Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
conquestor

tee hee election insider information.

Recommended Posts

I like political gridlock. The way I see it, if there is political gridlock, then none of the batshit stupid ideas get passed through.

 

Except we're in the middle of a recession, and in a war. Times when government needs to be doing things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except we're in the middle of a recession, and in a war. Times when government needs to be doing things.

 

Yes! We need to randomly pass legislation! That's always the answer.

 

MORE LEGISLATION! Because it's worked so well so far. You simply want more liberal legislation, you act as if nothing can get done in a split house/senate/white house. It's clearly worked in the past, it's clearly something that can work and has the chance to work very well.

 

We were in a recession and in a war before, why not look into the shape of congress during those times?

 

The answer then wasn't to have a super majority of reps or dems, and the answer isn't that now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! We need to randomly pass legislation! That's always the answer.

 

Actually it probably is. The stimulus saved the economy, as did the bank bailouts and Treasury interventions. No government means that freefall continues, and its a depression.

 

MORE LEGISLATION! Because it's worked so well so far. You simply want more liberal legislation, you act as if nothing can get done in a split house/senate/white house. It's clearly worked in the past, it's clearly something that can work and has the chance to work very well.

 

I'm not going to defend myself against what you think I want. Stop doing that, by the way. It's been decent so far. The economy is gigantic and problematic and its going to take a while to re-set to reality after the 8 years of bubble-driven, less-regulated Bush policies. Instead of at an unsustainable value, we're at a more reasonable value. I'd be amazed if 24 months could undo 8 years of essentially fake growth. A Congress-President split has worked, but you seem apparently ignorant of the fact that a split house / senate / presidency hasn't happened since 1980, and before that not since 1910. Are there some landmark bills you'd like to mention from the 1980 congress, or the 1910 congress? No wikipedia'ing allowed; if this is so awesome you should probably know it off the top of your head.

 

We were in a recession and in a war before, why not look into the shape of congress during those times?

 

Sure thing. They never had a split senate / house / Presidency.

 

The answer then wasn't to have a super majority of reps or dems, and the answer isn't that now.

 

Assuming sole credit for solving those problems goes to the makeup of Congress (which is in itself a logical leap), they had different makeups than we're going to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it probably is. The stimulus saved the economy, as did the bank bailouts and Treasury interventions. No government means that freefall continues, and its a depression.

 

The stimulus didn't save shit. It cost us a trillion and provided almost nothing. TARP was what saved the banking system, but that was Bush. But either way, tons of legislation is bad (Stimulus), appropriate and timely legislation (TARP) is good.

 

I'm not going to defend myself against what you think I want. Stop doing that, by the way. It's been decent so far. The economy is gigantic and problematic and its going to take a while to re-set to reality after the 8 years of bubble-driven, less-regulated Bush policies. Instead of at an unsustainable value, we're at a more reasonable value. I'd be amazed if 24 months could undo 8 years of essentially fake growth. A Congress-President split has worked, but you seem apparently ignorant of the fact that a split house / senate / presidency hasn't happened since 1980, and before that not since 1910. Are there some landmark bills you'd like to mention from the 1980 congress, or the 1910 congress? No wikipedia'ing allowed; if this is so awesome you should probably know it off the top of your head.

 

So, you google something about a congress split, then you turn around and expect me to have something from 1910 memorized? Fortunately, I do. The Triangle Factory Fire was the basis of many workers rights and regulations. Progressivism was huge during this time.

 

Nothing good happened in 1980. We had the worst president of the 20th century. Great guy, terrible leader.

 

Not a full split really, but it was 50/50 in the senate recently, if you remember, and the Reps held the house.

 

Now its 51/49, with 2 Independents 'counting' as Dems, hardly what I would call control by either party.

 

 

Assuming sole credit for solving those problems goes to the makeup of Congress (which is in itself a logical leap), they had different makeups than we're going to have.

 

I'm not saying that the reason we had a good congress was BECAUSE of the split! I said there is proof that a split can be very good, and we've just seen how terrible a super majority is. 2 years of a Democratic super majority and all I got was this T-Shirt. Sounds like a good campaign slogan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good old fashioned World War would pull us out of this depression right quick. It's fixed the economy two times before when things weren't looking the greatest :P

 

I heard it reported on the news that political campaign spending nationwide this year hit $4+ billion, I think politicians could do a lot for this economy if they weren't so worried about spending all that money on themselves.

 

Stimulus was a joke, there isn't a single person I've met who's had positive things to say about it. Same goes for the bank bailouts, or executive bonuses, whichever you want to call them really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good old fashioned World War would pull us out of this depression right quick. It's fixed the economy two times before when things weren't looking the greatest :P

 

I heard it reported on the news that political campaign spending nationwide this year hit $4+ billion, I think politicians could do a lot for this economy if they weren't so worried about spending all that money on themselves.

 

Stimulus was a joke, there isn't a single person I've met who's had positive things to say about it.

 

Uh, good thing Obama forced everyone to document their stimulus money based job creation.

 

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx

 

Enter your zip code and look at all the dots. Key is below the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one in my zip code. My family runs a business, and I know we didn't have any of our thousands of past due customers calling in to pay their past due trash bill because of stimulus money. I also know we didn't receive a "bailout" of any sort, even though our business is down considerably, and it's becoming more and more difficult each year to run a profitable independent trash company in this country.

 

I'll agree, it may have worked for some (those with their hands out, like always), in my experience, the stimulus didn't accomplish anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what pretty much what the entire east coast looks like

 

jobmap.jpg

 

Most of those leading to multiple jobs (clicking one tells you how many jobs were created through the loan/contract).

 

Those with their hands out? Lol, the point was to stimulate the economy, they basically gave it to anyone who wanted it, and it worked, creating fucktons of jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nate said the stimulus didn't work, so therefore it must not have worked. On the other hand, economists think it created 3 million jobs (linky).

 

Without it and TARP, we'd be in a depression.

 

Psycho stimulus money wasn't a flat check sent out to every person. It was awarded after a process to determine a good money to job creation ratio. Companies got them, for the large part, and those companies then went and hired 3 million new people to do work.

 

Regarding Congress split, you can't point to history about Congress being different than the President and compare it to what we're going to have, because they are not the same. What we are going to have is a split Congress, which has happened twice in the past 100 years, and nothing of note really came from either, bullshit about fire protection aside. Point being neither one of us is really able to say "This will be good" or "This will be bad" because there's no precedent for it. My opinion remains the same because of cynicism about the political culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even really know of or hear about the stimulus helping out companies much. I honestly thought all the stimulus talk was primarily about the measly $500 check each person got (or whatever it was, since it varied).

 

There is about half of the dots on that map over most of the county where I'm from, wonder why there is such a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More people in the east coast means more people will qualify for stimulus monies.

 

The $600 check was part of the stimulus, but it wasn't all of it. Lots of money went into grants, research, subsidies, and other things. The point being that without TARP and without the stimulus, we'd be far worse off than we are today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 600 was a Bush plan as well as some of the early TARP spending. Obama did stuff like the trade in your car as well as things like the 1st time home buyer tax credit and a bunch of green tech spending and public works stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 600 was a Bush plan as well as some of the early TARP spending. Obama did stuff like the trade in your car as well as things like the 1st time home buyer tax credit and a bunch of green tech spending and public works stuff

 

Indeed, I thought the 600 came before Obama but wasn't sure. Nice clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am very interested to see if the republican house attempts to pass compromised legislation in an attempt to prove that they were able to get something done for 2014 or if they are going to attempt to pass idealistic stuff that will not pass the senate or would recieve a veto from obama as an attempt to say we tried but Obama wouldn't let us help the country.

 

I for one hope disco's fears don't come true and that a gridlock will actually create some bi-partisan bills or centerist legislation over the next 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

275 billion dollars.

 

Let's really consider how much money this is.

 

Let's just pretend for one second that this money was used to create 3 million jobs.

 

If you gave everyone of those people an equal share of the 275 billion dollars, everyone would receive $91,666.

 

And that 3 million is a VERY high estimate.

 

The page you listed... This one.

States the figure is closer to 600,000.

 

That's $458,000 per job.

 

Do you honestly think this money was used efficiently to stimulate jobs?

 

Every measurement talks about how many jobs it has created, but NONE of them seem to want to consider just how much each of those jobs cost.

 

I'm sure we can all agree that either of the sums above could easily be turned into a massively larger number of jobs. Especially with how high the unemployment numbers are.

 

An estimated 17% are unemployed OR under-employed (Part time work receiving very few hours, not sure the cutoff).

 

But let's just pretend we are calling it 10% unemployment. Because 'under employed' is a bit shaky, and the figure 10% is quite noted.

 

Now let's focus in a bit here.

 

With 275 billion dollars, you could give EVERYONE WITHOUT A JOB an equal portion of this money.

 

$18,333 per person.

 

And you're telling me this worked well? It was GOOD?

 

Could you honestly say that given 18,333 per person, you couldn't work some job out that would be partially funded by this 18k, and supplemented by the *actual work* these people are doing? Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then your argument is with Bush, not Obama.

 

Furthermore I don't have to tell you how $91k per individual job is not that ridiculous. The companies need to make sure they can afford the worker for a long period of time, need to pay health and unemployment insurance (and other taxes, like social security among others), etc etc etc. A worker's cost to his company goes far beyond what he gets in a paycheck.

 

And yeah Torshin I hope I'm wrong too. I just don't see it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then your argument is with Bush, not Obama.

 

Furthermore I don't have to tell you how $91k per individual job is not that ridiculous. The companies need to make sure they can afford the worker for a long period of time, need to pay health and unemployment insurance (and other taxes, like social security among others), etc etc etc. A worker's cost to his company goes far beyond what he gets in a paycheck.

 

And yeah Torshin I hope I'm wrong too. I just don't see it happening.

 

91k money *from the government* is a TON of money. Just think about it Disco, honestly, think about it.

 

This 91k isn't the ONLY money that will be created/used. The idea behind the stimulus is to offer money to people who are giving jobs out.

 

Example, there is a standing stimulus in Northern Belfast. If you bring a company in, you get extremely cheap rates on the offices and less taxes.

 

There is *no way* these cuts equal the cost of the employees. Not even close.

 

But they were still stimulated through a nearly identical idea, except one done much better, cheaper, etc (It was done by Clinton, in fact).

 

So that 91k per person is *on top* of all the benefits the person would bring to the job hiring them. The job is handed 91k to employ someone. The benefits for the company are the 91k AND the work received. To the company, they just got a shit load of free money and are laughing at the stupidity of the government.

 

Also, the job creation portion of the stimulus was Obama's baby. Bush had a different stimulus package that returned an amount of taxes to certain people. That was the 600 dollar thing. I personally think both policies were stupid, but at least the 600 dollar return was across the board and somewhat uniform. This job creation stimulus rap wreaks so heavily of earmarks and pork barrel politics... It's laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't really matter to me how they carried out the stimulus. The objective was to get liquidity into the market and spur job creation, and according to the 3 million job figure, it did both. If there was a better way, then sure we should have done that. But even the bad way is better than doing nothing.

 

And your libertarian brand of do nothing government would have had us in a Depression. You don't like the waste, but its 1.7 trillion dollars plus, there's going to be waste. I'd rather have some pork and a semi-functioning economy than no pork and a dead one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nate. You're acting like all of the money has been dispursed.

 

It hasn't.

 

Look at that pretty little orange graph in the middle.

 

Only 152B has been paid out.

 

They're releasing it gradually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Except we're in the middle of a recession, and in a war. Times when government needs to be doing things.' and what do the dems super majority do, they fight among themselves to push a health care bill through that took them nearly 18 months. Guess they should have kept their eye on the ball. And while the health care bill that passed did not create universal health care the progressives wanted it has most certainly sent it on its way. How you ask, well let me tell you. When it created the if a business over 50 employees elects out they pay a penalty and the government is now on the hook to provide the health care. Thats why companies like Boeing and 3m are opting out of it and letting the government pay for it. Talking to many executives of the companies I work with both large and small and health care is one of the top issues on their minds. Small companies in part are not hiring due to this, many are staying at the 45-49 employee level.

 

There are good some good parts to the bill and most people will agree to. No pre-existing condition, no caps, and health documentation initiatives. Health care for kids up to 26 in my opinion only encourages more kids to live at home rather than go out and get a job, but hey thats my opinion there.

 

If you look back on all major social legislation passed you will find it was passed in a bipartisan way. Social Security Had 30+ republicans voting for it. Welfare reform under Clinton. That was the republicans under Newt pushing it through. Clinton vetoed it 2 times before it passed.

 

To say we will see more grid lock, well you might be right and you might be wrong, I'm willing to see how things will work out.

 

disco you see things as black and white, right or wrong, when in fact very little in life is that way. Most of your arguments are in absolutes and you seem to be fighting to be right, rather than to have an open dialog.

 

You could learn a lot of from Para.

 

On a side note TARP was a loan to the banking industry, with a majority of it being paid back and in most cases the government is making a profit. Stimulus is money that is never coming back and we are getting very little return on the investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note TARP was a loan to the banking industry, with a majority of it being paid back and in most cases the government is making a profit. Stimulus is money that is never coming back and we are getting very little return on the investment.

The government gets it back through income tax from the new workers. It will just take a LONG time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are problems with the healthcare bill, sure. I think most democrats would admit that, too. But having it on the books is better than not having it at all. It's easier to edit a bill than it is to create from scratch, and as you said it has good parts. The tax on small businesses is stupid, as well. They should have just gone all out and made it a single-payer system, but corrupt democrats and lockstep republicans blocked that.

 

The main problem with health insurance in this country is that it is tied to employment. Change that, and you will have done a world of good here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that ERISA (which "ties employment to health care") is a primary cause of the current health care "crisis." People seem to forget that when we discuss health care subsidization through the Affordable Care Act, we are only really talking about the portion of the country not employed by corporations.

 

Without ERISA, more tax would be paid to the federal government (currently, corporatins are able to deduct health care expenses from their tax burden if they fund or contribute to health insurance for their employees), and the impact of extending health insurance to those without coverage would be far less burdensome to self-employed citizens and small business owners.

 

Unfortunately, ERISA is one of the least understood seminal pieces of legislation on the books. Also unfortunately, it is, I wager, one of the ten least likely to be altered legislative acts, as well.

 

The unions fought with ardor to preserve their high health care benefits from excess taxation when the ACA was passed. They benefit directly from both ERISA and "Cadillac Care" plans. So you have unions, big business, doctors, the insurance lobby, and a slew of smaller interest groups all in support of ERISA.

 

We'll have to bankrupt ourselves before touching that hallowed ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×