Stimulus for Who?
-
Heck, I hate to chime in & cherry pick your post, but I am worried most about this in particular. Yes a hypothetical scenario was averted but at what cost?
At a great cost, but not nearly as great as the implosion of the financial system and a worldwide depression. You may think losing 650,000 jobs in a month is bad, and I do too. But I think it's better than 800,000 or a million. and you may think a recession that lasts three years is long, and I do too. But it's better than a depression/recession that last ten years.
No one is arguing that these steps are designed to feel good, or make everyone whole again. Sometimes they're incredibly hard to swallow, as sometimes you're rewarding bad behavior (AIG bonuses, help for negligent lenders and homeowners). But you still do it if you think it helps save taxpayer money in the long run.
There's a story about Lehman Brothers in today's WSJ that is instructive in this regard. Shorter version: it's going to cost them a lot more money to bring in people to wind their company down than it costs AIG (read: us) to retain their people (with bonuses) to wind their investments down. And AIG is a much bigger company than Lehman is. Or was.
Point being, if it costs taxpayers less to give AIG people bonuses than it does to hire an outside firm to do the same job, which should we do? I'd argue that even though you're giving money to people who helped caused this mess (though not necessarily - not everyone at AIG is guilty) it's still better than spending more to feel good about it.
So there's no political upside in this for the Obama administration. They're faced with bad choice, or worse choice. The only thing they're focused on is trying to revive the economy. There will be missteps along the way. There will be taxpayer money lost or misspent. In the end, we'll see how well it all works and if they deserve credit for turning this ship around, or something else.
Very simply, isn't this what caused the problem?
No. I'm not sure what you mean. When people say more debt doesn't solve the problem of debt, they're assuming the problem was debt. Except that it wasn't. The main driver in this was leverage, not debt.
At a great cost, but not nearly as great as the implosion of the financial system and a worldwide depression. You may think losing 650,000 jobs in a month is bad, and I do too. But I think it's better than 800,000 or a million. and you may think a recession that lasts three years is long, and I do too. But it's better than a depression/recession that last ten years.
No one is arguing that these steps are designed to feel good, or make everyone whole again. Sometimes they're incredibly hard to swallow, as sometimes you're rewarding bad behavior (AIG bonuses, help for negligent lenders and homeowners). But you still do it if you think it helps save taxpayer money in the long run.
There's a story about Lehman Brothers in today's WSJ that is instructive in this regard. Shorter version: it's going to cost them a lot more money to bring in people to wind their company down than it costs AIG (read: us) to retain their people (with bonuses) to wind their investments down. And AIG is a much bigger company than Lehman is. Or was.
Point being, if it costs taxpayers less to give AIG people bonuses than it does to hire an outside firm to do the same job, which should we do? I'd argue that even though you're giving money to people who helped caused this mess (though not necessarily - not everyone at AIG is guilty) it's still better than spending more to feel good about it.
So there's no political upside in this for the Obama administration. They're faced with bad choice, or worse choice. The only thing they're focused on is trying to revive the economy. There will be missteps along the way. There will be taxpayer money lost or misspent. In the end, we'll see how well it all works and if they deserve credit for turning this ship around, or something else.
Oh, I'm cool with the bend, not break thing, but what I was getting at is what you've isolated below*:
I know that the problems rested in the whacked leverage these types of loans create, and not the debt itself. What I am saying is that the system in place that adjusts & corrects these things is(was) at fault and is now being rewarded to utilize that very system that should have been used 5 years ago. Sure it may cost more now to the taxpayers to use AIG rather than Outside company X, but isn't that what this is about? Long term? Also, when was the last time the public got to sit in on a government procurement meeting when these types of value comparison decisions get made? Again, when the budgets & stimulus plans eclipse the $10 trillion mark, the public outcry shifts from "they're taking the more expensive choice" to "they're spending how much? (like we say yesterday)."
To simplify (for me, maybe not for you), as a painter, instead of buying cheap regional hardware store branded paint X, we purchased more expensive product because S-W would support us and go to bat with us if a customer came after us for a coatings performance or system failure. If it was the product, they'd take the heat. If the job was poorly spec'ed S-W would go to the designer/architect and provide an alternative product submittal that would perform better. Often times, the architect would listen and go with what "we" recommended, but if they didn't and we had a problem, we were covered because we were pro-active about it.
*
(Legacy Fan @ Apr 16 2009, 06:39 AM) *
Very simply, isn't this what caused the problem?
No. I'm not sure what you mean. When people say more debt doesn't solve the problem of debt, they're assuming the problem was debt. Except that it wasn't. The main driver in this was leverage, not debt.
-
Like I said, I don't expect much self-reflection, just more lashing out.
You even wanted to blame the financial crisis on poor people who couldn't afford their homes, Steve. You're probably the biggest offender.
Seriously, go see where your tax money goes.
Like I said, I don't expect much self-reflection, just more lashing out.
Yeah how dare I.
You even wanted to blame the financial crisis on poor people who couldn't afford their homes, Steve. You're probably the biggest offender.
Great comeback Heck.
Speak mouth.
But yes dear people who take or sell shaky and irresponsible loans or "investments" and the crooked politicians tyhat push them really are to blame.
Not your (and the empty suit's) pat answer : "It was BOOOOOOSH I tell ya!!
I seen him sneaking out of the barn!!!!"
Seriously, go see where your tax money goes.
Seriously who cares? It won't save me anything and who cares?
Hopefully Obamas power mad cronies will wise up and see the brick wall his idiotic long range spending will send us onto and put the kibosh on it before there's real trouble.
The skimulous? Who cares. Peanuts. It's the long term damage we need to worry about.
Hey does it concern you that the smartest man in the world was clueless about the ethics of so many members of his proposed cabinet might be just as informed about their abilities?
Nah didn't think so.
(and thanks for the monkey shit Dan.)
WSS
-
But Leg, if you're asking me if I'm worried about the size of the budget, and the projected deficits, and the specter of higher taxes, you bet I am.
Most of the change is going to have to come from health care and entitlement reform, but also from things like cutting the defense budget. Which is why I applaud the move by Gates to reign in some of the larger cases of waste, abuse, and the needless spending in the defense budget, not run around like my hair is on fire screaming that Obama is gutting the military.
We need temporary stimulus spending, then all sorts of reform.
But Leg, if you're asking me if I'm worried about the size of the budget, and the projected deficits, and the specter of higher taxes, you bet I am.
Most of the change is going to have to come from health care and entitlement reform, but also from things like cutting the defense budget. Which is why I applaud the move by Gates to reign in some of the larger cases of waste, abuse, and the needless spending in the defense budget, not run around like my hair is on fire screaming that Obama is gutting the military.
We need temporary stimulus spending, then all sorts of reform.
Yeah I agree.
I tried to avoid the gutting the military thread as long as I could (because I knew where it started & where it was heading) I only chimed in after reading that the Lefty version of "Bunker" figured we ought to arbitrarily cut the military in half. I'm definitely all for streamlining.
-
"What I am saying is that the system in place that adjusts & corrects these things is(was) at fault and is now being rewarded to utilize that very system that should have been used 5 years ago. Sure it may cost more now to the taxpayers to use AIG rather than Outside company X, but isn't that what this is about? Long term?"
Yeah, what you touched on above will be the next phase - putting in some sort of smart, new regulatory scheme that keeps us out of these bubble/boom/bust episodes. There will always be periods of growth and recessions and such, but the idea is to figure out what we can do to keep this type of thing (massive bank failures that threaten to drag everyone down with them) from happening again.
That's something I don't know too much about. Tupa could probably help more there.
Problem is, you're depending on a lot of people who either aren't that smart or don't know much or anything about this stuff - i.e. most members of Congress - to be the smart ones.
-
"What I am saying is that the system in place that adjusts & corrects these things is(was) at fault and is now being rewarded to utilize that very system that should have been used 5 years ago. Sure it may cost more now to the taxpayers to use AIG rather than Outside company X, but isn't that what this is about? Long term?"
Yeah, what you touched on above will be the next phase - putting in some sort of smart, new regulatory scheme that keeps us out of these bubble/boom/bust episodes. There will always be periods of growth and recessions and such, but the idea is to figure out what we can do to keep this type of thing (massive bank failures that threaten to drag everyone down with them) from happening again.
That's something I don't know too much about. Tupa could probably help more there.
Problem is, you're depending on a lot of people who either aren't that smart or don't know much or anything about this stuff - i.e. most members of Congress - to be the smart ones.
That's something I don't know too much about. Tupa could probably help more there.
Problem is, you're depending on a lot of people who either aren't that smart or don't know much or anything about this stuff - i.e. most members of Congress - to be the smart ones.
Uh so since Obama and Geitner have it figured out, why isn't that a good thing?
If all congress needs to do is rubber stamp utopia why all the hedging and anger?
WSS
-
You're really turning yourself into a complete non-factor. I love the utopia lines. Those never get old. You're like Victor Davis Hanson without all those degrees.
-
You're really turning yourself into a complete non-factor. I love the utopia lines. Those never get old. You're like Victor Davis Hanson without all those degrees.
You're really turning yourself into a complete non-factor. I love the utopia lines. Those never get old. You're like Victor Davis Hanson without all those degrees.
Yeah?
Damn.
Anyway again, what's with the bitterness?
Aren't you supposed to be "glassy eyed" and covered with "goose bumps?"
You seem angrier than you did when Bush was in office.
You guys have carte blanche. Cheer up.
Hey as I said I think protests are stupid.
Who cares? I pay my taxes. Lower 'em if you wanna.
Like I said if my taxes go down for reasons other than prolonged recession or the financial community's vote of no confidence for Obama great.
If he wants to sport me some health ins for less than I pay I'm all for it.
But I don't want it to suck, capice?
I don't have much of a beef with the skimulus.
It all goes in somebody's pocket and that is the idea.
I guess I prefer somebody have to at least do some busywrk for it, no?
But if you're nervous about the plans, as you should be, what good does it do to berate me?
It should be "Ha!! Well bucko wait and see!! "
WSS
-
It's odd to see Heck against wasteful defense spending.
But, let Obama up the spending on domestic programs by
huge numbers, and Heck couldn't care less about the
wasteful spending, because the defense budget is big.
Heck is sliding into liberal hatespeak, liberal intentional blindness,
and expert cherry picking.
Go ahead, Heck - give Soros and Obama great big smoochies.
But you make no sense at all with living on the liberal side of things at any cost,
like a brainwashed cult member...
-
And we're back to square one.
-
Square one? Is that where you leave after whining about not getting conservatives banned, and Shep comes back?
-
And we're back to square one.
And we're back to square one.
It's never gotten off square one Heck.
We don't have that many "issues" and the ones we do have are still there.
You guys have railed at Bush for 8 years no matter what the "issue" might be.
He deserved some of it.
But his party was demonized and defeated.
Your party has a commanding lead in both houses.
So just don't get all outraged if I ask 'em to put up or shut up.
You must have something to bring to the table besides anger no?
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login