Saturday, February 14, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Facebook + Economic Discourse II: In which we pick up the thread wall-to-wall
#1 at 9:28pm yesterday
Are you still supportive of the next bailout? It just seems really expensive to me, compared to the impact it will have on the economy. I looked at that article you linked for me. There is no doubt there are good things included in the package, but we can't afford it, and all I hear from Obama is that we can't afford not to do it. What am I missing?
#4 at 8:33am
Let's begin by reframing the question and dropping the term 'bailout' for the moment. Under the circumstances it seems moralistic and not particularly helpful for this reason: There's been a bus crash and the lives of children are in danger. The person who drove them off the road is a bad driver and possibly a bad man. He should be held responsible for his failure. Perhaps upon investigation it will turn out the driver was an honest man, trying to keep a badly designed and dangerously broken bus on the roadway — maybe the bus company is the bad actor. But the 911 call from a motorist who saw the bus leave the pavement and disappear over the embankment came hours ago. The children are exposed and injured and the sun is going down and the temperature is dropping. We know how this ends. It's not a bailout for the children. It's a rescue. We'll deal with responsibility for the crash later; right now the rescue must be undertaken with energy and imagination and at any cost. more later...
Are you still supportive of the next bailout? It just seems really expensive to me, compared to the impact it will have on the economy. I looked at that article you linked for me. There is no doubt there are good things included in the package, but we can't afford it, and all I hear from Obama is that we can't afford not to do it. What am I missing?
#4 at 8:33am
Let's begin by reframing the question and dropping the term 'bailout' for the moment. Under the circumstances it seems moralistic and not particularly helpful for this reason: There's been a bus crash and the lives of children are in danger. The person who drove them off the road is a bad driver and possibly a bad man. He should be held responsible for his failure. Perhaps upon investigation it will turn out the driver was an honest man, trying to keep a badly designed and dangerously broken bus on the roadway — maybe the bus company is the bad actor. But the 911 call from a motorist who saw the bus leave the pavement and disappear over the embankment came hours ago. The children are exposed and injured and the sun is going down and the temperature is dropping. We know how this ends. It's not a bailout for the children. It's a rescue. We'll deal with responsibility for the crash later; right now the rescue must be undertaken with energy and imagination and at any cost. more later...
Monday, February 09, 2009
Facebook + Economic Discourse
#1 via Twitter - 4:33pm February 6
Guess I am going to need to save some money if the U.S. Government wants another $700 Billion.
Comment
#2 at 4:37pm February 6
How far are you behind on your taxes?
#1 at 4:52pm February 6
We are up to date, but another stimulus package just got passed, so someone is going to have to pay more, and I am guessing my taxes are not going down any time soon.
#3 at 5:02pm February 6
If only the government understood that lowering our taxes would give us more of a reason to spend. Plus, the new stimulus package doesn't even stimulate, its mostly pork repaying people who help Obama win! I feel your pain.
#4 at 5:14pm February 6
Come on. Read up.
#1 at 6:17pm February 6
#4 - don't leave us hanging, what are we supposed to read?
#1 at 6:24pm February 6
Including this package, the government has already given out more money in "stimulus" than we spent on the entire Iraq/Afghanistan war.
#5 at 7:26pm February 6
here's what we all need to read, to understand all the useless pork in this bill:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21108/
#4 at 8:57pm February 6
i think the Congressional Budget Office 25 page, plain English, report of Feb 2 is pretty clear about where the money is administered and how fast it gets spent. two things worth noting: 1. we're in the fifth month of fiscal 2009, 2. this report is in plain English but written on the assumption that the readers (Members of Congress) have sufficient background to know what and where, for example, would be the economic advantage of spending $9bn to extend broadband Internet services and why that money might be spent at a lower annual rate than, say, $3.4bn to repair, maintain and renovate Dept. of Defense facilities. None of it is rocket science (except the NASA parts) but it does assume interest in and consumption of a modicum of nonpartisan research and journalism. The CBO report is here: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9977
For background, i appreciated Jeff Madrick's How We Were Ruined & What We Can Do in Feb 12 New York Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22280
End of Thread.
Guess I am going to need to save some money if the U.S. Government wants another $700 Billion.
Comment
#2 at 4:37pm February 6
How far are you behind on your taxes?
#1 at 4:52pm February 6
We are up to date, but another stimulus package just got passed, so someone is going to have to pay more, and I am guessing my taxes are not going down any time soon.
#3 at 5:02pm February 6
If only the government understood that lowering our taxes would give us more of a reason to spend. Plus, the new stimulus package doesn't even stimulate, its mostly pork repaying people who help Obama win! I feel your pain.
#4 at 5:14pm February 6
Come on. Read up.
#1 at 6:17pm February 6
#4 - don't leave us hanging, what are we supposed to read?
#1 at 6:24pm February 6
Including this package, the government has already given out more money in "stimulus" than we spent on the entire Iraq/Afghanistan war.
#5 at 7:26pm February 6
here's what we all need to read, to understand all the useless pork in this bill:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21108/
#4 at 8:57pm February 6
i think the Congressional Budget Office 25 page, plain English, report of Feb 2 is pretty clear about where the money is administered and how fast it gets spent. two things worth noting: 1. we're in the fifth month of fiscal 2009, 2. this report is in plain English but written on the assumption that the readers (Members of Congress) have sufficient background to know what and where, for example, would be the economic advantage of spending $9bn to extend broadband Internet services and why that money might be spent at a lower annual rate than, say, $3.4bn to repair, maintain and renovate Dept. of Defense facilities. None of it is rocket science (except the NASA parts) but it does assume interest in and consumption of a modicum of nonpartisan research and journalism. The CBO report is here: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9977
For background, i appreciated Jeff Madrick's How We Were Ruined & What We Can Do in Feb 12 New York Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22280
End of Thread.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Friday, February 06, 2009
Michael Phelps | One is Left to Hope... | Update 02.06.09
Kellogg to Drop Olympian Phelps
Will Let Endorsement Deal Expire at Month's End
Feb. 5, 2009
CHICAGO (AdAge.com) -- One bong hit seen around the world and Olympian Michael Phelps is watching at least one contract go up in smoke. Kellogg will let the swimmer's contract expire at the end of the month.
"We originally built the relationship with Michael, as well as the other Olympic athletes, to support our association with the US Olympic team," a Kellogg spokeswoman said in a statement. "Michael's most recent behavior is not consistent with the image of Kellogg. His contract expires at the end of February and we have made a decision not to extend his contract."
One is left to hope that was some really good shit.
UPDATE 02.06.09
Subway Stands by Phelps
Sandwich Chain Likely to Delay TV Campaign Starring Olympian
Feb. 6, 2009
CHICAGO (AdAge.com) -- Subway has decided to stand by its man despite his bong antics, but the nation's largest fast-food chain is likely to backburner its first TV campaign starring mega-endorser and Olympian Michael Phelps.
"Like most Americans, and like Michael Phelps himself, we were disappointed in his behavior," Subway said in a statement. "Also like most Americans, we accept his apology. Moving forward, he remains in our plans."
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Monday, February 02, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)