a good piece of thinking....

[callmeslick]

....from the writer Bob Herbert, discussing the focus on deficits in the current economy:
"“At the end of World War II, the U.S. was burdened with debt that totaled over 120 percent of G.D.P. But we made the investments vital to a new economy — the G.I. Bill, housing subsidies, the interstate highway system, the conversion of military plants, and the Marshall plan. We ran annual deficits over most of the next three decades and the debt grew in absolute size, but the economy and the broad middle class grew faster. By 1980, the debt had been reduced to barely 30 percent of G.D.P.”

There is no doubt that the country, starved for revenues and still at war, will have to increase some taxes. Unnecessary spending should be attacked. But the nation is still in the throes of an economic crisis. Poverty is growing and the middle class is shrinking, and more than 20 million Americans are out of work or underemployed.

We can pretend that all of this is not happening and that there won’t be grave consequences as a result. We can cling to the Ronald Reagan-George W. Bush fairy tale that handing over ever more riches to those who are already rich and powerful is the way to revitalize the American dream.

Or we can take our cue from the best moments in American history, when the nation rolled up its sleeves and placed the interests of ordinary people at the top of its agenda. "

[Wullie]

OK.

Why has the massive "stimulus" plan been such a flop? Why aren't the masses back to work? Where did all that money go?

[callmeslick]

OK.

Why has the massive "stimulus" plan been such a flop? Why aren't the masses back to work? Where did all that money go?

massive? In terms relative to GDP that was a woefully inadequate effort, but was all that could get through Congress at the time. What is being talked about(the post wwII-scaled effort, in current dollars), would be around 4 Trillion or more dollars, poured into infrastructure. As to where the money went, all economic experts seem to agree it was well spent, for the little money that was spent(600 billion dollars to date), and that it kept the employment situation from being FAR, FAR worse. You get what you pay for and your representatives only had the stones to do 20% of the job. Bear in mind, true recovery would be a plan that doesn't just stave off the worst of the immediate problems, but builds for an economy that will be strong for decades to come. Try and imagine what the economy would look like had we not done the little that was done, and NOT bailed out the banks(now paid back, with profits) and the car companies. It is not at all beyond comprehension that we could be currently at 25% unemployment, 40% underemployment, with literally rock-bottom conditions naton wide. People tend to overlook that......

[Buzz]

I didn't get a dime, but I did lose Medicare coverage.

[Pudfark]

Buzz, "It's not what your country can do for you, it's what you can do for your country..." so, don't complain, until yer teeth are falling out.....or something like that....

[callmeslick]

I didn't get a dime, but I did lose Medicare coverage.

how?

[CUDA]

comparing deficit to GDP spending now and at the end of WW2 is apples to oranges. at the end of WW2 the only industry left in the world was the United States. the rest of the worlds industry was destroyed, so it was easy to increase the GDP. now is not the case.
the Bailout money would have stimulated the economy better if it had been put in the hands of the people. Instead of the Banks who wouldnt give it out and an automobile company that didn't really need it. $5,000 in each persons hand or 1.4 trillion INSTANTLY pumped into the economy would have saved more jobs than the "shovel ready" projects 5 years down the road that were implemented. California was a prime example $111 million to create only 55 jobs.

[Wullie]

comparing deficit to GDP spending now and at the end of WW2 is apples to oranges. at the end of WW2 the only industry left in the world was the United States. the rest of the worlds industry was destroyed, so it was easy to increase the GDP. now is not the case.
the Bailout money would have stimulated the economy better if it had been put in the hands of the people. Instead of the Banks who wouldnt give it out and an automobile company that didn't really need it. $5,000 in each persons hand or 1.4 trillion INSTANTLY pumped into the economy would have saved more jobs than the "shovel ready" projects 5 years down the road that were implemented. California was a prime example $111 million to create only 55 jobs.

But it wouldn't have made BILLIONS for all those investment bankers like George Soros.

[Buzz]

I didn't get a dime, but I did lose Medicare coverage.

how?

Less coverage. Less drugs covered. I'm with Secure Horizons, and that saves me money over having straight Medicare. They dropped me for 2011. I asked them why, and they said to blame Obama. We've also haven't gotten a cost of living increase in two years.

I understand the cost of SS and Medicare. However, old folks who are old and beyond working anymore are at the mercy of SS and Medicare. It's their only income. They paid all their life and depend on it.

I'm ok, but that doesn't mean I want to lose it.

We have an idiot campaigning for senator (Bennet) in this state that wants to cut of SS and Medicare off completely. What the hell is he thinking , and does he think he'll win the vote? He sure won't get any senior votes, or their relatives.

[fatman]

They paid all their life and depend on it.

Over here we have basicaly been told it wont be available when we reach retirement which pisses me off no end because we still have to pay into it