Re: US 'Economic Stimulus' Budget Review
Quote:
Forget about the average citizens, even the 3 Senate Republicans that voted for the Stimulus didn't get to see it until close to midnight last night and have to vote on it at 9AM.
The bill is supposed to be over 1000 pages. I think we can be pretty sure that no one has read this final version of the bill in its entirety- but that won't stop them from voting on it. :sweatdrop:
The Heritage Foundation is also claiming that the stimulus bill will repeal the welfare reform from the 1990s.
Quote:
The House and Senate stimulus bills will overturn the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.
Re: US 'Economic Stimulus' Budget Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
The Heritage Foundation is also claiming that the stimulus bill will repeal the welfare reform from the 1990s.
Obama is supposed to be destroying Bush's legacy, not Clinton's. :inquisitive:
EDIT-> Stimulus passes in the House 246-183, no Republican votes for it, 7 Dems vote no.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Re: US 'Economic Stimulus' Budget Review
I thought this was fairly astute:
When it comes to bailout/stimulus/econ, there is no significant break in policy between George W. Bush and Barack Obama, no matter how much it benefits enthusiasts and detractors from pretending there's a sharp break between the two. The biggest economic political event last fall was not the election, it was the bipartisan, unpopular, panic-driven bailout. So yeah, Obamanomics from the outset precludes much of any warm embrace between liberals and libertarians. Much like Bushonomics did throughout his term. Hmmmm, what do the two presidents (and the congressional majorities that enabled them) have in common?
Re: US 'Economic Stimulus' Budget Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Don Corleone
Could somebody explain to me why only Democrats were allowed to be on the bi-cameral compromise committee? Forget about the average citizens, even the 3 Senate Republicans that voted for the Stimulus didn't get to see it until close to midnight last night and have to vote on it at 9AM.
Errr....because they won largish majorities in both houses and don't have to give the minority anything but the right to speak to the issue and to vote?
The key dynamic is power. While the Dems have it, they intend to use it to re-shape things in the direction they think is best. The part that galls me is that, when the GOP had that power, they were too busy either feathering their own nests or trying to "make nice" with the media to actually attempt the same thing. All-in-all, the Dems are just better at wielding power. I wish to God they did so on anything APPROACHING an agenda I'd be happy with.
Re: US 'Economic Stimulus' Budget Review
No matter how you slice it GW Bush may have been a two term Republican but he was a terrible conservative. Speaking purely as to conservative principles his biggest accomplishments were the tax cuts and SCOTUS appointments. Taking the remainder of his policies and achievements at face value GW Bush fits the definition of a RINO more than anything else.
Re: US 'Economic Stimulus' Budget Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spino
Well industry or not first and foremost an overhaul of our monetary policy is way overdue. Relying on a system that allows banks to generate ridiculous amounts of money vis a vis credit which ultimately places the entire system deeply into debt seems to defy all reason. I fail to see how a system is sustainable. So long as such a system is allowed to continue unabated it will only encourage foolishness and irresponsible practices (i.e. the sub-prime market) to take root to the detriment of the entire system. I suppose this is why the gold standard argument often comes up in these types of conversations, it deals with basing currency on something more than guarantees based on projected growth. It seems to me if your your currency/credit is based on nothing but on an empty guarantee of sustainable growth then incompetence combined with lack of confidence in the entities generating such credit can and will routinely wreak havoc. But my grasp of these matters is entirely superficial and based on the few articles and documentaries I've bothered to check out. I guess we'll see what happens once the dust settles.
The thing with that is that it (has) works(ed?), the speculated growth has been followed by an actual growth for decades, and is even pushed on as the system has to grow to work properly. A change needs to be able to handle 0 growth or deflation without it being terribly bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spino
Here's another question. What would happen to the existing system (and affected currencies) if someone else offered a more reliable and sustainable alternative during a global economic crisis? Meaning what would happen if someone decided to 'cheat' and take a dramatic step outside the widely accepted rules of the game? It seems to me that the current system works only because everyone seems to buy into the game. What would happen if some nation were to break ranks and back its currency with something more than an empty guarantee based on projections? I'm not necessarily talking about a gold standard but simply an alternative to the widely accepted norm.
Hard to say, the system of grow or die is very integrated to the economy today and has been even before the loss of the gold standard. That indicates that the change has to be larger than a simple removal of fiat currency. But breaking the game depends on how its done, a brilliant reform would probably spread slowly at the start while being rejected by the others. Then it would settle in the industrial countries, but the question is what would happen for the rest? The aren't at the same point on the economical development trends as the west.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spino
Well I'm not really sure which is why I put that question out there to begin with. I suppose my problem is in our dependence on industries that produce 'nothing' (i.e. service industries) versus those that produce 'something' (i.e. tangible items that can be used, rented, sold or scrapped/recycled). Based purely on my observations it is painfully apparent that all but a handful of consumer goods are made in the USA. If I were to take a tally of everything in my home I'll wager all but the raw materials used to make my home and a smattering of goods I've bought were made here in the US. It seems like everything I wear, watch, use, etc. (along with a growing percentage of the things I eat), are manufactured or produced outside the USA.
Yet your industry is probably producing more than ever, but the focus are no longer on those consumer goods that has that note "made in XX". It's hard to tell without those raw numbers. The numbers employed has gone down, but has also the "today, 10 people produce 10 times more than what 100 people produced yesterday" factor.
