In your opinion, how effective has the stimulus been so far?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:19:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  In your opinion, how effective has the stimulus been so far?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: ^
#1
Very effective
 
#2
Moderately effective
 
#3
Somewhere in between
 
#4
Moderately ineffective
 
#5
Very ineffective
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 30

Author Topic: In your opinion, how effective has the stimulus been so far?  (Read 1878 times)
Ronnie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,993
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 21, 2009, 11:25:35 PM »

My personal opinion is that it has been a disaster so far.  159 billion dollars have been spent, while 640,000 have been "saved" or created.  This may seem nice, but how much do each of those jobs cost?  $248,000

Source:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/Pages/home.aspx


We really should not have jammed this thing through congress.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2009, 11:27:07 PM »

It has been very effective at wasting lots of money and expanding government.

It has been very ineffective at staving off unemployment, creating jobs, and reviving the economy.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2009, 11:27:25 PM »

My personal opinion is that it has been a disaster so far.  159 billion dollars have been spent, while 640,000 have been "saved" or created.  This may seem nice, but how much do each of those jobs cost?  $248,000

Source:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/Pages/home.aspx


We really should not have jammed this thing through congress.

The problem was that there were a lot of tax cuts, and not what gets the most bang for the buck.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2009, 11:28:26 PM »

The problem was that there were a lot of tax cuts, and not what gets the most bang for the buck.
Well for one thing, that buck you speak of is now worth a whole lot less thanks to Obama's reckless spending.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2009, 11:37:35 PM »

Low end of moderately effective. I think you'd be surprised at the impact it truly did have. Not all of it was about jobs, as you're sort of mischaracterizing, alot of it had to do with strengthening the safety net as well. Food stamp money, unemployment benefits, medicaid spending, state financial aid, etc.

It was, of course, too small, and too comprised of tax cuts which even middle-of-the-road economists can tell you are mostly junk. But still, it had alot of good effects that generally go underreported.

Now, of course, our focus should be on direct employment programs. They're pretty cheap in comparison to handing money to private entities and hoping they create jobs, so there's very little reason to avoid doing so, except for political realities.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2009, 11:43:41 PM »

Low end of moderately effective. I think you'd be surprised at the impact it truly did have. Not all of it was about jobs, as you're sort of mischaracterizing, alot of it had to do with strengthening the safety net as well. Food stamp money, unemployment benefits, medicaid spending, state financial aid, etc.
In other words, it was just money down the drain. Rather than fix the problems so these people could find jobs and succeed, the Obama regime just threw money at them to keep 'em quiet.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Too small? Considering this stimulus had net negative effects, making the stimulus bigger would just make those effects more negative.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Except for the fact that government make-work does nothing to improve the economy, but rather destroys wealth, and weakens the ability of the economy to expand.
Logged
nhmagic
azmagic
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,097
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.62, S: 4.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2009, 11:58:03 PM »

Considering that the administration had to make up numbers and congressional districts just to fake its effectiveness - not at all.  The stimulus and the omnibus for that matter were a payoffs to democratic allies and interest groups.  None of the projects within were about long term infrastructure projects like promised.  $18 million of course, went to the creation of recovery.gov.  Why is $18 million being spent on a single website?  This website has a lot of data and it doesn't cost 18 million to maintain.  There was money put in just for sign building across the country.  One of these road signs are at my airport.  Why was that needed?  You could give that job to prisoners to make like they do license plates.  What should have been done wasn't.  If you spend money, why didn't they give money to every state for state construction projects like roads and bridges, and leave restrictions out of it save one - that it must create jobs for regular folks.  It's a joke, and everyone knows it is.  Even Christina Romer said that the stimulus has already had the effect it was supposed to have.  No jobs have been "saved" and they certainly aren't being "created".
Logged
Mint
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,566
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2009, 12:56:30 AM »

It's been very effective at generating short term bursts of increased consumption at targeted industries. We can see that in the increase in car sales, housing construction, etc. All of those were driving forces behind the GDP increases last quarter even as unemployment, lending to small business, etc. (i.e. the fundamentals), and other fundamentals continued to deteriorate.

The problem is that it's just that - a short term at enormous long term cost. The reality is we haven't made any of these businesses any more viable or less over-extended. Hence why we're seeing a drop off again in car sales (albeit at a slower rate), why real estate is continuing to devalue at unprecedented rates even as we pump more money into TALF/'Leasing' programs/etc., why consumer spending and sentiment has 'unexpectedly fallen' again, and a host of other bad news.
Logged
Mint
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,566
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2009, 01:02:48 AM »
« Edited: November 22, 2009, 01:06:49 AM by catchfire™ »

In other words, it was just money down the drain. Rather than fix the problems so these people could find jobs and succeed, the Obama regime just threw money at them to keep 'em quiet.

Pretty much yes. IMO the real problem is that the solutions for 'fixing the economy' (new and much lower tax code, dramatic overhaul of federal gov't/military, new industrial policy) is not in their interests.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I don't think that's always true. I think our transportation systems for example do represent a tremendous obstacle to long term growth - they're aging, in disrepair, and increasingly prohibitively expensive to do basic upkeep with. A program to overhaul the high way system could yield higher growth. Unfortunately, the government is clearly not thinking anywhere near that long term - instead they're just building more rather than building smarter.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2009, 01:10:11 AM »

Well, I don't think that's always true. I think our transportation systems for example do represent a tremendous obstacle to long term growth - they're aging, in disrepair, and increasingly prohibitively expensive to do basic upkeep with. A program to overhaul the high way system could yield higher growth. Unfortunately, the government is clearly not thinking anywhere near that long term - instead they're just building more rather than building smarter.
Well that's because of government's monopoly on the transportation system. The solution is to let the market take over, not to use that as an excuse for make-work to cover up embarrassing unemployment numbers.

The state does not know how to allocate resources effectively. Remember, every tax dollar spent on temporary construction jobs is a dollar stolen out of the pocket who might have otherwise been planning to hire another worker or start/expand a business, which would have provided long-term jobs and long-term economic growth. Instead, facing higher taxes and inflation, a business owner might be forced to fire employees or shut down entirely.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2009, 01:16:42 AM »

Considering that the administration had to make up numbers and congressional districts just to fake its effectiveness - not at all.  The stimulus and the omnibus for that matter were a payoffs to democratic allies and interest groups.  None of the projects within were about long term infrastructure projects like promised.  $18 million of course, went to the creation of recovery.gov.  Why is $18 million being spent on a single website?  This website has a lot of data and it doesn't cost 18 million to maintain.  There was money put in just for sign building across the country.  One of these road signs are at my airport.  Why was that needed?  You could give that job to prisoners to make like they do license plates.  What should have been done wasn't.  If you spend money, why didn't they give money to every state for state construction projects like roads and bridges, and leave restrictions out of it save one - that it must create jobs for regular folks.  It's a joke, and everyone knows it is.  Even Christina Romer said that the stimulus has already had the effect it was supposed to have.  No jobs have been "saved" and they certainly aren't being "created".

Those were obviously typos. People would rather hear about THEIR district, and not some typo district.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2009, 01:26:21 AM »
« Edited: November 22, 2009, 01:33:08 AM by Beet »

It's been very effective at generating short term bursts of increased consumption at targeted industries. We can see that in the increase in car sales, housing construction, etc. All of those were driving forces behind the GDP increases last quarter even as unemployment, lending to small business, etc. (i.e. the fundamentals), and other fundamentals continued to deteriorate.

The problem is that it's just that - a short term at enormous long term cost. The reality is we haven't made any of these businesses any more viable or less over-extended. Hence why we're seeing a drop off again in car sales (albeit at a slower rate), why real estate is continuing to devalue at unprecedented rates even as we pump more money into TALF/'Leasing' programs/etc., why consumer spending and sentiment has 'unexpectedly fallen' again, and a host of other bad news.

Actually, car sales in October were the highest non Cash for Clunkers month of the whole year. Those that predicted that car sales would continue to slump after Cash for Clunkers were wrong

Secondly, the real estate bubble was gargantuan and will continue to deflate until at least the middle of next year. The TALF isn't affecting real estate as much as the Fed's agency purchases are, though.

Consumer spending was up 1.4% in October. Consumer sentiment is steady but higher than in the Spring before the stimulus.

But that's not all credited to the stimulus, it has to be credited to the whole range of government responses.

The stimulus hasn't created 640,000 jobs; first of all that number is unreliable. It's probably a bit lower than that; in the range of 400,000-700,000 jobs, probably. But here's the catch: these are confirmed jobs, a.k.a., jobs where they can actually track back direct spending to a physical job opening position. Jobs that were created by the tax cuts, by the money multiplier, don't get counted. So the administration's hard count is just the most conservative base estimate.

But even if you just use a low estimate of 500,000, how is that "very ineffective"? Do you think those 500,000 people would call the stimulus "very ineffective"? No, of course not! And don't forget that it's not just jobs we're talking about but economic activity-- which in turn creates tax revenues that go back to the government.

I agree also with jfern that tax cuts are ineffective compared to direct fiscal spending.

Bottom line, I think the stimulus is getting massively sold short and it's a tragedy, because more stimulus is precisely what we need, with 10% unemployment. One thing the Chinese have done right is that they've massively stimulated their economy.

Finally, I agree with NDN that we need an overhaul of the tax code and a new industrial policy. A stimulus filled with quasi-useful spending has some benefits but what we really need is a new economic model and an economic program that moves us in that direction. But keep in mind that a tax overhaul and industrial policy would pretty much amount to a second stimulus, or at least it would be called that. So if you attack the whole notion of stimulus as ineffective (which is what Republicans are doing), then you're also attacking a tax overhaul and industrial policy.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2009, 01:42:58 AM »

One thing the Chinese have done right is that they've massively stimulated their economy.

We, too, have done a good job of that. I guess it was too hard to just use the stimulus to create jobs in this country. Another epic fail from the "free traders".
Logged
Mint
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,566
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2009, 01:46:39 AM »
« Edited: November 22, 2009, 02:25:46 AM by catchfire™ »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't actually prove my main point wrong, which is that sales HAVE fallen off the 14.1 million sales peak in August and remain 'stable' right now. GM's sales are remained even but Chrystler's are down and Ford (which obviously, hasn't really been the focus of government intervention efforts) has seen modest gains primarily as a result of their new models. If they're up from last year it's because of unprecedented money being poured into the system as well as continued layoffs. Let's see how those numbers hold several months from now.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

True enough, I'd say several more years though given the statistics for home value (re: 48% underwater).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The number is cooked.  Only same-store sale changes were counted in the MRTS and those stores that closed or were newly opened were ignored. And even that's after the Commerce Department reported consumer spending in September saw the largest drop in nine months. That number was 're adjusted' as well significantly from what was originally projected (-1% vs >-3%). We could easily see the 1.4% figure be proven to be significantly over estimated if not totally false.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Consumer sentiment fell unexpectedly in mid October (see: University of Michigan report). It might be marginally higher but it's been fluctuating since summer.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2009, 01:47:24 AM »

We, too, have done a good job of that. I guess it was too hard to just use the stimulus to create jobs in this country. Another epic fail from the "free traders".
Use the stimulus to create jobs? That would be like trying to use a loaded gun to heal a cancer patient, i.e., it makes no sense whatsoever.
Logged
Mint
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,566
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2009, 02:07:13 AM »
« Edited: November 22, 2009, 02:16:14 AM by catchfire™ »

Finally, I agree with NDN that we need an overhaul of the tax code and a new industrial policy. A stimulus filled with quasi-useful spending has some benefits but what we really need is a new economic model and an economic program that moves us in that direction. But keep in mind that a tax overhaul and industrial policy would pretty much amount to a second stimulus, or at least it would be called that. So if you attack the whole notion of stimulus as ineffective (which is what Republicans are doing), then you're also attacking a tax overhaul and industrial policy.

Fortunately I am not a Republican. Wink

I think what we need is fairly simple, if not in vogue amongst the 'mainstream' right or left at the moment:

1. Lower and simpler tax systems. Not just at the federal level, but also at the state and local (e.g. property tax deduction).

2. Less spending on deadweight like the military and overhauling our entitlement system to be at minimum, more sustainable (medicare comes to mind).

3. Low tariffs and incentives for new factories/remodeling. If we had actually followed through on this in the early '90s as Bill Clinton originally promised we'd be in a far better state now.

4. Credit for small business. It's just not there right now, even with all of the takeovers and interest rate cuts. Reforms to regulations at nearly all levels (e.g. ordinances, licensing, compliance, etc.) could help them tremendously as well.

5. An end to money being diverted to zombie banks and 'too big to fails,'; Efforts at curbing consolidation (anti trust)...

Basically I think we need a more production centered economy, like we did prior to 1973-1994 when much of our manufacturing base was systematically gutted with little if anything to replace it.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2009, 02:27:39 AM »
« Edited: November 22, 2009, 02:36:17 AM by Beet »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't actually prove my main point wrong, which is that sales HAVE fallen off the 14.1 million sales peak in August and remain 'stable' right now. GM's sales are remained even but Chrystler's are down and Ford (which obviously, hasn't really been the focus of government intervention efforts) has seen modest gains primarily as a result of their new models. If they're up from last year it's because of unprecedented money being poured into the system as well as continued layoffs. Let's see how those numbers hold several months from now.

No one said that they would remain at 14.1 million continuously and not fall back down. The program's success is proven by the fact that it increased sales up to that level while it was operable, and then stabilized back at a level equal to or higher than the level it stood before the program. All indications are that will occur. The real savings from the program though, come due to the fact that the new cars purchased get 9.1 more MPG on average than the cars traded in, and this from a low 15.8 MPG as the base. Therefore, they represent a significant savings in fossil fuel consumption for a given amount of driving, which will benefit the entire US balance of payments over time.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It depends when inventory clears out. Price-wise, things are now closer to the bottom than the top. New home starts are also at such a low level that they have probably bottomed. What we really need is household formation, and eventually the Millennial generation demographic will be a huge boon on that front-- once they can get jobs, that is.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

September consumer spending was expected to be down because of cash for clunkers. Ex auto, there was a slight rise in September. On the October number, it may well be too optimistic (as there were probably more closings than openings) but all signs are that consumer spending has stabilized compared to the free-fall of autumn 2008. It's currently being dragged down by credit card reform (needed), a higher savings rate (needed), and higher unemployment (which is partly why additional jobs programs are required).

----

1. Lower and simpler tax systems. Not just at the federal level, but also at the state and local (e.g. property tax deduction).

We probably need a simpler tax system, and I'd consider lower taxes in some areas, but given the current structural budget deficits, I really don't see massively lower taxes as being very realistic. Which brings us too...

2. Less spending on deadweight like the military and overhauling our entitlement system to be at minimum, more sustainable (medicare comes to mind).

I agree. Unfortunately, entitlement programs are sickeningly popular. What I like about the health bills in Congress right now is that they are (or realistically try to be) deficit neutral. But I wouldn't oppose an across the board cut in Medicare-- politicians would, unfortunately.

3. Low tariffs and incentives for new factories/remodeling. If we had actually followed through on this in the early '90s as Bill Clinton originally promised we'd be in a far better state now.

Aren't tariffs are already pretty low? How do you expect American factories to help the unemployment problem when the majority of factories that would actually be competitive with Third World countries would be very capital intensive, high productivity, and therefore not employ that many workers? Not sure what Clinton promised in the early '90s but it seems intriguing. The solution to trade, IMO is to get the Chinese to realize that their mercantilistic currency policy is against their interests.

4. Credit for small business. It's just not there right now, even with all of the takeovers and interest rate cuts. Reforms to regulations at nearly all levels (e.g. ordinances, licensing, compliance, etc.) could help them tremendously as well.

The Small Business Administration is trying to do this but they're getting a lot of defaults and it's being called the 'hidden bailout' in the Washington Post. I agree on reforms on regulations.

5. An end to money being diverted to zombie banks and 'too big to fails,'; Efforts at curbing consolidation (anti trust)...

Nice to say, hard to implement.
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2009, 06:53:37 AM »

Considering that the administration had to make up numbers and congressional districts just to fake its effectiveness - not at all. 

I don't think they HAD to make up congressional districts
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2009, 10:33:22 AM »

It gets an enthusiastic "meh" from me. They shouldn't have pushed it through so quickly, and I'm sure there's some stuff in their to simply advance the Democrats' agenda covertly. Still, I'm pleased that it has created some jobs and that there are tax cuts. However, some things may not have been necessary, and I wish it had been a few hundred billion dollars cheaper. Ideally they would lower the tax cuts and removed wasted while increasing infrastructure investment.

Still waiting on that new financial regulation, as that is key to ensuring that the economy doesn't become a "W" shaped recession instead of a "U" shaped one.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2009, 12:30:58 PM »
« Edited: November 22, 2009, 12:33:33 PM by Frodo »

I would say 'moderately effective'.

It has been effective at keeping the economy from going into free-fall, and preventing unemployment (as bad as it is, and as bad as it is likely to be within the next few months) from being even higher than it otherwise would have been.  We are likely to be seeing the official unemployment rate cresting at around 12-13% by early next year -without this stimulus, we likely be seeing Depression levels instead.  

If anything about the stimulus package passed this past February should have been changed, less emphasis should have placed on tax cuts, and in fact it should have been even larger than it actually was.  
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 22, 2009, 12:38:25 PM »

It could be better of course (like anything), but I'm still very glad we passed it.

And in response to the opening post, the stimulus was about much more than just job creation. That's not really a good way to measure it.
Logged
pogo stick
JewishConservative
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,429
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 22, 2009, 12:47:53 PM »

Very ineffective
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2009, 01:50:29 PM »

I voted for the middle option. The stimulus has helped in many ways, but, the economy is really terrible, and the stimulus should have gone for things that got more bang for the buck.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 22, 2009, 04:51:36 PM »

Very effective - in the sense that it is as effective as anything that small could be.  But a very much bigger one would be better, and also of course if all the spending could go directly to poors.
Logged
Mint
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,566
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 22, 2009, 10:24:07 PM »
« Edited: November 22, 2009, 10:29:49 PM by catchfire™ »

1. It's dependent on spending and public sentiment obviously, although it's pretty clear where the public is trending even if localities are totally missing the obvious with all their various revenue squeezing schemes (fees, license plates, proposed rate hikes - see NY pretty much). If politicians can't find a way to lower the tax rate or are stupid enough to institute something like VAT they're going to be out of the job IMO.

2. At this point in time yes. If they can no longer make payments or said payments are significantly devalued (as I mentioned in our previous discussion IIRC) then that may become a last resort regardless of what the public feels. But as I mentioned, military spending cuts could massively improve our financial situation. Even a reduction in military spending of 10% not counting Iraq or Afghanistan would yield significant savings  -  $541 billion dollars going by Bureau of Labor statistics.. If you presume a 2 year withdrawal date for those conflicts, that number rises to $751 billion. Considering past polling (e.g. Pew Surveys showing 4 in 10 americans endorsing isolationism in 2008) I'm not sure more significant cuts wouldn't be popular in the near future.

As for medicare: I think we're underestimating the extent to which Gen Y will be willing to put up with the sort of increases we've seen in that program. With us already shouldering the cost of several wars, the bail outs, the stimulus, a faltering social security system, etc. I could easily see a backlash brewing there even if we've trended fairly liberal in reaction to Bush.

3. Well, yes but I'm not necessarily saying they should be lower, just that they should generally be nominal.. Mostly I'm concerned that we could see unwarranted (i.e. unprovoked) tariffs becoming popular. As for your question:

He originally proposed significant R&D tax breaks, elimination of tax breaks for off shoring/outsourcing (already us policy to an extent now), and a Economic Security Council (elaborated on below). Some other highlights taken from the National Economic Strategy he put out (obviously quite vague verging on demagoguery but still worth looking into IMO):

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

4. Still more worthwhile than anything else, with small businesses creating 50% of non farm GDP essentially pushing them off to the side to support a few poorly managed giants is idiotic policy. We need more protections for small business owners too so they aren't held to an arbitrarily higher standard than others (i.e. the people actually getting the bail out money).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, it all depends. Are we going to continue to have an >80% incumbent re-election rate, or are people actually going to reach a breaking point where not even gerry mandering and the usual 'local project' are enough to pacify them? That's really what it boils down to, political pressure. Let's not forget that the first bail out failing to pass was originally unthinkable but after an avalanche of phone calls and concerted efforts by the right it was at least delayed, an even angrier repeat of that isn't impossible.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 13 queries.