How many zeros in a billion?

How many zeros in a billion?

The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of it's releases.

A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
D. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain...let's take a look at New Orleans ... It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) is presently asking Congress for 250 BILLION DOLLARS to rebuild New Orleans .

Interesting number... what does it mean?
A. Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every ma n, woman, and child) you each get $516,528.
B. Or... if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
C. Or... if you are a family of four...your family gets $2,066,012.

Well Keli just out of curiosity do you know which President was the most prolific spender in history and who ran up the biggest deficits?

(ans. Pres. G.W. Bush #1 and Pres. Ronald Reagan #2.)

Check it out for yourself if you dont believe it. But I think that's right.

That's because it took 12 years to recover from Jimmy Carter Sherman.

Well try as you might Aaron I doubt you will convince the voting public that Republicans represent sound fiscal or economic policy.

About the only ones who feel that way are the over the hill gang who cling to their memories of 40 or 50 years ago when that argument had at least a shred of truth.

Like Dick Cheney says, "deficits dont matter any more. Ronald Reagan proved that."

Sherman, I've been doing some reading on economics and I've got a few questions for you. This seems like as good a thread as any to start this conversation.

And I do want it to be a conversation and not a partisan argument because I think both parties are responsible for getting us where we are today.

Anywho, my first question is, like most liberals, do you consider yourself a Keynesian economist , which believes the state can stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector - through, for example, interest rates, taxation and public projects.

"...my first question is, like most liberals, do you consider yourself a Keynesian economist , which believes the state can stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector - through, for example, interest rates, taxation and public projects...."

Well first off I am not an economist.

I'm not even sure I know enough to be dangerous.

One of my pet peeves is these people who read a couple magazine articles or hear rush Limbaugh spout off and all of a sudden they are an expert.

That being said, I think the answer is yes.

Although if left alone I agree the economy will eventually work itself out, I believe government intervention can smooth out the rough places and make for a more comfortable ride.

Sort of a kinder, gentler law of the jungle, so to speak.

I'm no expert either and I'm not claiming to be, but by the same token, I'm not a dumb ass and I can grasp what I'm reading fairly quickly

As for actual economist, what the recent bailout and subsequent research has taught me is that politicians simply DO NOT listen to economist. From Smoot Hawley to the new deal to FLSA in the 30's all the way through this years massive bailout, when the vast majority of economist come out against a financial decision, politicians by and large do what they think will get them the most votes, not what is best for the economy or the country.

Now that I've got that out, I'll move on. One of the things I wanted to discuss with you is GWB's economic decisions. As I said, I've been doing just some reading (likely just enough to be dangerous) and I've seen you state more then once that GWB's economics decisions are not sound, or something to that effect.

My question is, can you be more specific. Which of GWB's economic decisions do you consider primarily responsible for the current situation?

Well I would start out with his huge budget deficits.

And I would agree. So why is it that you think we have the huge deficits.

The Iraq invasion, the huge tax cuts for the rich, international trade agreements, lack of any commitment or desire to have a balanced budget.

First, I didn't mean for the reply to be so long but you touched on a lot of topics and as this is a discussion, I wanted to give my thoughts on each.

I agree the Iraq invasion should have been paid for. Perhaps Congress should have delayed the across the board tax cuts and paid for the war as John McCain wanted to do when he voted against the tax cuts twice.

But all in all, Iraq cannot solely fall on GWB as both democrats and Republicans in Congress voted to invade Iraq and have since voted to continue funding the war since the invasion so both parties are responsible.

As for the tax cuts, they benefited all Americans, not just the rich. In fact, if they were skewed toward any group of individuals, it was the poor and middle class, who saw their tax burden, fall by some 15% while the 'rich' received only a 3% break. One thing that should have probably been left alone was the estate tax though, as it didn't really help those Bush claimed it would. But other then that, the rich got less then all other groups.

I'm not sure what trade agreements you're talking about. I'm sure GWB signed many agreements, but the ones I find the most are with Australia and Columbia. But from what I can gather, both are as beneficial, if not more so, to Americans then they are to the other countries so I don't know how that plays into our current economic situation. He also placed tariffs on cheap imported steel but did so at the bequest of RC Byrd and other representatives of steel states. Are these the agreements you're referring to or are there others?

All of Congress passed spending bills and approved the increased budget, not just Bush and not just Republicans. In the mid 90's after Republicans were successful with their Contract with America, Newt Gingrich and company did a pretty good job of stymieing Clinton's spending. As Republicans never had a veto proof congress, Democrats could have attacked Bush's spending and at the very least, slowed it down if they chose to. Like it or not the budget deficit, which I agree is a major cause of today’s economic problems, is a bi-partisan issue, not a partisan one.

I agree with about half of what you say but there is on thing I have a question about. Keynesian economist, which hold a philosophy that you admittedly agree with, (in a nutshell) hold that budget deficits are good as the spending stimulates the economy and forces growth while surplus' are bad as they lead to savings and declines in spending. And too that point, one of the liberal regulars on this week with George Snuffleupagus said the only way out of this economic downturn was to spend our way out. So would you agree with that assessment?

And you're thoughts on the rest?

If I may interject a personal note...Stephanie, you asked me if I was serious about Krugman deserving the Nobel. I started to answer a couple times but never finished. Yes, Krugman studied international trade and concluded that "...a country serves its own interests by pursuing free trade regardless of what other countries may do."

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/negot.html

Krugman's rabid political advocacy is a more recent phenomenon and management has scaled back some of his more outrageous tendencies. I've been convinced that I was wrong before and that Krugman deserved his Nobel.

So would you agree with that assessment?

Not when you say it. Only when Big Daddy says it.

"...one of the liberal regulars on this week with George Snuffleupagus said the only way out of this economic downturn was to spend our way out. So would you agree with that assessment?"

No. However I would support some pretty major resource redistribution.

By that I mean increase some budgets and decrease or eliminate others.

And you're thoughts on the rest?

Well first off let me clarify your previous concern about the trade agreements being all under Bush.

I am aware of that but the question was "So why is it that you think we have the huge deficits.."

It did not specify under whose watch anything occurred.

I realize Clinton teamed up with the Congressional republicans to pass some of that stuff.

And they have resulted in major trade deficits which means more jobs overseas and less here.

Which results in less tax revenue and hence bigger deficits.

btw I am surprised you did not mention the final reason I listed.

I dont think the Bush administration has had the slightest interest in a balanced budget and in fact consider it irrelevant.

sodbuster wrote:btw I am surprised you did not mention the final reason I listed.

I dont think the Bush administration has had the slightest interest in a balanced budget and in fact consider it irrelevant.

I did.

All of Congress passed spending bills and approved the increased budget, not just Bush and not just Republicans. In the mid 90's after Republicans were successful with their Contract with America, Newt Gingrich and company did a pretty good job of stymieing Clinton's spending. As Republicans never had a veto proof congress, Democrats could have attacked Bush's spending and at the very least, slowed it down if they chose to. Like it or not the budget deficit, which I agree is a major cause of today’s economic problems, is a bi-partisan issue, not a partisan one.

Edited:

I will say that one of the major contributing causes to the increased budget was the Medicare Prescription plan which had shared support among democrats and Republicans and imho, was a bad bill as the cause was borderline criminally understated.

sodbuster wrote:
No. However I would support some pretty major resource redistribution.

By that I mean increase some budgets and decrease or eliminate others.

Perhaps if we limit each post to one topic.

So what would you increase and what would you eliminate?

sodbuster wrote:I realize Clinton teamed up with the Congressional republicans to pass some of that stuff.

And they have resulted in major trade deficits which means more jobs overseas and less here.

Which results in less tax revenue and hence bigger deficits.

What jobs? Automotive? I watched Emanual state that the automotive industry in Ohio and Michigan was dead because of free trade but all he could say when it was pointed out that the Toyota and Honda are doing very well in southern states was that they were underpaying workers at $22.00/hour.

Is there other industries you have in mind?

sodbuster wrote:Well first off I am not an economist. I'm not even sure I know enough to be dangerous. .

sod,
You are too humble. You greatly underestimate yourself and the danger you present.

K.

"...what would you eliminate?..."

Well ok we can do one at a time if you want.

I would eliminate the Dept of Homeland Security.

(except I would keep the color codes, that's about the only really beneficial thing they have done)


just kidding...

Aaron wrote:

sodbuster wrote:I realize Clinton teamed up with the Congressional republicans to pass some of that stuff.

And they have resulted in major trade deficits which means more jobs overseas and less here.

Which results in less tax revenue and hence bigger deficits.

What jobs? Automotive? I watched Emanual state that the automotive industry in Ohio and Michigan was dead because of free trade but all he could say when it was pointed out that the Toyota and Honda are doing very well in southern states was that they were underpaying workers at $22.00/hour.

Is there other industries you have in mind?

Great point. No one ever wonders why Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai are able to succeed with an American workforce where GM and Ford have failed.

If we had actual journalists, we could learn so much.

I don't favor "free" trade when it puts us at a disadvantage, but I also don't buy the arguments against free trade that are really little more than union apologist screeds directed at the easily manipulated.

Well Mike that is a good point and one I have wondered about.

Obviously it is not our work force so it must be management.

Also I believe when Toyota, etc manufacture cars here they are sold here.

So it does not address the question why we are not exporting manufactured goods.

sodbuster wrote:"...what would you eliminate?..."

Well ok we can do one at a time if you want.

I would eliminate the Dept of Homeland Security.

(except I would keep the color codes, that's about the only really beneficial thing they have done)


just kidding...

I would agree with that. While I do believe that many of of our protective forces need better communications, especially between the state and federal level, I thought the creation of an entire new bureacracy was a huge waste of money. For example, next year, HS is requesting $50.5 Billion, which is an increase of almost 7% in this years budget.

How much of that money is spent on overlapping and how much is wasted, given to local and state agencies so long as they meet HS criteria that is also?

IMHO, we need less federal government, not more.

sodbuster wrote:Obviously it is not our work force so it must be management.

You're right Sherm. It is management that agreed to the absurb wage demands of unions which are the primary reasons that if it were not for government prop ups, would have ran Ford, GM and Chrysler out of business decades ago.

SheikBen wrote:Great point. No one ever wonders why Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai are able to succeed with an American workforce where GM and Ford have failed.

If we had actual journalists, we could learn so much.

I don't favor "free" trade when it puts us at a disadvantage, but I also don't buy the arguments against free trade that are really little more than union apologist screeds directed at the easily manipulated.

They know Mike. They just don't want to report it. The answer is simple; current and former employee cost.

Most union contracts call for autoworkers to make $60,000+ per year plus benefits that cost next to nothing to perform a job that requires little more then hand/eye coordination and as a result, "American" cars normally have a employee cost of $4,000 or more per vehicle, and lose on average over $2,300 per vehicle while "Japense" vehicles have an employee cost of less then $1,000 per vehicle and profit $1,500 per vehicle.