Here are some New Orleans webcams

[Guest]

You are right - youre no economist.

Cutting taxes to spur growth is actually a long term not a short term strategy.



That said Bushes economic policy isnot all that well conceived. I was no fan of Clinton but the major element of his economic policy was great(and really out of character for a Democrat) - Rubinomics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubinomics.



Bush tries to control long term spending and keep and encourage the economy through low taxs.
The concept is keep money in the private sector to encourage economic growth.

Rubinomics focused on reducing Govt debt there by forcing investors to to invest in private stocks and bonds instead of Govt securities.
The concept is also to keep monney in the private sector and encourage economic growth.


Rubinomics works better.

[Occhidiangela]

Ah, I have actually been thinking about that topic yesterday - how is America hoping to pay for, say, the reconstruction/relief/rescue efforts in NO, as well as the Iraq war, with the loveliness that is the predicted drop in GDP (And, hence, less tax revenue - correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.)

I'm sure that we can all agree that Bush's tax cuts and increase in expenditures couldn't have possibly been expected to prepare for Katrina, but could it be possible that this disaster was just a demonstration of what happens when Things Go Wrong (tm by Skan) They Go Wrong In A Big Way when you adhere to Bush politics?

I'm no economist (So point out if I don't have any clue here), but it seems to me another classic example of short-term-gain-long-term-down-the-drain that seems to be a hallmark of Bush policy, domestic or otherwise.
[right][snapback]88365[/snapback][/right]

The Bush Administration is not alone in the short term gain long term "we'll hope it all works out" policies. It seems to be endemic in American policy making, since about FDR, though I personally feel Ike was an exception.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

You are right - youre no economist.

Cutting taxes to spur growth is actually a long term not a short term strategy.
That said Bushes economic policy isnot all that well conceived. I was no fan of Clinton but the major element of his economic policy was great(and really out of character for a Democrat) - Rubinomics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubinomics.
Bush tries to control long term spending and keep and encourage the economy through low taxs.
The concept is keep money in the private sector to encourage economic growth.

Rubinomics focused on reducing Govt debt  there by forcing investors to to invest in private stocks and bonds instead of Govt securities.
The concept is also to keep monney in the private sector and encourage economic growth.
Rubinomics works better.
[right][snapback]88372[/snapback][/right]

When you drive considerable investment out of government securities, you risk losing the ability to act. I will point you to school bond issues as an example.

If investment all migrates to "business" and the allegedly utopian "private sector" which being multinational in the macro sense becomes an underground aristocracy, the ability of poolicy makers to influence ecnomic factors reduces, and migrates into the hands of the moneyed class. Taken at face value, Rubinomics has some fine features, but with private sector (fox watching henhouse) trumping government (farmer *cough* shearing *cough* minding sheep.) you have not reached any panacea. You still lose out on "done for the public good" projects. Bottom line myopia is a fault of the financial class.

If government debt, long term bonds, are at low enough rates and the flow in versus flow out and long term debt is managed prudently, i.e. occasional surpluses balanced against deficits over the long term, the government becomes less beholden on international monetary power and far more accountable to bond holders . . . oh, wait, unless it is war bonds, we are right back where we started.

Who buys the bonds? How do you convince small investors, or enable small investors, to buy bonds in their own country? Sound fiscal policy. So, to a certain extent, the Rubinomics framework is appealing as a confidence builder.

In a culture where confidence in fiscal policy and savings are present, often internal/national investors. In a specluative and undisciplined economy, who knows?

Occhi

[kandrathe]

But things need to change, and that asks for some political backbiting.....altough I agree that they should wait a little while with that. As I see it more taxes is the only way to go.
(what do you actually pay in %)
[right][snapback]88299[/snapback][/right]

One huge problem is that Louisiana, and New Orleans in particular, are one of the most impoverished area's of the nation and unable to self fund their own projects. Our Federal/State/Local organization puts States in adversarial competition for Federal grants and projects (typically called Pork). In a way we are all to blame for sending our State delegations to DC and applauding them for the PORK they have brought back to our local economies. Now, as it turns out, at the expense of lives, livlihoods, and property in New Orleans.

Look at Louisiana's own misplaced 2005 Federal Pork priorities;

$43,813,000 for projects in the state of Senate appropriator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and the district of House appropriator David Vitter (R-La.), including: $11,450,000 for the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway ($9,000,000 for construction and $2,450,000 for operation and maintenance. A January 9, 2000 Washington Post article stated that the waterway "still carries less than 0.1 percent of the commercial traffic on America's government-run river transport system — even though it receives a remarkable 3.4 percent of the system's federal funds." In 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said the $2 billion worth of construction costs won’t be justified until 2046); $2,000,000 for a sugar-based ethanol biorefinery at Louisiana State University; and $500,000 for Livingston Parish alternative fuel plant construction

Allow me to shed a little light on some specifics about the Levee project.

Work is about 90 percent complete in the Chalmette area and includes an additional levee lift and floodwall capping. Work in Orleans Parish is about 90 percent complete. The major remaining construction is the parallel protection along the London Avenue and Orleans Avenue canals. Completion of this work is scheduled by 2010. Jefferson Parish work is 70 percent complete. The remaining work in Jefferson consists of at least two more lakefront levee enlargements, and a flood proofed bridge at Hammond Highway over the 17th Street Canal. Completion is scheduled by 2010. The work in St. Charles Parish is 60 percent complete, and the protection system is not yet closed. Closure of the last two gaps should be completed by September 2005. Overall project completion is scheduled for 2015.

From: Lake Pontchartrain LA. and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project,St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Charles Parishes, LA

Certainly underfunding this project was a mistake in hindsight, not only for the current cadre in DC but extending back to the projects inception during the Carter era. This was a calculated risk betting that nature could not hit the headpin, and she did. In a hindsight 20/20 world we would have been suspecting that something was up with Atta and his friends and stopped 9/11, and we would have fully evacuated NO on Friday rather than calling for it on Sunday, just hours before the storm.

Looking at the projects in place, even had the improvements above been completed, this project was only a refurbishment to insure the levee would withstand a direct hit from a category 3 hurricane.
Is Bush to Blame for New Orleans Flooding?

[Swiss Mercenary]

Just to be clear, my train of though completely missed the "Well, part of that policy does involve long term gain" angle, due to the silly notion of "Lower taxes + Increase debt = increased interest on the debt = debt may become crippling in the future."

Forgot that the economic growth bit is meant to offset the debt, with the supposed increase in tax revenue through GDP increase. Well, its supposed to do that, at least. When there aren't any extreme circumstances. Like Katrina. Whoops.

[Guest]

No thats not an issue.

Rubinomics doesnt reject the Kensian notion of debt to deal with crisis any more than Bush's low tax plan does.

Both schools beleive that debt is reasonable and needed when when an emergency arises.

[Guest]

Was that last paragraph supposed to be sarcasm?

If it was you still dont get it. The plan for all modern economic theries is to use debt to pay for a crisis.

MONEY POLICY DID NOT MAKE THE KATRINA SITUATION WORSE.


You could blame the problem on inadiquate infrastructure spending ahead of time(and thats fair), but a skin flint gov't doesnt require supply side economics to exist.

[Occhidiangela]

No thats not an issue.

Rubinomics doesnt reject the Kensian notion of debt to deal with crisis any more than Bush's low tax plan does.

Both schools beleive that debt is reasonable and needed when when an emergency arises.
[right][snapback]88456[/snapback][/right]

Got it, the key is a disciplined management of debt, which is not a character of any government in America since Eisenhour, unless you point to the Clinton vs Contract with America period that was boosted by a modest economic boom.

Occhi

[Roland]

Ted Kennedy, a competent Senator, was able to spring loose 11 billion and counting in federal money, goodness know how much in State money, and counting, for a major traffic and metro upgrade to Boston.  That is one example of how "taxes" get spent.  There is not a bottomless pit...

Please, don't get me started on the BS that's been going on in Boston for years with that "major traffic and metro upgrade". You want to talk about flooding problems? THAT'S what all the money has gotten us - a giant underwater tube just waiting to cave in. The tunnel has been shut down numerous times for repairs (last high count I had heard was over 130 tiles, AT ONE TIME), and has been down (for repairs and construction) for YEARS longer than it has been operational.

Mass. has probably one of the WORST traffic budgets in the U.S.; not because of a lack of money, but because all that money just DISAPPEARS. BILLIONS of dollars spent, and for what? "The Big Dig". Yeah, that's exactly what it is - a big dig to find the motherload of money that we've lost over the last decade. Forget Jimmy Hoffa's body - give me back my taxes.

Unless you've lived in MA, especially during the time of the big dig, you wouldn't EVER refer to that as a good way of spending taxes. Christ, we've been paying tolls on the turnpike for decades longer than we were supposed to be. Those tolls, which have only INCREASED over the years, were supposed to have been abolished years ago because they had already payed for what they were originally implemented for. Oh, and there's also talk of a $4.00 (or some such number) toll for people who commute into / out of Boston, but don't actually live there. Believe me, you don't ever want to bring up traffic budgeting with someone from MA, especially from the Boston area. You have a better chance of living declaring you're a Yankees fan during the World Series. :P

[Swiss Mercenary]

MONEY POLICY DID NOT MAKE THE KATRINA SITUATION WORSE.

No. Of course it didn't - that's not what I was thinking. What I was trying to say is Katrina made the money situation MUCH worse. Then the... Uh... Alternative... Wouldn't have been nearly this bad off... Alternative..? Oh, yes, the ah... The one that possibly involved not getting into a war you can't pay for. Or at least not both getting into a war and cutting taxes.

How IS Bush going to pay for the two big messes on his hands, now? More debt?

[Minionman]

No. Of course it didn't - that's not what I was thinking. What I was trying to say is Katrina made the money situation MUCH worse. Then the... Uh... Alternative... Wouldn't have been nearly this bad off... Alternative..? Oh, yes, the ah... The one that possibly involved not getting into a war you can't pay for. Or at least not both getting into a war and cutting taxes.

How IS Bush going to pay for the two big messes on his hands, now? More debt?
[right][snapback]88466[/snapback][/right]

Probably. People don't seem to pay attention to debts as taxes or other spending cuts, so that's probably where it will go.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The plan for all modern economic theries is to use debt to pay for a crisis.
[right][snapback]88458[/snapback][/right]

Yep. But there's *always* some kind of crisis. Hurricane, tornado, earthquake, power grid failure, etc., ad nauseum. The problem with the implementation of all economic policies that I've ever seen is basically optimism. The "This year nothing bad will happen." mentality. Until the budget is designed with a reasonable (say, for instance, based on the average level actually spent in four of the five previous years) contingency in mind, the budget will fail. And deficit spending, leading to increased national debt and a 30% surcharge on the budget will continue.

Politicians seem to be, as a class, incapable of seeing any available funds (be they revenue or available debt) unspent. And, equally, they are incapable of remembering that much of each year's budget is already committed to ongoing programs (but, hey, after all the commitment to those programs is just based on politicians' word of honor -- i.e., no commitment at all).

So, yeah, by all means argue which 'economic theories' are better and worse. But keep in mind that the application of those theories is in the hands of self serving short sighted scumbags, whose only goal in life is to feed at the public through as long as they can get away with it.

A pox on both their houses.

--Pete

[jahcs]

Hi,
Yep. But there's *always* some kind of crisis.  Hurricane, tornado, earthquake, power grid failure, etc., ad nauseum

Heh, don't get me started on the number of times the Washington State Government has used the emergency clause this year...

Politicians seem to be, as a class, incapable of seeing any available funds (be they revenue or available debt) unspent.  And, equally, they are incapable of remembering that much of each year's budget is already committed to ongoing programs (but, hey, after all the commitment to those programs is just based on politicians' word of honor -- i.e., no commitment at all).

It's much worse than that. They don't actually see any money at the time the budget is drafted. It's all based on a guess as to how much revenue will be brought in for that period. And who votes for a poilitician that promises to maintain the status quo (even if it's increased efficiency of current programs)? Most voters want the guy who says they will bring in the federal money for this project and that project.

So, yeah, by all means argue which 'economic theories' are better and worse.  But keep in mind that the application of those theories is in the hands of self serving short sighted scumbags, whose only goal in life is to feed at the public through as long as they can get away with it.

Most Presidents on their first term seem to have a six year plan and a 10 year plan. That way they can show progress but they need "a little bit more" from the people and the other politicians for the nation to improve. Other Federal politicians usually appear interested in getting reelected. They play patty cake with special interest groups and try to rock the boat as little as possible, especially around election time. State leaders seem to treat the State Budget like a piggy bank for their pet projects. And many local leaders just use the office as a stepping stone to other levels of government.

[Occhidiangela]

Please, don't get me started on the BS that's been going on in Boston for years with that "major traffic and metro upgrade". You want to talk about flooding problems? THAT'S what all the money has gotten us - a giant underwater tube just waiting to cave in. The tunnel has been shut down numerous times for repairs (last high count I had heard was over 130 tiles, AT ONE TIME), and has been down (for repairs and construction) for YEARS longer than it has been operational.

Mass. has probably one of the WORST traffic budgets in the U.S.; not because of a lack of money, but because all that money just DISAPPEARS. BILLIONS of dollars spent, and for what? "The Big Dig". Yeah, that's exactly what it is - a big dig to find the motherload of money that we've lost over the last decade. Forget Jimmy Hoffa's body - give me back my taxes.

Unless you've lived in MA, especially during the time of the big dig, you wouldn't EVER refer to that as a good way of spending taxes. Christ, we've been paying tolls on the turnpike for decades longer than we were supposed to be. Those tolls, which have only INCREASED over the years, were supposed to have been abolished years ago because they had already payed for what they were originally implemented for. Oh, and there's also talk of a $4.00 (or some such number) toll for people who commute into / out of Boston, but don't actually live there. Believe me, you don't ever want to bring up traffic budgeting with someone from MA, especially from the Boston area. You have a better chance of living declaring you're a Yankees fan during the World Series. :P
[right][snapback]88465[/snapback][/right]

Amico mio, did I say the Big Dig was an example of how money was well spent, or how it was spent? <_< I drove in and around Boston back around when I was meeting you all on the DSF, and the Big Dig was underway. I understand it is still "a work in perpetual progress." Like I said, T K is a competent Senator -- if nothing else, he gets the federal money for his people . . .

Occhi

[Roland]

Amico mio, did I say the Big Dig was an example of how money was well spent, or how it was spent?&nbsp; <_<&nbsp; I drove in and around Boston back around when I was meeting you all on the DSF, and the Big Dig was underway.&nbsp; I understand it is still "a work in perpetual progress."&nbsp; Like I said, T K is a competent Senator -- if nothing else, he gets the federal money for his people . . .

Occhi
[right][snapback]88533[/snapback][/right]

Eh, I didn't mean to sound like I was jumping down your throat. If I came off that way, I apologize. Just hit on something I felt I could rant about. :P No harm meant.

And if you're ever in the area again, I'll buy you a cold one. Your choice. ;)

[Occhidiangela]

Eh, I didn't mean to sound like I was jumping down your throat. If I came off that way, I apologize. Just hit on something I felt I could rant about. :P No harm meant.

And if you're ever in the area again, I'll buy you a cold one. Your choice. ;)
[right][snapback]88560[/snapback][/right]

It's all good, and if I ever get up to Beantown again, 'twill be a pleasure to tip a few back with you. No idea when that will be.

Occhi

[whyBish]

Most voters want the guy who says they will bring in the federal money for this project and that project.
[right][snapback]88497[/snapback][/right]

Over here a recent survey found that about 40% (IIRC) of people didn't know what a budget was... They didn't even ask if they knew how to make one, or actually did make one. In a situation like this politics comes down to "will the money be spent on what I want?" not, how can the country pay for x/y/z, and what is the prioritization of various projects.

Elections are next Saturday. The choice is between $5k per year less in tax (for me), or no change (because budget surplus under current govt. would be 'targetted'(i.e. given) to families.... i.e. handed back to ppl on the dole(unemployment benefit that people can stay on for life, and for generations) that lie around pumping out children) guess which side I'm on :P