If and when do you think this stimulus plan will work?

hawk wrote :



isn't telling the people that the economy is in a ditch and that we all will have to work together an honest approach ?
getting hung up on theories isn't going to help one bit at this time imo .
i've "gotten into a ditch" more than once - worked my way out - and thereafter decided what i can do to improve my chances of not getting into the same ditch again .

btw there was absolutely no talk of "short time" jobs or cures . though speaking about personal experience , i have sometimes taken short-time jobs - and they've always served me well (sometimes helped me to decide which job NOT to take ) .
hbg

Obama's talents run towards consensus building, at this point we are no where near willing to face up to the roots of the current problems so there is nothing for Obama to work with. He is willing to medicate the symptoms only because that is all that is available at the current time. When we look towards those nations that have nationalized the banks and see that the solution works we will then be willing to nationalize and Obama will work to make it happen. When the global community has seen enough failure at revival attempts through stimulation and and decides that the global economy system must be changed Obama will work with global leaders to make that happen. What Obama will not do is advocate for what must be done before the audience is willing to hear the message. What Obama has done and will do is Important, but others must lead the way. Obama is not by definition a good leader, because a good leader will be willing to get out in front.

Oh? And how many weeks will you give Obama to begin leading?

yes. Work together to do what though? keeping people employed and housed (all that we are currently willing to do) when the operation of the economic system that we have and support and claim is good enough would have them unemployed and homeless is however not honest. Saying that we believe in the private sector ownership when profits are made but in public sector taking the losses from private owners is not honest. Saying that we have a right to spend our kids in to massive debt is not honest and is immoral. Saying that short term alleviation of pain is worthwhile at any cost is not honest.

Don'T tell me that you believe in something when in practice you only believe in it so long as you like the result. This is why capitalism has failed, we like the wealth creation effect but we don't like the corrections, and are not willing to let them work. This was the purpose of the social safety nets, we could allow capitalism to work in the correction phase. We did away with social safety nets, and now we are screwed. The capitalists advocated for the end of the safety nets because they could make more money on the upside, create more wealth that the owners could take most of and thus get individually rich. But they fucked themselves, because now that we are facing the downside we are not willing to let markets works........the lack of faith in capitalism is now obvious to all, when before we could pretend otherwise.

Capitalism did not fail; people failed by their greed and inability to follow the laws and ethics.

Hawkeye 10 wrote:
Obama's talents run towards consensus building, at this point we are no where near willing to face up to the roots of the current problems so there is nothing for Obama to work with. He is willing to medicate the symptoms only because that is all that is available at the current time. When we look towards those nations that have nationalized the banks and see that the solution works we will then be willing to nationalize and Obama will work to make it happen. When the global community has seen enough failure at revival attempts through stimulation and and decides that the global economy system must be changed Obama will work with global leaders to make that happen. What Obama will not do is advocate for what must be done before the audience is willing to hear the message. What Obama has done and will do is Important, but others must lead the way. Obama is not by definition a good leader, because a good leader will be willing to get out in front.


EXACTLY--OBAMA THINKS HE IS STILL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO ORGANIZING THE 'HOMIES"

people are by nature greedy, and capitalism claimed that it could harness the greed and thus turn what had been a sin and make it into a virtue......not. It made greed more profitable, and thus encouraged it, and made modern man less virtuous then our ancestors. Capitalism has failed man, and now it will fail.

Obama is smart, and has the proven ability to adapt. There is every reason to expect that he will grow into the job. He ain't there yet though. America has very few leaders able and willing to step into the presidency ready on day one. Given the weak talent pool Obama is the best we could reasonably expect, which is why I have a problem with those who insist upon shitting all over him.

Some are so blinded by their hate of Obama, they expect him to have cured all of what ails us today - in less than one month in office.

I am very much afraid, Hawkeye 10, that you donh't know very much about Obama.

Do you?

Do you know that he was a Community Organizer in Chicago working for a Saul Alinsky group?

Do you know that he was a personal friend of William Ayres, the fanatic who bombed the Pentagon?

Do you know that Obama fell asleep at every sermon made by his pastor, Reverend Wright, in which the pastor repeatedly stated incredible Anti-American epithets?

Do you know that Obama has many relatives in Kenya( who are Muslims) That is why he will be able to deal with Iran. He understands Muslims.

Do you know that Obama freely endorsed the man who was probably the worst governor in the USA(Blagojevich) More will be revealed at Blago's trial. We will find out about the corruption in Blago's office while Obama was Senator of Illinois( Of course, Obama knew nothing about that so he couldn't blow the whistle. But we know.of course, that Obama is a highly moral politician.

Do you know whether Obama received Affirmative Action to get into
Columbia U or Harvard Law School? I don't and neither does anyone else.
SO MUCH FOR TRANSPARENCY AND HONESTY.

Do you know that Obama got a huge write off on his million dollar mansion on the South Side of Chicago after dealing with a sleazy indicted and convicted influence peddler, a certain Anton Rezko, who introduced Obama to many of the movers and shakers in Chicago when Obama graduated from Law School?

These things you may not know. I know them, not just because I read of them but because I have a great deal of first hand knowledge concerning Chicago Politics.

No, he isn't all bad. Hewon't segt up concentration camps like FDR did. At least I don't think so.

we have decided to not let this thread be hijacked by political partisans, take your Obama hating to another thread and stick to economics please.

Of course, Hawkeye 10. Your request is most reasonable. I was not aware that posting facts about Obama( You can not show that any facts I posted are not correct) was Obama hating but your request is well taken inasmuch as the title of the thread is--"If and when do you think this stimulus plan will work.

OK- Economics- Hawkeye 10--but please don't dodge the points laid down( which will cover ECONOMICS).

Mark Levey in the Wall Street Journal wrote:

quote

After four years of FDR's policies, joblessness declined to 14.3 percent9BUT...by the fall of 1937 the US had entered a secondary depression and unemployment began to rise, reaching 19% in 1938.
By 1939 Roosevelt's own Treasury Secretary. Henry Morganthau, had realized that the New Deal Spending Policies had failed. He wrote in his dairy--"We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work...After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot.

...in the long term a return to growth will demand on dynamic job creation by American businesses--not the US government--Mr. Obama's plan would have the government distributing funds for public works carried out by the states. With government aleady spending 20% of GDP,federal government, not private enterprise, will become the growth industry. THE EFFECTS OF THESE POLICIES,LIKE FDR'S WILL BE TO LENGTHEN THE PAIN>"

nobody has the techniques for manipulating the economy out of a depression down to a science. I kind of think that manipulation will not work, only a credible fixing of obvious problems of the economic system to the extent that the majority again believes in the system will work. Since we do pretty poorly at predicting human behaviour this is not easy to plan.

I agree with you completely. But, as Dr. Thomas Sowell has commented:

quote:

"This(Great Depression) was in fact the first depression in which the government intervened so much, first under Hoover and then even more so under Roosevelt. All previous depressions had ended much sooner, without any major govenment interventions"

****************************************************

There are some who say that the massive expenditures are also geared to gain the maximum political support for Obama--imagine that!

Well, claiming that we believe in capitalism as we socialize the economy as we claim that we are not socializing the economy is sure not going to have a happy ending.....

I think that it is true that those who demand government intervention have not proven that government intervention is helpful in the long term. Most of the world either believes in government intervention or has at least been presured into engaging in it. However they often demand public ownership of the assets in return (nationalization), and that difference may turn out to be important.

Hawkeye 10 wrote:

I think that it is true that those who demand government intervention have not proven that government intervention is helpful in the long term. Most of the world either believes in government intervention or has at least been presured into engaging in it. However they often demand public ownership of the assets in return (nationalization), and that difference may turn out to be important.
end of quote
A`great and succinct paragraph which says more than the large majority of posts on this thread. It goes right to the heart of the problem.

So GM and Chrysler turned in their homewor at 5 pm ET. Actually, it was well before 5 but the media couldn't report on it until 5.
Highlights: GM, which may have received or is scheduled to get $18B now says $30B is a more realistic estimate. They say they can cut 12.000 jobs by 2012 and eliminate 3 brands of cars. They also hope to exchange $20B in retiree health benefits to the UAW in exchange for the union getting stock in GM.
Chrysler says $7B? We meant to say $9B. They offered to cut 3,000 jobs on top of the 32,000 announced earlier and to cut brands.

I don't pretend to know anything about making cars, but these presentations strike me as pretty weak.

I agree; it seems to me that the taxpayers are sort of guaranteeing the auto unions continued pay and benefits - even if they are laying off workers. Why are they so special? Why can't all workers get similar guarantees?

I don't have a problem putting the advertised $ Billions into the car companies, given the economic situation, but the stockholders and management have to get rubbed out. Otherwise no dice.