That is the perfect example why the government shouldn’t be ‘stimulating’ but rather lowering the cost of doing business, entrepreneurialism, investment and earning income so that the capital markets can do what they do best which is pulling the government ox cart when they have the proper incentive to do so

I sentence Spitzer to sit five years in a brainstorming room of a silicon valley company with tape over his mouth in order to see how the real worlds works. Hopefully, he will learn something along the way.

Isn’t it ironic that Washington and silicon valley are on the exact opposite ends of the US? SV has progress whereas Washington has congress ;)

I just don’t think America needs more junk investment. The investment I think that is needed now is to build out the electrical grid and to convert the nation to natural gas and other efficient forms of energy (including renewables).

Capital Gains rates need to come down if we want to attract capital to invest here in the U.S. I think the investment needs to come from the private sector, because the Government sector 1) can’t afford to spend the money and 2) can’t efficiently allocate capital.

We are losing jobs to the rest of the world in large part because our companies can’t produce as cheaply. A big part of the disparity is because our companies, and their workers, are burdened with the taxes of supporting a huge, inefficient government.

Corporate earnings are down because people are broke. Give the tax breaks to people who need to buy food/clothing and rent housing. Then, corporations will invest in new products and services to provide for the needs/wants of people, in order to wrest that money from their hands once again. As a byproduct, earnings will increase again.

I say that as an example of how you can argue for giving money to rich or poor. Either way, it’s a stimulus. But, “giving money away” to any one group (clear of the debt obligation to repay it) will certainly help that group over others. Who are you going to give it to? I don’t like the idea of giving *more* money away to corporations — 50% of which are owned by the top 1% — and directly to the top 1% (who benefit from capital gains tax reductions paid for by the rest of us through depreciated currency). Your policy prescription has been followed for 30 years already. I don’t like the culture we’re creating in the process.

So you proved my point. If you only look at something as a spark to massive growth, you’re going to miss the bulk of what economic activity is all about. Warren Buffett once made famous joke about the airline industry delivering no return to investors–the joke was that someone should have shot Orville and Wilbur out of the sky as a favor to capitalists. The reason it is a joke is that you benefit from the existence of an airline industry even if the investors lost their money.

New Deal did diddly squat.

The New Deal programs that employed people did a great deal of good. The problem with most of the stimulus critique–including Spitzer’s–is that it focuses on what will spur growth. The stimulus here is a bulwark against disastrous decline. Think of it this way: you can pay to keep people employed and in their homes through the stimulus or through emergency aid measures (the same essentially goes for the auto workers) you might as well get a newly painted bridge out of the deal.

The problem with Obama’s stimulus is that his tax cuts are simply political payback–or another form of welfare, as someone else remarked.

On the story, our story here in America, the last land of vast resources to be conquered on the earth, this WWII relationship and the releated posts on TBP these past days ie “Dear Mr. Ex-KGB” and beyond …

so many thoughts to convey but staying focused on the stimulus plan, the rescue plan, the survival of the fittest plan, the provide for the masses plan … what a mess these cash plans are – all with the purpose of not destroying the fabric of society as we know it

as we know it … to many people making to many problems … que WWIII or a restructure

a restructure should look like a balance of resources (water, air, land, food, people) with the labor output needed to harvest those things … can’t we design a system where we are not fighting over those resources?

base problem 1 – getting someone behind a gun, or in a coal mine
base problem 2 – eating steak everyday, or going on 100 mile roadtrips for sun&fun
base problem 3 – skate’g

ok you win – que WWIII … but let me get mobile 1st – please

The silver lining may be the fact that there aren’t enough junk projects available to spend federal money on, so there will have to be tax cuts too. But rather than confine the tax cuts to people who actually pay taxes, the administration wants to give “refundable tax credits out to people who don’t pay taxes. This is just a fancy form of welfare. It’s not going to solve our fundamental problem: an inefficient economy that is overweighted towards the domestic consumer and an underproduction of goods for export.

Instead, if we want real stimulus and investment in America’s future, we should cut taxes on corporations and capital gains.