Stimulus failing miserablyFollow

I don't feel like investing the same degree of effort on this today as I did 5-6 years ago when the issue was actually still debated and people thought the whole outsourcing thing was actually a big deal. Back then, I also included labor statistics over time showing that in those same fields in which the outsourcing was going on, we'd somehow magically managed to gain jobs. From a macro-economic perspective, it's meaningless to cry and yell about X number of jobs being outsourced, when during the same time period X+Y jobs in the same field were created. The net effect is that "we" (as in the country as a whole) are not losing jobs. Individuals may lose jobs, but that happens for a wide variety of reasons, and outsourcing isn't even near the top of that list.

For it to qualify as a "strike" it has to be a felony. Stealing 4 cookies, assuming there was no breaking and entering (or some kind of violence or something else more sinister) involved, is *not* a felony. There are valid arguments against three strikes laws. You don't have to toss out the ridiculous exaggerations to make a good point.



I'd look at drug laws before worrying about three strikes laws though. On the whole though, I tend to agree with what you're saying, just not *how* you're saying it. I've said many times that one of the biggest problems we have in our legal system is that we spend so much time dealing with non-violent offenders that we don't have the resources to deal with the guys who are real problems. And unfortunately, three strikes laws are a response to that. People support them, not because they want that guy who breaks into houses and steals their cookies to go to jail for life, but because they're frustrated that the guy convicted of rape, and multiple assaults, and a host of other violent crimes, manages to get parole because the system is too crowded to afford to keep him off the street.


It's a dumb response, I agree. But the underlying problem that is being addresses is a legitimate problem.



How'd you guys manage that? Do you just fart a lot down there, or what? ;)

They go hand-in-hand. They are not separate problems.

Slave labor, then.

Why do you hate the middle class?

Heh, guess if you can use prison labor, you can slap a "made in the USA" tag on it.

I think the bit about putting them in solitary confinement is an overexertion though. Most prisoners volunteer for the labor crews (here in Georgia, they work on the roads alongside civil engineers, or more commonly, the lawn mowers) as they are paid a little for the work (not much) and it gets them out of the slammer, albeit briefly.

No time to debate legal outcomes here, but I'll note that 60% of Australian prisoners are there for some drug related crime.

As for the carbon output, our electricity is powered two ways: hydropower from dams, and massive coal plants. There is a new smattering of renewable energy, but we never once put in a nuclear power station. The one small nuclear facility we have mostly produces radioactive substances for medical and research purposes. We have huge coal reserves, but most of it is "dirty" inefficient Brown coal, as opposed to "cleaner" more efficient Black coal. While we don't do a lot of manufacturing here, we DO do major aluminium smelting, which is power intensive.

Temperatures in Australia are pretty extreme for at least part of the year in most places. Apart from the old greenies and hippies, most Aussies were wed to their air-conditioners and heaters before ACC became a public issue.

Also farmers are still mass clearing native vegetation for cattle and other purposes. Mass sugar-cane burn-offs every year.

.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Sidestepping the outsourcing debate, I can't help but note that none of the usual suspects started a thread last month saying "Stimulus succeeding wonderfully" when over 200,000 private sector jobs were reportedly created.

See, maybe I'm just completely biased, but that isn't the vibe I'm getting. I can completely understand the belief that specific actions may be harmful and therefore being angry and fearful of them being taken. But what seems to be the case for a few conservatives here is that they'd rather see Obama fail than the U.S. recover.

That is to say, supposing there was a magic switch you could flick between "Conservatives wrong, Obama saves U.S. economy" and "Conservatives right, Obama screwed U.S. economy," that you and maybe one/two others here would pick the latter rather than the former.

Am I terribly wrong?

Edited, Jun 7th 2010 12:59am by Allegory

No, not at all. Petty, small-minded, insecure people like the ones you mention would gladly see America fall just so they could prove a point. Much better than actually living in a country where people are treated fairly.

Clinton had little to do with the dot.com boom, but a lot to do with the balanced federal budget, reduction of the deficit (which, ironically, is the issue that cost Bush Sr. his approval ratings. Too bad compromising with Dems to reduce the deficit Reagan had racked up forced him to raise taxes & break his promise!) & the resulting surplus. Too bad W screwed the pooch with the federal budget by hiding the cost of a "justified" war & another war that he just felt like having for old times sake as well as cutting taxes during a recession. As for the economy, W did inherent a recession from Clinton (as well as the surplus), & did get shanked with a pretty major market crash post 9/11. However, his tax policies & union busting directly lead to the income inequality between the richest 1% and everyone else reaching all time highs.

But once again, on record, I'd like to thank W for passing the first stimulus & not letting all the banks & car companies fail, as that would have made a bad situation much worse.

What's a more child like view, one that can see positives on both sides or one that's tuned out everything but his own (or whatever Rush has to say about it on any particular day)?

Edited, Jun 7th 2010 1:56am by Omegavegeta