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

[Mint]

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.

[Mint]

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.

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.

[Mint]

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.

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).

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.

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.

[Mint]

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.

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.

[Mint]

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):

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).

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.

[Mint]

Keep making irrelevant personal attacks.