Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (103820)	2/11/2009 8:44:39 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541936

Barney Frank just said on CNBC, "If you want to solve a problem without political answers, don't give it to 535 politicians on Capitol Hill to fix." That sums it up pretty well. Both parties have their people on TV this morning chanting their particular partisan ideological lines. Nothing like repeating native rituals to strengthen the tribe.

To: slacker711 who wrote (103820)	2/11/2009 9:21:04 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541936

I understand what you are saying. And from the economists I've heard on NPR (which is probably part of the nefarious MSM and thus completely corrupted by dem policies) the most important thing is to get the money spread across the 50 states, and in to as many programs as possible where the money will be spent very quickly. While those programs you list ARE priorities of the dems- they also meet the above criteria. There are probably other ways to attack the issue, but I'm not sure any of them are better than the dem choices- they would merely represent a different host of causes that we could throw money at immediately- and as a host of causes go, these aren't so bad. What would you prefer to swap out for something else?

To: slacker711 who wrote (103820)	2/11/2009 12:32:31 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541936

Well, slacker, I never took you for a cultural relativist. But who would have thought. If the Reps favor it, it must be just politics; if the Dems favor it, it must be just politics. I think these represent, instead, serious policy differences rather than simply views held by opposing politicians for political gain and/or ideological reasons. Before I do the list, which is unevenly important, let me backup a step. It seems to me there are three possible positions one can hold about the present economic situation: (1) it ain't all that bad, perhaps a bit beyond a garden variety recession, but the market will work it out (variations then abound in terms of how much damage or help injecting state spending into the mix would produce); (2) it's terrible, worst since the 30s depression and we need to cut taxes over and over again to get investment started again and money into tax payers hands; (3) it's terrible, worst since the 30s depression, we need to get spending started in order to save jobs and the only place with money to spend for job starting purposes is the federal government, thus the present stimulus package. I'm of the third camp and will be happy to discuss issues across the camps. But because I'm in the third camp, I approach that list of yours a bit differently than you may. I see expanding healthcare coverage, increasing spending on welfare, and expanding the food stamp program (and you could add unemployment insurance) as necessary in a severely declining economy to simply cover the increased numbers in need of those services. Not expanding in the sense of adding new rights or obligations, but in the sense of covering newly laid off workers. I should add it's also necessary to keep state budgets from crashing even further, thus requiring more job layoffs at that level. If you know something different, please post it. As for expanding support for education including college assistance, working on next generation energy initiatives, and infrastructure spending, I see each of those as things we've long needed (and I would be happy to discuss any one or all of these if you wish) that are positive policy things (not just simply some politicians way to get reelected). And funding them in this environment is the double bang. They need to be done and spending on them provides jobs and helps the economy survive/rebound. Frankly, I don't see why anyone, regardless of party, doesn't subscribe to this. The only reason not to would be that you thought our roads and bridges are just fine (thank you), that our public education system, including colleges and universities, doesn't need support, and we don't need to revamp our energy system in the interests of energy independence and addressing global warming issues. All of these are issues the market simply doesn't address well. Private businesses don't do these things well. I'm not arguing this package is perfect in that regard. I've got more than a few quibbles with it. But I think Obama is right. It's pointing in the right direction. So, where are you on all this?

To: slacker711 who wrote (103820)	4/11/2009 10:52:17 AM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 541936

A few months ago I wrote that the only thing missing in the stimulus bill from the Democrat's traditional list of priorities was money going towards daycare. I should have known better....they would never leave their Christmas list uncompleted. It really is nice that the absolute best way to stimulate the economy was the exact list of Democratic priorities for the last 20 years. google.com $2 billion from stimulus available for child care By DARLENE SUPERVILLE – 1 day ago WASHINGTON (AP) — States will share $2.3 billion in federal stimulus money to pay for child care programs and help less fortunate people get needed vaccinations, Vice President Joe Biden announced Thursday.