Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:00:02 -0500
That seems to be the question posed by Krugman.
I'm not sure that an intervention more massive than the one implemented would have been helpful. I have a feeling that it would have been too much of a shock, the debt would have been untenable, and the risks of a hard fall later too great.
The size of the intervention, though, could have been different: less bailout of the financials and more help for small businesses and individuals.
The most disappointing thing to me, however, wouldn't have cost the Treasury much. They should have fixed the financial sector with vigorous regulation, the break-up of the megabanks, and tight consumer protection. The administration and Congress have been negligent in not pursuing those things.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
...the deficit shouldn't be a consideration when you are trying to kick start the economy. The important thing is to create jobs. .......
If a deficit falls in the forest …
[]
But the political argument against focusing on the deficit is even stronger than he realizes — because there are very good odds that even if Obama exhibited iron fiscal discipline, voters wouldn’t notice. There’s a remarkable, depressing paper by Achen and Bartels that includes an analysis of voter views of the deficit in 1996 — by which time the huge deficit that Bill Clinton inherited had been drastically reduced. Here’s what voters thought they knew:
Yep: after one of the biggest moves toward budget balance in history, a majority of Republicans, and a plurality of all voters, believed that deficits had increased.
Not to put too fine a point on it: if Obama succeeded in reducing the deficit, would Fox News or the Washington Times report it?
The truth is that the truth about budgets plays almost no role in real politics. Right now, Meg Whitman is campaigning for Governor of California on the claim that state spending has exploded over the last decade — when the fact is that it has fallen drastically in real per capita terms. Will she pay a price for this? Probably not.
So if I were a politician, I’d focus on providing real improvements in peoples’ lives, rather than seeking deficit reductions the public won’t even hear about.
Robert Reich agrees the stimulus was too small......
The administration's biggest economic mistake so far was to badly underestimate last January how bad the employment situation would become by fall. As a result, it low-balled the stimulus -- settling for a plan that, while avoiding even worse job losses, didn't go nearly far enough.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt
If that is really the important thing, maybe stimulus dollars could be better used building energy infrastructure, etc...in this country rather than using stimulus dollars for various handouts intended to buy votes.
That said, the evidence says we've reached a turning point. Nevertheless, I'd be all for more deficit spending to create jobs...especially for infrastructure and green energy. Deficits aren't really important in the big picture.
...Nearly 16 million people can’t find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended. The Labor Department said Friday that the economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs in October, less than the downwardly revised 219,000 lost in September. August job losses were also revised lower, to 154,000 from 201,000.
But the loss of jobs last month exceeded economists’ estimates. It’s the 22nd straight month the U.S. economy has shed jobs, the longest on records dating back 70 years.
Counting those who have settled for part-time jobs or stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994.....
....A better assumption is that most of these swing voters defected to not-voting or to another party because Democrats are in charge and the economy still sucks. Since it does not appear as though what Democrats have done while in power over the past year has improved the situation in the country, fewer people are willing to vote for Democrats.
When most voters believe their lives are getting better, then the party in power will benefit politically. Ideological abstractions about the size of government or appealing to the base don't matter quite as much. It really is, as Mike argued yesterday, about delivering the goods. ...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt
To see a certain General speak ... about the fall of Communism.
:-)
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt
I just ran across this one in an e-mail: Why do we swear to tell the truth on a Bible in a building in which the Ten Commandments can't be posted?
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
...we swear on a bible....... but posting the Ten Commandments in a court room would be ludicrous as only 2 of them have anything to do with our laws.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt
Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
The obvious one: You can refuse to swear on a bible, or any other religious document. If the commandments are posted, you can't refuse to use (and pay for!) the facility where they're located.
The more subtle (and probably less important) reason: There are at least three different versions of the the 10 commandments: Jewish, Catholic and Protestant. Note, I'm not talking differences in translation, but actually differences in content and organization. Who gets to decide which one is chosen, and thus receives the official approval of the US government?
_____________________________________
1) TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT
2) TAKE SMALL PRACTICAL STEPS FORWARD
3) DON'T COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES
You can add a 4th version, the Islamic version. They aren't presented in a to-do list style the way most of us are used to but they all there as commandments. That shouldn't be surprising since the Quran is a follow on to the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity.
Barry
Our departure point is the present, our goal is the future... it is for us to determine.
Are there ten of them? I'm guessing not.
For sure their list would have to include: "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet." Can't quite seeing any of the other groups agreeing to that one.
No offense to Islam, but I would lump them in with all the other religions, and no religions, that would be left out by posting the "Big Ten." Sure, Islam has pretty much all the same rules, but so does any other major world religion. As do most people, whether they are religious or not.
_____________________________________
1) TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT
2) TAKE SMALL PRACTICAL STEPS FORWARD
3) DON'T COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES
The Quran doesn't number them, as I said its not like a to-do list.
In your quote you've combined two things. The Quran does have "There is no God but Allah" as well as "Muhammad is His Profit." But they are separate. The first "There is no God but Allah," is accepted by the other major religions - keeping in mind that Allah is Arabic for God. In the Bible, depending on the translation, it comes out as something like “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
I don't understand why you want to lump Islam in with all other religions, you could say the same about Christianity and Judaism. The Commands are pretty much common sense after all.
Barry
Our departure point is the present, our goal is the future... it is for us to determine.
Perhaps it's not that way in the Quran, and maybe depends on the "brand" of Islam. I'm no expert on the subject. But the shahada definitely includes both parts and is basic to Islamic belief and a required affirmation of that belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada
And the reason I don't include Islam is because I was answering a question about THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. What you call a "to-do list." If you want to be technical, there are 613 rules on the Jewish to-do list, but that wasn't the question.
Yes, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and pretty much every other religion, not to mention people who have no religion, all have a code of what behavior is right or wrong, and they all encompass pretty much the same things. But as far as I know, only Judaism and Christianity share "The Ten Commandments" (granting that they are written out and even numbered differently) and you just can't say that Islam does.
_____________________________________
1) TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT
2) TAKE SMALL PRACTICAL STEPS FORWARD
3) DON'T COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES
If you're saying that the Quran doesn't have a PowerPoint style numbered list then of course you are right, but I don't see that formatting has much to do with this. The Shahada is not the core of Islam, as the link you provided says its an expression of faith. Other religions have similar declarations of faith that combine concepts from their basic scriptures but that doesn't change the basic scriptures. The 7th Day Adventists across the street think that knocking on my door is an affirmation of their belief but I'm pretty sure that's not in the Bible. We also have a very large Orthodox Jewish community here and they do and say things as a statement of their befiefs that my mainstream Jewish friends consider very different, but its ok since its what the Orthodox believe.
I think the real question should be why do we get into these discussions desperately trying to find differences between the major religions? Focusing on our shared values would do a lot more to bring people together. I admit that its interesting to find myself taking Islam's side one day and the side of Orthodox Jews the next but I'm starting to worry that some people may consider me a total nut case for that. :)
Barry
Our departure point is the present, our goal is the future... it is for us to determine.
Barry is our very own one-man diversity. (When I was in the business of planning computer acquisitions for Boeing in Wichita, we called IBM our single multi-vendor.)
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
You can only be "taking Islam's side" if you think that I am somehow attacking Islam. I'm not. I'm merely stating the FACT that they don't a "ten commandments" that you could post on a court house wall. If anything, I think you are denigrating all the eastern faiths by saying they somehow lack a set of rules that is comparable to ours. And that's all I'm going to say about it.
_____________________________________
1) TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT
2) TAKE SMALL PRACTICAL STEPS FORWARD
3) DON'T COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES
I'm not into the martyr thing at all. Understanding is more my thing.
I didn't suggest that you were attacking Islam, those are your words. But I do think you were misrepresenting Islam. I said at the beginning that the Quran does not have a nice numbered list of commandments - in that sense you're right they don't have a nice list to hang on the court house wall. But they do have commandments that tell their followers what they must do and there are commandments to match each of the Ten Commandments.
To say that eastern faiths don't organize their beliefs along our western lines is not denigrating them at all. They take a different approach which is more like setting goals that issuing commandments. Its not our way of doing it but I think that there's a lot to be said for that approach. Years ago I knew the head of an eastern religion and he was a fine fellow who I'd never speak ill of.
Barry
Our departure point is the present, our goal is the future... it is for us to determine.
So which version of the Bible--Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant--is the literal word of God?
Just wonderin...
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
Imo, of course. But it baffles me that fundamentalist Christians, who claim to believe that the old testament is in fact literal, would use bibles that vary so far from the original Hebrew. Religious belief is a funny thing....
_____________________________________
1) TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT
2) TAKE SMALL PRACTICAL STEPS FORWARD
3) DON'T COMPROMISE YOUR PRINCIPLES
Petition to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
Too Big to Fail is Too Big to Exist
Financial institutions that are “too big to fail” played a major role in undermining the American economy and driving our country into a severe recession.
Financial institutions that are “too big to fail” put taxpayers on the hook for a $700 billion bailout and more than $2 trillion from the Federal Reserve in virtually zero interest loans.
Huge financial institutions have become so big that the four largest banks in America (JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup) now issue one out of every two mortgages; two out of three credit cards; and hold $4 out of every $10 in bank deposits in the country.
Just five banks in America (JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) own a staggering 95% of the $290 trillion in derivatives held at commercial banks. Derivatives are risky side bets made by Wall Street gamblers that led to the $182 billion bailout of AIG, the $29 billion bailout that allowed JP Morgan Chase to acquire Bear Stearns, and the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
The concentration of ownership in the financial services industry has resulted in higher bank fees and interest rates that consumers are forced to pay for credit cards, mortgages and other financial products.
No single financial institution should be so large that its failure would cause catastrophic risk to millions of American jobs or to our nation’s economic well-being.
No single financial institution should have holdings so extensive that its failure could send the world economy into crisis.
We believe it is time to break up the banks and insurance companies which are too big to fail.
We believe that passage of The Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act is essential for a strong American economy and a secure future for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.
We urge the immediate enactment of the Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act, which directs the treasury secretary to compile a list of those financial institutions that are too big to fail in the next 90 days, and to break up these banks and insurance companies a year after the legislation is signed into law.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
