Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "The American People Really Don't Care" about pork ammendments (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: "The American People Really Don't Care" about pork ammendments
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Chuck Shumer So pathetic, so dumb, so much hubris. Thanks to Matt Drudge for linking this.

[ February 10, 2009, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Kent ]

Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is the Democrat's bill, they own it lock, stock and barrel and cannot cower behind the republicans for cover when it fails to produce any economic stimulus. Don't try to convince anyone, especially yourself, that this will create any economic stimulus. The VP says if they did everything just right, they'd have a 70% chance of working things out. $800 billion gambled on a 70/30 split if it's a perfect world. Maybe the GaffeTastic Biden can rework his mathemagic to use real world variables where nothing goes exactly as expected and tell us what our real odds are on this mind blowing porkfest. 50/50 would be grossly optimistic.

The COB says it's going to actually be a drag on the economy over the long haul. Most analysts point out this bill will have minimal short term impact. Between long haul and short term, where are we? We're in the ****ter, that's where.

Chuck and the rest of the Dems that railroaded this through and exploited the fears of Americans are in for a massive shock when this doesn't work and people are royally pissed off. My best guess is this reality check will occur sometime in the next 6-12 months setting up the midterm elections that only incompetence like the Republicans are known for could blow.

This abysmal legislation will echo for years.

[ February 10, 2009, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"This is the Democrat's bill, they own it lock, stock and barrel and cannot cower behind the republicans for cover when it fails to produce any economic stimulus. Don't try to convince anyone, especially yourself, that this will create any economic stimulus."

*trembles*

A) They've cut some of the most productive stuff (education) at the Rep's behest.

B) Don;t try to convince us it won't? You do understand the idea of ideas engaging of their own merit, not the proclamation of a fanatic?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I actually have to agree with Obama on one point. This is what the people who elected him elected him to do. Same with the Democrats.

The people who elected them don't care about pork, or over-spending, or taking on too much debt, or burdening our children for generations to come, or having the standard of living and quality of life actually decline from this generation to the next. That's just the way the people who elected Obama live, how they think, the way they roll.

That's why they make every excuse under the sun for this wasteful porkfest, and cheer with exuberance as Obama announces its passage on the way to becoming law.

At least with all the pork being flung around here, nobody accuses Obama of being a Muslim anymore. Not to mention the Hannity beer invitation. [Smile]

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The people who elected them don't care about pork, or over-spending, or taking on too much debt, or burdening our children for generations to come, or having the standard of living and quality of life actually decline from this generation to the next. That's just the way the people who elected Obama live, how they think, the way they roll. "

*snort*

And you voted for republicans in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, yes?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh yeah.

As irresponsible as Republicans have been with their fiduciary responsibilities, we haven't seen anything like this since FDR.

Speaking of FDR, I just heard that he tried to pass an executive order limiting the maximum pay to 25 grand for everyone. Everything over that was to be taxed at a rate of 100%! Obama started slower with a 500k or 1m smackola cap on execs in companies taking government handout cash, but that's just the first step in a whole new direction for this country. Wage caps.

Perfunctory disclaimer: As always, if there are Democrats or liberals about whom my bombastic rants don't apply, bless your precious hearts. And if they are Republicans about whom they do apply, you know who you are. [Smile]

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As irresponsible as Republicans have been with their fiduciary responsibilities, we haven't seen anything like this since FDR.
Like what, exactly?

quote:
Speaking of FDR, I just heard that he tried to pass an executive order limiting the maximum pay to 25 grand for everyone. Everything over that was to be taxed at a rate of 100%!
Where did you hear this?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Oh yeah.

As irresponsible as Republicans have been with their fiduciary responsibilities, we haven't seen anything like this since FDR.


Iraq.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Iraq was within 45 minutes of nuking Britain. We had to act! Or if they weren't, we didn't want them to gain that capability.

But I like the comparison to Iraq. We are seeing the same fear mongering, except this time it is the other side succumbing to fear (of an economic collapse).

I heard that about the 25k salary cap from Hannity.

Been googling it... just one thing that came up:

http://detainthis.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/absolutist-propaganda-strikes-again/

And on executive orders, professors Thomas E. Woods and Kevin R.C. Gutzman explain:

An executive order, stated simply, is a directive issued by the president. Presidents may issue executive orders in pursuit of constitutional objectives, exercising powers that the Constitution assigns to them. The president may issue pardons by executive order, for instance. He may likewise use executive orders to implement policies for which Congress has granted him discretionary authority.

At the same time, executive orders can be abused, as when presidents employ them as a way of carrying out objectives for which congressional authorization is required. In October 1942, for example, Franklin Roosevelt capped all salaries in the United States at $25,000 by executive order. Roosevelt’s initiative did not last: by March of the following year Congress had forced its repeal, arguing both that it impeded the war effort and that it was incompatible with American principles. [4]

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Will no one defend Shumer? Will no one contend that it is out of context? Will no one contend that this is just what is needed?
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
This is the Democrat's bill, they own it lock, stock and barrel and cannot cower behind the republicans for cover when it fails to produce any economic stimulus. Don't try to convince anyone, especially yourself, that this will create any economic stimulus. The VP says if they did everything just right, they'd have a 70% chance of working things out. $800 billion gambled on a 70/30 split if it's a perfect world. Maybe the GaffeTastic Biden can rework his mathemagic to use real world variables where nothing goes exactly as expected and tell us what our real odds are on this mind blowing porkfest. 50/50 would be grossly optimistic.

If we see about .5% growth a year from the bill, it will have paid for itself in 25 years.

One of the biggest fear tactics going around right now is using the apparent magnitude of the stimulus package to frighten people while skipping the fact that our economy has grown to the point where, while that's nothing to be sneezed at, on a comparative level, it's actually a completely manageable amount.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Obama started slower with a 500k or 1m smackola cap on execs in companies taking government handout cash, but that's just the first step in a whole new direction for this country. Wage caps.

And it looks like that's actually having the desired effect:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/business/economy/11wall.html?_r=1

Nothing like a strong motive to pay back the bailout funds as fast as possible.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
This is the Democrat's bill, they own it lock, stock and barrel and cannot cower behind the republicans for cover when it fails to produce any economic stimulus. Don't try to convince anyone, especially yourself, that this will create any economic stimulus. The VP says if they did everything just right, they'd have a 70% chance of working things out. $800 billion gambled on a 70/30 split if it's a perfect world. Maybe the GaffeTastic Biden can rework his mathemagic to use real world variables where nothing goes exactly as expected and tell us what our real odds are on this mind blowing porkfest. 50/50 would be grossly optimistic.

If we see about .5% growth a year from the bill, it will have paid for itself in 25 years.

One of the biggest fear tactics going around right now is using the apparent magnitude of the stimulus package to frighten people while skipping the fact that our economy has grown to the point where, while that's nothing to be sneezed at, on a comparative level, it's actually a completely manageable amount.

I recall that argument being used to support the spending in Iraq. People like you dismissed it then, now it's good logic? The spin around liberals is getting better than any carnival ride.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I recall that argument being used to support the spending in Iraq. People like you dismissed it then...
People argued that the Iraq War was an investment in the economy?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, using the argument the democrats are using it is, as, according to Obama, "spending IS stimulus."

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, G2, can we expect you to applaud the Democrats if the stimulus package works and the economy recovers? Or will you say that the market recovered despite Democrat interference? [Smile]
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama: ""What do you think a stimulus is?" Obama asked incredulously. "It’s spending — that's the whole point! Seriously.”

Spending will always stimulate something. It is the financial equivalent of an energy input. THis is axiomatic and I laugh that it has become a counter-Obama talking point.

The questionable term is stimulus. Stimulus is, in this sense, an effort to restore heart beat on a flat-line patient or restore *regular* heartbeat in a tachycardiac patient.

That is ALL. You apply the paddles quickly so that ye may yet have a patient to save.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
O.K. On that note, couple serious questions. Exactly how much of the stimulus bill is 'pork', and if some/all of this pork employs people and gets money into the economy, does it matter?
Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As for the Iraq/econ meltdown comparison: what, shall we dig in the desert sands for the missing wealth? Do you have any idea how irrelevantly absurd this comparison is?

Unemployment jumped to 7.5% this month.

Opening paragraph of Bureau of Labor Statistics Jan 2009 report:

" Nonfarm payroll employment fell sharply in January (-598,000) and the unemployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll employment has declined
by 3.6 million since the start of the recession in December 2007; about one-half of this decline occurred in the past 3 months. In January, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors."

Whatever this means, it's much more tangible and real than the flunkified fumes by which the American people were sold to go into Iraq, and your argument, most critically, forgets this thing you once constantly reminded us of: 911.

Financially, our 911 has been a staggering market collapse so great it dropped the price of oil from $140/bl to under $40/bl in less than a year's time. Here's a neat look at how it happened:

"During the first part of 2008, Western economies were already slowing down noticeably and hedge funds gradually pulled trillions of dollars out of the market and parked them in energy ETFs. At the time Chindia's insatiable thirst for oil and the "decoupling" of east/west economies had many believe commodities were a "sure thing", a sound enough tangible insurance to protect overinflated assets scavenged from made-up bubbles. On top of that, by using leverage, profits were multiplied as oil went up, not a bad deal in a recession.
But when the banking industry collapsed, hedge funds had to raise cash by "deleveraging", liquidating their leveraged energy ETF positions sending the price of oil tumbling. Anecdotally shorting of banking ETFs was suspended by the US Securities Commission during that time but not shorting of energy prices, and the leverage mania soon found an escape route in utrashort oil ETFs, compounding the speed of this downward spiral. By December 2008 the oil price had collapsed 75% and frankly, who would complain about cheap gas these days?"

Here is the huge albatross around our neck and why it is insane for Republicans to reduce stimulus spending for education (emphasis mine):

"As we enter 2009 the oil landscape has reversed dramatically from a year ago. The price of oil is lower than production costs and new exploration projects are being cancelled. China flush with cash is currently buying all the oil it can get its hands on to pump into its strategic reserves. Once arrogant OPEC countries are willing to sell oil at any price to fund government programs and prevent political instability.

One constant however is the depletion of major oil fields, worse than predicted at 9.1% year over year as we close 2008. It's a matter of when not if the economy recovers and when it does, expect a strong bounce back in the price of oil."

Education is what will allow America to find adequaste energy alternatives, and until we do, every time the economy grows, classic supply and demand basics will cause energy to go up and slow out economy.

Unlike the Depression, when we were discovering ever more oil, and pollution was hardly an issue, we now must come out of this mess without an easy energy solution at hand.

We need massive alternate energy and conventional energy infrastructure investment, and we need to throw our kids at higher education to see how many will stick.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with this guy:
quote:
There will be no new refineries by Giuseppe Marconi - 2008/07/23

Oil companies won't be building more refineries, because there won't be enough oil left to refine by the time new refineries could pay for themselves.

There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US since 1976. In 1982, there were 301 operable refineries in the U.S and they produced about 17.9 million barrels of oil per day. Today there are only 149 refineries, and they're producing 17.4 million barrels. This increase in efficiency is impressive but not a miracle. As with everything these outputs are carefully calculated to optimize profitability. Let me explain.
Truth be told, new refineries require tremendous financial commitments which take anywhere from 15 to 25 years to amortize. With record oil prices it would make perfect sense to invest in a few refineries today, except... for the lack of oil to be refined 20 years from now.

Trends have predicted that peak oil production, where the production of oil starts to decline, will be reached around 2007-2010. After that, there will be less and less oil to refine no matter where drillers look. In this context, building expensive new refineries does not make a lot of sense as existing ones will be sufficient to process whatever little oil is left. So forget about new refineries, except for a few in the northern midwest to process the heavy oil from Canada.

Crude oil is a finite resource more and more depleted. As such, an increasing demand put on this finite supply necessitates careful management in order to stretch its lifespan and profitability.


Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We have plenty of scientists for alternative energy, what we need is to remove the public opposition to it. Wind farms should be sprouting everywhere. Maybe we need funds to buy lands for federal use to this purpose.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drake

More land than the feds already own?

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stevarooni
Member
Member # 6053

 - posted      Profile for Stevarooni   Email Stevarooni   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
More land than the feds already own?

You're thinking about it all wrong, V.L.. It's just the federal government reclaiming what has always been theirs. Eminent Domain, with an emphasis on Eminent. [LOL]
Posts: 536 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The people who elected them don't care about pork, or over-spending, or taking on too much debt, or burdening our children for generations to come, or having the standard of living and quality of life actually decline from this generation to the next. That's just the way the people who elected Obama live, how they think, the way they roll. "

No real problem with this. Interesting, that if you replace Obama with Bush it is basically the same thing Democrats have been saying for years. Democrats and Republicans use the same tactics whenever the other is in power. Is this really how politics always has been/will always be here? [Frown]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
As for the Iraq/econ meltdown comparison: what, shall we dig in the desert sands for the missing wealth? Do you have any idea how irrelevantly absurd this comparison is?

...

We need massive alternate energy and conventional energy infrastructure investment, and we need to throw our kids at higher education to see how many will stick.

I couldn't agree more.

G2 was just making the point that the democrats were spending money on a scale we hadn't seen in almost a hundred years. I just wanted to point out that Iraq is equivelent in cost as the stimulus bill.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We have plenty of scientists for alternative energy, what we need is to remove the public opposition to it. Wind farms should be sprouting everywhere. Maybe we need funds to buy lands for federal use to this purpose."

Alt energy jobs replacing those being lost of late should change public opinion. [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zorro Enojado
Member
Member # 1075

 - posted      Profile for Zorro Enojado   Email Zorro Enojado   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Chuckie Schummer is an Idiot! I hope that is alright to say unless he posts here too.

It is alright for Obama to say " We won, so we will do it our way". A bit arrogant but ok. But What Chuckie said is completely classless and shows what he and his compatriots think. WE the people don't matter and The NOBLE Congress will do what they want and if the includes Pork, who cares. We are all too stupid to care!

Posts: 225 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It is alright for Obama to say " We won, so we will do it our way". A bit arrogant but ok."

Expect more. Obama surfely knows how poorly conciliatin worked for Clinton. Obama is outting his best cooperative foot forward, but as the Reps continue stonewalling, he'll bring out the guns: 'Look, we won. We're in control. Like your former boss said, you're either with us or against us.'

Under the circumstances, all he needs is to pick up a handful of Republicans with political survival sense, and the game is his.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think he's already picked them up. The ladies of new england are going to be VERY unpopular in republican circles in a few years.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Schumer was factually wrong in one respect: they care when it comes to their district. In PR terms: another politico struggling to adjust to internet media reality.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He definitely made a gaffe, but I'm hoping he meant, "The American people aren't interested in holding up a bill that's 95% useful spending and 5% pork." (The percentages are what he's implying, not necessarily what they are.)
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think he was speaking honestly to his colleagues, regarding whether or not pork would cost them future votes in a moment of candor admirable for its own sake, but totally ignoring that the camera doesn't do context, only a bit of background scenery.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
G2 was just making the point that the democrats were spending money on a scale we hadn't seen in almost a hundred years. I just wanted to point out that Iraq is equivelent in cost as the stimulus bill.

We spent about 10 times as much relative to the GDP during World War II.

It's about the same as the cost of the Iraq war with the fundamental difference that we'll have something of similar value to show for it once it's spent.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
"This is the Democrat's bill, they own it lock, stock and barrel and cannot cower behind the republicans for cover when it fails to produce any economic stimulus. Don't try to convince anyone, especially yourself, that this will create any economic stimulus."

*trembles*

A) They've cut some of the most productive stuff (education) at the Rep's behest.

Are you saying that the cut education stuff was the most productive stuff in terms of economic stimulus? Or did you forget that G2 was talking about economic stimulus?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't get me wrong. I am a parent of a severely disabled kid in a low income neighborhood, who is about to lose his wonderful teacher because Nevada is slashing teacher salaries (as demanded by the poor overtaxed casino industry). So I'm very excited about the prospect of additonal funding for schools. But casting it as economic stimulus smacks of trickle-up economics.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
But casting it as economic stimulus smacks of trickle-up economics.

Which is the natural direction in which wealth flows and thus why such programs tend to be beneficial. Twice over, even. Teachers are employed and kids get better educations and future employment prospects.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe one of the things the CBO report mentioned is the long term beneficial effects of such educational funding, I think. I also don't see why it wouldn't be a short-term benefit, as well, since the money goes right into the economy, which is the purpose of the stimulatin'.
Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tend to like trickle-up economics. Gives the people on the bottom a fighting chance to not be on the bottom later on. Moves money around rapidly, too.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zorro Enojado
Member
Member # 1075

 - posted      Profile for Zorro Enojado   Email Zorro Enojado   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard,

What is Trickle up Economics? Trickle up Poverty?
Take away from the productive and give it to the non-productive who only take and do not add or help? Where has Trickle Up Economics Worked? Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Cuba?

Posts: 225 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro Enojado:
Everard,

What is Trickle up Economics? Trickle up Poverty?
Take away from the productive and give it to the non-productive who only take and do not add or help? Where has Trickle Up Economics Worked? Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Cuba?

"Trickle up" is the natural state of any capitalist economy, as people spend money, and ever growing fraction of it's value becomes profits for the wealthiest players in the system, until a negligible amount is left at the bottom, at which point the system collapses because the majority of consumers have no wealth left to trade.

Policies that counter that flow have worked throughout Europe as well as right here in the US to the extent that it has been established. Injecting money at the lowest levels of an economy ensures that it will change hands many times before it reaches the top, fueling demand as it moves. (As opposed to placing it at the top, where demand is minimal, resulting it in minimal, if any movement)

Giving people that are non-productive the resources necessary to become productive (shelter, nutrition, education, health and child care) is essential to economic health. Anyone who is not somehow provided that baseline will remain unproductive as they slide further and further away from the barrier to entry that needs to be crossed to become productive.

Many are fortunate enough to be born into families that have the resources to provide this baseline. Many, however, are not, and are thus trapped at the bottom. Very few will see a sudden windfall that boosts them over that line- many fewer than those above it that will suffer some form of calamity that will drop them below it. Without application of "trickle up"

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1