[Solatar]

I would have rather seen a 10-page law. Even with legal jargon, everything to stimulate the economy should fit just fine in a shorter bill.

But then you'd be complaining that a bill involving almost a trillion dollars should be stated in far deeper detail.

Why would he have "rather seen a 10-page law" if he really, deep down, wanted a larger one? I assume Bob-san was stating that his ideal "scenario", was a shortish (shorter than it is now, but not just a check) bill. Arguing that somebody would complain regardless is fine and dandy in many circumstances, but it does have the convenient byproduct that you aren't actually engaging his argument. You're just saying "well, you'd complain anyway...so I'm not really going to listen to you".

I would love to have seen a shorter bill; I'm not interested in paying for the democrats' pork. But let me add on to that by saying just because I want a shorter bill does not mean I want no restrictions on money given out. It is a fallacy, plain and simple, to think the two are equivalent. There are many, many, many good things in this bill. But there is loads of crap in it that just doesn't need to be there.

[BengalTiger]

STEP 1 : Find some totally insignificant nitpick and blow it completely out of proportion until you can make that the focus of the argument.
STEP 2 : If you can't find a nitpick, Complain about the length of the law. If it is short, claim that it doesn't have enough safeguards. If it is long claim that there wasn't enough time to study it. If it is in between have two people complain about both things and then go with whichever one the public complain about most bitterly.

STEP 3: If the nitpick is significant, go to the opposite extreme and blow it out of proportions.
STEP 4: Attack with the result of step 3.
STEP 5: Be sure not to bring any new arguments into the discussion though, because some people might disagree and use the flowchart against you.

[karajorma]

Wait a second, when the republicans complained about the lack of checks and balances in the previous plan are you saying that they were wrong?

[Bob-san]

What I'm saying is the Bush plan didn't do 1/10 of what it was supposed to do. Not only that, but it took quite a bit of tax cuts to "stimulate" the post-9/11 economy. I hold conservative views about the economy. Trust-busting and monopoly busting is all good and fine, and I even see many of these expenditures as "whatever"--they'll occur because of the administration change and there isn't a single thing that's going to stop them. However, it's business as usual on Capitol Hill. Our politicians are still spending an ungodly amount of money, our politicians are still saying to each other, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", and all these other complaints about big government that have existed for decades now. When Obama was finally elected, I put aside my dislike of his policies, preferring to judge him from November onwards based on his policy, and not his speeches. To me, he has already failed in many of those promises to conservatives. Bipartisanship? Hardly. Doing what's best for the American people? Hardly. Pushing a pork-laden bill while preaching about how it'll help everyone? Very much so.

[Mars]

I say wait and see. If it works than there isn't a problem

I honestly think he tried way too much to get the extremely stubborn repulbicans. It was pretty clear even after a third of the bill was in tax cuts that they wouldn't accept it unless it went totally their way. Bipartisanship requires BOTH sides to make compromises.

[maje]

With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.

What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import.  This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.

There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.

[BloodEagle]

With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.

What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import.  This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.

There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.

So what you're saying is that, in order to have a functioning economy, The U.S. needs to produce goods and maintain/make jobs for U.S. citizens.

Congress The conglomerates that control Congress will never go for that. 

[Black Wolf]

With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.

What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import.  This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.

There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.

Oh hey, yeah! Protectionism! Because that's never plunged the world into the biggest economic depression in living memory. Good plan.

[Bob-san]

With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.

What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import.  This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.

There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.

Also known as the death of dominance. The reason we got to be so powerful in the first place was that we could export old technology for great profit. It is science that builds societies. Revoke free-trade agreements and the only thing you do is retard our existing industries. As for growing industries, you have to be careful about how shielded they should be. They have to be competitive on a level playing field, but that does not occur automatically.

[maje]

With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.

What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import.  This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.

There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.

Oh hey, yeah! Protectionism! Because that's never plunged the world into the biggest economic depression in living memory. Good plan.

You do realize that Smoot-Hawley came after we (the United States) were already in the Great Depression, therefore to say it caused the situation that we were in is a myth.

[maje]

With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.

What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import.  This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.

There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.

Also known as the death of dominance. The reason we got to be so powerful in the first place was that we could export old technology for great profit. It is science that builds societies. Revoke free-trade agreements and the only thing you do is retard our existing industries. As for growing industries, you have to be careful about how shielded they should be. They have to be competitive on a level playing field, but that does not occur automatically.

If this this is true, then why is China a rising star, while the U.S. is falling with regards to trade?  Do you think a $266 Billion Trade Deficit for 2008 is a sound economic policy?  China purchased almost $72 Billion from us, yet we purchased  nearly $338 Billion from them, all during 2008.  We're losing dominance all right.  We're purposefully eroding our own ability to be self-sufficient.  I for one, do not feel comfortable having to be dependent on Beijing for almost every consumer good on the face of the earth.

[Bob-san]

With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.

What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import.  This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.

There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.

Also known as the death of dominance. The reason we got to be so powerful in the first place was that we could export old technology for great profit. It is science that builds societies. Revoke free-trade agreements and the only thing you do is retard our existing industries. As for growing industries, you have to be careful about how shielded they should be. They have to be competitive on a level playing field, but that does not occur automatically.

If this this is true, then why is China a rising star, while the U.S. is falling with regards to trade?  Do you think a $266 Billion Trade Deficit for 2008 is a sound economic policy?  China purchased almost $72 Billion from us, yet we purchased  nearly $338 Billion from them, all during 2008.  We're losing dominance all right.  We're purposefully eroding our own ability to be self-sufficient.  I for one, do not feel comfortable having to be dependent on Beijing for almost every consumer good on the face of the earth.

Because China is a developing country. When there's nowhere to go but up, where do you go? Up. China is seeing economic advances, but they're also 1.3 billion Chinese there! They're four times the size of the USA, and their GDP is still lower. And then there's quite a few old words of wisdom that explains it. "The strong will do what they want, and the weak what they must." Then there's our own saying going against us... "The dollar is our currency, but your problem!" In short, the best way the USA could have remained dominant in the world would have been to ensure that China never became an economic rival. Too little, too late, so the best thing we can do is remain a center of knowledge and technology, as China's economy expands.

[Black Wolf]

With all due respect, tax cuts alone are not going to stimulate the economy, nor are big spending pork-barrel projects.

What needs to happen is the rebuilding of America as a manufacturing powerhouse which means we have to go back to the 19th century-early 20th century philosophy of producing more than what we import.  This is going to lead to revisiting many of our current Free Trade agreements and effectively altering them to be more favorable to things being made over here.

There are, of course other things that need to be done, but this is perhaps chief among them.

Oh hey, yeah! Protectionism! Because that's never plunged the world into the biggest economic depression in living memory. Good plan.

You do realize that Smoot-Hawley came after we (the United States) were already in the Great Depression, therefore to say it caused the situation that we were in is a myth.

The stock crash caused the problem, I'll grant you, but it was protectionism that turned it from a serious problem to flat out catastrophe. And while I'm also unhappy with Chinese dominance of the manufacturing market (it's given them the economic power to come into Australia and start buying up all our mineable resources, which really worries me), there's not a lot you can do without provoking a trade war, and nobody's going to win that.

[Kosh]

In short, the best way the USA could have remained dominant in the world would have been to ensure that China never became an economic rival. Too little, too late, so the best thing we can do is remain a center of knowledge and technology, as China's economy expands.

And while I'm also unhappy with Chinese dominance of the manufacturing market (it's given them the economic power to come into Australia and start buying up all our mineable resources, which really worries me),

It's nice to see that the Yellow Peril is coming out of retirement.  Seriously what did you guys expect, that they stay poor forever? Very humanitarian......

On a side note it's worth mentioning that in dollar terms the US still out produces China (although they are coming up quick), it's just that so much of what the US makes now is heavily restricted "sensitive" tech.

[Bob-san]

In short, the best way the USA could have remained dominant in the world would have been to ensure that China never became an economic rival. Too little, too late, so the best thing we can do is remain a center of knowledge and technology, as China's economy expands.

And while I'm also unhappy with Chinese dominance of the manufacturing market (it's given them the economic power to come into Australia and start buying up all our mineable resources, which really worries me),

It's nice to see that the Yellow Peril is coming out of retirement.  Seriously what did you guys expect, that they stay poor forever? Very humanitarian......

On a side note it's worth mentioning that in dollar terms the US still out produces China (although they are coming up quick), it's just that so much of what the US makes now is heavily restricted "sensitive" tech.

And that technology has been our biggest and best advantage for decades. Knowledge builds nations and then keeps them together. All North America and the Europe needs to do is keep on the leading edge with technology. Once that advantage is lost, so is the possibility of winning a war against China. And let's face it--what's keeping China off of the Western world is two-fold. One part is economic demand--they can profit off of us, at least for the time being. The second part is political--the US military has the best technology in the world, which would be the deciding factor in an out-and-out war. Lose the first advantage, and then it's a cold war.

[General Battuta]

What exactly is the problem with China becoming more powerful? The less unilateral the world is, the better, and the more co-dependent we all are the less chance of another large war.

[Flipside]

Because the last time there were two major powers, one Capitalist, the other Communist we very nearly had WW3 on several occasions.

I agree that inter-dependence would be good, but nationalism is still too strong a force.

[maje]

It's nice to see that the Yellow Peril is coming out of retirement.  Seriously what did you guys expect, that they stay poor forever? Very humanitarian......

You need to realize that the job of any one country's head officials is to serve what's in that nation's best interest.  Humanitarianism has nothing to do with it, though while we're on the subject, China isn't exactly reputable for its sterling human rights records, nor are the corporations who put their manufacturing centers in her, as they could care less about working conditions, etc. (ie. sweatshop labor).

General Battuta, the problem with China becoming more powerful (from an American standpoint), is that it is at the expense of America's ability to retain it's sovereignty.  By becoming increasingly dependent on a foreign nation for everyday goods that are widely used, China can get leverage over us which effectively means that they can begin to influence U.S. policy, which may not be in our best interest, but is in Beijing's.  For example, if China produces most of the goods we use, yet attacks Taiwan (again, hypothetical), a country whom we have pledged to defend, what exactly do we do?  If we don't honor our pact with the Taiwanese government, we're seen as unwilling or unable to keep our word which damages American credibility and even perceives us as weak, especially to our enemies.  If we rush to Taiwan's aid, how do you think China will retaliate?  You think they'll still allow our companies to manufacture goods there to sell here?  Most likely, in the event of  a military engagement/war, the Peoples' Army would seize the centers, halt trade, in addition to stacking their conventional forces against our own.  Then what?  We have no manufacturing facilities of our own because we relocated them out of country.  It becomes a lose-lose situation in which you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.


Black Wolf, during the years Smoot Hawley was enacted (before the 1934 revisions which weakened the tariff), our GDP declined by 46%.  Exports only hurt us by 3.8% and imports decreased by 0.5%).  So, from mid-1930 to 1933, protectionism really didn't keep us in the Depression.  At best, one could argue that Smoot-Hawley didn't make things better during those years.  If anything, it had more of a neutral effect.

Bob-san, I respect what you're saying, but it doesn't address the fact that the USA is losing it's sovereignty by ceding its manufacturing power nor does it address how to rectify our trade deficit.  Do we simply not pay the Chinese back?  The country is already broke and we've already seen something of a trader's revolt against President Obama's "stimulus package" last week (you can check out CNBC's Rick Santelli on Youtube, if you haven't seen it), the Congressional Budget Office says the Trillion dollar bill will drastically shrink the economy in over ten years.  To put it bluntly, we're going broke.  
  
China is already gaining in technology and won't be before long that they overtake us on that front too.  I'm sorry to disagree, but unfettered free trade isn't working.  This is the legacy of Bush-Clinton-Bush, and soon to be Obama.

[Bob-san]

Bob-san, I respect what you're saying, but it doesn't address the fact that the USA is losing it's sovereignty by ceding its manufacturing power nor does it address how to rectify our trade deficit.  Do we simply not pay the Chinese back?  The country is already broke and we've already seen something of a trader's revolt against President Obama's "stimulus package" last week (you can check out CNBC's Rick Santelli on Youtube, if you haven't seen it), the Congressional Budget Office says the Trillion dollar bill will drastically shrink the economy in over ten years.  To put it bluntly, we're going broke.  
  
China is already gaining in technology and won't be before long that they overtake us on that front too.  I'm sorry to disagree, but unfettered free trade isn't working.  This is the legacy of Bush-Clinton-Bush, and soon to be Obama.

I'm glad you're addressing various points. Truth be told, I'm little more than a student of business. Anyways--to best address the points you made. It's very true that exporting our manufacturing will leave us with little leverage. We became a world power because we had the resources and the labor to do anything. Through out the Cold War, we were a world power because we could do all of that, as well as be very, very innovative. Take the collapse of Russia as an example of what could happen and may very likely will happen if the USA continues exporting manufacturing. Economic collapse, regime changes, decomposing infrastructure, loss of population, and everything else. We watched them crumble under the pressures of the Cold War. And guess what--we're next on the chopping block. I did an analysis of the subprime lending crisis and now recession. In short, Obama's got some of the right ideas but also some of the wrong ideas. One is that he sent Clinton to China to promote the sale of US Government securities. That's precisely what caused much of this mess--we sold our debts to foreign lenders. The best and fastest way out of that? Overthrow the US Government as it stands and leave the foreign investors with their money evaporated. What are they going to do? Start a war? The worst that can happen then is the US military forces the Chinese hand. Do I think that this would be World War III? Yes--it has all the implications of a world war, as well as many of the common causes including poor global economy, unbalanced trade, and increasing patriotism. Either the USA and China will match or one will entirely dominate the other. The current state of the US military is still solid and advanced, meaning that in the case of war, our best bet would be the Navy and Air Force. A land war against a nation four times our size is simply absurd, meaning that whoever can hold the line over the water longer will ultimately be protected. Once it hits the borders, all hell breaks loose in China or the USA.

[Kosh]

Because the last time there were two major powers, one Capitalist, the other Communist we very nearly had WW3 on several occasions.

I agree that inter-dependence would be good, but nationalism is still too strong a force.

There's some very big differences between China and the Soviet Union that don't make it such a valid comparison. For one thing the soviets were out to destroy the international system instead of becoming a part of it, which is not what China has been doing.

What exactly is the problem with China becoming more powerful?

Cold war paranoia. Something people don't get is that many of these fears are being pushed by people with their own agendas, and there's always plenty of money to be made in a good old arms race.

so is the possibility of winning a war against China.

I don't think there is much of a possibility of winning that war even with our tech advantage. Look at the problems we've had with Iraq, a small desert country with a 4th rate army, no air force and a relatively small population. Do you seriously think we could occupy a nation the size of our own with many times our population? Plus China is a nuclear armed state, going to war with them would have many bad consequences for us all.

China isn't exactly reputable for its sterling human rights records,

True, but then again we have supported regimes far worse in the past.