One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The democrats obviously h**e america
Mar 24, 2020 13:10:43   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
Pelosi and Schumer Obstructing Stimulus for These Insane Demands

2020-03-23 Source: TTN by: TTN Staff

Pelosi and Schumer Obstructing Stimulus for These Insane Demands
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)]


Democrats are now obstructing the passage of a v***s stimulus package to help America's and business and now we know what they are obstructing them for.

One historian noted that holding up relief for windmills is the craziest political move in history outside of secession.


According to Town Hall:

As previously reported, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi came back to Washington D.C. last night after a week long recess and blew up days of emergency relief work done by the Senate. She wants to write her own far left bill and now we know what will be in it.

According to a source close to the process on Capitol Hill, in order to move forward with any kind of relief package, Pelosi and her far-left Democrat caucus will demand the following be included:

-Publication of corporate pay statistics by race and race statistics for all corporate boards

-A bail out on all current debt at the Postal Service

-Required early v****g

-Required same day v***r r**********n

-Provisions on official time for union collective bargaining

-Full offset of airline emissions by 2025

-Publication and reporting of greenhouse gas statistics for individual flights

-Retirement plans for community newspaper employees

-Federal $15 minimum wage

-Permanent paid leave

Guy reported on the initial details of what Pelosi's demands would be earlier, which were confirmed by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor. Republican Senator Tom Cotton and Congressman Dan Crenshaw also backed up the details.


To be clear the Democrats are essentially blocking much needed economic relief for Americans because they want... more windmills.

Reply
Mar 24, 2020 13:14:35   #
Lonewolf
 
no propaganda please wrote:
Pelosi and Schumer Obstructing Stimulus for These Insane Demands

2020-03-23 Source: TTN by: TTN Staff

Pelosi and Schumer Obstructing Stimulus for These Insane Demands
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)]


Democrats are now obstructing the passage of a v***s stimulus package to help America's and business and now we know what they are obstructing them for.

One historian noted that holding up relief for windmills is the craziest political move in history outside of secession.


According to Town Hall:

As previously reported, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi came back to Washington D.C. last night after a week long recess and blew up days of emergency relief work done by the Senate. She wants to write her own far left bill and now we know what will be in it.

According to a source close to the process on Capitol Hill, in order to move forward with any kind of relief package, Pelosi and her far-left Democrat caucus will demand the following be included:

-Publication of corporate pay statistics by race and race statistics for all corporate boards

-A bail out on all current debt at the Postal Service

-Required early v****g

-Required same day v***r r**********n

-Provisions on official time for union collective bargaining

-Full offset of airline emissions by 2025

-Publication and reporting of greenhouse gas statistics for individual flights

-Retirement plans for community newspaper employees

-Federal $15 minimum wage

-Permanent paid leave

Guy reported on the initial details of what Pelosi's demands would be earlier, which were confirmed by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor. Republican Senator Tom Cotton and Congressman Dan Crenshaw also backed up the details.


To be clear the Democrats are essentially blocking much needed economic relief for Americans because they want... more windmills.
Pelosi and Schumer Obstructing Stimulus for These ... (show quote)


The only bill that should pass it help for hosptials and healthcare workers let businesses take care of themselves.

Reply
Mar 24, 2020 13:24:49   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Lonewolf wrote:
The only bill that should pass it help for hosptials and healthcare workers let businesses take care of themselves.


That's where you are wrong. Most businesses are small businesses, owned and ran by people like you and me. Regular Americans trying to survive this economic challenge that is no fault of their own. We need these businesses because they employ the majority of Americans and supply essential products and services we all use and need.

In the meantime, the Democrats are playing games with the American people by stuffing all sorts of unrelated items into a stimulus bill that will cost additional money. This is not the time for such posturing.

Reply
 
 
Mar 24, 2020 13:45:20   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
dtucker300 wrote:
That's where you are wrong. Most businesses are small businesses, owned and ran by people like you and me. Regular Americans trying to survive this economic challenge that is no fault of their own. We need these businesses because they employ the majority of Americans and supply essential products and services we all use and need.

In the meantime, the Democrats are playing games with the American people by stuffing all sorts of unrelated items into a stimulus bill that will cost additional money. This is not the time for such posturing.
That's where you are wrong. Most businesses are s... (show quote)


Whenever I hear congress critters, be they dem or repub, start talking about legislation to "stimulate" the economy, a whole bunch of red f**gs pop up. There is no way federal legislation can stimulate our economy, that simply is not the way our nation works. The Preamble to the Constitution states clearly that our system of government is established to PROMOTE the General Welfare, not PROVIDE it. The only way we can stimulate our economy is to allow Americans to do what they do best - go to work on a problem and fix it, and that means getting people working, not shutting them down and replacing the enormous flow of revenues they generate with a government mandated stimulus that is about as effective as pissing in the ocean. It's our money those cretins pump into a stimulus.

Reply
Mar 24, 2020 14:21:12   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Whenever I hear congress critters, be they dem or repub, start talking about legislation to "stimulate" the economy, a whole bunch of red f**gs pop up. There is no way federal legislation can stimulate our economy, that simply is not the way our nation works. The Preamble to the Constitution states clearly that our system of government is established to PROMOTE the General Welfare, not PROVIDE it. The only way we can stimulate our economy is to allow Americans to do what they do best - go to work on a problem and fix it, and that means getting people working, not shutting them down and replacing the enormous flow of revenues they generate with a government mandated stimulus that is about as effective as pissing in the ocean. It's our money those cretins pump into a stimulus.
Whenever I hear congress critters, be they dem or ... (show quote)


In most previous situations, I would totally agree with you. I also worry about the precedent this will set for other acts of God in the future. And they will be others. In this case, too many businesses were not keeping their eye on the ball and their own house in order. They overextended themselves borrowing or spending and were not prepared for a crisis such as this. The government will not be able to keep sinking ships afloat. But some businesses will require short-term assistance to stay open when an entire lifetime of work and saving can be erased in a moment. The longer this crisis goes the more businesses that will fail and nothing will keep them afloat. But for the short term, because many people's livelihood depends on some of these businesses, I believe we should assist them because this helps average Americans. This shouldn't become a long-term solution and will need to be revisited soon if things don't improve. For now, it is a changing situation from day-to-day. We will need to constantly re-evaluate what is done. The issue must be debated and Congress must deliberate on any actions to be taken. The Democrats need to quit playing with this by trying to add their pet pork projects into the bill. Any assistance should be in the form of loans to businesses and not free money giveaways.

Reply
Mar 24, 2020 16:13:51   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
dtucker300 wrote:
In most previous situations, I would totally agree with you. I also worry about the precedent this will set for other acts of God in the future. And they will be others. In this case, too many businesses were not keeping their eye on the ball and their own house in order. They overextended themselves borrowing or spending and were not prepared for a crisis such as this. The government will not be able to keep sinking ships afloat. But some businesses will require short-term assistance to stay open when an entire lifetime of work and saving can be erased in a moment. The longer this crisis goes the more businesses that will fail and nothing will keep them afloat. But for the short term, because many people's livelihood depends on some of these businesses, I believe we should assist them because this helps average Americans. This shouldn't become a long-term solution and will need to be revisited soon if things don't improve. For now, it is a changing situation from day-to-day. We will need to constantly re-evaluate what is done. The issue must be debated and Congress must deliberate on any actions to be taken. The Democrats need to quit playing with this by trying to add their pet pork projects into the bill. Any assistance should be in the form of loans to businesses and not free money giveaways.
In most previous situations, I would totally agree... (show quote)


The Logic of Pottersville
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
March 24, 2020 6:30 AM


A person in a face mask walks through an almost empty Times Square in New York City as the c****av***s outbreak continues, March 18, 2020. (Andrew Kelly/Reuters)
It is a wonderful life.
In director Frank Capra’s 1946 holiday classic movie It’s a Wonderful Life, an initial bank panic sweeps the small town of Bedford Falls. Small passbook account holders rush to George Bailey’s family-owned Bailey Building and Loan to demand the right to cash out all of their deposits — a sudden run that would destroy the lending cooperative and its ability to issue mortgages or preserve the savings accounts of the small town.




It’s Time to Let Congress V**e Remotely


The villain of the story, Henry F. Potter, who is a cash-laden, though miserly rival banker, played brilliantly by Lionel Barrymore, offers to buy up the depositors’ shares in the Building and Loan — but at a steep 50 percent discount.

Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) tries to explain to his panicked cooperative depositors the logic of their frenzy, with the exclamation, “Potter isn’t selling. Potter’s buying! And why? Because we’re panicky, and he’s not.”

Capra’s post–Depression era movie, even in its black-and-white morality, reminds us that, in crisis, the majority has limited liquidity and cash. And sooner rather than later they must sell assets — property, stocks, shares, and household goods — to operate their businesses or keep their homes until things pick up. In a real depression, those with the least cash fail first and in great numbers.

And the minority who do have cash are always willing to buy, even in a depression, albeit at their price, which is usually steeply discounted. Panic, not logic, eventually takes over the collective mind, as we now see with the downward spiral of the current stock market and the hoarding of goods otherwise in plentiful supply.

The stock market descends in part because sellers need liquidity and think they will have less of it tomorrow, while cagey buyers believe they will sell for even less in 24 hours — and stock managers who sell more than buy conclude that there is not yet enough data or conjecture to convince the terrified public that the v***s is either manageable or will turn out to be more analogous to 2009 rather than 1918.

Remembering the Rush to the Bottom

On a small scale, as I wrote in Fields without Dreams, I lived through “the Great Raisin Crash” of 1983. In this crisis, the price of raisins per ton paid out from Sun-Maid’s cooperative pool dived in only a few months, from over $1,400 a ton to a little over $400; break-even for most was somewhere between $900 and $700 a ton.

The panic was an abrupt, if belated, reaction to the 1982–83 recession, the tight-money and high-interest policies of the Fed that broke soaring inflation, the clumsy role of an ossified Depression-era federal “Raisin Administrative Committee” that regulated all sales of farmers’ harvests, and the proto–European Union plan to subsidize European and mostly Greek raisin production on the international market.

Sun-Maid went “broke.” Or rather, in the euphemisms of depression, its management “recapitalized” the co-op, by expropriating the capital contributions of its members in the revolving fund. The CEO shrugged that, in the logic of cooperatives, members had in years past been “overpaid” by themselves, and now they simply had to forfeit millions of dollars owed to them by “their” own co-op. Half the membership quit and were never paid what in the real world was contractually owed to them.


Raisin vineyards fell in price in just a few months from $15,000 an acre to $3,500. Once vaunted varieties of grapes for raisins, such as Thompson seedless, were soon dubbed “Thompson worthless.” Within a year, farmers were pruning off canes, producing no crops, and watering and cultivating just enough to keep their vines alive, and thus diminishing in value capital investments.

Suddenly it was more valuable to have open ground that could be left fallow than to maintain expensive permanent vineyards that could not so easily be idled. In a panic cycle, to farm was to lose more money, and to do nothing was to lose less.

Idiocy ensued from “experts” who assured us that the new globalization was “good for you in the long run” given that subsidized foreign sales that gobbled up our lost market share would make insolvent American growers “more competitive” and “sort out the wheat from the chaff” and “bankrupt Europe through costly subsidies” and ensure “value to the consumer” — all in the abstract arguable for tomorrow, all in the concrete present irrelevant news for the bankrupt.

The vast majority of small farmers who owed money and had a mortgage, and no savings or bank credit line, went broke — at first aghast that anyone would offer them an insulting and measly $8,000–$7,000 an acre for productive marquee vineyards, only within months to sell at $3,500 and be happy it was not $3,000. The logic of the Dutch tulip boom and bust soon spread. In some sense, four decades later, the raisin industry for a variety of outside and self-inflicted reasons never fully recovered.


Some of the today’s small agrarian fortunes in central California were made in the early 1980s by those who either had capital at the time or were audacious enough to risk buying foreclosed properties (the panic soon spread to orchards and other crops) that would likely not show a profit for years. Now such farmland sells at $30,000 an acre and up, depending on the crop. Because the raisin crash affected fewer than 10,000 family farmers, no one noticed much that most were wiped out. Although they were not infected with a v***s, a few men in our vicinity k**led themselves, a number of farmers and their spouses developed severe physical and mental health issues and died, and families split up and broke apart (including my own).

We wish to avoid such cycles of panic. Panic is not, as the uninitiated write, good. No, it k**ls.

Reawakening a Comatose Patient

The longer businesses and employees cannot create or receive income (in this case, by de facto government edict), the closer we are to an economic meltdown. The very few who have cash and are willing to risk short-term operational peril for long-term investment profits will always wait until the next day to buy assets, property, and stocks from those who right now must make payrolls, pay mortgages, meet interest payments — and to do so must sell their assets sooner rather than later, at a bad price today to avoid a worse price tomorrow. It is not a morality issue as much as common sense, moral hazard, and self-interest.

The downward spiral soon takes on a psychological logic of its own and can be arrested only by data and proof that it is an unfounded panic and that the cause of the hysteria is either nonexistent, no longer germane, or manageable.

The result on a grand national scale is both economic stagnation and a gradual descent into Pottersville. Don’t believe that even salaried elite employees at institutions, universities, nonprofits, etc., will be exempt, given that dividend income from endowments is now in question, assets are declining in value, and philanthropists logically grow scarce.

In periods of panic and plagues, there are no good choices, just bad and worse ones — but we have choices, nonetheless. For now, to arrest the spread of the v***s, we’ve adopted an understandable sort of blunderbuss chemotherapy strategy. We have risked sickening the entire economy by shut-ins, shelterings, lockdowns, quarantines, social distancing — as the necessary medicine to deny new hosts to the metastasizing hopping and skipping c****av***s. Chemotherapy, to be frank, can often work but nonetheless is designed to k**l the cancer weeks or even days before it k**ls the sickening patient, and its side effects can linger for years. So too with our present antiv***l economic policy.

Very soon — two or three weeks perhaps, at the most — the U.S. is going to have to resume work while retaining prophylactic policies that do not sicken the already ailing and hopefully recovering economy. Both the v***s and a looming severe recession are real.

How should we envision, then, our way out of this current crisis?

Understanding the Invisible Enemy

With millions of new tests, we should be able to identify positive cases and collective hot spots, and within two weeks be able to emulate past public policies that extinguished tuberculosis and measles. Or at least we will be able to curtail the spread of such infections by tracking down contacts and sources of infection and quarantining and isolating them, while restarting the economy.

Hopefully, antibody tests could become available cheaply and in numbers. They could determine those who have recovered with assumed immunity, and who therefore might reenter the most hazardous spots in the workforce. Such data might help to obtain a more realistic number of actual cases of infection and the lethality rate of the v***s, as well as reminding us that thousands unknowingly may have already had the v***s and either attributed it to the flu or discounted its milder symptoms. Doctors could make better choices if they knew whether respiratory patients had already had the c****av***s.

We still are witnessing the number of U.S. cases increase dramatically while the lethality rate nonetheless either stays static or slightly declines daily — for now. This was to be expected, probably because the known positive cases hardly accounted for all those Americans infected, while we have been more or less able to accurately confirm the number of deaths caused by C****-**.


Moreover, those who test positive (in t***h, a small minority of those feeling ill or exposed who received a test) probably represent only a portion of those who go unreported as infected, recovered, or who were oblivious that their milder symptoms were in fact caused by the c****av***s and not allergies, a cold, or the flu. So testing will probably reveal that the actual denominator number of all cases is much larger than in past weeks — and it will probably be larger than even testing can approximate. Thus, given that, so far, there seem to be few serious and permanent side effects among the recovered, the death rate is the key, and it will only continue to decline, and one hopes to levels associated with a bad flu year.

If we can get hard data out and the lethality rates descend to near flu levels, and once Americans see that well over 99 percent of the population survives the v***s, then they will have confidence in the return of the economy, buy and sell stocks on the basis of innate worth and return rather than panicked speculation, and again rehire, run, and expand their businesses.

In sum, with the use of new treatment protocols and medicines, wider testing, and the approaching summer, we can get the incidence of infection down to a level that allows most people to work and keep the economy alive. Otherwise, make no mistake, if the present economic somnolence continues, many Americans are going to sicken and die — but from the economic v***s in reaction to the c****av***s.

Finally, we must be careful that we don’t reach the point of no return on the horizon after which the psychosis of panic and depression will be so entrenched that we will suffer devastating economic recession or worse no matter what. As that date of decision nears, we should be ready to ramp the economy back up, incrementally at first, to be sure, as we go full-bore with testing and while we make what drugs we think are useful widely available at local ERs along with ventilators. We should also prepare for the naysayers and pessimists — mostly those most insulated from the economic shutdown — to cry “denialist” and then accuse officials of “murder” when the case load and deaths from the v***s do not immediately disappear. We can confirm who dies from the v***s, not always the greater number who will likely die in a depression.

Then efforts will focus on getting a v******tion into wide-scale tests by autumn. A rebounding economy will be stimulated by cheap energy prices, historically low interest rates, and a national consensus that multitrillion-dollar industries in pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, strategic materials, and defense-related technologies are being incentivized and goaded into returning to the U.S.

The v***s in terribly ironic fashion may help “woke” Americans understand that they were hostage to insidious Chinese pressures in ways they never imagined. Trump is trying to square that circle by noting that China is culpable for the v***s, while he speaks softly of President Xi, apparently on the assumption that it is stupid in crisis and panic to trash the supplier of vital pharmaceuticals and medical supplies — until you have a certain domestic replacement.

The future is bright. But in the panicky darkness of today, we must not lose our way and end up wandering in endless circles before arriving at Pottersville.

Reply
Mar 24, 2020 16:15:15   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Whenever I hear congress critters, be they dem or repub, start talking about legislation to "stimulate" the economy, a whole bunch of red f**gs pop up. There is no way federal legislation can stimulate our economy, that simply is not the way our nation works. The Preamble to the Constitution states clearly that our system of government is established to PROMOTE the General Welfare, not PROVIDE it. The only way we can stimulate our economy is to allow Americans to do what they do best - go to work on a problem and fix it, and that means getting people working, not shutting them down and replacing the enormous flow of revenues they generate with a government mandated stimulus that is about as effective as pissing in the ocean. It's our money those cretins pump into a stimulus.
Whenever I hear congress critters, be they dem or ... (show quote)


Economic Stimulus Is the Wrong Prescription
We need liquidity to help businesses and individuals get through this necessarily tough time.

By Edward P. Lazear
Mr. Lazear led the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2006 to 2009.

March 24, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET


The current situation requires that funds actually be available to provide financial liquidity for Americans.
The current situation requires that funds actually be available to provide financial liquidity for Americans.Credit...Tomasz Zajda/EyeEm, via Getty Images
Despite several days of intense negotiation, the Senate has so far failed to pass a bill to infuse over a trillion dollars into the ailing U.S. economy. While there can be no doubt that swift action is vital, too many politicians and policymakers seem to think the goal should be to stimulate the economy back into action.

In fact, stimulating the economy is the wrong prescription. To combat the spread of C****-**, we need a period of less business activity and less consumer demand. Instead of stimulus, the government should provide what economists call liquidity — a financial cushion to allow businesses and individuals adversely affected by an inevitable decline in economic activity to have enough money to survive the shock.

In recent days, commentators have compared the economy to a patient in a medically induced coma. In order to stem the spread of the v***s, the strategy is to keep people inside, to encourage them to work from home and reduce large group activities, all of which mean slowing the economy down, not speeding it up. More economic activity will be desired down the road, but right now the most important consideration is ensuring the survival of workers and businesses adversely affected by reduced business activity. That requires that funds be available to provide liquidity.

The Federal Reserve has already begun to do its part by creating facilities, like the Commercial Paper Lending Facility announced on March 17, which will work to stabilize corporate financial markets that have been are under stress. On Monday, Chairman Jerome Powell made clear the Fed would buy as much government debt as necessary, engage in quantitative easing, aggressively buy up commercial paper (i.e., debt) and make loans where needed to guarantee the smooth functioning of financial markets. These steps are similar to those used in 2008, which demonstrated that the way to end a financial panic is to remove its cause — which is, often, a lack of liquidity.


Now it is Congress’s turn. Wh**ever legislation comes out of the current round of negotiations, it should be focused on providing short-run support for businesses and individuals during this difficult but temporary period. The most important actions that Congress can take are those that keep business and individuals solvent so that when the crisis period ends, economic structures will be in place to begin a quick recovery. What does that mean? For starters, it means not being overly specific about where the money should be spent.

One lesson of the 2008 financial crisis is that it is difficult to anticipate where future disruptions will occur, and therefore where money will be needed. Instead, Congress needs to authorize funds that can be used by the administration as the need arises. Carte blanche authority is admittedly dangerous; funds can be misused. But the downside of a strictly “targeted” approach is worse. We can identify some of the problem areas right now — for example, airlines — but it is presumptuous to believe that we know which industries will suffer and will need help, even in the near future.

Unlock more free articles.
Create an account or log in
A case in point: In 2008, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, as the name implies, was initially pitched as a program to buy up toxic assets. But it quickly became obvious that financial firms did not want to sell assets that would force them to mark-to-market and reduce the stated value of their portfolios. Nor was there enough money in the TARP to buy up a large enough fraction of outstanding troubled assets. (The White House agency that I headed at the time, the Council of Economic Advisers, estimated that there were over $3 trillion in toxic assets, or almost 10 time the size of the first tranche of the TARP.)

When attempts to buy up toxic assets proved unsuccessful, the TARP had to be repositioned quickly to purchase preferred shares in financial firms. That was the right approach because it gave the financial sector the capital it needed to withstand the shocks that were to come. Fortunately, flexibility written into the TARP legislation allowed that shift to occur.

We’ll need similar flexibility now. In the coming weeks, resources are likely to be needed by large sectors of the economy. Some of this may be a result of the legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives that, among other things, creates a mandate requiring small firms to provide paid sick leave to workers. In return, businesses will be eligible for a refundable tax credit. But even successful small businesses, stressed by declines in activity, might be out of business by the time they collect their tax credits despite the best efforts by Treasury to get the payments out quickly.

This is why a liquidity-based strategy is so important. The Treasury Department or the Fed should be prepared to make loans readily available to efficient businesses that, because of the crisis, may close their doors permanently absent short-run liquidity to buffer the shock. Loans may be difficult to obtain privately if businesses overwhelm capital markets during this crisis.

But in doing do, Congress shouldn’t specify which industries get loans. Right now, the most distressed firms are in travel, leisure and hospitality, but shelter-in-place orders, like those in California and New York, coupled with voluntary restrictions by individuals on shopping and work, will strain many other sectors. It is difficult to foresee in which industries future pressure will be most pronounced.

Workers and their families will also suffer liquidity problems as business activity falls. It is essential to keep them viable as well, and a more aggressive policy of short-term sick pay and unemployment benefits will likely be needed soon. These policies should be designed specifically to get people through this difficult period — not to stimulate them to spend more money.

During typical recessions, the federal government provides funding to lengthen the period over which unemployment benefits can be received. Now the need is to raise the weekly benefits unemployed workers receive so that they can pay their bills and buy necessities during the crisis. Additional approaches that work through a firm’s payroll were successful in Germany during the 2008 recession — the government made payments to companies that partially covered worker salaries and kept employees on the payroll during periods of reduced demand. We should do the same thing now.

Payments to specific workers who suffer layoffs or reduced pay is a better approach than providing cash to all Americans. Checks to give them spending money is actually counterproductive to our efforts to fight the p******c: We should not be encouraging increased economic activity right now. And in any case, such payments are unlikely to provide much stimulus: Distributions made in the spring of 2008 did little to avert the financial crisis and its effects on the real economy.

When the threat of the v***s spread has subsided, stimulus could be considered. The more important and immediate approach should emphasize help for those who suffer pay cuts, providing enough support to tide them over during the difficult period.

Washington should be using every tool at its disposal to support American businesses and citizens economically. But how it does so matters. In a normal recession, monetary and fiscal stimulus might be appropriate. Today, though, our economic policies need to work in concert with our efforts to fight the p******c. There will be a time for stimulus, but for now, what we need is enough liquidity to help weather the months ahead.

Edward P. Lazear is a professor at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow. He served as chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2006 to 2009.

Reply
 
 
Mar 25, 2020 19:26:42   #
Lt. Rob Polans ret.
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Whenever I hear congress critters, be they dem or repub, start talking about legislation to "stimulate" the economy, a whole bunch of red f**gs pop up. There is no way federal legislation can stimulate our economy, that simply is not the way our nation works. The Preamble to the Constitution states clearly that our system of government is established to PROMOTE the General Welfare, not PROVIDE it. The only way we can stimulate our economy is to allow Americans to do what they do best - go to work on a problem and fix it, and that means getting people working, not shutting them down and replacing the enormous flow of revenues they generate with a government mandated stimulus that is about as effective as pissing in the ocean. It's our money those cretins pump into a stimulus.
Whenever I hear congress critters, be they dem or ... (show quote)


For the most part I agree. What it means is GET THE F... OUT OF THE WAY!! We can fix things if they move.

Reply
Apr 14, 2020 07:58:07   #
promilitary
 
The Democrats don't give a damn about this country; never have...…
Nor the V***s, obviously, they are trying to use the v***s to advance their
agenda.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.