"Recovery Summer"
 

Let's see, it's over a year now that the President's" Recovery Summer" program
was supposed to drop unemployment below %8 and the 2009 1.6 Trillion
"Stimulus" program would bring it down to 6.8% by now.
With unemployment still at 9.1% neither plan is working.
What now?

Curious where your numbers came from.

-spence

he'll have it
 

during the summer of 2013

To quote ANY Liberal Progressive

"The (insert program name here) would have worked but we didn't have enough money."

May be applied in virtually any situation...

From my Congressman, Scott Garret.

Fed reduced it's forcast of unemployment to 8.6% -8.9% by years end.
Two months ago they had forcast 8.4%- 8.7%.

Obama joked last week that there wasn't as many "shovel ready jobs"
ready as he thought. Ha ha. Immelt laughed too.

I'd like to see how funnie it would have been if he was speaking in front
of a union hall audience.
Real jokester. :doh:

Every speech the man gives is "Shovel Ready"

:rotflmao:...That is awesome.

applies to pretty much any of them

The federal government.Its public knowledge and is a fact.

Obama's also accummulated more debt than all previous presidents before him combined.This also comes from the feds and is a fact.Literally trillions that there is no way to pay back.

I honor no party whatsover but you guys here who worship Obama need to let it go and admit it was mistake to have even voted for him.There's no shame in admitting you were wrong.

Obama's making that dope before him actually look smart.....nuke-u-ler might actually become a word!

The quotes were about a 1.6 T "Stimulus" program which just isn't fact...

-spence

Do you have the article that said this? I heard it wasn't true.
Thanks

It's certainly not true, unless you give Obama credit for all the debt that Bush and Reagan racked up also.

Actually, if you look back a century you'll find that Ike was probably the only Republican that has stats to back the rhetoric.

-spence

All I know is the US economy sux, and most the the globe does too.

Spence, the actual number is 1.16 Trillion and coming from Rep. Garret as Vice Chairman of the House Budget Comm.
and a member of the House Financial Services Comm. that # would be pretty accurate.

I think you're confusing the defect with "stimulus" spending. The actual stimulus package was around 700B over two years. Most of the defect in 2009 was inherited, had McCain been elected it would have been nearly or just as big.

Post a link or check your facts :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, the actual number is 1.16 Trillion and coming from Rep. Garret as Vice Chairman of the House Budget Comm.
and a member of the House Financial Services Comm. that # would be pretty accurate.
-justplugit[/QUOTE]


Real Cost of Stimulus Plan? Almost $1.2 Trillion
Report January 29, 2009 –

Taxpayers will pay much more for the fiscal stimulus than previously revealed – over $1.17 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Most sources have assessed the cost of the stimulus package at approximately $825 billion. But the CBO reports those estimates do not include the cost of the money that must be borrowed to pay for the plan. [Editor's Note: To view the CBO letter reporting on the total cost of the stimulus plan, go here now.]

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., asked the CBO - the research arm of Congress - to calculate the “money cost” of borrowing the funds needed to fulfill the stimulus projects being sought by congressional Democrats and President Obama. Like every other borrower, the government must pay back borrowed principal plus the interest on its debt.

The CBO responded with a Jan. 27 letter from CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf estimating the cost of borrowing the money would be $347.1 billion – or about 42 percent of the cost of the projects. That would push the total cost of the stimulus package to over $1.17 trillion.

Quote:

Most of the defect in 2009 was inherited, had McCain been elected it would have been nearly or just as big.

Post a link or check your facts:)
-spence



the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009.

Obama pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending.

McCain calls on Obama to veto omnibus - "We fought a good fight," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on Sunday, conceding that the $410 billion omnibus bill is likely to pass the Senate early next week, but calling on President Obama to veto it.


February 8, 2009
McCain: Stimulus Bill Is "Generational Theft"By Michelle Levi In his sixty-eighth appearance on Face The Nation, Senator John McCain called the stimulus bill heading towards a Senate vote this week "generational theft," and said he could not support the package as-is because of the debt it would create for America.

When asked by host Bob Schieffer if he would support the stimulus plan, the senator replied, "I can't Bob. I can't because I think it is the greatest transfer of not only spending but authority and responsibility to government."





how's that "American Recovery and Renewal" or whatever they called it...working out?????

Jun 22, 5:57 PM (ET)

By PAUL WISEMAN and MARTIN CRUTSINGER

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy's continuing struggles aren't just confounding ordinary Americans. They've also stumped the head of the Federal Reserve.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told reporters Wednesday that the central bank had been caught off guard by recent signs of deterioration in the economy. And he said the troubles could continue into next year.

"We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting," Bernanke said. He said the weak housing market and problems in the banking system might be "more persistent than we thought."

It was the Fed chief's most explicit warning yet that the economy will face serious challenges next year. For several months, he had said the factors working against economic growth appeared to be "transitory."


The Fed cut its forecast for economic growth this year to a range of 2.7 percent to 2.9 percent from an April forecast of 3.1 percent to 3.3 percent. It also cut its forecast for next year to a range of 3.3 percent to 3.7 percent from an earlier 3.5 percent to 4.2 percent. The Fed also said unemployment would stay higher than it had expected earlier.


I'm sure Obama is "playing this one perfectly" right Spence???

The CBO doesn't include debt service in it's estimates, it was asked to do this separately...but to just tack 10 years of interest on to a 3 year spending plan, without calculating benefits (and the CBO has documented dramatic benefits to GDP) is not an analysis of "true cost". Rather it's a just an attempt to make the bill look larger. Ryan tried to do the same thing when he asked the CBO to make believe all the entitlement spending in the stimulus was permanent so he could claim Obama was proposing a 3.5 Trillion dollar package.

So you can either include debt service with all your cost discussions or none.

As for McCain, whether he would have supported the Stimulus bill or not (he didn't even bother to show up for the vote mind you) isn't really relevant.

All things considered, I would assume McCain would have offered additional tax cuts as part of a Stimulus package just as Obama did. This doesn't leave a lot of discretionary or additional entitlement spending on the table that would have been avoided. In fact, assuming McCain's tax cuts would have been more equal across the board the chance of revenues being lower is very high.

If you were to consider a McCain Administration making the same accounting changes as Obama, the likelihood of a McCain 2009 budget deficit actually being larger than Obama is a reasonable proposition.

-spence

Speculation.

My original question still hasn't been answered.

speculation wrapped with absurdities....of course you measure the "stimulus" program by it's total cost, particularly when it was so ineffective...saved some union jobs, created some government jobs, much of it will end up back in Obama's campaign fund...just a little sugar rush for the Obama loyalist...and their children will be paying for it all for quite some time and nothing to show for it economically..no recovery...no reinvestment...just a really bad Act


CBO: Stimulus almost doubled U.S. debt
By: Conn Carroll | Senior Editorial Writer Washington Examiner Follow Him @conncarroll | 06/22/11 11:27 AM

. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that President Obama’s economic stimulus program helped nearly double U.S. debt.

The 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook, released Wednesday morning, reports that the “the combination of automatic budgetary responses” and Obama’s stimulus “had a profound impact on the federal budget.” According to CBO projections, before Obama’s stimulus became law, federal debt equaled 36 percent of GDP and was projected to decline slightly over the next few years. Instead, thanks in large part to the stimulus, debt reached 62 percent of GDP by 2010.

Other lowlights from the report include:

•Debt will reach 70 percent of GDP by the end of this year – the highest percentage since World War II.
•Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will reach 15 percent of GDP by 2035 – spending on all government programs has averaged 18.5 percent over the past 40 years.
•Total government spending is set to hit 27 percent of GDP by 2035.
•Taxes are set to grow from 19 percent of GDP in 2013, to 23 percent by 2035.
•Americans “at various points on the income scale would pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than people at the same points do today.”
•The effective marginal tax rate on labor income would rise from about 25 percent now to about 35 percent in 2035.

.............................................
Spence can continue to try to make excuses for this president, it appears to be his forte...but this guy is a COMPLETE disaster

"This repeated failure has nothing to do with the pace or type of spending. Rather, the problem is found in the oft-repeated Keynesian myth that deficit spending “injects new dollars into the economy,” thereby increasing demand and spurring economic growth. According to this theory, government spending adds money to the economy, taxes remove money, and the budget deficit represents net new dollars injected. Therefore, it scarcely matters how the dollars are spent. John Maynard Keynes famously asserted that a government program paying people to dig and then refill ditches(SHOVEL READY JOBS) would provide new income for those workers to spend and circulate through the economy, creating even more jobs and income. Today, lawmakers cling to estimates by Mark Zandi of Economy.com that on average, $1 in new deficit spending expands the economy by roughly $1.50.

If that were true, the record $1.6 trillion in deficit spending over the past fiscal year would have already overheated the economy. Yet despite this spending, which is equal to fully 9 percent of GDP, the economy is expected to shrink by at least 3 percent this fiscal year. If the spending constitutes an injection of “new money” into the economy, we may conclude that, without it, the economy would contract 12 percent — hardly a plausible claim.

If $1.6 trillion in deficit spending failed to slow the economy’s slide, there’s no reason to believe that adding $185 billion — the 2009 portion of the stimulus bill — will suddenly do the trick. But if budget deficits of nearly $2 trillion are insufficient stimulus, how much would be enough? $3 trillion? $4 trillion?

This is no longer a theoretical exercise. The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested, and it has failed. If growing the economy were as simple as expanding government spending and deficits, then Italy, France, and Germany would be the global economic kings. And there would be no reason to stop at $787 billion: Congress could guarantee unlimited prosperity by endlessly borrowing and spending trillions of dollars."

oops!

Forecasts for Growth Drop, Some Sharply
Published: Saturday, 25 Jun 2011 | 9:33 AM The New York Times

A drumbeat of disappointing data about consumer behavior, factory sales and weak hiring in recent weeks has prompted economists to ratchet down their 2011 economic forecasts to as little as half what they expected at the beginning of the year.

BUT DON'T WORRY

Bernanke May Try Spurring Economy by Prolonging Stimulus By Joshua Zumbrun and Steve Matthews - Jun 21, 2011 6:23 AM ET

Fed Chief Bernanke Leaves Door Open to Easing If Economy Weakens Further By Scott Lanman and Jeannine Aversa - Jun 23, 2011 12:00 AM ET .

.Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke left the door open to a fresh shot of monetary stimulus should the economic rebound he’s predicting fail to materialize.:confused:


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Bingo, but the controlling egg heads can't see the the forest for the trees.
They think they're so smart that history doesn't apply to them.

Or then again they have a different agenda for America, and it's
not self reliance and individual ingenuity but socialism, which leads to
nothing more than mediocracy.

Either or, we are headed for the ruination of the best form of government ever devised.

Not really, my initial assertion that a 2009 McCain presidency would have had a budget deficit nearly as large as Obama's would have been quite likely. That it would be larger is certainly speculation, but not an unreasonable one.

Deconstruct the 2009 numbers and I don't see very much that any Republican could have impacted more than 10-20%. Nobody would have proposed deep across the board cuts during a massive recession. What would have been far more likely are deep tax cuts which would have depressed revenues even further.

Well, first off I think your Rep is misleading you just to make political hay.

Obama didn't promise 8% unemployment. This was a projection (with a large margin of error) based on the current generally accepted baseline which had unemployment peaking at 9%. This baseline was shown to be dramatically off as the recession ended up being much deeper than anticipated...

Additionally, I'm not aware of any Obama statement that unemployment should be 6.8% right now. The only reference to that number I've seen is a conservative who's asserted that had Obama not extended unemployment benefits this is where the rate would be.

While it makes for some good ideological fodder, it premise doesn't seem to be rooted in reality, in fact it's quite absurd.

So I'm not sure what the question really is in context of those numbers...Garret is just playing games with old talking points.

In broader terms...

1) According to the CBO the Stimulus has had a large beneficial impact and by the reckoning of many may have averted a much bigger economic meltdown. People will debate this forever.

2) The projected budget deficits and National debt were caused by both parties. Personally I don't see any solution that doesn't involve both spending cuts and increased taxes.

3) A big reason the unemployment rate isn't dropping further is simply because American businesses have become more productive and the explosive growth that fuels rapid hiring is happening in other parts of the world. This isn't just because we've "shipped jobs overseas", it's because the hiring is taking place close to the action, just like it did in the US in the 1990s.

4) These emerging nations will gradually help the US economy

5) Government investment in growth technologies is a good investment and something I'd like to see Obama do more of

-spence

Economic Scene- Forecast With Hope Built In
Doug Mills/The New York Times

Timothy Geithner,, Christina Romer, an economist, and Lawrence Summers, the top economics adviser. President Obama’s advisers have been overly optimistic about the jobless rate.

DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: June 30, 2009
WASHINGTON

In the weeks just before President Obama took office, his economic advisers made a mistake. They got a little carried away with hope.

To make the case for a big stimulus package, they released their economic forecast for the next few years. Without the stimulus, they saw the unemployment rate — then 7.2 percent — rising above 8 percent in 2009 and peaking at 9 percent next year. With the stimulus, the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late this year.

We now know that this forecast was terribly optimistic. The jobless rate has already reached 9.4 percent. On Thursday, the Labor Department will announce the latest number, for June, and forecasters are expecting it to rise further. In concrete terms, the difference between the situation that the Obama advisers predicted and the one that has come to pass is about 2.5 million jobs. It’s as if every worker in the city of Los Angeles received an unexpected layoff notice.

There are two possible explanations that the administration was so wrong. And sorting through them matters a great deal, because they point in opposite policy directions.

1) Total Incompetence
2) Utter Incompetence :uhuh:

that is like asking Bernie Maidoff to continue to invest and manage your money for you....:smash:

Your author either lacks a 3rd grade education or is just intentionally being deceptive.

-spence

does being perpetually wrong make you snippy?

Contributor

Brian Riedl, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation

Brian Riedl is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow for Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation. Riedl mainly focuses on federal spending trends, appropriations, budget process reform, and budget deficits. He also studies economic growth, tax policy, agriculture spending, antipoverty programs, and long-term entitlement spending trends.

As early as 2002 and 2003, Riedl became one of the first writers to note the beginning of a massive federal spending spree under President Bush, which has since pushed federal spending above $25,000 per household. In 2006, Riedl�s writings helped expose $14 billion in additional domestic spending added to an Iraq bill (including Mississippi's "railroad to nowhere") and the ensuing public backlash forced Congress to strip these funds from the bill. In 2008, Riedl was a leading critic of the farm bill, which was ultimately vetoed by President Bush (although overridden by Congress).

Riedl's budget research has been featured in front-page stories and editorials in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times. He has discussed budget policy on NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and C-SPAN. He also participates in the bipartisan "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour," which holds town hall meetings across America focusing on the looming crisis in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Before coming to Heritage in 2001, Riedl worked for then-Gov. Tommy Thompson, former Rep. Mark Green (R-WI), and the Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly. Riedl holds a bachelor's degree in economics and political science from the University of Wisconsin, and a master's degree in public affairs from Princeton University



let's see your bio Spence

Ahh, he has an education...we'll go with intentionally manipulative then.

-spence

Blah, blah, blah...

I've already mentioned this.

-spence

you are the KING of that category :uhuh:

June 26, 2011
Obama trips promote profits for his donors, not jobs for Americans
Ed Lasky

Between golf outings (13 weekends in a row), musical soirees in the East Room, fantasy basketball pickup games, and trips to fundraisers for high rollers, Obama has made numerous trips to promote so-called clean-tech energy ventures. He has touted these companies as the wave of the future and as the hope for job growth in America. However, as is true of most actions Barack Obama takes there is an ulterior motive -- and it all has to do with himself.


The Washington Post reports that the focus of these clean-energy trips have been to ventures backed by huge donors to Barack Obama:


In all, Obama has visited 22 clean-tech projects in 19 separate trips....

Republicans and outside critics also have honed in on the political connections of some companies that have received federal help. The most attention has focused on Solyndra, a Silicon Valley solar company that ran into financial trouble after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee commitment....

Some of the biggest investors in Solyndra, which makes easy-to-install solar panels, were venture capital funds associated with Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, a key Obama fundraiser. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said he is "concerned that there was a hurry to get this money out of the door and that companies and individuals that supported the president were among the beneficiaries.''(snip)

But just weeks before Obama’s arrival, the company released sobering news from independent auditors evaluating its public offering plan. PricewaterhouseCoopers said Solyndra’s losses and negative cash flow raised “substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.” The report, covered by financial media, added to doubts on Wall Street.

Solar analyst Ramesh Misra, who works for the investment firm Brigantine Advisors, was skeptical about Solyndra’s signature product. Its solar panels are composed of an array of glass tubes that are expensive to produce, causing investment advisers to question whether the product could compete with less-expensive Chinese models. Misra, who has no financial interest in Solyndra or its rivals, questioned the administration’s decision.

“To think they could compete on any basis, that took a very big leap of faith,” Misra said.

“Solyndra stands out,” agreed Robert Lahey, an analyst with Ardour Capital who added that he thinks the government took a substantial risk in backing Solyndra.

A month after Obama’s visit, the company withdrew its public offering plans. A few weeks later, congressional auditors announced that Energy Department had given favorable treatment to some loan-guarantee applicants. A Government Accountability Office report found that the department had bypassed required steps for funding awards to five applicants, including Solyndra. The GAO did not publicly identify those five in its report; the Energy Department asked that some information about companies be excluded asbusiness sensitive.


Obama began his out-of-town clean-tech travel in March 2009. At a number of the companies the president visited, there were connections - not all of them close, to be sure - to his 2008 campaign. Over the months, Obama touted a Florida's utility's electric grid project (a company in an Obama fundraiser's portfolio was doing extensive business with the project) and a Nevada company that generates emission-free power from waste heat, the warmth radiated by machines or industrial processes (an Obama fundraiser is a partner in a venture fund that has a small stake in the company).


The benefit from these travels are immense. A company cannot buy this type of public relations. After all, Obama only frees up his spare time for pleasure trips.

While Obama touts these companies as being incubators for job growth, they are failures in this regard. Clean energy does not generate many jobs at all and those that are generated are often temporary, costs taxpayers a great deal of money per job, or are jobs generated overseas since so much of the equipment being produced has a made in China or made in Europe label stamped inconspicuously on them.


definitely need more of this:uhuh:

#1 your right Spence, people will debate this forever because it is also
speculative and conjecture.

#2 Agree it was caused by both parties, however imho spending cuts,
10% across the board, except military, as a start and TAX CUTS for small and medium size business will help with unemployment.

#3 That makes sense. However, sending jobs overseas started 35
years ago as high taxes and government over regulation is what started
the move.

#4 My Grandsons will have gray beards before emerging countries help
our US economy.

#5 Private investment in tech companies is a better route as competition
will get us there faster and the taxpayer won't have the expense of
another bureaucracy and having to pay benefits and retirement for government
employees.

blah, blah YES....you did indeed regurgitate the lame excuses that were concocted by the NY Times....and Obama with his brilliant advisors did indeed forecast....To make the case for a big stimulus package, With the stimulus, the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late this year.

but ohhhhhh....they made a boo boo...... they got all caught up in Hopey :jump1: Changey

it's the baseline's fault ? didn't know the economy was that bad???...really??? did you listen to any of the rehtoric???....it was the worst EVER....till you needed this excuse..... of course....then....we didn't know it was THAT bad....

gimme a break...

Third Grade Educations or Intentionally Misleading?????

either way this is pathetic journalism .......they made a "mistake" and got a "little" carried away.....

More Stimulus...More QE...That's the Ticket!!!!

Dollar seen losing global reserve status
By Jack Farchy in London

The US dollar will lose its status as the global reserve currency over the next 25 years, according to a survey of central bank reserve managers who collectively control more than $8,000bn.

More than half the managers, who were polled by UBS, predicted that the dollar would be replaced by a portfolio of currencies within the next 25 years.

That marks a departure from previous years, when the central bank reserve managers have said the dollar would retain its status as the sole reserve currency.

UBS surveyed more than 80 central bank reserve managers, sovereign wealth funds and multilateral institutions with more than $8,000bn in assets at its annual seminar for sovereign institutions last week. The results were not weighted for assets under management.

The results are the latest sign of dissatisfaction with the dollar as a reserve currency, amid concerns over the US government’s inability to rein in spending and the Federal Reserve’s huge expansion of its balance sheet.

“Right now there is great concern out there around the financial trajectory that the US is on,” said Larry Hatheway, chief economist at UBS

"Benanke May Try Sturring Economy by Prolonging Stimulus."

Typical of the so called elite egg heads running our government.
Alot of these guys,like Bernanke, never worked in business a day in
their lifes. He's a Harvard Grad and taught at Stamford and NYU.
All theory and no practical experience or common sense.

By his theory the stimulus should have worked, but it didn't and now he
wants to do it again? Maybe it will work this time after all it is a theory.
Even if it did work it's a short term fix for a long term problem that just prolongs the problem.

He must be part of the" buy now pay later "generation. Guy gets a deal on
a $1500 suit charging it on plastic, brags about the deal, forgetting it will cost
him $2000 when and if he pays it off.

That McCain would have had a massive (i.e. 1T++) 2009 budget deficit is neither speculation or conjecture.

Look at the numbers.

The military can easily take a 10% spending cut. The issue there is with the programs local Congress people have a desire to continue funding for. This is also a bi-partisan issue.

Globalization is what started the move. Just as manufacturing shifted to the US in the late 1800's we're pushing it onto Asia at the turn of the century.

Nope, it's already happening. I work with manufacturing companies every day in the US and the growth in Asia and BRIC countries is a huge part of their business which helps them them employ Americans.

This is a classic Keynesian scenario. The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value. People may mock Obama wanting to invest in environmental tech that's slow to produce, but odds are the future success of America will be based on these technologies.

-spence

we spent 20B Billion for a/c in Afghanistan!!

My buds don't get that.

[QUOTE=spence;868764]That McCain would have had a massive (i.e. 1T++) 2009 budget deficit is neither speculation or conjecture.

Look at the numbers.

IF THERE ARE FACTUAL NUMBERS, WHY THE DEBATE?


The military can easily take a 10% spending cut. The issue there is with the programs local Congress people have a desire to continue funding for. This is also a bi-partisan issue.

YA SURE, WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MID EAST, THE NEED FOR NEW SOPHISTCATED WEAPONS TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND CHINA BUILDING UP IT'S MILITARY AND BUIDING CARRIERS WE SHOULD CUT BACK ON MILITARY SPENDING ?


Globalization is what started the move. Just as manufacturing shifted to the US in the late 1800's we're pushing it onto Asia at the turn of the century.

OUR PUSHING INTO ASIA MAY BE THE FIRST YOU'VE SEEN IN YOUR LIFTIME,
BUT COMPANIES STARTED MOVING FROM STATE TO STATE THEN OUT OF
THE COUNTRY 35 YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF GOVT. REGULATION AND TAXES.


Nope, it's already happening. I work with manufacturing companies every day in the US and the growth in Asia and BRIC countries is a huge part of their business which helps them them employ Americans.

WHERE CAN I FIND THESE FACTS AND FIGURES.


This is a classic Keynesian scenario. The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value. People may mock Obama wanting to invest in environmental tech that's slow to produce, but odds are the future success of America will be based on these technologies.

YA MEAN LIKE HOW SILICONE VALLEY COMPANIES WERE LOOKING FOR SHORT TERM SHARE HOLDER VALUE WHEN THEY CREATED HIGH TECH?

manufacturing didn't "shift" to the US in the late 1800's, mechanization allowed American businessmen and inventors and investors to create American jobs and expand industry and fill the growing demands here and elsewhere...and it happened without Obama "investing" in anything...go figure

saying it "shifted" suggests that we recieved it or it was sent here from somewhere else...we created, we expanded..it's what we do...and I'm sorry, the "future success of America" will NOT be based on environmental tech...the only thing that you got right is that it is very slow to produce, if at all...particularly with Obama(GOVERNMENT) picking winners and losers...ask Spain:uhuh: the future success of America will be based on private business creating and innovating and filling demands without the big hand of Statist Central Planners determining, directing and taxing their every step....
............................


The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value.
-spence

yeah, that private business is just a menace....