if Obama was the only democrat who won in the '08 election. However, nearly the whole democratic slate was elected. Furthermore, the economy was one of the central issues. In voting overwhelmingly for the democrats, people were clearly telling the government that they were sick of the constant refrain of "tax cut, tax cut, tax cut". They don't want that solution any longer.
Well, they didn't win enough. If they had 2/3 majority, you would be right.
You might have a point if Obama was the only democrat who won in the '08 election. However, nearly the whole democratic slate was elected. Furthermore, the economy was one of the central issues. In voting overwhelmingly for the democrats, people were clearly telling the government that they were sick of the constant refrain of "tax cut, tax cut, tax cut". They don't want that solution any longer.
Well, they didn't win enough. If they had 2/3 majority, you would be right.
So, they need a 2/3 majority in order to pass any bill? Is a 2/3 majority needed in order to have a mandate? I seem to remember GWB claiming he had a mandate, but he didn't have anywhere near a 2/3 majority in either house.
So the question is, this. We can get money from taxes. Should we distribute that money as congress sees fit, or as the individual citizens see fit? Who is going to put the money in the right place to get the engine started most efficiently? What is the right place? If citizens can be trusted to put it in the right place, then it's probably best to give it to them because it also means people will benefit directly. If people are not going to put it in the right place, then perhaps the government should decide. But then again, do they know the right place either? All the congresspeople just want as much money as possible for their districts to get reelected.
The amount of money that would actually make it to citizen's hands would be so negligible per person that it would have no major effect (per our previous stimulus checks).
So, they need a 2/3 majority in order to pass any bill? Is a 2/3 majority needed in order to have a mandate? I seem to remember GWB claiming he had a mandate, but he didn't have anywhere near a 2/3 majority in either house.
If you don't have a 2/3 majority in the senate, and someone who opposes you wants to fillibuster, then you've got to compromise. You know this. It's middle school stuff. The bicameral legislature, one part population-based and one part state-based is the foundation of our government. in other words, popularity is only half of it.
I love it how people want to change the rules of government when they get in the way, but also cling desperately to the same rules when they are in their favor. Whenever anyone has actually tried to change the rules, it has always come back to bite them in the ass. Take for example republicans putting forth the term limits to stop another FDR from coming along. Meanwhile, it's bitten them in the ass more times than it has bitten democrats.
If it was the republicans with the majority would you still support your idea to change the rules of government? If not, then it's probably not a good idea to change them.
So, they need a 2/3 majority in order to pass any bill? Is a 2/3 majority needed in order to have a mandate? I seem to remember GWB claiming he had a mandate, but he didn't have anywhere near a 2/3 majority in either house.
If you don't have a 2/3 majority in the senate, and someone who opposes you wants to fillibuster, then you've got to compromise. You know this. It's middle school stuff. The bicameral legislature, one part population-based and one part state-based is the foundation of our government. in other words, popularity is only half of it.
That doesn't mean that a 2/3 majority is required to get anything done. That doesn't mean that less than a 2/3 majority is a mandate. How many times, exactly, has either party had a 2/3 majority?
The bicameral legislature, one part population-based and one part state-based is the foundation of our government. in other words, popularity is only half of it.
Does that mean the Senate requires a 2/3 majority to pass any bill? Do you think every bill that passes through the Senate has to survive a filibuster? Most bills that pass do so by simple majority.
If it was the republicans with the majority would you still support your idea to change the rules of government?
I haven't said a single word about changing any rule.
Comments
I love it. Support the businesses that have made bad decisions at the expense of businesses that are smart. Just great. I understand the desire to save jobs, but here's a newsflash: There will be banking jobs. It's not like the industry is going away. If I were the CEO of a bank that made the correct decisions, and could have used this opportunity (and my liquidity) to substantially grow my market share, I would feel like I was living in communist Russia right now.
I keep posting it, but I don't think anybody ever watches it.
However, I'm not terribly upset that retail spending has declined. We can't continue to prop up the US economy with reckless consumer spending. It's about time that people start saving some of their money. While I'm sure that many people have less money to spend overall, I hope that at least some people are choosing to spend less so they can save more.
Think of it like this. I've got a farm. With 5 workers, I can feed everyone in town. However, there are five workers who have no jobs. Should I let them eat for free? If everyone in town starts eating extra food they can't afford, and becoming fatties, then I've got to make more food, and I can hire the five workers. However, those five workers only have jobs because other people are overspending. When the bottom falls out, those workers lose their jobs again.
We have technology such that the work of few can provide for many. However, only people who work are permitted to partake.
I actually had an idea yesterday that could work, even if on the surface it sounds silly. Step one is for the government to buy a shit ton of bicycles. This creates jobs at the bicycle factory. We can buy Cannondales, they are made in the USA. Next, we buy empty warehouses all over the country, just to have space. We setup all the bicycles to create electricity when pedaled. We allow anyone who is unemployed to come pedal for cash. This silly idea will do many things. First, it will provide unskilled jobs for the unemployed. Second, it will help our obesity problem. Three, since anyone can just come in and pedal at anytime, teenagers (according to labor laws), college students, senior citizens, etc. can come in on their own schedules.
The only negative I see is that it will compete with gyms. Why pay for a membership when you can get paid?
Instead of one person pedaling and generating electricity with one little motor, all the bicycles are connected to one big turbine with a series of gears. The combined power of all the people might spin it as fast as say, a turbine in a hydroelectric dam.
The idea is interesting, however. It's pretty easy to imagine it being featured in a dystopic science fiction story.
There are aspects I like, and aspects I do not like. I think it is irresponsible to give stimulus checks directly to the public. Unless you give most people a substantial amount of money (thousands of dollars), it will be of no help at all and it will add to our deficit unnecessarily. It is only an appeasement measure and it hasn't helped when done in the past.
I just don't get the tax cut thing, though. It seems like that's the only idea these people have ever had and they just keep repeating it over and over.
What does everyone think about outsourcing? Has anyone had any first-hand experience with its costs/benefits?
So the question is, this. We can get money from taxes. Should we distribute that money as congress sees fit, or as the individual citizens see fit? Who is going to put the money in the right place to get the engine started most efficiently? What is the right place? If citizens can be trusted to put it in the right place, then it's probably best to give it to them because it also means people will benefit directly. If people are not going to put it in the right place, then perhaps the government should decide. But then again, do they know the right place either? All the congresspeople just want as much money as possible for their districts to get reelected.
If it's a choice between people spending it poorly and congress spending it poorly, maybe we're better off not spending it?
And Joe, just because people vote for someone doesn't mean the government should follow that person. That's why we have a representative government, and not a direct democracy. We need to filter the idiocy of the masses, and have checks and balances in govt., so that hopefully only good ideas can win out even when everyone's a shithead. It doesn't work, but it's better than nothing.
I love it how people want to change the rules of government when they get in the way, but also cling desperately to the same rules when they are in their favor. Whenever anyone has actually tried to change the rules, it has always come back to bite them in the ass. Take for example republicans putting forth the term limits to stop another FDR from coming along. Meanwhile, it's bitten them in the ass more times than it has bitten democrats.
If it was the republicans with the majority would you still support your idea to change the rules of government? If not, then it's probably not a good idea to change them.