The Latest Federal Bailout

[Lord Setheris]

The Senate and House have agreed to add another 787 billion dollars to our economic debt list already. With some individual banking companies already securing well over 150 billion of the money thus far, and still flailing helplessly, one begins to wonder how many bailouts and recovery plans it will take to drag the corporate world out of the abyss, and hopefully bring some of the American people along with it.

This latest plan seems to be more than just a free handout of money though, so we'll see.

What do you think?

[Jagos]

Congress is the biggest pack of idiots I have ever seen.

I see this as blood in the water. The sharks are coming to get their fair share of the feeding frenzy. In the end, I really don't believe this is going to help the economy, mainly individual companies that got there first.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Just about 1000 pages and it was released for review at 12am yesterday with the vote at 9am. I guarantee you not one Senator read that thing, yet it passed easily. And where did all this bipartisanship and transparent government talk go? The only thing bipartisan about it were the "nay" votes. Every Republican and seven Democrats.

A new detail I hadn't heard until last night was that there is an article in the bill that allocates $1.4 billion to "science". That's the quote. I'm trying to find an exact source for that now just to make sure. I also heard it has numerous changes scribbled in the margins (i.e. $100 million changed to $150 million).

Although I do hate the slamming of Pelosi lately because of her trip to Rome. I doubt she hurried the bill through just so she could go accept an award, but anything's possible I guess. And I also heard last night that it is "common practice" for Senators not to read bills before voting on them. They should all be thrown out.

[P-Sleazy]

Typically, no senator, let alone any man, has the time to read every bill that comes through congress. What they do is have interns read through 50-100 or so pages of each bill and summarize for them what its about and then they vote on it.

[MasterOfMagic]

Typically, no senator, let alone any man, has the time to read every bill that comes through congress. What they do is have interns read through 50-100 or so pages of each bill and summarize for them what its about and then they vote on it.
OH, that's the "transparent government". See, I know just as much about the bill as the people passing it. Good to know.

[Mirai Gen]

I have less of a problem of their inability to read it and more of a problem with their "This bill is an economic fix? Well, good! The last ones worked out great! A-OK!"

The point of the congress is to make sure the bill is in the benefit of the USA, right? So why exactly are they having such a hard time figuring out, oh, hey, those last two were something akin to the exact opposite?

[TheSparrow]

This bill ISN'T an economic fix though. Obama made a HUGE mistake in not crafting this Bill himself (Having HIS people do that, is what I mean by that, of course), but I don't know if he had any specific plan...basically he made the mistake of going to Pelosi and congress and saying "write me a bailout between 600 and 700 billion dollars" and let them come up with it. Basically its mostly useless pork that is NOT going to bail out the economy. But the Democrats just HAD to fill the thing with pet project after project. I think the Republicans have it wrong too, and across the board tax cuts isn't gonna fix it either, but thank god they fought out at least 200 billion in pork crap.

[Mirai Gen]

Do we have a source on the fact that he didn't even write it?

[Kim]

Because we loved the last bailout sooooo much, why not do another? Bailouts and stimulus packages do not help the economy at all. Free money never does. There's plenty of things we could do with that money that would create jobs and at least accomplish something, but no, we're going to give free money to these people who fucked themselves over.

[Marelo]

This bill ISN'T an economic fix though. Obama made a HUGE mistake in not crafting this Bill himself (Having HIS people do that, is what I mean by that, of course), but I don't know if he had any specific plan...basically he made the mistake of going to Pelosi and congress and saying "write me a bailout between 600 and 700 billion dollars" and let them come up with it. Basically its mostly useless pork that is NOT going to bail out the economy. But the Democrats just HAD to fill the thing with pet project after project. I think the Republicans have it wrong too, and across the board tax cuts isn't gonna fix it either, but thank god they fought out at least 200 billion in pork crap.

Did you watch the address Obama gave on Monday? He specifically said he wouldn't allow a bill full of pork to pass, that every single earmark and every single pet project would be stripped out before it gets passed. I doubt Obama would say something that strong without actually knowing what's going on with the bill, because he detailed some fairly specific requirements for it to pass (namely, that it create at least 4 million (I think) new jobs, and that it have no pet projects).

I'm not saying that his statements correspond with reality... Just that he said it, and that I don't see a reason for him to not follow through after such strong words.

Edit: Another thing he said: He gave an example of the kind of project it would go towards funding. He wants to make every government building more energy efficient, which will create jobs (obviously, since someone has to do it) and be a long-term investment saving 4 billion dollars a year, AND be better for the environment.

Also, as we saw in another discussion thread, he wants every institution which accepts bailout money to cap their executive salaries at 500k. It's not exactly free money.

[TheSparrow]

Did you watch the address Obama gave on Monday? He specifically said he wouldn't allow a bill full of pork to pass, that every single earmark and every single pet project would be stripped out before it gets passed. I doubt Obama would say something that strong without actually knowing what's going on with the bill, because he detailed some fairly specific requirements for it to pass (namely, that it create at least 4 million (I think) new jobs, and that it have no pet projects).

I'm not saying that his statements correspond with reality... Just that he said it, and that I don't see a reason for him to not follow through after such strong words.

Edit: Another thing he said: He gave an example of the kind of project it would go towards funding. He wants to make every government building more energy efficient, which will create jobs (obviously, since someone has to do it) and be a long-term investment saving 4 billion dollars a year, AND be better for the environment.

Also, as we saw in another discussion thread, he wants every institution which accepts bailout money to cap their executive salaries at 500k. It's not exactly free money.

Yeah...and Nancy Pelosi also said, right before the bill came up in the first place that "there would not be a single penny of pork of in it." Because it was too important to pass.

You watch...I am willing to bet that he doesn't strip out the 80 million in funds for sex education, the 20 million in funds to save a frog in southern california, ect.... and he will allow them to pass on the illusion that they will create jobs.

[Marelo]

Yeah...and Nancy Pelosi also said, right before the bill came up in the first place that "there would not be a single penny of pork of in it." Because it was too important to pass.

You watch...I am willing to bet that he doesn't strip out the 80 million in funds for sex education, the 20 million in funds to save a frog in southern california, ect.... and he will allow them to pass on the illusion that they will create jobs.

Could those not, conceivably, result in jobs? I'm not saying they're wise investments for this bill, but you seem to think that all of the people working on those problems volunteer.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much of the specifics. Yet, I still trust Obama to do his job, and veto a bill which doesn't meet the standards he set forth. He speaks in a manner which is far more respectful of the American public and its intelligence. He doesn't waltz in and say he's going to fix everything. He says, instead, that he's going to try, and that he knows some of the things in the bill won't work as planned. There's a pragmatism about him that was sorely lacking in the Bush administration.

Maybe that makes me the absolute worst kind of voter, though, eh? Trusting, naive, and, worst of all, uninformed. I'll have to work on that.

[TheSparrow]

Could those not, conceivably, result in jobs? I'm not saying they're wise investments for this bill, but you seem to think that all of the people working on those problems volunteer.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much of the specifics. Yet, I still trust Obama to do his job, and veto a bill which doesn't meet the standards he set forth. He speaks in a manner which is far more respectful of the American public and its intelligence. He doesn't waltz in and say he's going to fix everything. He says, instead, that he's going to try, and that he knows some of the things in the bill won't work as planned. There's a pragmatism about him that was sorely lacking in the Bush administration.

Maybe that makes me the absolute worst kind of voter, though, eh? Trusting, naive, and, worst of all, uninformed. I'll have to work on that.

I am not sure that saying "americans need to get over their knee-jerk reaction against bigger government" is all that respectful. But that might just be me. And I am not sure that saying "If this bill isnt passed now, perfect or not, it WILL be catastrophic" isnt very pragmatic. Its more like hyperbole trying to sell something...reminds me of commercials "you NEED this product"

Anyhow, I didnt say those wouldnt create some jobs, what I am saying is that they arent going to stimulate the economy. (For example we already teach sex education, this money just changes the way we teach it, from what republicans like, to what democrats like...not gonna create much in the way of jobs, it IS gonna cause policy change though, which is the real goal to that particular one)

[Bob The Mercenary]

(namely, that it create at least 4 million (I think) new jobs, and that it have no pet projects)

I think his exact quote was "create or save 3 million jobs". And I have no clue how you would go about measuring saved jobs. I'm still employed so I guess he saved mine.

[Edit] I thought this thing was urgent (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152009/news/nationalnews/whats_the_rush__155255.htm).

[Odjn]

I am not sure that saying "americans need to get over their knee-jerk reaction against bigger government" is all that respectful. But that might just be me. And I am not sure that saying "If this bill isnt passed now, perfect or not, it WILL be catastrophic" isnt very pragmatic. Its more like hyperbole trying to sell something...reminds me of commercials "you NEED this product"

Anyhow, I didnt say those wouldnt create some jobs, what I am saying is that they arent going to stimulate the economy. (For example we already teach sex education, this money just changes the way we teach it, from what republicans like, to what democrats like...not gonna create much in the way of jobs, it IS gonna cause policy change though, which is the real goal to that particular one)

Based off job (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_November_job_losses_reach_34-year_high) loss (http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/12/news/economy/job_cuts/index.htm?postversion=2008121213) totals (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5153B720090206?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews) that we've been given, we are indeed headed toward a financial crisis. Now you could probably say that him saying this bill is salvation is wrong, but it is an attempt to push a bill through quickly because we are indeed in a crisis situation. You could say this has been going on for months and you'd be right, but also our esteemed former president everything (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3100907/Financial-crisis-George-W-Bush-says-bail-out-sends-strong-signal.html) in his power (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7814704.stm) to stem it. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/magazine/28wwln-reconsider.html?ref=economy) He is clearly trying to state that we're in trouble, and this is his attempt to fix it, and in his view without it we will be a lot worse off than with it.

Granted, yes, it is hyperbole. But he is using it in the sense to drive home it is urgent and needs to be considered now.

Creation of jobs is always a boost to the economy unless there are not enough people for all of the jobs. People who are paid tend to spend more money than unemployed people even if the unemployed have more money because they have a sense of security. The issue here would be, is this money not securing or creating jobs? Either of those reinforce an economy and prevent it from damage.

Also:

Abstinence only education is not sexual education, considering the massive inaccuracies (http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf) present in the education system.
I feel that I should report that the opposite side of that report, however (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/wm615.cfm).

And I take a lot of issues with that. Sex tied to suicide? Please. Sexually active people being more likely to do things? That's because most of the population is sexually active, so of course a smaller part of the would be less likely to not kill themselves. Abstinence leading to less pregnancies? Well, if you were pressured to be abstinent and you got pregnant are you going to report it? Additionally there's no proof that anyone's abstinent unless you stick a camera to their genitals and broadcast it. (Which would cover the costs of the program, incidentally.) Virginity pledges leading to less births? Do you actually check their hymens every once in a while? Or install a permanent rape condom til marriage? There's literally no way to check to see if someone's had sex or not without massive personal rights violations, so I'm hypothesizing these people literally asked "Have you had sex?" and wrote down whatever answer they got. Incidentally, they haven't provided for that many people use birth control incorrectly because -shocker- they're misinformed.

Anyhoo, to sum that up, we're spending eighty million on sex education that relies on telling factual things about sex and not caving in to parent pressure of how they want their kids treated.

[TheSparrow]

Honestly I think that what a few economists have said is the best way to go about this. Take that 800 Billion dollars and instead of spending it on government programs, you give it to fanny mae and freddy mac and make them use it to buy up all of the troubled mortgages, then you have them redo those mortgages at current rates with different pay structures. This does two things. One it stems the tide of home loss and actually helps people that need it, and two, it will actually BOLSTER the housing market, while untying the lending industry from these mortgages, opening up their money flow for businesses that need it. Plus eventually that 800 billion comes BACK to the government WITH interest from the mortgages.

[Jagos]

F&F buying and keeping the mortgages is what got us into this mess in the first place. They continue to allow people into houses that can't afford them, through allowing banks of various sorts to write them up to F&F. And these are considered toxic assets when they have to leave since there's no equity within them.

Rather, the houses should be sold for a lesser price, the people that have left, let them go to rent or recoup money (and credit) before trying to purchase again and take away the mortgage backed securities market, which is a direct result of F&F.

The different pay structure doesn't answer the question of negative equity, which is why I can't support that.

[Demonlink2]

The only problem I have with any of this money going places is that "It's a jobs bill" to stimulate the economy by "creating and/or saving 4 million jobs"

The primary issue being saved jobs, as previously stated "I'm still employed, guess he saved my job!"

Second, any old job can be created. If you hire a man to dig a ditch you've created a job. Hire another man to fill it in, and you've got 2 jobs. The problem is none of that does anything to help anyone who isn't one of the 2 men. It gives them money they worked for, sure, but it doesn't do anything beyond that. Take from the taxpayers, give to the ditchdigger.

The last issue I have has to do with the bill. The only people who know even half of what is in it are the people who forged it, who are also the people who have basically been going "nenny nenny boo boo we won" while Obama puts on good PR. And while it's admittedly public radio where I heard the quote, there is a choice one from a Senator whose name escapes me for now but it's something along the lines of "Yes, it's pork-y, but the American people don't really care what's in it."

Thanks Government. Because I don't care apparently.

[Mirai Gen]

Thanks Government. Because I don't care apparently.
I'd like to echo this along with adding in the question as to why exactly did the Senate not even notice the last time they threw taxpayer money at our economy to make it better and we all cried out in agony, IE, both the Bank bailout and the Chrysler bailout?

[Jagos]

This is the same bailout.

They weren't passed, merely discussed, I believe.

[Mirai Gen]

Yeah but it's like the first one was "Hey let's throw money at the problem!" and after taxpayers and the community and a whole bunch of people tried in vain to stop it, they made another one for Chrystler, and it was opposed by a majority but they did it anyway, and now we're making another one.

Granted of course Obama's at least running this one so I hope we've got it going somewhere that it'll actually do something other than repair the stitches in some fucker's golden parachute, but I'm still not holding my breath.

[Gorefiend]

Honestly I think that what a few economists have said is the best way to go about this. Take that 800 Billion dollars and instead of spending it on government programs, you give it to fanny mae and freddy mac and make them use it to buy up all of the troubled mortgages, then you have them redo those mortgages at current rates with different pay structures. I'm less optimistic about the results, but it will definitely solve the banking crisis by making banks solvent, by giving them money for their now worthless assets (not necessarily Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, though. Something like TARP or the Resolution Trust Corp. would be fine, I think.) Problem is, 1) there's a LOT of resentment towards Wall Street from Main Street now (much of it rightly so, in my opinion, but that's another debate) and therefore pressure to nationalize those banks instead (which would also end the banking crisis), and 2) negotiations are hung up on the question of "For how much?" At first they were dead locked on banks asking for 100% and government offering 20%, but apparently those numbers may have shifted to 50% and 22% or so, so hopefully things will close at 25-30% soonish.

F&F buying and keeping the mortgages is what got us into this mess in the first place. They continue to allow people into houses that can't afford them, through allowing banks of various sorts to write them up to F&F. And these are considered toxic assets when they have to leave since there's no equity within them. There's a value in this country that homeownership is a goal, a part of the American Dream. As a result, especially from Democrats but in general, there is a tendency to promote that. The virtues/vices of it are debatable, but its policy and its fairly bi-partisan, I think. That said, the crisis itself would be solved by giving the banks enough money that they'll remain solvent, and if that means buying bad loans, then that's what it means. Also, as for the pay structure, again, a lot of it is resentment, a lot of it is the feeling that taxpayers shouldn't pay for a person's wealthy lifestyle, or their bonus when they just fucked up the country.

Second, any old job can be created. If you hire a man to dig a ditch you've created a job. Hire another man to fill it in, and you've got 2 jobs. The problem is none of that does anything to help anyone who isn't one of the 2 men. It gives them money they worked for, sure, but it doesn't do anything beyond that. Take from the taxpayers, give to the ditchdigger.Well, do it right, invest in some of the things the CWA and WPA did (like roads, wells, parks, levees, sewage lines, and those infamous "National Guard Armories" that in so many cases were a town's first truly solid building, and many of which are still used today) and you don't just create jobs, you create lasting investments. Even if you do it the way the fellows did back in the WPA. You'll earn the money back several times over if you do it right, and even if you didn't, having a populace secure in that they won't starve should be damned worth it.

Also, two reasons why this bill doesn't actually matter. 1) It won't solve the banking crisis. When we either announce that TARP negotiations are done or nationalize banks, the banking crisis will end, and 2) it's kinda government going out and telling people "Look! We're trying! Look!" cause what they're really doing wouldn't fly as publicly.

[Fifthfiend]

Honestly I think that what a few economists have said is the best way to go about this. Take that 800 Billion dollars and instead of spending it on government programs, you give it to fanny mae and freddy mac and make them use it to buy up all of the troubled mortgages, then you have them redo those mortgages at current rates with different pay structures. This does two things. One it stems the tide of home loss and actually helps people that need it, and two, it will actually BOLSTER the housing market, while untying the lending industry from these mortgages, opening up their money flow for businesses that need it. Plus eventually that 800 billion comes BACK to the government WITH interest from the mortgages.

So instead of spending our money on things that are actually useful, we're going to give it away in exchange for worthless garbage?

You watch...I am willing to bet that he doesn't strip out the 80 million in funds for sex education, the 20 million in funds to save a frog in southern california, ect.... and he will allow them to pass on the illusion that they will create jobs.

If by "illusion" you mean "it does in fact create jobs" then okay, sure, it's an illusion.

I know some people - and by "some people" I mean "republicans" - have a hard time grasping the fact that if it's not a job that involves murdering or robbing human beings, it is in fact still a job, but jobs as sex educators and saving southern californian frogs are, in fact, jobs. I know that they're not jobs that involve shitting billions of dollars into a desert on top of a pile of human bodies, but still!

[TheSparrow]

So instead of spending our money on things that are actually useful, we're going to give it away in exchange for worthless garbage?



If by "illusion" you mean "it does in fact create jobs" then okay, sure, it's an illusion.

I know some people - and by "some people" I mean "republicans" - have a hard time grasping the fact that if it's not a job that involves murdering or robbing human beings, it is in fact still a job, but jobs as sex educators and saving southern californian frogs are, in fact, jobs. I know that they're not jobs that involve shitting billions of dollars into a desert on top of a pile of human bodies, but still!

Just...wow. If by worthless garbage you mean saving peoples houses and livelyhoods, and, as Gorefiend said, make the banks solvent and fixes thier financial crisis, then yes, worthless garbage.

And as for sex education, do you REALLY think any of the billions and billions going to education are going to create any jobs? DO you really think they are gonna hire new sex educators? or are they just gonna change the curriculum and buy different books....and for the rest of the money, are they gonna hire new teachers? no they arent, they are just gonna use the money on new programs.

As for the frogs, generally jobs created by conservation efforts like that are few and far between for the amount of money invested. (For example we have a superfund site here, and an enormous amount of money for it goes to studies and such, which are generally done by scientists with tenure...i.e. who already have jobs)

So yes.....the ILLUSION of jobs. 80 million dollars to protect a frog species will probably fund millions of dollars in studies, which direct the already existing government groups to enact new rules and perhaps hire a few new workers for compliance of these rules.

[Jagos]

...have a hard time grasping the fact that if it's not a job that involves murdering or robbing human beings, it is in fact still a job, but jobs as sex educators and saving southern californian frogs are, in fact, jobs. I know that they're not jobs that involve shitting billions of dollars into a desert on top of a pile of human bodies, but still!

Getting into the jobs argument for a second...

I have to agree with Thesparrow on a different basis. Just because we hire 2 people doesn't necessarily "create" a job. We hire them as dog catchers for the governent, that means those two may not work (or may have gotten laid off) for a business nor will they be willing to find a new job.

People are asking for government spending to decrease and yet it's as if that very government is responsible for every person working.

[Gorefiend]

I have to agree with Thesparrow on a different basis. Just because we hire 2 people doesn't necessarily "create" a job. We hire them as dog catchers for the governent, that means those two may not work (or may have gotten laid off) for a business nor will they be willing to find a new job.Ok... As FDR proved, there is no legal reason the government can't fix unemployment by putting people directly on the federal payroll. And there is NO reason that is a bad idea except people get kinda freaked out by it. But it works. It ends unemployment, and under the WPA, no one thrived, really, but no one starved (and Orson Welles had his start there, so arguably some careers were born out of it).

[Fifthfiend]

Just...wow. If by worthless garbage you mean saving peoples houses and livelyhoods

No, I mean things that are garbage, because they are worthless, as in having no worth, because they are not worth any money. Because you see when you give someone a lot of money for a thing that is worth no money, what you then have is no money, along with a thing that is not worth money. IE what these mortages are.

But you're right, we totally owe a livelihood to people who are so terrible at their jobs that they have completely annihilated the US economy, as opposed to like, a sex-educator somewhere whose job might at some point actually lead to a kid not getting herpes or something that has actual value.

And as for sex education, do you REALLY think any of the billions and billions going to education are going to create any jobs? DO you really think they are gonna hire new sex educators? or are they just gonna change the curriculum and buy different books....and for the rest of the money, are they gonna hire new teachers? no they arent, they are just gonna use the money on new programs.

So books and programs are created by... moon magic? Do they take the money and put in it a magic money-hole and then space-time configures the dollar bills into books?

Certainly they can't be created by people doing work in order to produce things in exchange for money, because those would be you know, jobs, which this doesn't create.

So yes.....the ILLUSION of jobs. 80 million dollars to protect a frog species will probably fund millions of dollars in studies, which direct the already existing government groups to enact new rules and perhaps hire a few new workers for compliance of these rules.

So we can't give money to people doing work that needs to be done so they can maybe hire people to do that... what we instead need to do is flush it into the massive steaming shit-hole of the banking industry, so they can continue doing worthless work that is actively destructive to the interests of anyone who isn't the banking industry.

[Kim]

I think one thing we could stand to at least spend some of the money on is low-rent, government controlled housing. It would create work, and rather than everyone needing to have a house, they could live in something they could actually afford and wouldn't create more debt for them.

[Tev]

I'd like to see more money spent on sex education, if for no other reason that to stop crap like this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,493727,00.html) from happening over here in America. I mean, if Europe's doing it, I'm sure we've got it worse and I'd like it to stop. Reducing the number of people dependant of government money because they were born by children too young to be responsible with children will go a long way to putting a stopper in one of the bigger leaks in our money flow.

[Jagos]

As FDR proved, there is no legal reason the government can't fix unemployment by putting people directly on the federal payroll. And there is NO reason that is a bad idea except people get kinda freaked out by it. But it works. It ends unemployment, and under the WPA, no one thrived, really, but no one starved (and Orson Welles had his start there, so arguably some careers were born out of it).

The main reason FDR was able to get the US out of the Depression has more to do with WWII than his policies. Practically all of the laws that were passed during that time inhibited progress rather than allowed the US to use its workforce. Especially Congress's need for isolationism ending trade (and jacking up prices out the yin yang...)

It's not that I'm against federal or government jobs. It's just that once they're there... They don't get off the payroll and you have to hear people complain about government spending going up for yet another person.

[Odjn]

As for the frogs, generally jobs created by conservation efforts like that are few and far between for the amount of money invested. (For example we have a superfund site here, and an enormous amount of money for it goes to studies and such, which are generally done by scientists with tenure...i.e. who already have jobs)

So yes.....the ILLUSION of jobs. 80 million dollars to protect a frog species will probably fund millions of dollars in studies, which direct the already existing government groups to enact new rules and perhaps hire a few new workers for compliance of these rules.

So, what exactly were these hypothetical scientists doing before? Because, see, I'm not exactly sure how research studies work, but you probably don't shove scientists that already have a workload due to other studies into it to save money when you're getting a big ol' government stimulus and money's not an issue. What you'd PROBABLY do is hire some more scientists to work on the new projects and some on the old ones to lower the pressure on your current employees. And failing that, the money guarantees they won't fire anyone, which meeaaaaaaaans it's successfully stabilized it.

Job creation or job stabilization.

[Gorefiend]

The main reason FDR was able to get the US out of the Depression has more to do with WWII than his policies. Practically all of the laws that were passed during that time inhibited progress rather than allowed the US to use its workforce. Especially Congress's need for isolationism ending trade (and jacking up prices out the yin yang...)Government spending is not the worst evil of all. In fact, he was getting out of the Depression well and good until, in '37, he was persuaded to drop spending again and recession came right back. Most of the laws did better the situation for Americans. We went from a 20% national unemployment rate, to zero. From people being forced to hobo to pretty much no one starving. So, yeah. As for wasted money, I'd argue that between the people saved by sanitation programs, the continued use of buildings still used, and the royalties of the actors and writers graduated from WPA programs (Orson Welles and John Steinbeck are the biggest examples), it paid its taxes back several times over. So, yeah. The key is to solve unemployment and find LASTING investments, which hopefully the Obama administration will do rather than think pork and slow private-public partnerships will work.

[Jagos]

It seems more that the National Relations Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act) as well as the Agricultural Adjustment Admin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Administration) did more to impede progress than necessarily prime the pump, so to speak. I'm to believe new taxation, as well as his use of payroll taxes (which is now something everyone has but was "revolutionary" at the time) was a damper on more people being employed in '37 and onward. Granted, he helped with economic rights and the government went more from laissez-faire to "We will do EVERYTHING ourselves to ensure a stable environment" which is a truly dramatic change.

Some lasting improvements are probably going to be far longer than Obama has in office generally speaking.