Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: the one stimulus everyone can, and will, get behind

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, 7:57 p.m. EST by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

cash for clunkers, the last stimulus, etc - most of this stuff was spendulus. it was not stimulative. what is? infrastructure.

let's say the transportation infrastructure is upgrade. the 3 way highway 94 in chicago recently got expanded to 4 lanes. i use less fuel now on my commute. i can make it 15 miles further in the same amount of time as my old commute. i have more money. i burned less oil. i have more free time - maybe i'll produce at work longer, maybe i'll go out to a restaurant more often, maybe i'll just get to finish a book. industry relies on infrastructure for the efficient transportation of finished and unfinished goods, how much more money and time can they save as well? civil engineers have noted our need for many infrastructure upgrades.

we have an aged energy system as well - how much more efficient could it be made? what about data and telecommunications? what if we ran fiber to every area of chicagoland - what more services could be offered and made possible? new companies would spring up to provide these services we could not even imagine before we had the ability to deliver so much information.

a large stimulus on transportation, energy and telecommunications would work wonders. it would put a lot of people to work, and once it place, would create a fertile environment for the private sector to create jobs. not one-time jobs, but real actual jobs that the economy organically demands and will last.

few politicians would deny this, and even fewer voters. this is something that we can all get behind. congress would need to be prodded to make it, and keep the fatty pork out of it for their own little pet spends on this or that. a massive infrastructure stimulus is what we need. a massive infrastructure stimulus is what we should demand.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Yes, you have the right idea. The Obama stimulus wasn't nearly enough. Although the libertarian trolls will try to deny it, FDR and the New Deal is what saved the U.S. from the Great Depression, and the industrialization of WWII is what ultimately pushed us over the top. But elementary economics tells us that any centralized job creation will do, and the best kind is infrastructure. Roads, health care, education etc. are all spending programs that give back and strengthen our economy in the long term.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

wwii put the government back into debt paying interest to investors

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Elementary economics tells us that a recession is the wrong time to worry about debt.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

This is totally the thing to do. But unless the Tea Bog Downer Party gets a serious well deserved kick in the ass out the front door of the House, those knuckle dragging brain dead idiots will block this as we continue in the deep shit death spiral of low demand that will continue to accelerate.

Because 50% or so of the voting electorate still believes in trickle down theory and thinks we're like Greece. Another sizeable group of likely voters also thinks that Pres. Obama is a communist Muslim born in Kenya and will take away all their precious assault rifles and high magazine ammo, and Mitt Romney is the one God has chosen for Pres. And these are the people driving the bus of the Republican Party. The billionaires pay for the gas. The crazies are doing the driving.

I don't know what I find more scary. Ryan/Romney themselves, which is pretty damn terrifying. Or the 50% of the voting electorate that would even think to elect these sociopaths. Damn that's alot of freaking crazy people.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Thanks, I lolled. The main problem with OWS is that "tolerance" has gone so far as to include accepting those who hold the unchangeable view that the problem is really "the debt" or "the FED" or "too much government" or any of these other quasi-Teabagger simpleton notions that just gotta go. The other problem is that its like a laundry list of everything from fracking to DOMA to medical marijuana and on and on. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of killer drones or anything, but maybe we should really kinda stick to one thing at a time before democracy is stomped out entirely and we're living in the dark ages for the next thousand years.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Aww shucks you're makin me blush now. You're cute. Smart too. I read your post about libertarian/anarcho-capitalists. Spot on. I would say the neo-libs belong in the same category. Maybe you touched on that. They just take more of an economic angle. And have some funky charts as 'proof' for their crazy crap. And it's not exactly shocking that M. Friedman's son is an anarcho-cap.

I think that ideology (Keynes/not Keynes) overall is so dug in because of wealth inequality. There's just less middle ground to find when there's less socio-economic middle and widening economic extremes. Even though the vast vast majority of people have the very same economic interests. That's where all the manufactured fear and loathing comes in.

OWS tolerance - hmmm. Might not be anything wrong with 'tolerance' and people having very strong views of 'the problem' if there were strong/effective leadership to harness that energy and give it a little more refined direction. Or, lacking traditional leadership, OWS can find some focus/direction itself. I do not know.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago


Right, I guess once a lefty starts talking about "intolerance" of any kind you're a Leninist all of the sudden. I guess I kind of look at it as intolerance of misinformation, intolerance of unsubstantiated dogma.

Maybe we could be like scientology. You have to clear your free-market thetans before you go on to level two and start posting on forums and joining committees.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Lenin never occurred to me. Honest. : )

You mean like how some people think they have 'the answer'. Like End the Fed. Even if that weren't ludicrous, they block out other possibilities. Like 'elementary economics'.

Or the ones that cherry pick their dogma. Worse yet when it's political leaders. I saw this post earlier and thought of you. I guess I was wondering what you would think of it. I thought it was pretty funny. It's Hayek.


I don't know much about Scientology. But I think your posts are very good as is. I think we need to clear other people's free market thetans. : )

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the FED loans money to exclusive banks at low interest

this puts control of the money in a private elite

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

The Federal Reserve is our central banking system in the US. While it has its flaws, we need this type of system to control inflation and interest rates. Before central banking there were terrible economic disasters on a regular basis. Also, the FED can do things to prevent deflation, which is also disastrous for the economy.

The biggest problem with the FED in recent years, is that is was run by libertarians like Greenspan and Bernanke, who deregulated the financial industry and opposed proven methods of preventing unemployment. In other words, the problem is with the captain not with the ship itself.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

that's fine

but the FED should not be preferring an elite class

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Our entire system "prefers an elite class" at this point. We need to change one thing at a time. With our inefficient government, trying to dismantle and rebuild the entire FED is just not realistic at all any time in the near future.

Besides, even if we did, that really wouldn't fix 99.9% of our problems today.

The elites want us to spend all of our time worrying about the FED so that we will never get behind solving the real problems.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

what are those real problems?

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

The most immediate one is the economic crisis and unemployment.

The next problem is really a group of problems: infrastructure. This means public schools, roads, bridges, fireman/police, research, healthcare, basically all of the things that private companies will never do that just need to be done.

There is a simple solution (everything here you will learn in a first semester economics class, if you don't want to take my word for it). First you raise tax revenues by closing tax loopholes for corporations and the rich, and increasing their tax rates a bit as well. At the same time you start massive spending on infrastructure.

Because infrastructure consists of jobs (nurses, firemen, construction workers, etc.), unemployment is decreased as the government hires new workers. As the middle class has more money to spend, the economy gets a boost, and eventually the recession will end.

The reason that the elites don't want you to know all this, is because they are greedy and they don't want to pay taxes.

The other reason is that corporations actually want unemployment to be relatively high because they won't have to pay workers as much.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

people don't need jobs. They need access to resources and/or money

assuming the people can't get passed the work ethic

the solution presented sounds solid

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

I'm glad you agree, but I do feel like jobs are needed. It's not about handouts, but people do have some needs that only the government can really provide.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

we all live off the sun growing the crops in industrial farms

I think humans like to work and contribute

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the votes are not the population

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

I edited to 'voting electorate'.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

we weren't in a recession in1942

elementary economics says money needs to be placed in the bottom of the system

taxes cost less than debt

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Unemployment was around 12% in 1941. By 1945 it was around 2%. I guess you think that was happenstance?

[-] 1 points by superman22x (188) 2 years ago

This would be incredibly beneficial for our country. Our entire infrastructure in the USA is very out dated. With the rate China is increasing their infrastructure, we will be left in the dust. Then there will be even more people out on the streets screaming, "They took our jerbs!"