Is Obama Over-stating the Case re. Financial Rescue Package ?

[wwswimming]

"Making his case in the most dire terms, President Barack Obama said that if Congress does not quickly pass an economic stimulus package, the nation will slip into a crisis so deep that "we may be unable to reverse" it."

Jesus. i have never in my life heard a US president use language like that.

knowing what i know about the economy and other geo-political forces that affect the US economy, i don't think that he is over-stating the case.

but it's still alarming to hear a US President use language like that.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...wift-apf-14296200.html

i remember feeling bad when i heard that a microwave radio company that i worked for in Silicon Valley was offshoring their RF modules in the mid-80's. actually, the vendor for the RF modules was a former co-worker who set up a business in Taiwan, so it made sense - they were offshoring to a company run by a guy that we had all worked with at a previous company.

well, you know what happened since then. most of US manufacturing moved offshore. and our country became dependent on both debt, and on foreign countries to finance that debt.

so, when i hear about people talking about "localizing" food production or manufacturing, i sometimes remind them, it's "re-localize". 20-30-40 years ago, most of the tech toys and food that we used were "Made in the USA".

i think one facet of globalization is that US workers will be forced to compete with foreign workers. as in making $1 an hour.

too bad we can't offshore hedge funds and investment banks and let them work for $1 an hour.

 

[bamacre]

I'm sure this bailout will prove to be a boon for the world.

 

[sactoking]

In my opinion, he hasn't come up with any GOOD reason why the stimulus must be passed now. He just says "Pass it now or we're doomed!". There's not been much evidence brought forth to support that. Any time someone puts you under pressure like that, it's a good bet that they're trying to pull a fast one.

Put it another way, there's an old saying in Operations: "Quickly. Cheaply. Well-built. You can only have 2 of the 3."

This stimulus certainly isn't cheap, and he wants to get it done quickly. Which aspect is left out?

 

[quest55720]

He is just trying to scare the public into support of this bill that is nothing but a 40 year wish list of the democrats. He is pulling a page right out of the Bush play book. Fear more fear and some more fear after that to get your way. So much for change we can believe in.

 

[theeedude]

He is understating it. If you can't see that 500K new people getting canned every month is a good reason why the stimulus must be passed now, then I don't know why anyone should bother to try to convince you. The stimulus not only needs to be passed now, it needs to be bigger and more targeted towards bailing out states so they don't have to exacerbate this contraction in economy by also cutting state projects. The top priority should be keeping government (fed and state) projects that are already in progress from getting defunded, followed by funding projects that have regulatory approvals and are ready to start. People need to realize that this is not a tradeoff between the government spending money and not spending. It's a tradeoff between the government spending money on infrastructure projects, a lot of which need to be done at some point anyways, or spending money to pay unemployment and/or welfare to people out of work. All these tax cuts are not going to be effective on the time scale they need to be effective, and need to be taken out of this bill.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: sactoking
In my opinion, he hasn't come up with any GOOD reason why the stimulus must be passed now. He just says "Pass it now or we're doomed!". There's not been much evidence brought forth to support that. Any time someone puts you under pressure like that, it's a good bet that they're trying to pull a fast one.

Put it another way, there's an old saying in Operations: "Quickly. Cheaply. Well-built. You can only have 2 of the 3."

This stimulus certainly isn't cheap, and he wants to get it done quickly. Which aspect is left out?

You answered your own question there, but I don't think it was the answer you were looking for.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: senseamp
He is understating it. If you can't see that 500K new people getting canned every month is a good reason why the stimulus must be passed now, then I don't know why anyone should bother to try to convince you. The stimulus not only needs to be passed now, it needs to be bigger and more targeted towards bailing out states so they don't have to exacerbate this contraction in economy by also cutting state projects. The top priority should be keeping government (fed and state) projects that are already in progress from getting defunded, followed by funding projects that have regulatory approvals and are ready to start. People need to realize that this is not a tradeoff between the government spending money and not spending. It's a tradeoff between the government spending money on infrastructure projects, a lot of which need to be done at some point anyways, or spending money to pay unemployment and/or welfare to people out of work. All these tax cuts are not going to be effective on the time scale they need to be effective, and need to be taken out of this bill.

Sure take out all the tax cuts as long as all non infrastructure spending is also taken out. That would be great the bill would be less than 100 billion. Sounds like a win win to me.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp
He is understating it. If you can't see that 500K new people getting canned every month is a good reason why the stimulus must be passed now, then I don't know why anyone should bother to try to convince you. The stimulus not only needs to be passed now, it needs to be bigger and more targeted towards bailing out states so they don't have to exacerbate this contraction in economy by also cutting state projects. The top priority should be keeping government (fed and state) projects that are already in progress from getting defunded, followed by funding projects that have regulatory approvals and are ready to start. People need to realize that this is not a tradeoff between the government spending money and not spending. It's a tradeoff between the government spending money on infrastructure projects, a lot of which need to be done at some point anyways, or spending money to pay unemployment and/or welfare to people out of work. All these tax cuts are not going to be effective on the time scale they need to be effective, and need to be taken out of this bill.

Sure take out all the tax cuts as long as all non infrastructure spending is also taken out. That would be great the bill would be less than 100 billion. Sounds like a win win to me.

Actually, non-spending needs to be taken out, and more spending added. Your idea would eliminate several million jobs, just because you don't like them being government jobs.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp
He is understating it. If you can't see that 500K new people getting canned every month is a good reason why the stimulus must be passed now, then I don't know why anyone should bother to try to convince you. The stimulus not only needs to be passed now, it needs to be bigger and more targeted towards bailing out states so they don't have to exacerbate this contraction in economy by also cutting state projects. The top priority should be keeping government (fed and state) projects that are already in progress from getting defunded, followed by funding projects that have regulatory approvals and are ready to start. People need to realize that this is not a tradeoff between the government spending money and not spending. It's a tradeoff between the government spending money on infrastructure projects, a lot of which need to be done at some point anyways, or spending money to pay unemployment and/or welfare to people out of work. All these tax cuts are not going to be effective on the time scale they need to be effective, and need to be taken out of this bill.

Sure take out all the tax cuts as long as all non infrastructure spending is also taken out. That would be great the bill would be less than 100 billion. Sounds like a win win to me.

Because government jobs never go away. The debt will quickly spiral out of control very fast. Infrastructure projects are just right they will inject cash but soon as they are completed we are done with them. That and out infrastructure is a mess and could really use some work. New welfare and other spending is not needed and once passed will never go away.

Actually, non-spending needs to be taken out, and more spending added. Your idea would eliminate several million jobs, just because you don't like them being government jobs.

That is because government jobs never go away. The debt and budget will spiral out of control very fast. Infrastructure projects are the answer. They inject cash quick but once they are done they are done. That and we need work on our infrastructure as it is a mess right now. Welfare and other spending is not needed because it never goes away. The government budget is already high enough with out new welfare and social spending.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp
He is understating it. If you can't see that 500K new people getting canned every month is a good reason why the stimulus must be passed now, then I don't know why anyone should bother to try to convince you.
-snip-

No, it doesn't need to be passed 'now' (as in passed 'yesterday').

I don't see how any difference can be claimed if it's passed this week, or in 30 days etc. Only a fraction of the money is expected to be spent this year anyway. Why hurry and pass spending that won't be done for years anyway?

However, there will be a difference if a bad bill is passed instead of a good one.

IMO, we're only gonna get one shot at a $trillion stimulus package, don't mess it up.

Congress has a poor track record with legislation that isn't in a rush mode, and an absolutely dismal record for stuff done in haste. I see no reason to expect any difference this time.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

That's why I said it needs to not only be passed now, but targeted toward government spending that will create or keep jobs now. Not pushing on a string with some tax cuts. It's too late for indirect stimulus, we need direct government spending. In 30 days we are going to have states and localities running out of money and cutting hundreds of thousands more jobs. This is a snowball rolling down the hill, it needs to be stopped as soon as possible. Bush should have passed this bill, but he was hamstrung by his "small government" ideology. We are paying the price now.
If you don't want to mess this bill up, get Republicans to stop "contributing" to it. They are simply watering it down with same useless crap that failed to do anything to prevent the mess we are in now.
P.S. Stop quoting me out of context. If you are going to respond to my argument, respond to the whole thing, not just a snippet that you find convenient to "argue" with.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: sactoking
In my opinion, he hasn't come up with any GOOD reason why the stimulus must be passed now. He just says "Pass it now or we're doomed!". There's not been much evidence brought forth to support that. Any time someone puts you under pressure like that, it's a good bet that they're trying to pull a fast one.

Put it another way, there's an old saying in Operations: "Quickly. Cheaply. Well-built. You can only have 2 of the 3."

This stimulus certainly isn't cheap, and he wants to get it done quickly. Which aspect is left out?

You answered your own question there, but I don't think it was the answer you were looking for.

Ha ha, touche. I'm not sure why my brain didn't catch that.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: sactoking
In my opinion, he hasn't come up with any GOOD reason why the stimulus must be passed now. He just says "Pass it now or we're doomed!". There's not been much evidence brought forth to support that. Any time someone puts you under pressure like that, it's a good bet that they're trying to pull a fast one.

Put it another way, there's an old saying in Operations: "Quickly. Cheaply. Well-built. You can only have 2 of the 3."

This stimulus certainly isn't cheap, and he wants to get it done quickly. Which aspect is left out?

There are a lot of well-informed people out there who think the current situation is dire. For example, watch these two videos of Martin Wolf (chief economics commentator for The Financial Times) as he basically says things are really, really awful, and that what we need is a much BIGGER stimulus (and we need it soon) than what Congress is currently contemplating if we want to avoid a catastrophe.

We're facing a prolonged depression

Stimulus not nearly big enough

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sactoking
In my opinion, he hasn't come up with any GOOD reason why the stimulus must be passed now. He just says "Pass it now or we're doomed!". There's not been much evidence brought forth to support that. Any time someone puts you under pressure like that, it's a good bet that they're trying to pull a fast one.

Put it another way, there's an old saying in Operations: "Quickly. Cheaply. Well-built. You can only have 2 of the 3."

This stimulus certainly isn't cheap, and he wants to get it done quickly. Which aspect is left out?

You didn't notice you answered your own question? As if your analogy applied - if it did, he gave up 'cheap' of the three.

The thing I think we need to look at is how the hell we went from the whole system thinking things are wonderful less than a year ago to this pending disaster.

So much broke, it's hard to know where to start the correction.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: quest55720
He is just trying to scare the public into support of this bill that is nothing but a 40 year wish list of the democrats. He is pulling a page right out of the Bush play book. Fear more fear and some more fear after that to get your way. So much for change we can believe in.

this.

 

[Ozoned]

Room full of 100 people. 3 years ago, 95 of them had jobs, now only 93 of them have jobs. So our plan is to spend nearly a trillion dollars to put 2% (2.5 Million People) of our labor force back to work?

Overstating the case? Do the math, it comes out to like $400,000 per job.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Room full of 100 people. 3 years ago, 95 of them had jobs, now only 93 of them have jobs. So our plan is to spend nearly a trillion dollars to put 2% (2.5 Million People) of our labor force back to work?

Overstating the case? Do the math, it comes out to like $400,000 per job.

No. It's to prevent the number of people in that room with jobs from falling to 88 or even 85.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Room full of 100 people. 3 years ago, 95 of them had jobs, now only 93 of them have jobs. So our plan is to spend nearly a trillion dollars to put 2% (2.5 Million People) of our labor force back to work?

Overstating the case? Do the math, it comes out to like $400,000 per job.

Completely bogus numbers. Just because unemployment is at 7% (which it's not anymore), doesn't mean employment is at 93%. There are people who gave up looking for work and aren't considered unemployed.
Secondly, we are spending a trillion dollars to keep millions more from joining those already out of work. Sorry, we can't wait for historical unemployment data to get started on that.

 

[nageov3t]

is a prime-time news conference to say all the stuff he's been saying non-stop for the past week really necessary?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Room full of 100 people. 3 years ago, 95 of them had jobs, now only 93 of them have jobs. So our plan is to spend nearly a trillion dollars to put 2% (2.5 Million People) of our labor force back to work?

Overstating the case? Do the math, it comes out to like $400,000 per job.

85

You believe that the stimulus plan will keep another 10,000,000 people from losing their jobs?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Room full of 100 people. 3 years ago, 95 of them had jobs, now only 93 of them have jobs. So our plan is to spend nearly a trillion dollars to put 2% (2.5 Million People) of our labor force back to work?

Overstating the case? Do the math, it comes out to like $400,000 per job.

Completely bogus numbers. Just because unemployment is at 7% (which it's not anymore), doesn't mean employment is at 93%. There are people who gave up looking for work and aren't considered unemployed.
Secondly, we are spending a trillion dollars to keep millions more from joining those already out of work. Sorry, we can't wait for historical unemployment data to get started on that.

What statistical data are we going to use to measure the success of what you are suggesting?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Room full of 100 people. 3 years ago, 95 of them had jobs, now only 93 of them have jobs. So our plan is to spend nearly a trillion dollars to put 2% (2.5 Million People) of our labor force back to work?

Overstating the case? Do the math, it comes out to like $400,000 per job.

Completely bogus numbers. Just because unemployment is at 7% (which it's not anymore), doesn't mean employment is at 93%. There are people who gave up looking for work and aren't considered unemployed.
Secondly, we are spending a trillion dollars to keep millions more from joining those already out of work. Sorry, we can't wait for historical unemployment data to get started on that.

What statistical data are we going to use to measure the success of what you are suggesting?

What statistical data were YOU going to use to establish failure?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Room full of 100 people. 3 years ago, 95 of them had jobs, now only 93 of them have jobs. So our plan is to spend nearly a trillion dollars to put 2% (2.5 Million People) of our labor force back to work?

Overstating the case? Do the math, it comes out to like $400,000 per job.

Completely bogus numbers. Just because unemployment is at 7% (which it's not anymore), doesn't mean employment is at 93%. There are people who gave up looking for work and aren't considered unemployed.
Secondly, we are spending a trillion dollars to keep millions more from joining those already out of work. Sorry, we can't wait for historical unemployment data to get started on that.

What statistical data are we going to use to measure the success of what you are suggesting?

OK, so let's not do anything while we wait for statisticians to figure out how to measure it. :roll:
Let's do what makes sense, statistics will take care of themselves. What makes sense now is for government to pick up the slack and spend money on infrastructure, health, education, etc until the private sector resumes hiring and growing the payrolls. It's either that or spend money on unemployment or welfare. I'd rather pay people to do things we as a country need done than to sit at home and watch TV.

 

[charrison]

Rather than spending $300k per job created. Why not just create a lottery and write a big check to a lucky 3M people.

OR write a 10k check to every family.



No matter what we do, It spending time debating how to spend 800B.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: shira


Completely bogus numbers. Just because unemployment is at 7% (which it's not anymore), doesn't mean employment is at 93%. There are people who gave up looking for work and aren't considered unemployed.
Secondly, we are spending a trillion dollars to keep millions more from joining those already out of work. Sorry, we can't wait for historical unemployment data to get started on that.

What statistical data are we going to use to measure the success of what you are suggesting?
[/quote]

/snip question in lieu of un-answered question.[/quote] That's just the thing that bothers me. If you go back to, if Congress does not quickly pass an economic stimulus package, the nation will slip into a crisis so deep that "we may be unable to reverse" it." It is a pretty bold, matter of fact type statement. Based on what?