Why should I believe anything you say Joe? It's
pretty widely agreed upon that the recent, small uptick
in the GDP was a direct result of the klunkers thing.

Gee Joe, every other country in the world understands
the simple fact that govenments can take actions to
influence the econcomy. If you don't believe me read
Ries's post above about germany's unemployment issues.

Gee Joe, whatever you do, don't try to attack the problem
directly, just throw some more voodoo on the fire and
start praying.

Jim

Actually, YES, I think that government "trickle down" has worked incredibly well for at least 80 years or so.

Social Security is a classic example of government "trickle down".
Before Social Security, old people starved and froze. All the time. Employers just fired people with workplace injuries, and then, unable to make any money, those people died.
DEAD.

Medicare- another great example of government "trickle down". If you dont know an older american who is still alive due to medicare, who would otherwise be DEAD, then you must live up a longer gravel driveway than just about anybody else. In my own family, I can think of a half dozen relatives who enjoyed years more of life due to that government "trickle down".

Education is another one- before the government took our hard earned dollars, and used em to build schools, poor, illiterate people did a lot worse.

In my area, a few more examples of government "trickle down" that have been extraordinarily successful, and have made my local economy boom-

Federal dams and the BPA.
Military contracting.
Military bases.
Military pensions- where I live, due to all the bases, we have tons of retired military. They spend that Uncle Sugar money to keep my whole area afloat, with construction, car sales, and so on.

As for government stimulus money- EVERY major construction project in the USA, with short term employment, and long term boosts to the economy, was done by the government, not private industry.
Yep, when PAID to do so, KBR, Halliburton, Fluor, Kiewett and the like will do the grunt work- but without government "trickle down" we would have NO interstate highway system, no Golden Gate Bridge, no Port of Seattle, or Tacoma, or Long Beach, no Grand Coulee or Hoover Dams, no water supplies to LA, no aerospace industry or space program or, for that matter, no laser beams, space blankets, or Tang.

Government "trickle down" has built America.
Without Socialist Government policies during and after WW2, we would STILL be in the great depression.

So, yep, I am liking it just fine.

We need an additional few Trillion in infrastructure built in the USA, and the government stimulus package should be at least double or triple what it is. By pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq, we could at least double it.

Honestly come on Ries, where are we going to find three
trillion dollars that was just pi$$ed down a rathole?



Like I said, imagine if that money was actually put to
some good use, *inside* the US.

JIm

Actually, I was making referance to the 787 billion soon to be followed by more. Nice that we got unemployment stopped at 8% as promised. ...Maybe we should just do away with private enterprise altogether since government does such a wonderfull job.

After all, you can't argue with a success like the soviet union.

I especailly like the Huey Long concept of "limiting poverty" to a set minimum. Does the government reimburse those who dip below the minimum because they made bad guesses in the market? Or because they pissed away their money at the track or the local bar? Interesting.

I'm certainly not pounding my fist on the bar and demanding that we stop social security and medicare, because those folks have been paying into it for their entire working lives. I am, however, stating the obvious. Anybody looking at the figures will tell you that both programs are going to stop THEMSELVES before many more decades have past.

".Is the US Government bankrupt?
By Pete Morin
Before we continue to debate the merits of any Obama health care plan, we need to consider a few important facts.


By any rational means, we must consider the present condition of our Government's financial situation. An honest look at those finances would have a prudent person conclude that our government is tacitly bankrupt. Our unfunded liabilities far exceed our assets. Adding up all unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Government sponsored pension funds gives us a figure slightly in excess of $100 TRILLION dollars. That's TRILLION with a ‘T'. The Federal budget deficit for fiscal 2009 will be approximately $1.84 TRILLION. That's TRILLION with a ‘T'. Over the next ten years the projected deficit will be $9 TRILLION +. That's $100,000,000,000,000.00 -- TRILLION with a ‘T'. Of course, this projected deficit comes from the Congressional Budget Office and has to be considered a conservative estimate. In 1966 the feds estimated that the cost of the Medicare program by 1990 would be approximately $9 billion dollars/year; the actual cost was $67 billion dollars/year.


Several other government programs over the years have proven to be equally underestimated in funding. Amtrak has a yearly budget shortfall of $1 billion dollars. The Postal Service, although deemed a private entity with its pension fund provided by the government, has a $3 billion dollar deficit. And the list goes on and on...


It's time for Americans to realize that the good times have stopped rolling. There may be no return to a robust economy. Our future can take only one of two possible paths; either we accept our unsustainable debt and reduce government spending and taxation accordingly with a structured refinancing of the Federal debt, or face the prospect of a chaotic bankruptcy with a massive collapse of the dollar on the world market followed by a severely reduced standard of living. If it's any indication of the way government has approached past difficulties, I'm betting on the chaotic. Stagflation on a large scale may well make the 1970's look like high times. Job losses that will occur may well make the 1930's look like a picnic."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._bankrupt.html

You can congratulate yourselves as to the wonderfull things that government has accomplished, but obviously it's a house of cards that will cost us everything if we don't gain a LOT of sanity in a hurry.

You and I may not live to see it, so I guess that's the justification. Might as well live it up on your kid's college fund, too, while we're living high....Joe

By the way, Jim, since you seem to know to the dollar what the Iraq war cost us, Exactly what is the cost of the Afganistan war?...Joe

I realized that after George W. was "elected".

Jeff

Yeah, posted by one of your fellow conservatives. He certainly sounds like a conservative in every other aspect.

Jeff

Regarding Huey & the 'minimum poverty level" deal, an interesting question. If you continue to make poor choices, are you brought back up to the base line with a "shame on you, do better next time", three strikes & you're out, or something else? Maybe deportation to France? Being the cynic I am, I can't help but believe that SOME recipients of this minimum standard would piss away their stake. Look at some of these big lottery winners. Others, of course, would build on their financial foundation, and go on to greater things, education, better jobs, & so forth.

Altho the scenario Joe proposed sure seems to be working for AIG, in their current circumstances.

Reading my post in which I seemed to be chastising Ries, I hope you read it in context. You didn't snap at me so you must have.

Joe, on the other hand, would have told me in no uncertain terms that NO, HIS money should NOT be spent to help those less fortunate. If they are to dumb to do as well as he, it's their own fault, why should I be taxed to create a safety net.

Minimum wage could be considered as one part of that safety net. IF they were working full time, about 11 bucks an hour would remove them from poverty. At least partly.

Any earner pissing his funds away is not part of the question. If they can't pull themselves away from the poker machine or the casinos or the track, that's too bad. In that case, they should be treated as idiots who can get a bowl of soup but not monetary help. Just more money to throw away hoping to get it all back.

Rich people do the same, and the ones who still are rich next month are, obviously, NOT blowing their money away foolishly. Pgh. Penguins star Jaromir Jagr was condemned for blowing 10 grand at a casino. He said, "Hey, I make 5 million a year in Hockey. That is like nothing."

Some of our most famous sports stars have gone broke, lived on the charity of their former team mates. Hundreds of thou in income, blew it all.

How that makes it right to condemn a minimum wage worker who blows 50 or a 100 and can't feed his family, they're bad, the jocks just did what jocks do, boggles my mind.

JoeD,

Since they can't spend the 787 billion, more won't be spent, either, even if they could get it passed, IF they proposed it.

The difference between us and China is that we have an already in place infrastructure, though it is falling to pieces from failure to spent for maintenance.

China has an entire vast country that NEEDS rail lines, roads, buildings, that were ready to go, all they needed was the money to spend. DEcession, and hundreds of thou if not millions out of work, NOW they need to spend their 586 BILLION bucks, and they HAD the plans in place to spend it on.

We had plans to spend a few hundred thou here and there, if we could ever get the money. "We can get 5 mil to rebuild that bridge. How long to get working prints and work orders cut?" "Give us 6 months and we'll be ready to go."

How you gonna spend 787 BILLION on work that is not ready to go? No Super in his right mind ever thought that they would be given all that money to fix what is broke, till his state could get the funds allowed for in the tax code.

Having a bridge ready to fix, having the metal cut and punched, hey, you guys are machinists, business people, how long would you take to get 100 thou tons of steel all ready to go? 6 months minimum from order to delivery?

This stuff ain't sitting on big shelves somewhere. That kind of money cannot be spent unless it is for the purpose of making WAR, and in that case we have never had any bitch about the cost.

Witness the 400 bucks per gallon we are now paying for fuel in Afghanistan. You know, we gotta pay an Afghani 100 bucks to carry a gallon can over those mountains, and lots of them take it home to fuel the tractor to cultivate the poppies.

This is one of the things I can see that are worse than under Bush. Fuel only cost 40 bucks per gallon, then.

Cheers,

George

"Exactly what is the cost of the Afganistan war?...Joe"

Unknown at this time of course. Make NO mistake about this at all joe, the
'adventures' in that country a huge mistake for the US. Obama is making a huge
mistake there. One only has to ask the british, ask the russians, what does
it take to win a war there?

Answer comes there none, of course. Has not happened yet. One person
I spoke to (from iran) suggested that if we spend 100 billion per year, for
30 years, we might have a chance. And that if do not have the stomach for
that, to bow out now. Obama obviously has no clue about this.

Just because we made a 3 trillion dollar mistake now, is no reason to keep on
making the same mistake OVER AND OVER again. Joe you may not realize it
but the US is bleeding bad right now, right here. You are insulated where you
are, self sufficient so you don't see what is really going on. Urge you to get
out and really understand how bad it is.

Those trillions, billions, can be used to help lift good folks out out a bad situation
here at home. Can we justify spending them overseas?

Jim

I don't know. Why don't you check with the folks at Fort Hood? They might have some input on the benifits of battling radical islam.

I certainly am not a military man, and so cannot comment on the military aspects of the campaign. I do know that, as you say, nobody has ever really cracked that nut. I recently read a Michneor book from the 60's about the british attempt. There was a passage in the book about what one should do before making any sort of military advance. The British take was that you should first carefully plan your inevetible withdrawal.

I DO know that radical islam is engaged in one of their periodic attempts to take over the world. It's not the fist attempt, but if we do not fight it there, we will ineveitably be fighting it here. It seems we already are. We seem to have undergone our first domestic islamic terrorist attack since 9-11 at fort hood.

We tried ignoring the problem during the Clinton administration, which brought us a lot of dead Americans. Net loss from fighting them is also bad, but it's not a problem you can simply ignore forever.

George, you have no idea in the world how much I have given and continue to give to those less fortunate than myself. The difference between me and the government is that I use some judgement. The very fact that those social programs, along with the country, are in a death spiral from overspending tells you that the government does not.

Your share of the debt is about a half million dollars. When you have paid up, you can bitch about those who do not want to increase spending. Until then, try to understand that those are real dollars to some people, not imaginary dollars that we won't live long enough to repay. They are the dollars that would have given your grandchildren a lifestyle as good as yours, and they are gone unless you pay them back before you die......Joe

Joe, I dont know where you get your figures, but I wish the same people would be deciding on my paychecks.

You say the National debt per capita is a half million dollars- every internet reference I can find says its between $30,000 and $38,000.
Not peanuts, by an means- but you are off by 1 and a half orders of magnitude.

Compare that to a 1945 national debt per capita of somewhere around $18,000 in inflation adjusted dollars, which we somehow paid off- and while its a big number, and one I wish was smaller, its a long way from the end of the world you predict.

Same for your Stimulus number- your $787 Billion number is plain wrong- the real number is both smaller and larger.

Here is a great chart of stimulus numbers-
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysuppl...ailouttracker/

It shows that the actual "stimulus", as opposed to TARP, or banking bailout, numbers, is more like $577 Billion.
And that includes $168 Billion in direct checks to taxpayers.
It also includes cash for clunkers, which, regardless of how you feel about it, did keep people employed.
It includes $8 Billion on unemployment checks.
$32 Billion for student loans.
Another $8 Billion for advanced technology vehicles.

The actual portion given to the states, for infrastructure, jobs, and budget balancing, was $350 Billion.

Of that, a LOT, probably well over half, has not been spent.

So- how do I, personally, feel about the $175 Billion actually being spent on "stimulus"?
Good, and Bad.

Here, for example, is the list of projects in your home state, New Mexico-
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state/NM

Most of em look pretty real, and probably needed, to me, and most of em do result in actual local jobs, with decent rates of pay.

But more importantly- virtually every one of em was a LOCAL decision, for a LOCAL need. When Silver City decided to spend $772,000 to improve the fire hydrants and water lines in Chihuaha Hill, I dont detect any evil liberal manipulation in that- I see a local need, being paid for by the feds, that will help local real estate values, jobs, and longterm prosperity-
EXACTLY what the stimulus money should be doing.

NO, it wont overnight make for full employment, but things like new water lines in Silver City will be good for New Mexico in the long run.

I encourage everybody to check how your own state is spending the dollars they are getting, and write your congressman, governor, or local politicians if you disagree. I write mine, complaining, all the time. Sometimes they even write back.


http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state

Regarding Afghanistan, I recall Carter's Angst and "sanctions" against the former Soviet Union during their Afghan adventure. A family friend's daughter was denied a shot at the Olympics because of it. And many of us Americans watched with glee, as the Russian conscripts were, quite literally, butchered after capture.

We armed & supported the Mujaheddin, in much the same way the Soviets did the VC & NVA in "my war". We showed them the delights of the stinger missile, which denied air support to the "invaders". After all, turnabout is fair play, isn't it?

We trained them to fight an "unconventional war", same as Charlie taught us. We even had "Rambo" kicking Russian Ass in one of his movies! I must add, that the policy started under the administration of Nobel Peace Prize winner, Jimmy Carter. (Sorry,George, but it's the truth)

I think the Soviets lost 15K killed, they will admit to.

And after the "freedom Fighters" prevailed, we assumed they would go home & grow turnips, or something.

Our arming & training of fanatical Zealots, seeking martyrdom, has to be one of the most egregious examples of the "Law of unintended consequences" in existence.

Ronnie, we miss Ya; but this was a mistake.

We need ground troops out NOW.

From Ries;

"You say the National debt per capita is a half million dollars- every internet reference I can find says its between $30,000 and $38,000.
Not peanuts, by an means- but you are off by 1 and a half orders of magnitude."

That would be true, and MIGHT be true, if we suddenly stop paying out for all the entitlements and tell the postal folks, etc, that they can cram their promises for pensions up where the sun don't shine, which might be what happens. Unfunded liabilities are not yet debts and not counted as such in the budget. If, on the other hand, we intend to make good on all the promises to the seniors and poor folks and government pensioners, we are in the hole around 100 trillion dollars and counting.

A social security payment does not become an official debt until it is due for payment, but you still know that unless you get lucky and the guy you owe it to dies, it's still a liability. I'm sure you know this, but it's easier to dance angels on the head of a pin than to admit it.

As to the silver city expenditures, you would have done better to pick someplace I knew nothing about. 400K to resurface a hospitol parking lot that I can assure you did NOT need resurfacing. I see it at least once or twice a year, and it was in GREAT shape, thank you very much.

Over a million to buy a defuct theature for the arts crowd to fight over and which will NEVER pay for itself, and a host of other pork jobs costing from 50K to 2 million each.

You might also note that the program is rife with fraud and abuse. A lot of the jobs that have been "saved or produced" nationwide are in districts which do not even exist. I'm SHOCKED that people would lie and pencil whip just to support a government program.

AARP knocked down 18 million for "training" people to be employable and claimed 500 of them got jobs......I guess, if true, that's about 36K per eachum for jobs that probably are minimum wage and pay less than 15K per year. That's progress? Well, if not, progressive to be sure......Joe

Actually, thats exactly why I picked those expenditures.
Its really easy to make sweeping generalizations based on theory.

But in this case, the elected officials of Silver City made those decisions- Not sure how many of em are regional enough for you, personally, to vote for, but its a pretty clear local chain of events- Silver City voters vote for people who make these decisions. If, indeed, everyone in Silver City and environs agrees with you, then they will be voted out next time around. Obama didnt do it, Nancy Pelosi didnt do it- plain ordinary New Mexicans made those decisions.

But most likely, most of the area voters disagree with you- which happens to me all the time too...

Clinton didn't quite "ignore it". According to Richard Clark,(and for that matter, backed up by no action toward radical islam even revealed since) the bush admin. DID ignore it, until it jumped up and bit them on the ass. I think you can guess the date that happened.

Jeff

C'mon, Ries, you are no dunce. You know full well that locals will always vote to get free federal money no matter how badly it is wasted.

Officials are elected in this country by their ability to drive home the pork. That doesn't mean it is smart or right. Silver city would have taken a couple of million dollars to hire people to watch out for invaders from outer space or the second comming of Christ if the feds would provide it. There is no judgement exersized in these matters and you, of all people, know it well.

How many arts projects have you created for cities and other government agencies who were already over budget and panhandling from the feds? I daresay that when the theature gets rebuilt in Silver city, there will be a generous federal grant for several thousand dollars for artwork from a local fumbler who will create some Politically correct pile of crap to commermorate the wasting of federal funds on something that nobody cares anything about after the money is wasted.

A recent Rassmussen poll found that;

"By a 3-to-1 margin, voters believe that tax cuts will create more jobs than additional government stimulus spending. The Political Class disagrees. "

You obviously have a very large and hungry dog in this fight, and I do realize that you deliver exellent work for value recieved (unlike some) but try to visualize just how the average taxpayer sees this money that's beig wasted. Especially on April 15th. And especially about the time his unemployment is about to run out...Joe

That's right, Bush got caught with his pants down ONCE. He deserves a dope-slap for that. Obama should have known better. We are so SENSITIVE under Obama that the islamists can walk right in with guns blazing after months of broadcasting their anti-american message far and wide with nobody saying a word. Maybe a bit of patriot act action might have helped?

Clinton could have had Bin Laden's ears on his desk as a trophy more than once, but he IGNORED the problem and the opportunity.

Those guys are not done yet. SOmebody ought to mention to Obama that THEY think we are at war even if he don't....Joe

If you were a bull, Joe, it would seem that Obama must be your red cape. Blame him for everything? He's kept us in Afghanistan, because he thinks we're at war. The concept clearly isn't lost on him; some would argue he agrees too much with you.

The tightrope he's trying to walk is to deal with the 5% (?) of Muslims who are violent fundamentalists while trying to provide better choices for the 10% (?) who are going along for the ride (e.g. poppy farmers in Afghanistan), without totally alienating the 85% (?) who more or less just want to get on peacefully with their lives.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Maybe 5% of Christians are fundamentalists, perhaps somewhat a mirror image to the Moslems. Though in fact they agree on a lot of things, such as most of science being wrong about the age of the earth, evolution, etc. Our own fundamentalists wanted to nuke Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. No problems killing doctors and who will terminate a pregnancy of a woman raped -- in fact that's seen as heroic. Some have variously had blacks, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. as the objects of violence. There's a long history of violence, back to the Crusades, and that history is still being written (blogged) today.

So imagine it's X years from now and the new head of the world's most powerful army happens to be from, say, a Moslem nation. What's your plan to get rid of old those pesky terrorist Christians?

Time to get out your golden rule and take the measure of that? I suspect your answer would be to find and convict the guilty, while leaving the vast majority of peaceful American fundamentalists alone?

Ronnie wasn't any better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair