[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No. I don't think that typos are really rational points from which to hang a debate on.

So you want to debate the question of whether you need to be familiar with something to make a judgement about it? Because you seem to catch yourself on this point quite frequently in this forum.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

So you want to debate the question of whether you need to be familiar with something to make a judgement about it? Because you seem to catch yourself on this point quite frequently in this forum.

Making judgments on the unfamiliar (Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News...) is one of the primary features of this forum. Granted, being a fair minded member-mod would make for a very busy member-mod.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

So you want to debate the question of whether you need to be familiar with something to make a judgement about it? Because you seem to catch yourself on this point quite frequently in this forum.

Not remembering someone used a non-standard name spelling when typing a response isn't exactly evidence of total non-familiarity. But hey, if that's all you got.....

::yawn::

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've been given links and dates by at least two people besson. You didn't comment on the data itself at all. You just keep coming back to say you don't get it, or you don't buy it, or you're torn, or you're incomplete.


They outsource to regions where there is a more pro-business, pro-capital environment besson. Businesses are in business to grow. When they do not see a pro-business, pro-capital hand, they either fold to stop loss or they hold to survive. When they do see a pro-business, pro-capital hand, they up the ante. Lending institutions are in the lending business to lend. Like I said, you're not getting any loan offers anymore? They just magically came to a screeching halt? I doubt it. They're ready to do business because that's what they're in business to do. They need consumers and consumers need confidence. Consumer confidence fell apart after the bank failings, market freefall, and subsequent bad news of employment numbers. You need something to reverse-engineer the failure. Judging from the public reaction to this stimulus package, you'll absolutely not get the consumer confidence you need because you won't get the market reaction you need. You won't get the jobs (longterm or quality pay) that you need because you won't get the grassroots growth that you need. i.e. you'll get no stimulus.

I understand all of this, but what tradeoffs exist with this approach which is essentially a trickle down approach, and a trust that the free markets will work without a hitch? What if these businesses do not create new domestic jobs with their new wealth and are not used simply for executive bonuses? How do people with lost jobs and bad living conditions support these businesses with little money to do so?

I could go on with other questions, but that might encourage you to respond to each of these off-the-top-of-my-head points one at a time, which is not in line with my point. My point is simply a question of how we account for this set of tradeoffs? Is there evidence that this approach works in a limitless fashion, or only up to a point?

Look, I'm playing devil's advocate here a little. I understand that the free market is the engine to our economy, but I believe that what was gotten us into this mess is the notion that this engine can run unchecked. If tax cuts and so-called business friendly economics are what got us into this mess in the first place, simply doing more of the same is not smart until we can take a step back and figure out how to restore this lost balance. Everything exists in a state of balance, ebuddy. Free markets need controls and regulations, free markets need a sense of fairness, and free markets need to be run efficiently as to drive both our society and our economy. Where I'm playing devil's advocate is not in advocating that we abandon the free market or supplant it with something else, but in figuring out how to restore this lost balance.

I'm open to a different mix of tax cuts and spending, but I don't believe that tax cuts alone will create or recreate the millions of jobs that are lost at this point. We need a more direct shim right now, and we need to abandon ideology and a blind trust in the free market that has in part failed us (in doing so surprising Alan Greenspan as evidenced by his rather unprecedented testimony) in favor of more direct temporary solutions. The problem with my saying this is that it encourages knee jerk responses that conclude that since I'm saying this I must be in favor of big government waste and all of the extremes on the other end of the spectrum. Again, I'm for a greater balance. This could come in the form of helping pay off private debt, in tax cuts that are purely targeted at families, or anything else that is designed to help from the bottom up. Obama is right, heavy or purely top-down economics have failed us. This does not mean that there is nothing to being business friendly, but that there needs to be a balance. As we've gone over several times in there before, capitalism is great at picking winners and losers, but what many Republicans fail to realize is that losers put strain on our economy.

My best theory as to why this is is because Republicans are generally an enemy of welfare and free handouts. So are many Democrats too, but this disconnect exists. Bottom up economics are not designed to help provide greater welfare and to help individuals lacking any virtue or reason for empathy, but to recognize that our economic structure has many moving parts, including a dependence on people to buy and consume the products and services being generated in the private sector. Our society is built off of this mass consumption. When the working middle class is suffering, the entire economic model fails. What is the solution? You would say more business friendly economics, and in some cases you would be right, but only up to a point. There are times when a more direct approach is more effective at removing these sources of strain in our economy (which also works up to a point). Trickle down economics only works when that trickle can be guaranteed and sustained. The stimulus bill we have now attempts to diversify our overall approach by recognizing that there may not be a guarantee of that trickle.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not remembering someone used a non-standard name spelling when typing a response isn't exactly evidence of total non-familiarity. But hey, if that's all you got.....

::yawn::

It's certainly evidence of non-familiarity, whether you want to define it as "total" or not. Usually attention to detail insofar as it demonstrates knowledge of a particular topic is important in debate. If, you know, you actually care about talking about ideas, rather than inflating your post count.

[besson3c]

Where the Republican ideas seem incomplete to me is in not accounting for all of of what I've written above and seemingly ignoring it like it doesn't exist. Make your case as to how these sources of economic strain will go away with a dependence solely on more big business friendly economics?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Making judgments on the unfamiliar (Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News...) is one of the primary features of this forum. Granted, being a fair minded member-mod would make for a very busy member-mod.

So I've noticed.

I tend to not post in this forum unless I feel I can contribute something meaningful, and so I feel perfectly fine about taking other people to task for posting out of their ass.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

So I've noticed.

I tend to not post in this forum unless I feel I can contribute something meaningful, and so I feel perfectly fine about taking other people to task for posting out of their ass.

....as evidenced by a reasonable typo. Gotcha!

You caught me. I've never watched The Daily Show, don't know who JON Stewart is and should have had at the top of my mind that he used a non-standard spelling for his common name. You've completely demolished my argument using your excellent debate skills and refusal to post out your ass. I'm humbled.

Irony noted as well.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

....as evidenced by a reasonable typo. Gotcha!

You caught me. I've never watched The Daily Show, don't know who JON Stewart is and should have had at the top of my mind that he used a non-standard spelling for his common name. You've completely demolished my argument using your excellent debate skills and refusal to post out your ass. I'm humbled.

Irony noted as well.

So, +1?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I understand all of this, but what tradeoffs exist with this approach which is essentially a trickle down approach, and a trust that the free markets will work without a hitch? What if these businesses do not create new domestic jobs with their new wealth and are not used simply for executive bonuses? How do people with lost jobs and bad living conditions support these businesses with little money to do so?

I'm not sure you'll accept this notion, but I just gotta say that we're really talking about two different trickle-downs. Make no mistake. The intention of this stimulus package is to have it trickle down from the government into the economy and eventually into our hands. I'm not on board with the ideal that there is big business and then there is government. Government is as big a business as any. The choice is where the lions-share of the stimulus is going to come from.

Given the news of vacations, junkets, and bonuses (although "bonuses" should be tempered as sales commissions are not bonuses. They are an integral part of a salesman's compensation package) I completely understand your skepticism. Your first question at the core however is very simple to answer IMO, not unlike; "why would I expect a thirsty horse to drink water?"

- "What if these businesses do not create new domestic jobs with their new wealth and are not used simply for executive bonuses?"
First of all, sales commissions are not bonuses. Percentages of take per sale are an integral part of a company's compensation package. I mention this because Obama kind of tripped over this a couple of weeks ago. If a large commission was paid, (assuming a sound business model) the recipient did his/her fair share to keep the business afloat and should not be considered in any way part of that company's failure. A business that is a poor steward of its resources (poor business model) and injects its life's-blood into dogs will fail and they should be allowed to fail. No bailouts. Chrysler for example took the government dole once and it is back at the table again. They failed. By not handing out life's-blood, businesses will be forced to fend for themselves. A thirsty horse must drink water. Businesses simply must employ people and they must grow. A business that is not growing is dying. There is always someone willing to out-produce you, outwit you, and take your business particularly if your quality has suffered by using a less accountable outsourced help.

With regard to outsourcing in general, a good place to stop the outsourcing would be the local governments themselves. As reported by Lou Dobbs, Indiana for example outsources its help lines for unemployment. Can you imagine that? Speaking to someone in India for help on your unemployment benefits in Indiana? Crazy. While I'm not in favor of tax incentives for businesses using overseas help, there is nothing inherently evil in the practice. It is sound business sense and a foregone conclusion of the communications age. There is little we can do other than immediately ceasing tax incentives for businesses moving jobs and shopping our conscience when and if we're moved to. I will say that most analysis I've seen suggests a healthy balance between parent operations and overseas operations due in part to unstable economic climates and governments. The suggestion is a foreign arm to grow operations both domestically and internationally and most businesses maintain this is the case. One thing is for certain however, businesses try to avoid publicity on their overseas operations because it is politically unpopular. As it continues to rise in the public eye, more scrutiny will occur at the consumer level.

Look, I'm playing devil's advocate here a little. I understand that the free market is the engine to our economy, but I believe that what was gotten us into this mess is the notion that this engine can run unchecked. If tax cuts and so-called business friendly economics are what got us into this mess in the first place, simply doing more of the same is not smart until we can take a step back and figure out how to restore this lost balance.

I would start by challenging your having lumped "unchecked" in with tax cuts. Unchecked environments of lacking oversight helped cause the mess, but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that tax cuts contributed to the mess we're in. I'm not arguing from the position of anarchist besson and I'm not suggesting pro-business = unchecked practices. I'm suggesting a cut in the AMT, a cut in income taxes, and a cut in the capital gains tax. I'm calling for aggressive cuts as an immediate stimulus to the economy.

I'm open to a different mix of tax cuts and spending, but I don't believe that tax cuts alone will create or recreate the millions of jobs that are lost at this point. We need a more direct shim right now, and we need to abandon ideology and a blind trust in the free market that has in part failed us (in doing so surprising Alan Greenspan as evidenced by his rather unprecedented testimony) in favor of more direct temporary solutions. The problem with my saying this is that it encourages knee jerk responses that conclude that since I'm saying this I must be in favor of big government waste and all of the extremes on the other end of the spectrum. Again, I'm for a greater balance. This could come in the form of helping pay off private debt, in tax cuts that are purely targeted at families, or anything else that is designed to help from the bottom up. Obama is right, heavy or purely top-down economics have failed us. This does not mean that there is nothing to being business friendly, but that there needs to be a balance. As we've gone over several times in there before, capitalism is great at picking winners and losers, but what many Republicans fail to realize is that losers put strain on our economy.

We're not worlds apart besson, but the more you say, the more you continue to move further and further away from reconciling our differing views. For example, The Federal government requires that Ms. Fullinwider's "Wonderful Almond Pound Cake" company must tell consumers nutrient information in all 30 of her products, this will cost her small overhead over $100,000. This puts an absolutely unnecessary strain on her operations and actually gives the larger outlets (like Walmart, more apt to use overseas manufacturing) the upper hand. Some fast facts here for you;

• There are about 65,000 pages of new and modified regulations published each year in the Federal Register.
• Fifty-two federal agencies employ more than 122,000 workers to administer the nearly 5,000 regulations in effect. The fiscal 1992 federal regulatory budget for these agencies is $13 billion, according to the Center for the Study of American Business, at Washington University, in St. Louis.
• FDA regulations on biotechnology literally cripples advancement in agriculture.
• FCC regulations on have resulted in the U.S. lagging behind Japan in the development of fiber optics and high-definition television.
• Federal regulations cost the U.S. economy more than $400 billion in 1991, equal to more than $4,200 per household, according to Thomas D. Hopkins, an economics professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

bnet
$400 billion in 1991 besson and this is just the tip of the iceberg of cumbersome anti-business legislation. I agree there's got to be a balance, but I'd argue government intervention is much more vast than you seem willing to acknowledge. The balance must start with our elected officials and any "change" or "stimulus" must take this type of ridiculous bureaucracy and burdensome legislation into account.

My best theory as to why this is is because Republicans are generally an enemy of welfare and free handouts. So are many Democrats too, but this disconnect exists. Bottom up economics are not designed to help provide greater welfare and to help individuals lacking any virtue or reason for empathy, but to recognize that our economic structure has many moving parts, including a dependence on people to buy and consume the products and services being generated in the private sector.

"Bottom-up" economics simply cannot work because the bottom is not resourced to contribute. Allow me to word-craft an old adage, you can't stimulate milk from a turnip. I'd argue that you're more focused on the bottom or the unemployed as a symptom of the virus while not addressing the virus itself. To your point, there are many who would passionately argue that the government is trying to create a dependancy class, but I try to avoid that indictment while maintaining that this is in fact what we see. I generally stick to the notion that while likely good-intentioned, we see a wealth of abuse, waste, fraud, and in fact the exact opposite affect on the targeted beneficiary. These policies are doing absolutely nothing for poverty and nothing for income disparity. Zero. While I oppose welfare and handouts from first-hand experience of what they cause you to do, I would be in favor of retooling the programs, not eliminating them.

Our society is built off of this mass consumption. When the working middle class is suffering, the entire economic model fails. What is the solution? You would say more business friendly economics, and in some cases you would be right, but only up to a point. There are times when a more direct approach is more effective at removing these sources of strain in our economy (which also works up to a point). Trickle down economics only works when that trickle can be guaranteed and sustained.

Again, why do you believe a government pay-out as stimulus in the form of a 700+ page document of legal jargon is more "direct" and how is it not simply another form of "trickle-down"? I know how the term has been demonized, I've just never understood how it can logically be applied to one and not the other. That suffering middle class guy you're talking about most likely works for a larger private business, is trying to get hired on to a private business, or is trying to start his own smaller private business. Your neighbor is most likely working for a private business, trying to get hired on to a private business, or is trying to start his own private business. I don't support the notion that a proper, timely stimulus starts at the Federal government, trickles to the local government, then eventually to private interests, and maybe to you. I fear there will be nothing left through this many tiers of trickling. I think a much better start is to simply take less immediately and relatively aggressively. Trust me, this won't cost $800 billion. Stimulus starts with businesses who invest in one another to sell and consumers who buy. i.e. the market. We need euphoric market news right now and this stimulus just ain't cuttin' it.

IMO, people tend to focus so much on the 8% unemployed and/or "bottom" that they neglect the remaining 92%. The suffering middle class guy trying to deal with a worthless dollar and increasing tax portions to pay for the thinking that exacerbated the problem.

The stimulus bill we have now attempts to diversify our overall approach by recognizing that there may not be a guarantee of that trickle.

See, I'd say that this package is so diverse as to be spread much too thin and everyone knows it. This is why some are even advocating a great deal more. I'd argue the entire premise is flawed (and now for a partisan teaser that's sure to please) because Barney Frank is not your neighbor, he's not the suffering middle class guy nor is he unemployed. Your grassroots guy, next door neighbor, friend, and employer is business. This is as good a "bottom-up" as you're going to get IMO.

[BadKosh]

Have ANY OF YOU actually read the bill? Seems NOBODY has. it's bound to be full of traps.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Have ANY OF YOU actually read the bill? Seems NOBODY has. it's bound to be full of traps.

I hear all the lobbyists for liberal special interests all got to read it. Heck, they got to help write it since the Republicans where cut out of the deal.

You could try to search for the "traps", but the image file PDF format that the Democrats took extra care to implement makes that kind of hard.

Transparency and bipartisanship? Nope. Not here.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Have ANY OF YOU actually read the bill? Seems NOBODY has. it's bound to be full of traps.

This deserves a thread of it's own

What's realy in the Obama Stimulas Package?