pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 19 Dec 2008 07:00:32
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Obama and the economy
As a conservative, I have always been a proponent of supply side economics
and favor lower taxes - especially for businesses, corporations and capital
gains. Needless to say this clashes with the Democrat's standard demand
side economic approach. The following article by Dick Morris explains both:
"The economic stimulus plans unveiled by President-elect Obama over the
weekend won't do much to help the economy. But they will vindicate all the
dreams of liberal Democrats for higher government spending.

Of course, the basic choice facing any politician seeking to stimulate a
moribund economy is whether to catalyze the supply side with tax cuts on
business or the demand side by way of spending increases. Obama obviously
made that choice years ago: He will work the demand side.

But once a leader makes that decision, he faces another: Will he emphasize
important and valuable public works projects or will he just try to pass out
the largest amount of money possible? By announcing that he is not "going to
throw money" at the economy in the hopes of getting a pulse, Obama signals
that he will stress the former approach and fund important public works such
as school reconstruction, fiber optic cables, alternative energy generation
and the like.

The problem is that such projects take a long time to plan and longer
to build. Their immediate economic impact is highly attenuated.

In all federal capital projects, only about one-quarter of the funds
appropriated are actually spent in the fiscal year. It just takes that long
to plan, engineer and begin construction. And for every $6 spent in the last
stimulus package, only $1 actually got spent on goods or services. Five
dollars out of every six in the Bush stimulus package of 2008 went to pay
down debt, mortgage or credit card or student loan or home equity, and not
into the acquisition of new products or services.



So, do the math. If only 25 cents out of every dollar actually is spent in
the fiscal year, and only one-sixth of that sum actually gets spent by the
workers who get paid on new goods and services, only about 4 cents from
every dollar actually stimulates the economy. And who says those 4 cents
will be spent on domestically produced products? A lot of the stimulus will
just feed Chinese imports, particularly with their low prices.

FDR faced just this problem in combating the Great Depression. In the
National Recovery Act (NRA), Roosevelt set up the Public Works
Administration (PWA) headed by Interior Secretary Harold Ickes (the original
one). Ickes was a stickler for making sure nothing was wasted and in keeping
the costs down. He managed a spectacularly successful public works program
and built, without scandal or corruption, some of our most important
national infrastructure. But he took his sweet time doing so. The economic
stimulation was slow in coming.

Exasperated, FDR did an end-run around Ickes and set up the Works Progress
Administration (WPA) under Harry Hopkins. WPA spent its money quickly and on
projects involving little overhead or preparation. My mother got a WPA job
teaching English to foreigners. Virtually all the WPA funds were spent in
the fiscal year and the stimulative effect was immediate.

But in opting to go the Ickes route, Obama will find that he leaves a legacy
of important contributions to our national infrastructure, but little in the
way of real economic stimulation.

While a WPA-type approach might hasten the ameliorative impact of the
stimulus package, Obama still faces the conundrum that most of those who get
extra paychecks as a result of his spending will use the money to climb out
of debt. In the '30s, credit cards didn't exist and consumer debt was very
limited. Most people lived paycheck to paycheck. Extra money equaled extra
spending. But now that most consumers will use money to pay down their
debts, not to spend it, demand-side stimulation has its limitations. But
Obama's ideology won't allow him to indulge in tax cuts "for the rich,"
which might work to get us out of the depression faster."



Irish Mike









 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 21:57:26
From: hanks
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19 2008 4:00 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

> As a conservative, I have always been a proponent of supply side economics
> and favor lower taxes - especially for businesses, corporations and capital
> gains. Needless to say this clashes with the Democrat's standard demand
> side economic approach. The following article by Dick Morris explains both:
> "The economic stimulus plans unveiled by President-elect Obama over the
> weekend won't do much to help the economy. But they will vindicate all the
> dreams of liberal Democrats for higher government spending.
>
> Of course, the basic choice facing any politician seeking to stimulate a
> moribund economy is whether to catalyze the supply side with tax cuts on
> business or the demand side by way of spending increases. Obama obviously
> made that choice years ago: He will work the demand side.
>
> But once a leader makes that decision, he faces another: Will he emphasize
> important and valuable public works projects or will he just try to pass out
> the largest amount of money possible? By announcing that he is not "going to
> throw money" at the economy in the hopes of getting a pulse, Obama signals
> that he will stress the former approach and fund important public works such
> as school reconstruction, fiber optic cables, alternative energy generation
> and the like.
>
> The problem is that such projects take a long time to plan and longer
> to build. Their immediate economic impact is highly attenuated.
>
> In all federal capital projects, only about one-quarter of the funds
> appropriated are actually spent in the fiscal year. It just takes that long
> to plan, engineer and begin construction. And for every $6 spent in the last
> stimulus package, only $1 actually got spent on goods or services. Five
> dollars out of every six in the Bush stimulus package of 2008 went to pay
> down debt, mortgage or credit card or student loan or home equity, and not
> into the acquisition of new products or services.
>
>
>
> So, do the math. If only 25 cents out of every dollar actually is spent in
> the fiscal year, and only one-sixth of that sum actually gets spent by the
> workers who get paid on new goods and services, only about 4 cents from
> every dollar actually stimulates the economy. And who says those 4 cents
> will be spent on domestically produced products? A lot of the stimulus will
> just feed Chinese imports, particularly with their low prices.
>
> FDR faced just this problem in combating the Great Depression. In the
> National Recovery Act (NRA), Roosevelt set up the Public Works
> Administration (PWA) headed by Interior Secretary Harold Ickes (the original
> one). Ickes was a stickler for making sure nothing was wasted and in keeping
> the costs down. He managed a spectacularly successful public works program
> and built, without scandal or corruption, some of our most important
> national infrastructure. But he took his sweet time doing so. The economic
> stimulation was slow in coming.
>
> Exasperated, FDR did an end-run around Ickes and set up the Works Progress
> Administration (WPA) under Harry Hopkins. WPA spent its money quickly and on
> projects involving little overhead or preparation. My mother got a WPA job
> teaching English to foreigners. Virtually all the WPA funds were spent in
> the fiscal year and the stimulative effect was immediate.
>
> But in opting to go the Ickes route, Obama will find that he leaves a legacy
> of important contributions to our national infrastructure, but little in the
> way of real economic stimulation.
>
> While a WPA-type approach might hasten the ameliorative impact of the
> stimulus package, Obama still faces the conundrum that most of those who get
> extra paychecks as a result of his spending will use the money to climb out
> of debt. In the '30s, credit cards didn't exist and consumer debt was very
> limited. Most people lived paycheck to paycheck. Extra money equaled extra
> spending. But now that most consumers will use money to pay down their
> debts, not to spend it, demand-side stimulation has its limitations. But
> Obama's ideology won't allow him to indulge in tax cuts "for the rich,"
> which might work to get us out of the depression faster."
>
>
>
> Irish Mike
You show me your article and I'll show you mine. Have you NO original
thoughts you Celtic clod?

hanks

-------- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 20:23:39
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19 2008 7:00 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

> In all federal capital projects, only about one-quarter of the funds
> appropriated are actually spent in the fiscal year. It just takes that long
> to plan, engineer and begin construction. And for every $6 spent in the last
> stimulus package, only $1 actually got spent on goods or services. Five
> dollars out of every six in the Bush stimulus package of 2008 went to pay
> down debt, mortgage or credit card or student loan or home equity, and not
> into the acquisition of new products or services.
>
>
>
> So, do the math. If only 25 cents out of every dollar actually is spent in
> the fiscal year, and only one-sixth of that sum actually gets spent by the
> workers who get paid on new goods and services, only about 4 cents from
> every dollar actually stimulates the economy.

If you're going to do the math then do it right.

Before you start lecturing about supply side and demand side you need to
look up multiplier effect and see if you can figure out the recursive
equations that are behind that.

Even if your numbers are right (which they aren't), the math y6ou apply
to them is wrong.

No wonder Ireland was afriad to fight the Nazi's, they couldn't figure out
the math required to build weapons other than rocks and arrows.

----- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 20:00:45
From: Tim Norfolk
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19, 11:29=EF=BF=BDpm, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:23:39 -0800, "garycarson"
>
>
>
>
>
> <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> >On Dec 19 2008 7:00 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
> >> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD In all federal capital projects, only ab=
out one-quarter of the funds
> >> appropriated are actually spent in the fiscal year. It just takes that=
long
> >> to plan, engineer and begin construction. And for every $6 spent in th=
e last
> >> stimulus package, only $1 actually got spent on goods or services. Fiv=
e
> >> dollars out of every six in the Bush stimulus package of 2008 went to =
pay
> >> down debt, mortgage or credit card or student loan or home equity, and=
not
> >> into the acquisition of new products or services.
>
> >> So, do the math. If only 25 cents out of every dollar actually is spen=
t in
> >> the fiscal year, and only one-sixth of that sum actually gets spent by=
the
> >> workers who get paid on new goods and services, only about 4 cents fro=
m
> >> every dollar actually stimulates the economy.
>
> >If you're going to do the math then do it right.
>
> >Before you start lecturing about supply side and demand side you need to
> >look up multiplier effect and see if you can figure out the recursive
> >equations that are behind that.
>
> >Even if your numbers are right (which they aren't), the math y6ou apply
> >to them is wrong.
>
> >No wonder Ireland was afriad to fight the Nazi's, they couldn't figure o=
ut
> >the math required to build weapons other than rocks and arrows.
>
> I don't know about any of that, but from what little I have read,
> Ireland now has the lowest tax rates, and the most healthy economy in
> all of Europe.
>
> Am I missing something here?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, you are. When Ireland joined the EU, they were the poorest nation
in it, so subsidies poured in. Now that poorer countries like Romania
are coming in, the flow is going the other way. I suspect that they
won't seem like such a rich haven fairly soon.


  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 22:29:43
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:23:39 -0800, "garycarson"
<garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu > wrote:

>On Dec 19 2008 7:00 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
>> In all federal capital projects, only about one-quarter of the funds
>> appropriated are actually spent in the fiscal year. It just takes that long
>> to plan, engineer and begin construction. And for every $6 spent in the last
>> stimulus package, only $1 actually got spent on goods or services. Five
>> dollars out of every six in the Bush stimulus package of 2008 went to pay
>> down debt, mortgage or credit card or student loan or home equity, and not
>> into the acquisition of new products or services.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, do the math. If only 25 cents out of every dollar actually is spent in
>> the fiscal year, and only one-sixth of that sum actually gets spent by the
>> workers who get paid on new goods and services, only about 4 cents from
>> every dollar actually stimulates the economy.
>
>If you're going to do the math then do it right.
>
>Before you start lecturing about supply side and demand side you need to
>look up multiplier effect and see if you can figure out the recursive
>equations that are behind that.
>
>Even if your numbers are right (which they aren't), the math y6ou apply
>to them is wrong.
>
>No wonder Ireland was afriad to fight the Nazi's, they couldn't figure out
>the math required to build weapons other than rocks and arrows.
>

I don't know about any of that, but from what little I have read,
Ireland now has the lowest tax rates, and the most healthy economy in
all of Europe.

Am I missing something here?


   
Date: 20 Dec 2008 23:45:49
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19 2008 11:29 PM, FL Turbo wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:23:39 -0800, "garycarson"
> <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 19 2008 7:00 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
> >
> >> In all federal capital projects, only about one-quarter of the
funds
> >> appropriated are actually spent in the fiscal year. It just takes that
long
> >> to plan, engineer and begin construction. And for every $6 spent in the
last
> >> stimulus package, only $1 actually got spent on goods or services. Five
> >> dollars out of every six in the Bush stimulus package of 2008 went to pay
> >> down debt, mortgage or credit card or student loan or home equity, and
not
> >> into the acquisition of new products or services.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So, do the math. If only 25 cents out of every dollar actually is spent
in
> >> the fiscal year, and only one-sixth of that sum actually gets spent by
the
> >> workers who get paid on new goods and services, only about 4 cents from
> >> every dollar actually stimulates the economy.
> >
> >If you're going to do the math then do it right.
> >
> >Before you start lecturing about supply side and demand side you need to
> >look up multiplier effect and see if you can figure out the recursive
> >equations that are behind that.
> >
> >Even if your numbers are right (which they aren't), the math y6ou apply
> >to them is wrong.
> >
> >No wonder Ireland was afriad to fight the Nazi's, they couldn't figure out
> >the math required to build weapons other than rocks and arrows.
> >
>
> I don't know about any of that, but from what little I have read,
> Ireland now has the lowest tax rates, and the most healthy economy in
> all of Europe.
>
> Am I missing something here?

If you have to ask...

---- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 09:02:16
From: thepixelfreak
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On 2008-12-19 04:00:32 -0800, "Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > said:

> As a conservative, I have always been a proponent of supply side economics
> and favor lower taxes - especially for businesses, corporations and capital
> gains.

How's that been working out for you this past 8 years?
--

thepixelfreak



  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 19:58:44
From: Tim Norfolk
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19, 1:01=EF=BF=BDpm, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "thepixelfreak" <n...@dot.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2008121909021616807-not@dotcom...> On 2008-12-19 04:00:32 -0800, "Ir=
ish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > said:
>
> >> As a conservative, I have always been a proponent of supply side
> >> economics
> >> and favor lower taxes - especially for businesses, corporations and
> >> capital
> >> gains.
>
> > How's that been working out for you this past 8 years?
> > --
>
> > thepixelfreak
>
> Very well actually. =EF=BF=BDRight up to the time the whole housing marke=
t collapsed
> as a result of the Democrat's entitlement subprime mortgages. =EF=BF=BDWh=
en Bill
> Clinton made it a requirement that F-MAE and F-MAC have up to 50% of thei=
r
> entire multi-billion dollar investment portfolios made up of high risk,
> subprime mortgages, made to people who couldn't have qualified for a pup
> tent, the skids were greased. =EF=BF=BDBTW, you can also thank Obama who =
worked as
> an arm twister for ACORN. =EF=BF=BDHe helped them file a law suit in Illi=
nois
> against a mortgage company for not making enough high risk subprime loans=
.
> They won in court and that sent a message to every bank and finance compa=
ny
> in the country. =EF=BF=BDThe all started lowering their subprime loan req=
uirements.
> Plus, thanks to Clinton, F-MAE and F-MAC were buying up those high risk
> subprime loans as fast as banks could write them. =EF=BF=BDBush fucked up=
by not
> aggressively stopping this entitlement insanity but the basic problem was
> caused by the Democrat's entitlements-to-buy-votes strategy. =EF=BF=BDIf =
you rob
> Peter and give it to Paul, Paul will vote for you.
>
> Irish Mike

You really don't like facts, do you? I will still ask, as I did
before, how $100-300 billion in sub-prime loans turning into $50
trillion in bad paper is somehow the fault of President Clinton and
President-elect Obama. It is/was a crooked game in which the financial
houses kept their own deck.


  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 13:01:51
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy

"thepixelfreak" <not@dot.com > wrote in message
news:2008121909021616807-not@dotcom...
> On 2008-12-19 04:00:32 -0800, "Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net> said:
>
>> As a conservative, I have always been a proponent of supply side
>> economics
>> and favor lower taxes - especially for businesses, corporations and
>> capital
>> gains.
>
> How's that been working out for you this past 8 years?
> --
>
> thepixelfreak
>
Very well actually. Right up to the time the whole housing market collapsed
as a result of the Democrat's entitlement subprime mortgages. When Bill
Clinton made it a requirement that F-MAE and F-MAC have up to 50% of their
entire multi-billion dollar investment portfolios made up of high risk,
subprime mortgages, made to people who couldn't have qualified for a pup
tent, the skids were greased. BTW, you can also thank Obama who worked as
an arm twister for ACORN. He helped them file a law suit in Illinois
against a mortgage company for not making enough high risk subprime loans.
They won in court and that sent a message to every bank and finance company
in the country. The all started lowering their subprime loan requirements.
Plus, thanks to Clinton, F-MAE and F-MAC were buying up those high risk
subprime loans as fast as banks could write them. Bush fucked up by not
aggressively stopping this entitlement insanity but the basic problem was
caused by the Democrat's entitlements-to-buy-votes strategy. If you rob
Peter and give it to Paul, Paul will vote for you.

Irish Mike




   
Date: 20 Dec 2008 10:41:52
From: San Te of the 36 Chambers
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19 2008 1:01 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> Very well actually. Right up to the time the whole housing market collapsed
> as a result of the Democrat's entitlement subprime mortgages. When Bill
> Clinton made it a requirement that F-MAE and F-MAC have up to 50% of their
> entire multi-billion dollar investment portfolios made up of high risk,
> subprime mortgages, made to people who couldn't have qualified for a pup
> tent, the skids were greased. BTW, you can also thank Obama who worked as
> an arm twister for ACORN. He helped them file a law suit in Illinois
> against a mortgage company for not making enough high risk subprime loans.
> They won in court and that sent a message to every bank and finance company
> in the country. The all started lowering their subprime loan requirements.
> Plus, thanks to Clinton, F-MAE and F-MAC were buying up those high risk
> subprime loans as fast as banks could write them. Bush fucked up by not
> aggressively stopping this entitlement insanity but the basic problem was
> caused by the Democrat's entitlements-to-buy-votes strategy. If you rob
> Peter and give it to Paul, Paul will vote for you.

Mike gets his facts wrong again.

Freddie and Fannie didn't buy subprime loans. They were buying the
top-rated tranches on subprime CDOs. They had nothing to do with
underwriting requirements of the underlying subprime loan. Obama sued
Citigroup under the CRA for rejecting loans for minorities with the same
credit profiles as white people. The banks regulated under CRA did not
originate the majority of the troubled subprime and Alt-A loans. They
were primarily underwritten by non-CRA banks so the implication that a CRA
lawsuit was responsible for more bad loans is also false.

---- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 08:46:54
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
Irish Mike wrote:
> In all federal capital projects, only about one-quarter of the funds
> appropriated are actually spent in the fiscal year. It just takes that long
> to plan, engineer and begin construction. And for every $6 spent in the last
> stimulus package, only $1 actually got spent on goods or services. Five
> dollars out of every six in the Bush stimulus package of 2008 went to pay
> down debt, mortgage or credit card or student loan or home equity, and not
> into the acquisition of new products or services.

Two parts of this paragraph. The first is known, that is the whole
point of "shovel-ready" projects. There is a large and known amount of
infrastructure issues in the US, projects that are not being done by us.
The bridges are falling apart, the roads are deteriorating, and many
cities have 100 year underground utilities like sewers, that are about
100 years old.

And then the second part of your paragraph is totally unrelated to
anything. It has a backass slam about the BUSH stimulus package.
Passed by the house and senate but known to wildly not work because of
those exact same issue.

I have a bad feeling about your exposition.

> So, do the math. If only 25 cents out of every dollar actually is spent in
> the fiscal year, and only one-sixth of that sum actually gets spent by the
> workers who get paid on new goods and services, only about 4 cents from
> every dollar actually stimulates the economy. And who says those 4 cents
> will be spent on domestically produced products? A lot of the stimulus will
> just feed Chinese imports, particularly with their low prices.

Holy crap dude. You have multiplied apples times trains to find out how
many bats there are. This is so nonsensical you can't even make sense
of the rest of your argument, much less make any conclusions about
anything, or even come close to figuring out if they are reasonable.


  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 09:02:40
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19, 8:46=A0am, johnny_t <nobod...@home.com > wrote:

> =A0 The bridges are falling apart, the roads are deteriorating, and many
> cities have 100 year underground utilities like sewers, that are about
> 100 years old.
>
My town has brand new server pipe. It was a pain in the ass while
they were laying it, but the new pipe is much bigger and will
certainly outlast my own personal plumbing.

- Bob T.


 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 05:06:38
From: Lute
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19, 7:00=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> As a conservative, I have always been a proponent of supply side economic=
s

You should have stopped right there.

If government spending could possibly help the economy, then we would
already have the healthiest economy in the world. Government spending
has increased under every president since Eisenhower. The percentage
of government employees to private sector workers has also grown.

Government spending saps funds available for private investment, and
government purchasing drives up the price of goods or services by
artificially increasing the demand for them.

The proper role of government in the economy is to police for fraud,
and to enforce open access to the markets by all comers, including new
competitors.

That's it. Once government starts trying to "fix" things, the
disaster begins.


  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 19:55:02
From: Tim Norfolk
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19, 8:06=EF=BF=BDam, Lute <lutelat...@msn.com > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:00=EF=BF=BDam, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> > As a conservative, I have always been a proponent of supply side econom=
ics
>
> You should have stopped right there.
>
> If government spending could possibly help the economy, then we would
> already have the healthiest economy in the world. =EF=BF=BDGovernment spe=
nding
> has increased under every president since Eisenhower. =EF=BF=BDThe percen=
tage
> of government employees to private sector workers has also grown.
>
> Government spending saps funds available for private investment, and
> government purchasing drives up the price of goods or services by
> artificially increasing the demand for them.
>
> The proper role of government in the economy is to police for fraud,
> and to enforce open access to the markets by all comers, including new
> competitors.
>
> That's it. =EF=BF=BDOnce government starts trying to "fix" things, the
> disaster begins.

I would add that US government investment in science and technology
research has paid huge dividends, including the original computers,
the internet, and transistors. The corporate world stopped putting
serious money in basic research at least 30 years ago, since the pay-
offs were uncertain and too long-term. Had they not done so, and had
gone the new technology route, rather than fiat money creation, we
might well be in much better shape now. Of course, even the government
has reduced funding at every opportunity, because it's 'too elitist'
or something. Just look at the anti-science rants by McCain and Palin
in their campaign rallies. It echoes the pounding that science has
taken for the past 8 years, and I for one hope it's over.


  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 07:36:32
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
"Lute" <lutelatner@msn.com > wrote in message
news:2406203c-f52f-466e-a954-4872b0914480@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 19, 7:00 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:

> > As a conservative, I have always been a proponent of supply side
> > economics

> You should have stopped right there.

> If government spending could possibly help the economy, then we would
> already have the healthiest economy in the world. Government spending
> has increased under every president since Eisenhower. The percentage
> of government employees to private sector workers has also grown.


Spend ourselves into prosperity!




 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 05:03:55
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy - Thank god for cut an paste.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/12/10/507/

On Dec 19 2008 7:00 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

> As a conservative, I have always been a proponent of supply side economics
> and favor lower taxes - especially for businesses, corporations and capital
> gains. Needless to say this clashes with the Democrat's standard demand
> side economic approach. The following article by Dick Morris explains both:
> "The economic stimulus plans unveiled by President-elect Obama over the
> weekend won't do much to help the economy. But they will vindicate all the
> dreams of liberal Democrats for higher government spending.
>
> Of course, the basic choice facing any politician seeking to stimulate a
> moribund economy is whether to catalyze the supply side with tax cuts on
> business or the demand side by way of spending increases. Obama obviously
> made that choice years ago: He will work the demand side.
>
> But once a leader makes that decision, he faces another: Will he emphasize
> important and valuable public works projects or will he just try to pass out
> the largest amount of money possible? By announcing that he is not "going to
> throw money" at the economy in the hopes of getting a pulse, Obama signals
> that he will stress the former approach and fund important public works such
> as school reconstruction, fiber optic cables, alternative energy generation
> and the like.
>
> The problem is that such projects take a long time to plan and longer
> to build. Their immediate economic impact is highly attenuated.
>
> In all federal capital projects, only about one-quarter of the funds
> appropriated are actually spent in the fiscal year. It just takes that long
> to plan, engineer and begin construction. And for every $6 spent in the last
> stimulus package, only $1 actually got spent on goods or services. Five
> dollars out of every six in the Bush stimulus package of 2008 went to pay
> down debt, mortgage or credit card or student loan or home equity, and not
> into the acquisition of new products or services.
>
>
>
> So, do the math. If only 25 cents out of every dollar actually is spent in
> the fiscal year, and only one-sixth of that sum actually gets spent by the
> workers who get paid on new goods and services, only about 4 cents from
> every dollar actually stimulates the economy. And who says those 4 cents
> will be spent on domestically produced products? A lot of the stimulus will
> just feed Chinese imports, particularly with their low prices.
>
> FDR faced just this problem in combating the Great Depression. In the
> National Recovery Act (NRA), Roosevelt set up the Public Works
> Administration (PWA) headed by Interior Secretary Harold Ickes (the original
> one). Ickes was a stickler for making sure nothing was wasted and in keeping
> the costs down. He managed a spectacularly successful public works program
> and built, without scandal or corruption, some of our most important
> national infrastructure. But he took his sweet time doing so. The economic
> stimulation was slow in coming.
>
> Exasperated, FDR did an end-run around Ickes and set up the Works Progress
> Administration (WPA) under Harry Hopkins. WPA spent its money quickly and on
> projects involving little overhead or preparation. My mother got a WPA job
> teaching English to foreigners. Virtually all the WPA funds were spent in
> the fiscal year and the stimulative effect was immediate.
>
> But in opting to go the Ickes route, Obama will find that he leaves a legacy
> of important contributions to our national infrastructure, but little in the
> way of real economic stimulation.
>
> While a WPA-type approach might hasten the ameliorative impact of the
> stimulus package, Obama still faces the conundrum that most of those who get
> extra paychecks as a result of his spending will use the money to climb out
> of debt. In the '30s, credit cards didn't exist and consumer debt was very
> limited. Most people lived paycheck to paycheck. Extra money equaled extra
> spending. But now that most consumers will use money to pay down their
> debts, not to spend it, demand-side stimulation has its limitations. But
> Obama's ideology won't allow him to indulge in tax cuts "for the rich,"
> which might work to get us out of the depression faster."
>
>
>
> Irish Mike

____________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 07:30:18
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy - Thank god for cut an paste.
"MMelia" <a4f63df@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:rmis16xme6.ln2@recgroups.com...

> http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/12/10/507/
>


Holy shit, it looks like Dick Morris has been stealing shit from Irish
Mike's posts!




 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 04:19:40
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19, 4:00=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> As a conservative, I have always been a proponent of supply side economic=
s
> and favor lower taxes - especially for businesses, corporations and capit=
al
> gains. =A0Needless to say this clashes with the Democrat's standard deman=
d
> side economic approach. The following article by Dick Morris explains bot=
h:
> "The economic stimulus plans unveiled by President-elect Obama over the
> weekend won't do much to help the economy. But they will vindicate all th=
e
> dreams of liberal Democrats for higher government spending.
>
> Of course, the basic choice facing any politician seeking to stimulate a
> moribund economy is whether to catalyze the supply side with tax cuts on
> business or the demand side by way of spending increases. Obama obviously
> made that choice years ago: He will work the demand side.
>
> But once a leader makes that decision, he faces another: Will he emphasiz=
e
> important and valuable public works projects or will he just try to pass =
out
> the largest amount of money possible? By announcing that he is not "going=
to
> throw money" at the economy in the hopes of getting a pulse, Obama signal=
s
> that he will stress the former approach and fund important public works s=
uch
> as school reconstruction, fiber optic cables, alternative energy generati=
on
> and the like.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0The problem is that such projects take a long time to plan and=
longer
> to build. Their immediate economic impact is highly attenuated.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 In all federal capital projects, only about one-quarter of th=
e funds
> appropriated are actually spent in the fiscal year. It just takes that lo=
ng
> to plan, engineer and begin construction. And for every $6 spent in the l=
ast
> stimulus package, only $1 actually got spent on goods or services. Five
> dollars out of every six in the Bush stimulus package of 2008 went to pay
> down debt, mortgage or credit card or student loan or home equity, and no=
t
> into the acquisition of new products or services.
>
> So, do the math. If only 25 cents out of every dollar actually is spent i=
n
> the fiscal year, and only one-sixth of that sum actually gets spent by th=
e
> workers who get paid on new goods and services, only about 4 cents from
> every dollar actually stimulates the economy. And who says those 4 cents
> will be spent on domestically produced products? A lot of the stimulus wi=
ll
> just feed Chinese imports, particularly with their low prices.
>
> FDR faced just this problem in combating the Great Depression. In the
> National Recovery Act (NRA), Roosevelt set up the Public Works
> Administration (PWA) headed by Interior Secretary Harold Ickes (the origi=
nal
> one). Ickes was a stickler for making sure nothing was wasted and in keep=
ing
> the costs down. He managed a spectacularly successful public works progra=
m
> and built, without scandal or corruption, some of our most important
> national infrastructure. But he took his sweet time doing so. The economi=
c
> stimulation was slow in coming.
>
> Exasperated, FDR did an end-run around Ickes and set up the Works Progres=
s
> Administration (WPA) under Harry Hopkins. WPA spent its money quickly and=
on
> projects involving little overhead or preparation. My mother got a WPA jo=
b
> teaching English to foreigners. Virtually all the WPA funds were spent in
> the fiscal year and the stimulative effect was immediate.
>
> But in opting to go the Ickes route, Obama will find that he leaves a leg=
acy
> of important contributions to our national infrastructure, but little in =
the
> way of real economic stimulation.
>
> While a WPA-type approach might hasten the ameliorative impact of the
> stimulus package, Obama still faces the conundrum that most of those who =
get
> extra paychecks as a result of his spending will use the money to climb o=
ut
> of debt. In the '30s, credit cards didn't exist and consumer debt was ver=
y
> limited. Most people lived paycheck to paycheck. Extra money equaled extr=
a
> spending. But now that most consumers will use money to pay down their
> debts, not to spend it, demand-side stimulation has its limitations. But
> Obama's ideology won't allow him to indulge in tax cuts "for the rich,"
> which might work to get us out of the depression faster."
>
> Irish Mike

Hmm... the word "Messiah" is not present in the above, but the word
"ameliorative" is. I deduce that Mike did not write it, though he
apparently forgot to credit the person who did.

- Bob T.


  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 06:54:43
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19, 6:39=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Lute" <lutelat...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:55965cb8-1221-45a6-b832-bc73c3976ea4@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Does EITHER SIDE of this exchange strike readers as being especially
> mature?
>
> =3D*=3D*=3D
>
> There are three serious political and economic aspects of this disagreeme=
nt.
>
> First, Bob is a dick-head. =A0Second, he's still pissed that Hillary didn=
't
> win. =A0Third, I forget this one but Bob is a dick-head.

"Dickhead" isn't a hyphenated word, Mike. Please, if you're going to
insult me, try to use proper spelling and grammar.

However, you do get 55 million bonus irony points for the election
reference ;-}

- Bob T.
>
> Irish Mike


  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 09:37:11
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:19:40 -0800 (PST), "Bob T."
<bob@synapse-cs.com > wrote:

>Hmm... the word "Messiah" is not present in the above, but the word
>"ameliorative" is. I deduce that Mike did not write it, though he
>apparently forgot to credit the person who did.

I doubt it was on purpose. I mean even Irish Reich isn't stupid
enough to think anyone would believe for a moment he knew a word like
"ameliorative."

The fuckin dumb Mick.


  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 06:20:10
From: Lute
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
Does EITHER SIDE of this exchange strike readers as being especially
mature?

=3D*=3D*=3D

On Dec 19, 8:41=A0am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 5:35=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:

>
> > "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:801fc149-05bc-49e4-8a76-bb4cee3e95ad@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Dec 19, 5:00 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:30a15f1d-162b-41aa-a465-7b728e85762a@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com=
...
> > > On Dec 19, 4:31 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:> "Bob=
T."
> > > <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > Hmm... the word "Messiah" is not present in the above, but the word
> > > > "ameliorative" is. I deduce that Mike did not write it, though he
> > > > apparently forgot to credit the person who did.
>
> > > > - Bob T.
>
> > > > "The following article by Dick Morris explains both"
>
> > > > Which word didn't you understand Bob, "Dick" or "Morris"?
>
> > > I missed it because you buried in the text and provided no clues that
> > > there was a distinction between what you wrote and what Morris wrote.
> > > Do you not think about the fomatting of your posts at all?
>
> > > Oh, and Mike: Dick Morris? Please.
>
> > > - Bob T.
>
> > > OK Bob. I'll take that as your version of, "I apologize Mike. I misse=
d
> > > where you credited the article to Dick Morris. I'll try to read your =
posts
> > > more carefully in the future, so I don't falsely accuse you, and avoi=
d
> > > making myself look like an idiot."
>
> > Let me help your phrasing, Mike. =A0Obviously you meant to say "Oh, I
> > see what you mean, Bob. =A0I should have separated out the author's nam=
e
> > so it was clear at a glance. =A0I also should have included the date of
> > Morris' article and a link to the original. =A0Somebody I might join th=
e
> > 21st Century and post only an exerpt and a link, but don't hold your
> > breath."
>
> > - Bob T.
>
> > > Irish Mike
>
> > Well Bob, you proved you're not man enough to admit when you made a mis=
take.
>
> I did make a mistake. =A0I overlooked your mention of Dick Morris.
> Which I already admitted. =A0Are you man enough to admit that I already
> admitted it? =A0You also made a mistake by formatting your post so
> poorly. =A0Are you "man enough" (what a stupid expression) to admit
> that?
>
> - Bob T.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



   
Date: 19 Dec 2008 09:39:57
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy

"Lute" <lutelatner@msn.com > wrote in message
news:55965cb8-1221-45a6-b832-bc73c3976ea4@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Does EITHER SIDE of this exchange strike readers as being especially
mature?

=*=*=

There are three serious political and economic aspects of this disagreement.

First, Bob is a dick-head. Second, he's still pissed that Hillary didn't
win. Third, I forget this one but Bob is a dick-head.

Irish Mike

On Dec 19, 8:41 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 5:35 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:

>
> > "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:801fc149-05bc-49e4-8a76-bb4cee3e95ad@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 19, 5:00 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:30a15f1d-162b-41aa-a465-7b728e85762a@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 19, 4:31 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:> "Bob
> > > T."
> > > <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > Hmm... the word "Messiah" is not present in the above, but the word
> > > > "ameliorative" is. I deduce that Mike did not write it, though he
> > > > apparently forgot to credit the person who did.
>
> > > > - Bob T.
>
> > > > "The following article by Dick Morris explains both"
>
> > > > Which word didn't you understand Bob, "Dick" or "Morris"?
>
> > > I missed it because you buried in the text and provided no clues that
> > > there was a distinction between what you wrote and what Morris wrote.
> > > Do you not think about the fomatting of your posts at all?
>
> > > Oh, and Mike: Dick Morris? Please.
>
> > > - Bob T.
>
> > > OK Bob. I'll take that as your version of, "I apologize Mike. I missed
> > > where you credited the article to Dick Morris. I'll try to read your
> > > posts
> > > more carefully in the future, so I don't falsely accuse you, and avoid
> > > making myself look like an idiot."
>
> > Let me help your phrasing, Mike. Obviously you meant to say "Oh, I
> > see what you mean, Bob. I should have separated out the author's name
> > so it was clear at a glance. I also should have included the date of
> > Morris' article and a link to the original. Somebody I might join the
> > 21st Century and post only an exerpt and a link, but don't hold your
> > breath."
>
> > - Bob T.
>
> > > Irish Mike
>
> > Well Bob, you proved you're not man enough to admit when you made a
> > mistake.
>
> I did make a mistake. I overlooked your mention of Dick Morris.
> Which I already admitted. Are you man enough to admit that I already
> admitted it? You also made a mistake by formatting your post so
> poorly. Are you "man enough" (what a stupid expression) to admit
> that?
>
> - Bob T.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




    
Date: 19 Dec 2008 11:53:15
From: 123
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy


"Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:anO2l.10392$x%.10277@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Lute" <lutelatner@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:55965cb8-1221-45a6-b832-bc73c3976ea4@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Does EITHER SIDE of this exchange strike readers as being especially
> mature?
>
> =*=*=
>
> There are three serious political and economic aspects of this
disagreement.
>
> First, Bob is a dick-head. Second, he's still pissed that Hillary didn't
> win. Third, I forget this one but Bob is a dick-head.
>
> Irish Mike
>

Hmmmm, if you had of added "attached to a gay male," your intent would
better reflect Bob's point of view.

--
Your OP\Reply demonstrates a:

[ ] clueless
[ ] sarcasm-based
[ ] battlescarred
[x] well informed

... approach to interpreting RGP posts.







  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 05:41:03
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19, 5:35=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> news:801fc149-05bc-49e4-8a76-bb4cee3e95ad@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 19, 5:00 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:30a15f1d-162b-41aa-a465-7b728e85762a@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Dec 19, 4:31 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:> "Bob T=
."
> > <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Hmm... the word "Messiah" is not present in the above, but the word
> > > "ameliorative" is. I deduce that Mike did not write it, though he
> > > apparently forgot to credit the person who did.
>
> > > - Bob T.
>
> > > "The following article by Dick Morris explains both"
>
> > > Which word didn't you understand Bob, "Dick" or "Morris"?
>
> > I missed it because you buried in the text and provided no clues that
> > there was a distinction between what you wrote and what Morris wrote.
> > Do you not think about the fomatting of your posts at all?
>
> > Oh, and Mike: Dick Morris? Please.
>
> > - Bob T.
>
> > OK Bob. I'll take that as your version of, "I apologize Mike. I missed
> > where you credited the article to Dick Morris. I'll try to read your po=
sts
> > more carefully in the future, so I don't falsely accuse you, and avoid
> > making myself look like an idiot."
>
> Let me help your phrasing, Mike. =A0Obviously you meant to say "Oh, I
> see what you mean, Bob. =A0I should have separated out the author's name
> so it was clear at a glance. =A0I also should have included the date of
> Morris' article and a link to the original. =A0Somebody I might join the
> 21st Century and post only an exerpt and a link, but don't hold your
> breath."
>
> - Bob T.
>
> > Irish Mike
>
> Well Bob, you proved you're not man enough to admit when you made a mista=
ke.

I did make a mistake. I overlooked your mention of Dick Morris.
Which I already admitted. Are you man enough to admit that I already
admitted it? You also made a mistake by formatting your post so
poorly. Are you "man enough" (what a stupid expression) to admit
that?

- Bob T.



  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 05:09:58
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19, 5:00=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> news:30a15f1d-162b-41aa-a465-7b728e85762a@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 19, 4:31 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:> "Bob T."=
<b...@synapse-cs.com > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > Hmm... the word "Messiah" is not present in the above, but the word
> > "ameliorative" is. I deduce that Mike did not write it, though he
> > apparently forgot to credit the person who did.
>
> > - Bob T.
>
> > "The following article by Dick Morris explains both"
>
> > Which word didn't you understand Bob, "Dick" or "Morris"?
>
> I missed it because you buried in the text and provided no clues that
> there was a distinction between what you wrote and what Morris wrote.
> Do you not think about the fomatting of your posts at all?
>
> Oh, and Mike: Dick Morris? =A0Please.
>
> - Bob T.
>
> OK Bob. =A0I'll take that as your version of, "I apologize Mike. =A0I mis=
sed
> where you credited the article to Dick Morris. =A0I'll try to read your p=
osts
> more carefully in the future, so I don't falsely accuse you, and avoid
> making myself look like an idiot."

Let me help your phrasing, Mike. Obviously you meant to say "Oh, I
see what you mean, Bob. I should have separated out the author's name
so it was clear at a glance. I also should have included the date of
Morris' article and a link to the original. Somebody I might join the
21st Century and post only an exerpt and a link, but don't hold your
breath."

- Bob T.
> Irish Mike



   
Date: 21 Dec 2008 14:50:38
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19 2008 5:09 AM, Bob T. wrote:

> On Dec 19, 5:00 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:30a15f1d-162b-41aa-a465-7b728e85762a@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 19, 4:31 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:> "Bob T."
<b...@synapse-cs.com >
> wrote in message
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Hmm... the word "Messiah" is not present in the above, but the word
> > > "ameliorative" is. I deduce that Mike did not write it, though he
> > > apparently forgot to credit the person who did.
> >
> > > - Bob T.
> >
> > > "The following article by Dick Morris explains both"
> >
> > > Which word didn't you understand Bob, "Dick" or "Morris"?
> >
> > I missed it because you buried in the text and provided no clues that
> > there was a distinction between what you wrote and what Morris wrote.
> > Do you not think about the fomatting of your posts at all?
> >
> > Oh, and Mike: Dick Morris?  Please.
> >
> > - Bob T.
> >
> > OK Bob.  I'll take that as your version of, "I apologize Mike.  I missed
> > where you credited the article to Dick Morris.  I'll try to read your posts
> > more carefully in the future, so I don't falsely accuse you, and avoid
> > making myself look like an idiot."
>
> Let me help your phrasing, Mike. Obviously you meant to say "Oh, I
> see what you mean, Bob. I should have separated out the author's name
> so it was clear at a glance. I also should have included the date of
> Morris' article and a link to the original. Somebody I might join the
> 21st Century and post only an exerpt and a link, but don't hold your
> breath."

You mean "some day" not "somebody" right? Also, I MUCH prefer someone
post the entire article (with or without a link) then an excerpt with a
link. I hate having to go to other sites to read something that can
easily be posted here.

>
> - Bob T.
> > Irish Mike


Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

________________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 19 Dec 2008 08:35:40
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy

"Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com > wrote in message
news:801fc149-05bc-49e4-8a76-bb4cee3e95ad@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 19, 5:00 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> news:30a15f1d-162b-41aa-a465-7b728e85762a@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 19, 4:31 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:> "Bob T."
> <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > Hmm... the word "Messiah" is not present in the above, but the word
> > "ameliorative" is. I deduce that Mike did not write it, though he
> > apparently forgot to credit the person who did.
>
> > - Bob T.
>
> > "The following article by Dick Morris explains both"
>
> > Which word didn't you understand Bob, "Dick" or "Morris"?
>
> I missed it because you buried in the text and provided no clues that
> there was a distinction between what you wrote and what Morris wrote.
> Do you not think about the fomatting of your posts at all?
>
> Oh, and Mike: Dick Morris? Please.
>
> - Bob T.
>
> OK Bob. I'll take that as your version of, "I apologize Mike. I missed
> where you credited the article to Dick Morris. I'll try to read your posts
> more carefully in the future, so I don't falsely accuse you, and avoid
> making myself look like an idiot."

Let me help your phrasing, Mike. Obviously you meant to say "Oh, I
see what you mean, Bob. I should have separated out the author's name
so it was clear at a glance. I also should have included the date of
Morris' article and a link to the original. Somebody I might join the
21st Century and post only an exerpt and a link, but don't hold your
breath."

- Bob T.
> Irish Mike

Well Bob, you proved you're not man enough to admit when you made a mistake.

Irish Mike




    
Date: 19 Dec 2008 21:56:55
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19 2008 8:35 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

> Let me help your phrasing, Mike. Obviously you meant to say "Oh, I
> see what you mean, Bob. I should have separated out the author's name
> so it was clear at a glance. I also should have included the date of
> Morris' article and a link to the original. Somebody I might join the
> 21st Century and post only an exerpt and a link, but don't hold your
> breath."
>
> - Bob T.
> > Irish Mike
>
> Well Bob, you proved you're not man enough to admit when you made a mistake.
>


I thought conservatives beleived in property rights?

____________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 04:51:07
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy
On Dec 19, 4:31=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
<snip >

> Hmm... the word "Messiah" is not present in the above, but the word
> "ameliorative" is. =A0I deduce that Mike did not write it, though he
> apparently forgot to credit the person who did.
>
> - Bob T.
>
> "The following article by Dick Morris explains both"
>
> Which word didn't you understand Bob, "Dick" or "Morris"?

I missed it because you buried in the text and provided no clues that
there was a distinction between what you wrote and what Morris wrote.
Do you not think about the fomatting of your posts at all?

Oh, and Mike: Dick Morris? Please.

- Bob T.



   
Date: 19 Dec 2008 08:00:21
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy

"Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com > wrote in message
news:30a15f1d-162b-41aa-a465-7b728e85762a@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 19, 4:31 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
<snip >

> Hmm... the word "Messiah" is not present in the above, but the word
> "ameliorative" is. I deduce that Mike did not write it, though he
> apparently forgot to credit the person who did.
>
> - Bob T.
>
> "The following article by Dick Morris explains both"
>
> Which word didn't you understand Bob, "Dick" or "Morris"?

I missed it because you buried in the text and provided no clues that
there was a distinction between what you wrote and what Morris wrote.
Do you not think about the fomatting of your posts at all?

Oh, and Mike: Dick Morris? Please.

- Bob T.

OK Bob. I'll take that as your version of, "I apologize Mike. I missed
where you credited the article to Dick Morris. I'll try to read your posts
more carefully in the future, so I don't falsely accuse you, and avoid
making myself look like an idiot."

Irish Mike




  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 07:31:33
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Obama and the economy

"Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com > wrote in message
news:e55aa267-7a73-4085-a0c2-f6d8203fd145@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 19, 4:00 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> As a conservative, I have always been a proponent of supply side economics
> and favor lower taxes - especially for businesses, corporations and
> capital
> gains. Needless to say this clashes with the Democrat's standard demand
> side economic approach. The following article by Dick Morris explains
> both:
> "The economic stimulus plans unveiled by President-elect Obama over the
> weekend won't do much to help the economy. But they will vindicate all the
> dreams of liberal Democrats for higher government spending.
>
> Of course, the basic choice facing any politician seeking to stimulate a
> moribund economy is whether to catalyze the supply side with tax cuts on
> business or the demand side by way of spending increases. Obama obviously
> made that choice years ago: He will work the demand side.
>
> But once a leader makes that decision, he faces another: Will he emphasize
> important and valuable public works projects or will he just try to pass
> out
> the largest amount of money possible? By announcing that he is not "going
> to
> throw money" at the economy in the hopes of getting a pulse, Obama signals
> that he will stress the former approach and fund important public works
> such
> as school reconstruction, fiber optic cables, alternative energy
> generation
> and the like.
>
> The problem is that such projects take a long time to plan and longer
> to build. Their immediate economic impact is highly attenuated.
>
> In all federal capital projects, only about one-quarter of the funds
> appropriated are actually spent in the fiscal year. It just takes that
> long
> to plan, engineer and begin construction. And for every $6 spent in the
> last
> stimulus package, only $1 actually got spent on goods or services. Five
> dollars out of every six in the Bush stimulus package of 2008 went to pay
> down debt, mortgage or credit card or student loan or home equity, and not
> into the acquisition of new products or services.
>
> So, do the math. If only 25 cents out of every dollar actually is spent in
> the fiscal year, and only one-sixth of that sum actually gets spent by the
> workers who get paid on new goods and services, only about 4 cents from
> every dollar actually stimulates the economy. And who says those 4 cents
> will be spent on domestically produced products? A lot of the stimulus
> will
> just feed Chinese imports, particularly with their low prices.
>
> FDR faced just this problem in combating the Great Depression. In the
> National Recovery Act (NRA), Roosevelt set up the Public Works
> Administration (PWA) headed by Interior Secretary Harold Ickes (the
> original
> one). Ickes was a stickler for making sure nothing was wasted and in
> keeping
> the costs down. He managed a spectacularly successful public works program
> and built, without scandal or corruption, some of our most important
> national infrastructure. But he took his sweet time doing so. The economic
> stimulation was slow in coming.
>
> Exasperated, FDR did an end-run around Ickes and set up the Works Progress
> Administration (WPA) under Harry Hopkins. WPA spent its money quickly and
> on
> projects involving little overhead or preparation. My mother got a WPA job
> teaching English to foreigners. Virtually all the WPA funds were spent in
> the fiscal year and the stimulative effect was immediate.
>
> But in opting to go the Ickes route, Obama will find that he leaves a
> legacy
> of important contributions to our national infrastructure, but little in
> the
> way of real economic stimulation.
>
> While a WPA-type approach might hasten the ameliorative impact of the
> stimulus package, Obama still faces the conundrum that most of those who
> get
> extra paychecks as a result of his spending will use the money to climb
> out
> of debt. In the '30s, credit cards didn't exist and consumer debt was very
> limited. Most people lived paycheck to paycheck. Extra money equaled extra
> spending. But now that most consumers will use money to pay down their
> debts, not to spend it, demand-side stimulation has its limitations. But
> Obama's ideology won't allow him to indulge in tax cuts "for the rich,"
> which might work to get us out of the depression faster."
>
> Irish Mike

Hmm... the word "Messiah" is not present in the above, but the word
"ameliorative" is. I deduce that Mike did not write it, though he
apparently forgot to credit the person who did.

- Bob T.

"The following article by Dick Morris explains both"

Which word didn't you understand Bob, "Dick" or "Morris"?

Irish Mike