US stimulus: Will it work?

last SG · 2009-02-15T21:31:20+00:00

Responding to both skythewood and Shotgun.Lets talk some politics. The republican did not vote for the stimulus package partly because it was a party strate...

tai gok nang SG

WTF? US$65.5 trillion deficit. Is the source reliable? Thats shocking... "Federal obligations exceed world GDP"

No, it is not deficit but obligations (items that will come due in the future).

I believe the only way to go is America printing more money. Then it would indirectly put a lot of pressure on countries like China, Japan, and Asia that have accumulated dollars to do something with their reserves. I think America and China might have talked about this. America may not churn out dollars too fast and allow China a reasonable amount of time to spend the dollars and reform its domestic economy. China cannot dump the dollars all at once as it is no good to both itself and America.

Shotgun SG

Want to know why they support the bill even though it is basically committing political suicide? Well, since they will very well lose their political career over this, and they support the bill anyway, they probably thought it is the right thing to do.

Some democrats in the house voted against the bill. My guess is, they thought this is the right thing to do too.

So why did so few republicans voted for the bill? well, it is basically commiting political suicide, and that is definitely a huge factor in shaping their decision, maybe even more than the well being of their country. The feeling i get is that the republicans are very uncooperative, rather than the democrats very unreasonable.

finally, all the senators were elected by the people of their state, and they have been chosen by their state to represent them, to vote for them. Majority wins, so be it... that's how decisions are made in their country.

They pushed the bill through 60-38... there are 58 democrats in the senate. From the maths, I don't think any of the democrats voted against it.

Why do you think that the republicans are voting against it? Just to be uncooperative and behave like a spoilt child? Your feelings cloud better judgement.

The republicans don't believe in intervening into the economy; prefering to let it self-correct. They don't believe in the amount of handout and welfare that the democrats are trying to force the government to spend. That is why they are against it, and not just trying to be uncooperative as you say.

What is worrying about the political situation is how easily the democrats will be able to push through any bills in future. Imagine if they try to pull US troops out of Iraq before it stabilizes sufficiently? We look at this not to criticise them, but to prepare ourselves for the consequences of bad policy from the US.

skythewood SG

No, it is not deficit but obligations (items that will come due in the future).

yup, the obligation includes ALL the money they need to pay for social securities and medisave to be paid in the future. Of course, they don't need to pay now...

Sort of like singapore CPF... If pay out all the CPF, also heavily in debt, but Singapore don't need to pay now...

Seems kind of weird to lump it together that way right? It will be easier to not lump it that way. just look at the situation year by year.for example, last year US deficit is 455 billion... 2009 deficit is whatever... and so on...

that's sort of like telling me i will be spending $12 000 in the next years on food, transport and whatever, while my income is only $1k per month... not exactly saving money, but not exactly like the end of the world too...

Only-Way-4-Destiny! SG

Thanks skythewood. Its easier to comprehend now.

skythewood SG

They pushed the bill through 60-38... there are 58 democrats in the senate. From the maths, I don't think any of the democrats voted against it.

Why do you think that the republicans are voting against it? Just to be uncooperative and behave like a spoilt child? Your feelings cloud better judgement.

House and senate diff... that one you need to google.

ehh... the republicans under president bush thought very very differently than they thought under Obama. They were fine in supporting a war that cost 700 billion to destroy and rebuild other countries, being Iraq. now ask them to spend money to rebuild their own country and they hesitate? Are you sure they not playing punk?

as for your worry for early US pull out, the threat is always real, be it under democrat or republican. Somehow, the US citizen voted and made the senate this way, and put their trust in the democrats.... so that's the way it is. I don't know what your point is pointing this out, but the fact remains that there is only 58 democrat senators.

freedomclub SG

yup, the obligation includes ALL the money they need to pay for social securities and medisave to be paid in the future. Of course, they don't need to pay now...

Sort of like singapore CPF... If pay out all the CPF, also heavily in debt, but Singapore don't need to pay now...

Yeah, but considering that that sum is about equal to world GDP, and 4 times the US GDP, do you really think that there is a plausible solution out of this mess, excluding bankruptcy (which the US is)? In addition, with 2 official wars on-going, plus the many unacknowledged US-backed conflicts in Latin America and Africa, there doesn't seem to be any possible solution in sight.

Right now the corporatocracy are just prolonging the crisis in order to benefit all they can, screw the working class as much as possible before bringing the whole house of cards down and destroying the people who actually create the world's wealth.

skythewood SG

hhmmmm, maybe you stick to 4 times the US GDP... keep things more in prospective. It is as accurate, but and give a better view of (US spending for next few decades) to GDP.

no comment for the rest of your stuff. Maybe someone who cares will come along.

Shotgun SG

House and senate diff... that one you need to google.

I think you are confused.

There's 2 houses in the US legislative assembly. The upper house is called the "senate", and the lower house, the "house of representatives." Together that makes up the "Congress."

They were fine in supporting a war that cost 700 billion to destroy and rebuild other countries, being Iraq. now ask them to spend money to rebuild their own country and they hesitate? Are you sure they not playing punk?

Thats another entire issue altogether. What I am simply saying is that Republicans, being conservatists, generally do not believe in intervening in the economy and giving out welfare. They condemn protectionism; which is what Obama is trying to do by banning the use of foreign steel. Their differences towards economic policies is the firm divide that causes them vote against the bill. Its not about Iraq or playing punk as you simplistically put.

"Only 58 senators" is just 2 shy of puting a filibuster-proof bill through. That is how much control of the law making process that they have. Now that they've got 2-3 Republican senators on their side for this bill, which was passed in such a gusto, no one is sure whether these moderate Republicans are gonna sway towards the Democrats on future issues, giving them more filibuster-proof bills.

Its like, I plan a 1000-page bill. I introduce them this evening and we vote on it tomorrow morning. How the hell is anyone able to read through all the details of it? If there is anyone playing punk, its the Democrats who are literally saying, "Screw you republicans, we are in control now, and we do as we damn well please. This process of voting is just for show cos we control an absolute majority anyway - end of discussion, no future debates."

This kinda decision making process is dangerous!

skythewood SG

I think you are confused.

There's 2 houses in the US legislative assembly. The upper house is called the "senate", and the lower house, the "house of representatives." Together that makes up the "Congress."

This kinda decision making process is dangerous!

there is the senate and there is the house. you want to use official term also can... don't feel like arguing this. point is, got democrats in the house voted against the bill like i said. Note that i distinguish them by using senate and house.

the conservatives republican introduce at least 1.4 trillion of spendings in the form of pure tax cuts. that's not very conservative.... surprise?

This kinda decision making is made by the majority of the senate.... the people voted in by the american people. What is you problem with them? They ARE suppose to vote for the deicision that way. Filibuster ARE broken if some of the opposition decide to support the bill. What are you expecting?

1000 page, not all relevant. 1000 page because they have all the details written down, but the summary is not that hard one. The aides will summarize and highlight important points for them.

Shotgun SG

the conservatives republican introduce at least 1.4 trillion of spendings in the form of pure tax cuts. that's not very conservative.... surprise?

1000 page, not all relevant. 1000 page because they have all the details written down, but the summary is not that hard one. The aides will summarize and highlight important points for them.

Look, nothing personal. I'm not here to argue with you or direct anything at you. From my first post about this, i've directed my posts at the situation and not you.

*I* don't have a problem with them. I am just LOOKING AT A PROBLEM of theirs. And that problem is the manner in which this bill was passed, intended to prevent any Republican consideration and objection.

You can say that its the way the system is supposed to work, fine. But I am just LOOKING AT A PROBLEM which the abuse of the system may cause.

I'm not one to be fussy with terms, but you were trying to correct a mistake that I did not make. I know what the US Congress consists of, so I wasn't sure what you are telling me to google about. When I said senators, I meant SENATORs and not Janitors or Representatives.

skythewood SG

Look, nothing personal. I'm not here to argue with you or direct anything at you. From my first post about this, i've directed my posts at the situation and not you.

You can say that its the way the system is supposed to work, fine. But I am just LOOKING AT A PROBLEM which the abuse of the system may cause.

yah, i'm the dumb one, whatever.

reyes SG

i have a solution to help american out of this bankrupcy myth.

Incide a world war 3. the world would seek protection from american. american can sell all the weapons they can produce in their arsenal. debt? maybe it will be over in mths.

isnt that how germany NAZI size power and conquer europe?

isnt that how american got out of their own depression.

just conspiracy theory.

reyes SG

it doesnt matter how rep and demo pass the senate bill. As long as it pass, the can only be good news for the rest of the world.

i am rather sceptical about china economy stimulus plan. In fact whether they walk the talk is another story.

freedomclub SG

i have a solution to help american out of this bankrupcy myth.

Incide a world war 3. the world would seek protection from american. american can sell all the weapons they can produce in their arsenal. debt? maybe it will be over in mths.

isnt that how germany NAZI size power and conquer europe?

isnt that how american got out of their own depression.

just conspiracy theory.

No conspiracy theory here.

War is one good way to stimulate the economy. That was how the US got out of the Great Depression. The Korean War provided a boom to the Japanese economy. Thus, General Smedley Butler (I think), wrote "War is a racket".

Whether or not most wars are conspiracies is another matter, otherwise the usual "conspiracy theory" bounty-hunters will come after me.

It could be in the works, a war. After all, US intelligence reports that Israel may attack Iran this year. So who knows...

skythewood SG

i have a solution to help american out of this bankrupcy myth.

Incide a world war 3. the world would seek protection from american. american can sell all the weapons they can produce in their arsenal. debt? maybe it will be over in mths.

isnt that how germany NAZI size power and conquer europe?

isnt that how american got out of their own depression.

just conspiracy theory.

Yup, just conspiracy theory.

freedomclub SG

Yup, just conspiracy theory.

So you're denying that WWII got the US economy going again during WWII?

German rearmament didn't jumpstart their economy after Hitler came to power?

reyes SG

in fact the WWII did really help USA, German get out of poverty and depression. But the one that last longest is the victor.

IN the world now, we can defeat USA?

hahah

skythewood SG

So you're denying that WWII got the US economy going again during WWII?

German rearmament didn't jumpstart their economy after Hitler came to power?

deny what fuck?

no conspiracy = WWII did not get US economy going?

no conspiracy = german rearmament did not jumpstart economy?

How did you make this kind of connection? base on what? did i say that?

Or your theory is

WWII get US economy going = conspiracy?

german rearmament jumpstart economy = conspiracy?

and by magic, saying no conspiracy makes means i deny these stuff?

Yes, you can make that kind of conspiracy claim, but you CANNOT make any weird claim about what i think when i say no conspiracy.

Now i introduce my conspiracy theory and give you a feel of your own medicine.
My conspiracy: Everything is done by aliens.

every time you reply something that suggest the contrary, i will spout random facts and ask why you deny them

just go down the list. Repeat if neccesary.

1. So you're denying that bananas are yellow when ripe?

2. So you're denying that alchohol can make people drunk?

3. So you're denying that falling from tall places can kill people?

4. So you're denying that pi is 3.14159265358........?

freedomclub SG

Yup, just conspiracy theory.

What did you mean when you said this?

skythewood SG

What did you mean when you said this?

I give you easier analogy

1. john father have insurance, and john is one of the benefactor
2. John father died in the accident

based on this, some guy says John killed his father.

THIS IS CALLED CONSPIRACY.

so i say this is just CONSPIRACY

does that mean i deny the fact that fact 1 and 2 never happened? NO.

And that is what you are trying to say when you accuse me of denying whatever fact you mentioned.

THAT IS JUST CONSPIRACY.

« Previous Page Next Page »