View Full Version : yet more post-election consequences - huge increase in government jobs
hockeybobby
12-08-2008, 09:11 PM
What if you were to create a National, universal, fully funded daycare program? Give everyone who has young children the opportunity to work knowing their children are properly cared for. And include nutritious meals in the program too. Make it available for all parents rich or poor. Hire and train all the people required to make it a reality. Include medical checkups as well.
Spend the money on making sure the kids are fed, healthy and looked after while the parents work, or look for work. Wouldn't you be proud to live in a country that helped kids and parents in this way? Would you be comfortable contributing your fair share to an idea such as this?
glambman
12-08-2008, 09:16 PM
^^^^That would be great for indoctrinating our children. Just look at the public schools.
How about parents raise their children and choose any of the number of companies out there now. They get a tax break for it (if they choose to send them off).
Miss_Luscious
12-09-2008, 06:07 AM
Daycare is crazy expensive. Here in Raleigh the norm for a 4 year old child is from $600-$800 per month. Believe me, I looked. Many people can't afford to pay the daycare in the first place, let alone wait for a small fraction of the money to be returned via tax returns.
See, that's the problem with conservatives. The Fuck You I Got Mine mentality has blinders to how people who DON'T have actually live. I can't afford to spend nearly another rent payment to send my son to daycare so guess what? I'm at home with him. Unless I decided to go after the gov't assistance programs which will subsidize the cost of daycare. But the conservatives cry about those too and would probably get rid of programs like those if they could. So that leaves people out out of work because they can't afford childcare and since they can't work, they have no money and they become the people conservatives always rail against as lazy. Damn, us lowly poor folks can't win for losing.
Now I'm lucky in that my husband works and makes enough so that I can afford to stay home but many people don't have that option. Were not living high on the hog or anything, but we can pay our bills on time and so far we're doing OK. That's not to say we couldn't use the money I could make by working though if I could actually afford to work!
threlayer
12-09-2008, 08:20 AM
^^ This daycare thing is a pretty common situation (even with the tax deduction), though I'm sure conservatives think most people needing assistance are just too happy with not working and find ways to make temporary assistance into a permanent one. The bad examples, and there are many of them, spoil the whole concept. Yes, there are a lot of technical things wrong with our school systems that could be repaired, but I'm sure a lot of conservatives believe that schools indoctrinate kids into being liberals since NEA is full of tiem.
-----------------------
I have Chilean heritage. My family was in, and had ties to, the pre-Pinochet governments going back to the late 1800's/ early 1900's. Under Pinochet, the economy soared to a level that was unprecedented in S/ C America. When he left, the people voted in all the lefties, and the economy went to shit. Even other countries in S America, that have totally left governments, have looked at his economy and have heavily borrowed from it.
Wasn't Pinociet a dictator? Is it possible that the people voted in, with a fledgling democracy, wer just under-educated in what it took to form a new government/economic system and would have failed regardless of what form they chose, or even if they were conservatives? Actually I am unfamiliar with this. People with a huge pent-up desire for personal and economic freedoms do over-react very often. Further, in general it is hard to change paths without some clumsy missteps.
glambman
12-09-2008, 08:37 AM
Yes, Pinochet was a dictator. Technically, democracy goes to the early 30' in Chile, until Pinochet (73), but what no one tells is that it was a marxist style radical left wing democracy. They had an intervention (Pinochet), but went right back to radical marxism.
One of the things about statistics is that they may give people false impressions. I lived in Chile when Pinochet took over, granted, I was a toddler, but I have visited ever since. There were no 'mass pictures' there like we had in the Depression. They do/ did have their issues, but then so do all other countries.
There was an underground economy that was pretty big, we used to exchange currency on the black market, it got us many times more than govt exchangers would give.
glambman
12-09-2008, 08:54 AM
Daycare is crazy expensive. Here in Raleigh the norm for a 4 year old child is from $600-$800 per month. Believe me, I looked. Many people can't afford to pay the daycare in the first place, let alone wait for a small fraction of the money to be returned via tax returns.
See, that's the problem with conservatives. The Fuck You I Got Mine mentality has blinders to how people who DON'T have actually live. I can't afford to spend nearly another rent payment to send my son to daycare so guess what? I'm at home with him. Unless I decided to go after the gov't assistance programs which will subsidize the cost of daycare for mat my husband woe. But the conservatives cry about those too and would probably get rid of programs like those if they could. So that leaves people out out of work because they can't afford childcare and since they can't work, they have no money and they become the people conservatives always rail against as lazy. Damn, us lowly poor folks can't win for losing.
Now I'm lucky in that my husband works and makes enough so that I can afford to stay home but many people don't have that option. Were not living high on the hog or anything, but we can pay our bills on time and so far we're doing OK. That's not to say we couldn't use the money I could make by working though if I could actually afford to work!
And the problem with liberals is that they want others to pick up the check.
eagle2
12-09-2008, 10:21 AM
I can't find the 30% or the 3% figures.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm
(snip)
Chile's integration into the world market would leave it vulnerable to world market forces. The international recession that struck in 1982 hit Chile especially hard, harder than any other Latin American country. Not only did foreign capital and markets dry up, but Chile had to pay out stratospheric interest rates on its orgy of loans. Most analysts attribute the disaster both to external shocks and Chile's own deeply flawed economic policies. By 1983, Chile's economy was devastated, with unemployment soaring at one point to 34.6 percent — far worse than the U.S. Great Depression. Manufacturing production plunged 28 percent. The country's biggest financial groups were in free fall, and would have collapsed completely without a massive bail-out by the state. (9) The Chicago boys resisted this measure until the situation became so critical they could not possibly avoid it.
(snip)
This is what happens when conservative ideologues are given complete power.
glambman
12-09-2008, 10:59 AM
It fails to take into account the 2 cycles of the economy. The one to the collapse, and the one after. After the collapse, Chile had the highest growth rate of any country in the region. The one before, they had to deMarxize the economy.
hockeybobby
12-09-2008, 07:32 PM
And the problem with liberals is that they want others to pick up the check.
Plenty of Liberals are willing to ante up and kick in to help others, as are many Conservatives. An investment of the right kind, and at the right time could prevent a big cheque later for jails, healthcare, and welfare.
It's all just part of being a strong community, and nation.
threlayer
12-09-2008, 08:19 PM
And the problem with liberals is that they want others to pick up the check.
The problem with conservatives is that they want to inflate the check.
eagle2
12-10-2008, 04:06 AM
It fails to take into account the 2 cycles of the economy. The one to the collapse, and the one after. After the collapse, Chile had the highest growth rate of any country in the region. The one before, they had to deMarxize the economy.
The collapse happened ten years after Pinochet came into power. The collapse was a result of conservative economic policies, not from "deMarxizing" the economy. After a major economic collapse and economic contraction, of course it's likely for an economy to grow rapidly because it shrank so much. Over the entire period Pinochet was in power, Chile's GNP fell 6.4 percent. His economic policies were a disaster for most of the people of Chile. That's what happens when you put conservative ideologues in control.
threlayer
12-10-2008, 07:39 AM
^^ Idealogues of any persuasion are often devoid of flexibility needed in these uncertain times. Pinochet I am unfamiliar with in any detail. Nor do I think this has anything to do with the OP.
glambman
12-10-2008, 09:26 AM
The collapse happened ten years after Pinochet came into power. The collapse was a result of conservative economic policies, not from "deMarxizing" the economy. After a major economic collapse and economic contraction, of course it's likely for an economy to grow rapidly because it shrank so much. Over the entire period Pinochet was in power, Chile's GNP fell 6.4 percent. His economic policies were a disaster for most of the people of Chile. That's what happens when you put conservative ideologues in control.
lol, before Allende, it was an extremely left govt, when Allende took over, he nationalized everything. So for every worker required for a job, he had 1.5. If your going to compare GDP, what standards are you using? There were 3 different 'currency' levels (when Pinochet got in office, after he got in office, 83).
By your last sentence, you'd think Chavez was a god, right? More right of center govts have been successful when compared to left of center.
threlayer
12-10-2008, 10:16 AM
Nationalized meant socialized? Yet he was a rightist? No wonder it didn't work. :)
Melonie
12-10-2008, 01:25 PM
some fresh commentary ...
(snip)"Irvine, Calif. – President-elect Barack Obama has promised to jolt the American economy out of its depressionary spiral with the mother of all fiscal stimuli. While Mr. Obama seems to have little choice in this policy matter, his desperate gambit has a high probability of failure – and may make the recession worse. Don't believe the Washington chorus: We can't spend our way to economic recovery."(snip)
(snip)"Obama is betting heavily that massive government spending will create millions of new jobs. Still, it must be asked: Why does Obama prefer a fiscal policy geared toward increased spending rather than the tax cuts he promised ad nauseam during his campaign?
The answer is painfully simple – and illustrates the Bush-crafted box Obama finds himself in. Beleaguered consumers would probably not spend any new tax cuts but rather pay off debts – or stuff them under the figurative mattress.
That's why Obama is taking a cue from Franklin Roosevelt and planning to invest massively in public-works projects, such as repairing the nation's crumbling roads and bridges, expanding broadband access, and creating "green" jobs.
Yet even this ambitious plan – a product of the Keynesian belief in government efforts to induce spending and investment – may not achieve its intended result.
First, and foremost, there is the matter of how Obama's mother of all budget deficits will be financed; there's talk of $700 billion in new spending over the next two years. There are only two politically feasible ways: sell bonds or print money (raising taxes is off the table.)
With bond financing, one of two things can happen – both bad. The first possibility is that China will accelerate what it has been doing for years – buy America's bonds to finance the US budget and trade deficits. The clear danger is that America will sink deeper into China's debt, thereby (further) mortgaging its future while exposing itself to political pressures over everything from trade policy to Taiwan.
A second possibility is that China, preoccupied with its own weakening economy, will not finance America's debt but use its reserves internally.
In this scenario, the US Treasury Department will be forced to sell US government bonds into a credit-constrained market. This will drive up interest rates and "crowd out" business investment. This is why fiscal policy often fails – any rise in less-productive government spending is more than offset by a fall in typically far more productive business investment.
The third possibility may be most dangerous of all – printing extra money. Mechanically, this involves the US Treasury issuing new bonds to finance the deficit. Rather than these bonds going to public market, the US Federal Reserve buys them – while printing enough new money to pay the bill. The increase in the money supply would almost certainly debase the US dollar and cause an inflationary spike that would prematurely choke off recovery.
The dangers do not end there.
There are also the well-known "size and timing" problems. It's very difficult to calculate exactly how much fiscal stimulus is needed – too little doesn't get the job done, too much ignites inflation. It also takes a lot longer for government spending to work its stimulative magic than monetary policy. This is because new infrastructure takes significant time to plan and build. Moreover, in the worst-case scenario, the full impacts of a fiscal stimulus come long after the economy has fully recovered and wind up overheating the economy, causing inflation problems. "(snip)
from
threlayer
12-10-2008, 03:42 PM
What should have been done starting 6 or so years ago is that both spending should go down (oops forgot about the war) and taxes remain the same (or should go up, oops forgot about that damned war again). As it is now, or because of it, neither of those alone will work. Yes, Bush has given us a huge problem. Not to mention the Iraq War.
We could have handled the one in Afghanistan, as we needed to. But with an unpopular war going on, you can't tax people at the same time. After all, the Dems may wiggle their way in. Durn, I forgot again; they did.
(well, that was a fun post)
eagle2
12-11-2008, 09:46 PM
lol, before Allende, it was an extremely left govt, when Allende took over, he nationalized everything. So for every worker required for a job, he had 1.5. If your going to compare GDP, what standards are you using? There were 3 different 'currency' levels (when Pinochet got in office, after he got in office, 83).
What does currency have to do with GDP? GDP is the total value of goods and services produced, regardless of what the currency is. When Pinochet left power, the total value of Chile's goods and services was 6.4% less than when he took over.
By your last sentence, you'd think Chavez was a god, right? More right of center govts have been successful when compared to left of center.
What does Chavez have to do with anything I said. Because I'm opposed to the failed policies of conservative ideologues doesn't make me a supporter of Chavez. The fact is, the governments of the most prosperous countries follow policies that are strongly opposed by conservative ideologues. Most, or all of the world's most prosperous countries have a minimum wage, rights for labor to organize, government assistance for the poor and elderly, environmental regulations, and various other policies opposed by conservative ideologues. Conservative ideology has failed in Chile and everywhere else it was tried. The only thing conservative ideology does is bring poverty and suffering to people wherever it is tried.
Melonie
12-12-2008, 04:18 AM
^^^ currency matters a ton. For example, Zimbabwe's GDP for 2008 is going to be staggeringly high in comparison to 2007 ... although the actual amount of goods produced will be far smaller.
eagle2
12-12-2008, 07:39 PM
Currency doesn't matter when measuring GDP. Inflation is taken into account when measuring GDP. GDP is measured in constant dollars, or whatever currency you're using, not actual dollars. The calculations are based on the value of a currency at a single specific time, not the actual value each time the GDP is calculated.
glambman
12-12-2008, 07:57 PM
http://www.investorwords.com/2153/GDP.html
As I said before, when Pinochet came to power, Chile was a closed country. Pinochet opened it up.
eagle2
12-12-2008, 08:06 PM
What difference does that make?! It doesn't change the fact that Pinochet impoverished his country. There were a lot more poor people in Chile after Pinochet came to power than before. There were a lot more people who could not afford to buy enough food to sustain themselves after Pinochet came to power than before.
glambman
12-12-2008, 08:18 PM
His country had the highest rate of growth than any other s American country during the same time. When he left, unemployment was around 6 or so percent. The people I know from there, including family, were better off than prePinochet.
eagle2
12-12-2008, 08:56 PM
No it didn't. You're just making things up. Chile's GDP was lower when Pinochet left power than it was when he took over. Here is a link to a chart of Chile's GDP growth:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Chile_GDP_growth.png
Most people in Chile were worse off as a result of Pinochet's policies than they were before he came to power. The poverty rate more than doubled. Per capita consuption fell by 23%. For most people in Chile, Pinochet's conservative policies were a disaster. From:
http://www.spunk.org/texts/otherpol/critique/sp001280.html
Per capita consumption fell by 23% from 1972-87. The proportion of the population below the poverty line (the minimum income required for basic food and housing) increased from 20% to 44.4% from 1970 to 1987. Per capita health care spending was more than halved from 1973 to 1985, setting off explosive growth in poverty-related diseases such as typhoid, diabetes and viral hepatitis. On the other hand, while consumption for the poorest 20% of the population of Santiago dropped by 30%, it rose by 15% for the richest 20%. [Noam Chomsky, Year 501, pp. 190-191]
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12773125
AS AMERICA’S recession continues to deepen, one mercy is that there is no longer any serious debate that a fiscal stimulus is required to fill the hole left by the collapse of private demand. As American firms and households cut back and the Federal Reserve runs out of room to cut interest rates, the case for the government stepping in has become unanswerable.
Right out of CONSERVATIVE magazine....
Sorry Melonie/right-wingers, but you lose! :D
eagle2
12-14-2008, 09:40 PM
For the benefit of the less mathematically inclined among us, could you explain how the chart at your link demonstrates your statement in boldface?
No matter how I try I can't seem to look at it and reach the same conclusion you did.
Sorry Pan Dah, I was mistaken. I used the wrong starting point. I started in 1970 instead of the end of 1973. The GDP grew slightly while Pinochet was in power from the end of 1973 to 1990, however when he left power, the GDP was still lower than it was 20 years earlier in 1970, which is still a very poor performance.
Eric Stoner
12-16-2008, 10:20 AM
someone who talks like that doesn't know much about the Depression. Read a book called Hard Times, written by people living in that time. That whole period SUCKED. Mass suicides, killings, looting, unemployment for YEARS.
It is easy to say - we got through it and will do again, but what if for 7 years you didn't have a job, how much fun will it be getting through it?? Will you even make it before you off yourself?
I just want to come up with a way not to repay my student loans, with this mess I don't know if there is one.
Sorry but one set of facts for everybody. Surprisingly there were NOT mass suicides , killings or looting. There were upticks in lynchings of blacks down South. I remember reading a study that showed a direct correleation between the price of cotton and lynchings. As the price went up, lynchings went down. As it dropped, lynchings went up.
We had unemployment that NEVER dipped below 18 % from 1932 to 1940 thanks to Hoover and FDR's tax increases and the policies of the Fed.
Eric Stoner
12-16-2008, 10:37 AM
Eagle - Would you point to a single leftist ; socialist or social democratic economy that has performed well over the past 20 years or so ? Sweden, France , Germany have all had lower economic growth and higher unemployment than we have. Japan had TEN years of deflation and stagnation. Canada has not kept pace with the U.S. Neither has Australia or the U.K.
Mexico is certified kleptocracy and Chavez has wrecked the Venezuelan economy.
Tax cuts worked for Coolidge, JFK ( why do the Libs. NEVER want to acknowledge the roaring success of JFK's economic policies or the success of CLINTON's tax cuts ? ) Reagan, Clinton and G.W. Bush.
The U.K's economy took off after Thatcher's tax cuts and de-nationalization. Ireland has the lowest tax rates and the fastest growing economy in Europe. How do you explain that ?
Btw, be careful before you put Denmark up as an example. They CUT taxes in Denmark.
eagle2
12-16-2008, 11:12 PM
Eric,
I never said anything about leftist or socialist governments. What I said was, whenever countries put into place the policies advocated by conservative ideologues, the results have always been disastrous. The policies I’m referring to are the elimination of all government assistance programs and regulations. The United States has not followed these policies, Ireland doesn’t follow these policies, Great Britain never followed these policies. Margaret Thatcher wouldn’t even discuss getting rid of Britain’s national health system.
The military government of Chile did follow these policies during the 1970’s and 80’s and the results were a disaster. The economy completely collapsed. Chile’s poverty rate doubled from 20% to 40%. Santiago became one of the most polluted cities in the world.
Eric Stoner
12-17-2008, 08:49 AM
Eric,
I never said anything about leftist or socialist governments. What I said was, whenever countries put into place the policies advocated by conservative ideologues, the results have always been disastrous. The policies I’m referring to are the elimination of all government assistance programs and regulations. The United States has not followed these policies, Ireland doesn’t follow these policies, Great Britain never followed these policies. Margaret Thatcher wouldn’t even discuss getting rid of Britain’s national health system.
The military government of Chile did follow these policies during the 1970’s and 80’s and the results were a disaster. The economy completely collapsed. Chile’s poverty rate doubled from 20% to 40%. Santiago became one of the most polluted cities in the world.
First of all, you didn't even bother trying to answer my questions.
Hmmm. And how do you explain Chile's recent economic success ? It wasn't all the result of the bubble in copper prices.
As for Chile's economic "collapse" , how well do you think it was doing under Allende ? Btw, the economic hard times were the prime impetus for getting rid of Pinochet and the Junta.
Chile's problems had numerous causes and deregulation had nothing to with it.
The only major government program that was radically changed was making the National Pension System voluntary. On average those that stuck with the Social Security model did about as well as those who chose a more free market IRA type BECAUSE some investment programs did well and others did not. When averaged out, they were roughly equivalent to the Government controlled income transfer program.
Ireland followed a low tax policy. It's corporate tax rates are among the lowest in the world and it's economy had record growth. Same with Portugal and some of the Eastern European economies. Denmark cut taxes and an already successful economy did even better.
Show me an economy that performed well by raising taxes and increasing social spending ? Name one.
eagle2
12-17-2008, 08:30 PM
First of all, you didn't even bother trying to answer my questions.
Hmmm. And how do you explain Chile's recent economic success ? It wasn't all the result of the bubble in copper prices.
It was because after Pinochet gave up power the Chilean government stopped following his disatrous policies. Social spending was significantly increased and the poverty rate fell dramatically.
As for Chile's economic "collapse" , how well do you think it was doing under Allende ? Btw, the economic hard times were the prime impetus for getting rid of Pinochet and the Junta.
and things were worse under Pinochet. The poverty rate doubled from 20% to 40% under Pinochet. The public sector became almost non-existant. It was a disaster for most of the Chilean people.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/086.html
(snip)By 1990, when Aylwin's government went to work, the decline in social services was shocking, Ffrench said. "Public hospitals didn't have sheets and were putting two people in a bed. Public schools were a national embarrassment." (snip)
Anyway, you're making a straw-man argument. I never argued in favor of Allende. There are other alternatives besides Allende's socialism and the extreme right-wing policies followed by the Pinochet regime.
Chile's problems had numerous causes and deregulation had nothing to with it.
Deregulation had everything to do with it. Deregulation was the reason why wages dropped so dramatically during Pinochet's regime. Deregulation was the reason why Santiago became one of the most polluted cities in the world. Deregulation is why Chile's banks and economy collapsed in the early 1980's.
Show me an economy that performed well by raising taxes and increasing social spending ? Name one.
You just mentioned one above. Chile's economy performed well after raising taxes and increasing social spending. From the same link above:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/086.html
(snip)
In their first years in power after Pinochet, Chile's democratic leaders raised taxes, boosted social spending and wooed foreign investment while keeping caps on speculative inflows, and hiked the minimum wage by 40 percent.
(snip)
Another obvious example is the United States. The US economy performed very well during the 1990's after President Clinton raised taxes and increased social spending.
hockeybobby
12-17-2008, 09:51 PM
Eagle - Would you point to a single leftist ; socialist or social democratic economy that has performed well over the past 20 years or so ? Canada has not kept pace with the U.S.
Canada has been a real good place to live for the last 20 years. That's the only stat that counts. Don't knock it till you try it.
Eric Stoner
12-18-2008, 08:30 AM
It was because after Pinochet gave up power the Chilean government stopped following his disatrous policies. Social spending was significantly increased and the poverty rate fell dramatically.
and things were worse under Pinochet. The poverty rate doubled from 20% to 40% under Pinochet. The public sector became almost non-existant. It was a disaster for most of the Chilean people.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/086.html
(snip)By 1990, when Aylwin's government went to work, the decline in social services was shocking, Ffrench said. "Public hospitals didn't have sheets and were putting two people in a bed. Public schools were a national embarrassment." (snip)
Anyway, you're making a straw-man argument. I never argued in favor of Allende. There are other alternatives besides Allende's socialism and the extreme right-wing policies followed by the Pinochet regime.
Deregulation had everything to do with it. Deregulation was the reason why wages dropped so dramatically during Pinochet's regime. Deregulation was the reason why Santiago became one of the most polluted cities in the world. Deregulation is why Chile's banks and economy collapsed in the early 1980's.
You just mentioned one above. Chile's economy performed well after raising taxes and increasing social spending. From the same link above:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/086.html
(snip)
In their first years in power after Pinochet, Chile's democratic leaders raised taxes, boosted social spending and wooed foreign investment while keeping caps on speculative inflows, and hiked the minimum wage by 40 percent.
(snip)
Another obvious example is the United States. The US economy performed very well during the 1990's after President Clinton raised taxes and increased social spending.
If the best you can do is cite right wing military dictatorships as examples of "free market failure " then it's next to impossible to discuss economics with you. Spain under Franco; Portugal under Salazar; the Phillipines under Marcos; Chile under Pinochet all lagged way behind more democratic systems.
You're partially correct about Chile which like many Latin American dictatorships performed very poorly from an economic pov. After getting rid of Pinochet, Chile attracted foreign investment that didn't want to put money into Chile previously.
They did NOT attract it by raising taxes on it. Quite the contrary.
As for Clinton's policies, perhaps you might want to review the figures for unemployment and economic growth previously posted here ad nauseum by Melonie, myself and others for the Clinton years. Unemployment went down and growth really went up AFTER Clinton cut Capital Gains taxes and signed both Welfare Reform and applied Gramm-Rudman in a serious way.
Eric Stoner
12-18-2008, 08:32 AM
Canada has been a real good place to live for the last 20 years. That's the only stat that counts. Don't knock it till you try it.
I've been to Canada many times and agree with you that it has an excellent quality of life. However it has consistently had higher unemployment, lower economic growth and a weaker currency than the U.S. over the past 30 years or so.
eagle2
12-18-2008, 10:24 PM
If the best you can do is cite right wing military dictatorships as examples of "free market failure " then it's next to impossible to discuss economics with you. Spain under Franco; Portugal under Salazar; the Phillipines under Marcos; Chile under Pinochet all lagged way behind more democratic systems.
About the only countries that put into place the unfettered free markets advocated by conservative ideologues, are right wing dictatorships. Democratic countries don’t elect governments that advocate following these policies. People aren’t going to vote themselves into poverty.
You're partially correct about Chile which like many Latin American dictatorships performed very poorly from an economic pov. After getting rid of Pinochet, Chile attracted foreign investment that didn't want to put money into Chile previously.
They did NOT attract it by raising taxes on it. Quite the contrary.
The government that succeeded Pinochet in Chile did raise taxes. That is a fact.
As for Clinton's policies, perhaps you might want to review the figures for unemployment and economic growth previously posted here ad nauseum by Melonie, myself and others for the Clinton years. Unemployment went down and growth really went up AFTER Clinton cut Capital Gains taxes and signed both Welfare Reform and applied Gramm-Rudman in a serious way.
No it didn’t. The economy was already growing rapidly by the time the Capital Gains tax cuts and Welfare Reform were passed. The economy grew 3.7 percent in 1996 and 4.5 percent in 1997, even thought the Capital Gains tax cut wasn’t passed until August of that year. The economy grew more in 1997 than it did in 1998, the first full year the Capital Gains tax cuts were in effect.
http://www.euroekonom.com/graphs-data.php?type=gdp-growth-usa
Obama ups jobs goal to 3 million on bad economic news (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/20/obama.jobs/index.html)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama has decided to increase his goal for creating new jobs after receiving economic forecasts that suggest the economy is in worse shape than had been predicted, two Democratic officials told CNN.
Officials say President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus plan will include "oversight and transparency measures."
The officials said Obama is increasing his goal from 2.5 million to 3 million jobs over the next two years after receiving projections early this week that suggest the recession will be deeper than expected.
The projections showed that unless significant action is taken, the nation is likely to lose up to 4 million jobs over the next year and that the unemployment rate will probably rise above 9 percent, a transition aide told CNN.
After hearing the projections, Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden "argued that we were being too timid and that we needed to develop a plan that would save or create at least 3 million jobs," the aide said.
One of the officials said Obama challenged his economic team to "think bolder" as some economists warn there is danger in the government doing too little to curb the recession.
They said the stimulus plan in the works in the Obama camp would have "oversight and transparency measures" to ensure spending on the plan would be focused on stimulating the economy and not devolve into just handing out congressional pork projects.
Don't Miss
Dems, Obama aides continue talks on stimulus
They said it also would include measures that will "lay a foundation for a stronger economy in the future" -- such as health care, education and energy spending. Watch what Obama has to say about the economy »
Other measures included weatherizing 1 million homes, saving the federal government $1 billion in energy costs, modernizing schools and doubling renewable energy production, among other initiatives, the transition aide said.
Obama also stressed to the team that it can't rely on "traditional Washington programs and politics" when drawing up the economic recovery package, the aide said. That means no earmarks, a use-it-or-lose-it policy for local funding, full transparency and "investing in what works," the aide added.
On Friday, Obama had repeated his original goal while announcing appointments to his Cabinet and economic team.
"Together with the appointees that I have announced, these leaders will help craft a 21st-century economic plan with the goal of creating 2.5 million jobs and strengthening our economy," he said.
The Obama team isn't putting a price tag on its economic stimulus plan, which Democratic leaders want to have ready for the president-elect to sign either on or very soon after Inauguration Day. The transition aide told CNN that Obama aides met with Capitol Hill staff this week to discuss plans costing between $675 billion and $775 billion.