"Recovery Summer"

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

1) According to the CBO the Stimulus has had a large beneficial impact and by the reckoning of many may have averted a much bigger economic meltdown. People will debate this forever.

2) The projected budget deficits and National debt were caused by both parties. Personally I don't see any solution that doesn't involve both spending cuts and increased taxes.

3) A big reason the unemployment rate isn't dropping further is simply because American businesses have become more productive and the explosive growth that fuels rapid hiring is happening in other parts of the world. This isn't just because we've "shipped jobs overseas", it's because the hiring is taking place close to the action, just like it did in the US in the 1990s.

4) These emerging nations will gradually help the US economy

5) Government investment in growth technologies is a good investment and something I'd like to see Obama do more of

-spence

#1 your right Spence, people will debate this forever because it is also
speculative and conjecture.

#2 Agree it was caused by both parties, however imho spending cuts,
10% across the board, except military, as a start and TAX CUTS for small and medium size business will help with unemployment.

#3 That makes sense. However, sending jobs overseas started 35
years ago as high taxes and government over regulation is what started
the move.

#4 My Grandsons will have gray beards before emerging countries help
our US economy.

#5 Private investment in tech companies is a better route as competition
will get us there faster and the taxpayer won't have the expense of
another bureaucracy and having to pay benefits and retirement for government
employees.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

#1 your right Spence, people will debate this forever because it is also
speculative and conjecture.

That McCain would have had a massive (i.e. 1T++) 2009 budget deficit is neither speculation or conjecture.

Look at the numbers.

#2 Agree it was caused by both parties, however imho spending cuts,
10% across the board, except military, as a start and TAX CUTS for small and medium size business will help with unemployment.

The military can easily take a 10% spending cut. The issue there is with the programs local Congress people have a desire to continue funding for. This is also a bi-partisan issue.

#3 That makes sense. However, sending jobs overseas started 35 years ago as high taxes and government over regulation is what started the move.

Globalization is what started the move. Just as manufacturing shifted to the US in the late 1800's we're pushing it onto Asia at the turn of the century.

#4 My Grandsons will have gray beards before emerging countries help our US economy.

Nope, it's already happening. I work with manufacturing companies every day in the US and the growth in Asia and BRIC countries is a huge part of their business which helps them them employ Americans.

#5 Private investment in tech companies is a better route as competition will get us there faster and the taxpayer won't have the expense of another bureaucracy and having to pay benefits and retirement for government employees.

This is a classic Keynesian scenario. The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value. People may mock Obama wanting to invest in environmental tech that's slow to produce, but odds are the future success of America will be based on these technologies.

-spence

[striperman36]

we spent 20B Billion for a/c in Afghanistan!!

My buds don't get that.

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=spence;868764]That McCain would have had a massive (i.e. 1T++) 2009 budget deficit is neither speculation or conjecture.

Look at the numbers.

IF THERE ARE FACTUAL NUMBERS, WHY THE DEBATE?


The military can easily take a 10% spending cut. The issue there is with the programs local Congress people have a desire to continue funding for. This is also a bi-partisan issue.

YA SURE, WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MID EAST, THE NEED FOR NEW SOPHISTCATED WEAPONS TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND CHINA BUILDING UP IT'S MILITARY AND BUIDING CARRIERS WE SHOULD CUT BACK ON MILITARY SPENDING ?


Globalization is what started the move. Just as manufacturing shifted to the US in the late 1800's we're pushing it onto Asia at the turn of the century.

OUR PUSHING INTO ASIA MAY BE THE FIRST YOU'VE SEEN IN YOUR LIFTIME,
BUT COMPANIES STARTED MOVING FROM STATE TO STATE THEN OUT OF
THE COUNTRY 35 YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF GOVT. REGULATION AND TAXES.


Nope, it's already happening. I work with manufacturing companies every day in the US and the growth in Asia and BRIC countries is a huge part of their business which helps them them employ Americans.

WHERE CAN I FIND THESE FACTS AND FIGURES.


This is a classic Keynesian scenario. The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value. People may mock Obama wanting to invest in environmental tech that's slow to produce, but odds are the future success of America will be based on these technologies.

YA MEAN LIKE HOW SILICONE VALLEY COMPANIES WERE LOOKING FOR SHORT TERM SHARE HOLDER VALUE WHEN THEY CREATED HIGH TECH?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Globalization is what started the move. Just as manufacturing shifted to the US in the late 1800's we're pushing it onto Asia at the turn of the century.

This is a classic Keynesian scenario. The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value. People may mock Obama wanting to invest in environmental tech that's slow to produce, but odds are the future success of America will be based on these technologies.

-spence

manufacturing didn't "shift" to the US in the late 1800's, mechanization allowed American businessmen and inventors and investors to create American jobs and expand industry and fill the growing demands here and elsewhere...and it happened without Obama "investing" in anything...go figure

saying it "shifted" suggests that we recieved it or it was sent here from somewhere else...we created, we expanded..it's what we do...and I'm sorry, the "future success of America" will NOT be based on environmental tech...the only thing that you got right is that it is very slow to produce, if at all...particularly with Obama(GOVERNMENT) picking winners and losers...ask Spain the future success of America will be based on private business creating and innovating and filling demands without the big hand of Statist Central Planners determining, directing and taxing their every step....
............................


The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value.
-spence

yeah, that private business is just a menace....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by scottw

manufacturing didn't "shift" to the US in the late 1800's, mechanization allowed American businessmen and inventors and investors to create American jobs and expand industry and fill the growing demands here and elsewhere...and it happened without Obama "investing" in anything...go figure

saying it "shifted" suggests that we recieved it or it was sent here from somewhere else...we created, we expanded..it's what we do...and I'm sorry, the "future success of America" will NOT be based on environmental tech...the only thing that you got right is that it is very slow to produce, if at all...particularly with Obama(GOVERNMENT) picking winners and losers...ask Spain the future success of America will be based on private business creating and innovating and filling demands without the big hand of Statist Central Planners determining, directing and taxing their every step....
............................


The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value.
-spence

yeah, that private business is just a menace....

State Taxpayers May Eat $1.6 Million Loan for Defunct Green Bus Company
By Tom Gantert - Michigan Capitol Confidential – 06/20/2011

In September of 2009, Fisher Coachworks was mentioned in a press release from Gov. Jennifer Granholm as a “green technology” company that was part of the “new energy economy for Michigan.” Two years later, the state says Fisher Coachworks is out of business and the state has to write off $1.6 million it loaned the electric bus manufacturing company.

Edgar Benning, general manager of Flint’s Mass Transportation Authority, said in an email that Fisher Coachworks went out of business in the development phase of making two $1.1 million electric buses that Flint was going to purchase with grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly referred to as the “stimulus plan.”

Fisher Coachworks officials could not be reached for comment.

Michael Psarouthakis, vice president of business acceleration for the Michigan Economic Development Corp., said Fisher Coachworks would not repay $1.6 million in loans it had received from the state. The MEDC had approved Fisher Coachworks for a $2.6 million loan, but never gave out the final $1 million because the company was struggling, Psarouthakis said.

“It was clear that they were going to have some serious financial difficulties even with our funding,” Psarouthakis said. “They needed significant funding above and beyond that.”

James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said some green energy companies wouldn’t make it without government aid.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

the future success of America will be based on private business creating and innovating and filling demands without the big hand of Statist Central Planners determining, directing and taxing their every step.....

You can take that to the bank.