Senate Passes the Spendulus

[Jake_Ellison]

I wonder in how many weeks will Obama start calling on the media to stop sabotaging his wonderful plan by informing the public about it?

I wonder how many months will it take for him to start dictating what the media is allowed to say on the subject?

That is clearly the next step. After all, the only reason why the markets are crashing as this stimulus gets revealed is because the media is causing panic among investors. If only the White House had some control over what the traders are told, the economy would turn right around.

Wow, Ayn Rand was brilliant. Everything is falling into place exactly as she described in AS.

[gags]

It would be pretty wonderful I think if Obama has to deal with a republican congress from 2010-2012. Maybe that'll work out better than this current mess.

I generally prefer gridlock to a smoothly functioning government that can more rapidly erode our individual rights. Unfortunately, the Republican track record isn't so great on these things. Take for example, John McCain's question to Obama yesterday at the "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" (wow, talk about Orwellian). Of all the hundreds of billions of dollars being wasted by this President and Congress, McCain asks Obama about buying new Marine One helicopters. I suppose he was attempting to highlight cost overruns in the military procurement process, but you'd think something a little bit more relevant might have been top of mind for Senator McCain. The fact that last week alone Obama spent well over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money didn't get a question out of McCain, but some new helicopters meant to replace 30 year old models did.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_...bama_helicopter

[dadmonson]

Everything is falling into place exactly as she described in AS.

So when will the productive people dissapear?

[Jake_Ellison]

So when will the productive people dissapear?

There are categories of productive people. The ones that are really important, the top 1 % (or some number in that ball park), I'd say they are already producing far less than they were a year ago today. They are distracted, they feel intimidated, and as a result they are far more preoccupied with ensuring their own future and that of their loved ones than with being creative and innovative in their chosen professions.

This will trickle down, and amplify, just as a tax cut to the rich trickles down. Soon everyone will be feeling their anxiety, and for the average man, the anxiety will be about their immediate future and survival, not about the threat to their ability to create, and excel, for the benefit of all men.

Obama supporters will soon learn the hard way that class warfare is self-defeating.

And eventually productive and creative people will disappear completely, if we keep on this path. I wonder how many such people you would find in North Korea.

One thing in AS, however, which was in my opinion a suggestion rather than a prediction, is that a few of the top movers in the country should withdraw suddenly when the time comes, to speed up this inevitable crash, and bring about the recovery sooner, thus spare themselves and everyone else a lot of time spent in agony.

Everything else in AS happened before, and is just history repeating itself. Ayn Rand just took the lessons she learned from the history of other countries, and apllied it to the unique conditions in the US. She didn't use magic or guesswork to foresee the future, she used integration.

But as far as what Galt did, that is not something that would necessarily happen. It never happened before. In the past, everyone suffered and died slowly, defeated by their own willingness to surrender to the tyrants.

What is needed for that to happen is a hero of Galt's magnitude. I've read people on this forum say that Ayn Rand was such a person, and that now we have the knowledge Galt shared with the great industrialists in the book. The question is then: Will we have the vision to recognize when/if the time comes to act? Will there be enough of us to make a difference?

[prosperity]

I doubt that a "multiplier" exists in the long run. The fact is that higher taxes and/or inflation are the end result of deficit spending. Of course both of these curtail economic growth.

I agree. I don't think it exists either. It doesn't even really exist in the short run. it's just a variation on the broken window fallacy.

We have so much more to endure, I think. I've often thought about which direction the U.S. should go...

...what I mean is...I'm wondering how strong America's resolve is. Do the people of this country have a strong enough sense of individualism and selfishness to swing this nation the other way if or when it continues to get worse?

Let's suppose that Obama's administration signs another bill that spends $4-$6 trillion during his first term. Then his administration signs the child's rights treaty, and then on top of that let's assume that his administration saps the strength of the rich so badly that - in combination with with the health care reforms in the stimulus bill - these rich people start "cue jumping" or buying their way to the front of the line for the best services, similar to how it is done in Cuba.

The middle class become outraged at this and the rich get another round of tax increases which pummel them into oblivion, innovation halts, new drugs stop being invented and tested and people start dying as a direct result...or Obama has to start raising taxes on middle class Americans - effectively lying to them - to fulfill his agenda, meet his budget demands, and of course satisfy his lust for power.

The particulars are guesses in some cases...but if things were to get much much worse than they are now...would that be enough for American's come the next election where they will demand capitalism and a dramatic reduction in the size and scope of Government intervention into the economy? Or do you think that it's dangerous to juggle such sharp knives? Is a slow decay and a possible slow recovery, or a quick decline followed by a rapid change in direction better?

[utabintarbo]

...

The particulars are guesses in some cases...but if things were to get much much worse than they are now...would that be enough for American's come the next election where they will demand capitalism and a dramatic reduction in the size and scope of Government intervention into the economy? Or do you think that it's dangerous to juggle such sharp knives? Is a slow decay and a possible slow recovery, or a quick decline followed by a rapid change in direction better?

Given the current philosophical/cultural base of the country, it is more likely they will demand either a slight easing of the descent to socialism (a la Reaganism), or (IMO, more likely) a complete cradle-to-grave safety blanket and the concomitant economic stagnation rather than freedom and uncertainty. Personal responsibility has seemingly been bred out of all but those over ~50 yrs. old.

I hope I'm wrong.

[AllMenAreIslands]

So, $8333 for each of 9 million people = about $75,000,000,000. What is that $8333 per household actually going to accomplish? Why hasn't anyone done the math?

[utabintarbo]

So, $8333 for each of 9 million people = about $75,000,000,000. What is that $8333 per household actually going to accomplish? Why hasn't anyone done the math?

Some have, but nobody listens.

[AllMenAreIslands]

Some have, but nobody listens.

I think people somehow have figured they'll have their entire mortgage paid off by the government. $8000 might be a year or two's worth of monthly payments, but it's hardly a substitute for people having jobs that enable them to make the payments themselves. Some of the people just need A job, but others are just in homes they can't afford and never could afford. $8000 is only going to put off the inevitable for them.

[utabintarbo]

I think people somehow have figured they'll have their entire mortgage paid off by the government. $8000 might be a year or two's worth of monthly payments, but it's hardly a substitute for people having jobs that enable them to make the payments themselves. Some of the people just need A job, but others are just in homes they can't afford and never could afford. $8000 is only going to put off the inevitable for them.

It is the triumph of form over substance. There are literally trillions of dollars that have gone away as a result of the deflation in housing prices. Throwing $75B at it is like trying to sink a battleship with a slingshot. But it looks like "change", and is designed to give all those upside-down homeowners "hope". Good fscking luck with that.

[K-Mac]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/business...ref=todayspaper

Well, this is refreshing!

Some bankers say the conditions have become so onerous that they want to return the bailout money. The list includes small banks like the TCF Financial Corporation of Wayzata, Minn., and Iberia Bank of Lafayette, La., as well as giants like Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo.

They say they plan to return the money as quickly as possible or as soon as regulators set up a process to accept the refunds. On Tuesday, Signature Bank of New York announced that because of new executive pay restrictions in the economic stimulus package, it notified the Treasury that it intended to return the $120 million it had received from the government only three months ago.

Other institutions like Johnson Bank of Racine, Wis., initially expressed interest in seeking bailout funds but have now changed their minds. Bank executives told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that one reason they rejected the government money was to avoid any disruption in the bank’s role in the local community, including supporting the zoo or opera company if they chose to.

One of the biggest concerns of the banks is that the program lets Congress and the administration pile on new conditions at any time.

[brian0918]

I'm not so sure it's a good thing. It may take a full-scale realization of nationalization for us to cure ourselves of it. Otherwise, we're likely to just keep coming back to this, don't you think?

[K-Mac]

For any of these banks to do the right thing is good in my book. I'm not suggesting this will solve all of our problems, but it's nice to see some rationality in business.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I'm not so sure it's a good thing. It may take a full-scale realization of nationalization for us to cure ourselves of it. Otherwise, we're likely to just keep coming back to this, don't you think?

I don't think we ought to be hoping for some other major collapse, since it 's looking like a little protest is going a long ways. One of the higher-ups in the treasury is cautioning the Obama administration not to micromanage the banks, and even states that 200 banks have refused the bail-out conditions.

"WASHINGTON – A top Treasury official told Congress Wednesday that the federal government should not micromanage banks that receive taxpayer assistance, a caution to lawmakers itching to see results from a $700 billion rescue program for the financial sector. Neel Kashkari, interim assistant secretary for financial stability at Treasury, told a congressional oversight panel that banks should not be forced to make loans that bankers might deem risky."