http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080118104215.zxj8hvdk&show_article=1

Democrats seem to be on board so far. What else can the goverment really do except grow the size of goverment or cut taxes to help the economy?

They can cut obsticals to business's, the housing industry would get a big boost, if it were fewer regulations on building houses, heck Oregons land use laws alone are killing the housing industry in Oregon.

I am totally with you on cutting regulations. But the housing problems right now go much deeper then regulations. Housing problems are related to people not having the big $$$$ it costs for a house right now

A tax rebate is nothing more than dumping dollars into the system, hoping for some change. We've done that a lot, and it's not working. There is no reason it will work now, even if the amount is bigger.

I'm thinking about what that sum of money means to me. Not too much. I can't build anything with it. I can save it, but it's not much and the currency problems are likely to outweigh the return on it.

I can spend it, and get some stuff. But it's not all that much stuff and having that stuff does not solve the problem of real income. This is true for a whole lot of people, meaning a brief bit of cash, just makes things easier for a few months tops. Not a solution, IMHO, just a pacifier.

The government can stay at it's existing size, and funnel some tax dollars into building things here that solve problems. In fact, ditch some really silly stuff, and take those dollars and people and re-purpose them!

Just dumping tax dollars means people spending more for a time right? Where do those dollars go?

Most everything is made outside the US, so that means those dollars leave the US, for the most part. Buy local, but your local guy buys global, largely because he has to. Dollars leave, because they have to. No solution there either.

Offering those dollars, in return for or as an incentive for building wealth, means that same spending is an investment that will have a return.

If we do some work, with those dollars, wealth is generated and that's good. We have a payment problem, and it's caused by us not building enough wealth to justify our spending.

Those dollars do leave, but we have something we didn't before, and that stays to be exploited, which is good for us.

That's a ready option, here and now, today, that's always off the table for some reason? Why?

To be clear, I'm not advocating for multi-nationals to build stuff and pay wages, only to own what they built.

That's just moving the problem around.

So, we've got $800 times a lot of people. What is that total exactly?

Maybe 120,000,000 people? So that means, 96 billion dollars then.

If it's just a tax refund, that's just a 96 billion dollar dump. (remember they can just print the money) So that dilutes our dollars by that much. All those dollars move through the system and the usual wealthy just get more wealthy.

Now, tie that to the building of things --actual labor. That's a whole lot of labor, so what can be built with that? And the more important question is what will it do for us. (where is the value proposition to classify it as wealth)

From the other thread, but here are some things that build jobs, and with those tax revenue, BTW.

Alternative energy R & D.

All kinds of infrastructure build out. Tech, energy, etc...

Education. We've moved a ton of jobs out of the country, which is the payment problem right there. So, retool those people and get 'em working.

Local subsidies. Food, common goods, etc... Lots of things we need that don't have to be shipped here. Might as well make them here, right?

Health Care R & D. It's a big ass problem, costing us a lot. There are solutions. One recent on is pools of doctors offering base level medical care, on retainer. Paitents pay small sum monthly, doctors leverage that to cover their high costs, leaving office visits and most common treatments a lot cheaper. No insurance companies, either. Let's think about that. Take proposals and issue grants, with those grants keyed to real solutions deployable on a national scale.

Health Care Education -- If the problem really is one of scarcity, which is what I hear most often from those worried about national services. Well, then we need more people! Train them up, put them to work and fix some people.

Etc...

Lots of things can be done to help ourselves out. They just are not being discussed, and I'm not completely sure why.

This would be a great time for an "Apollo Project" program to get America completely off of Middle East oil. Develop a hard and fast goal like developing a car that gets the equivalent of 250MPG or an alternate fuel that doesn't rely on oil. It would create a lot of jobs and help America get back into the forefront of energy technology again.

The US government used to be crucially important in seeding business to drive innovation. The Moon program led to a lot of technologies that helped spawn the personal computer industry. The Internet was created by the Department of Defense. A crash program like this wouldn't be unprecedented and could capture America's imagination just like the Apollo program did.

Andrew

The other side of the coin to the housing and credit problem is people over spent, bought too big and are now faced with loss of job and income.

I've read about tent cities sprouting up in middle class suburban neighborhoods.

If the rest of the world consumed like Americans do it would take 3 earths to be able to handle it. Now China and India's economies are exploding, thus oil prices rise.

Andrew there is formidable technology that has been around and now being fine-tuned that could reduce the need for oil. But big corporations who depend on oil consumption have slowed it down. I guess the question is ...How much is enough?

I'll bet "enough" is when things just break, costing more money to endure, than not.

Chris, obviously something has to happen to put such "formidable technology" into widespread use and production. The US Government can at least push that to happen with tax breaks, etc. And more funding into energy sources could accelerate any push into widespread use of new technologies.

Andrew

I think we should set a national goal, like the moon landing, of reducing our dependency of foreign oil by 70%.

Give a tax break if you move 10, 20, 30 etc miles closer to your work.

This would take a lot of work and money, and it shouldn't rely on any one technology, or wait for some miracle breakthrough.

Increase use of coal, increase solar, increase hydro, increase wind, increase bio-diesel, and increase nuclear power and increase domestic production.

By using a combination of all these, it wouldn't be so hard.

On some days, nwokie gets out of the right lane and drives down the middle.

Andrew have you read " The Clean Tech Revolution" by Ron Pernick? My wife and I saw him speak last summer at Powell's on Burnside.

Not only is the technology already in use the money you can make is equal to what many multi-national companies make now.

And then on others he just drives on the sidewalks, only on the right side of course.

Let's follow Henry Fords motto to "build items that the worker who built them can afford to buy."

Ever since Reagan this has gone down the hole. Instead it's maximize profit and ship jobs overseas.

Maybe the government could give tax credits to businesses who increase the wages of all of their employees who are making less than $15/ hour.

These are the people who are having trouble paying for higher fuel costs, and the money would get into the economy much faster than a tax cut of $800 to Paul Allen.

Yeah, that $800 will just evaporate. Might even be funny money.

"Oregons land use laws alone are killing the housing industry in Oregon."

One of the dumbest statements to date.

Oregon's land use laws have SAVED our housing market. Had we allowed developers to go hog wild and build as much as they could, our housing market would like Las Vegas or Phoenix right now.

I think it's safe to say that Oregon's land use laws ended up helping housing prices in the state during the housing boom more than anything else. And you're right Vitalogy, it's now keeping prices pretty much flat when the rest of the country they are spiraling downward.

Basic case of supply and demand, Portland has less supply, keeping the prices steady.

"Oregons land use laws alone are killing the housing industry in Oregon."

"One of the dumbest statements to date."

And made by a Washingtonian...who should be more concerned about the cheap tacky ugly eyesore sprawl that SW Washington has/is become(ing).

Worry about your own backyard, Okie!

House prices are declining at a higher rate in Clark County as compared to any of the 3 counties in Oregon, and this is because of high inventory. The high inventory is due to wild speculation among builders who mass produced homes as fast as they could. Washington's land use laws allowed that to happen. Oregon's land use rules tempered the speculation, thereby giving us a more stable market.

And they're STILL BUILDING up here.

I know, when the supply is much higher than the demand, LET'S ADD MORE SUPPLY!

Voodoo economics at its best. hah

I may step on a few toes here, but the kind of new housing that's being built I question.

Newer homes, in many cases, are simply not built like the older homes. No doubt older homes have their own set of issues. When my brother was looking at newer homes several years ago, he ended buying a house that was 6 years old. I was with him when the FHA person was checking out the house. The guy pointed out structural and foundation issues, although minor, showed shoddy work. However there were other amenities they did like and eventually purchased the home.

Having lived in an older home now almost 20 years, the craftsmanship, the attention to detail, the cool door knobs, the molding...all of it, showed some real talent and workmanship.

I have really come to appreciate our little bungalow (1927). It fits almost all our needs. We have been doing improvements as we can over the years, and my wife and I plan on retiring if not dying in our home. Many stores and schools are in walking distance, which saves us money and gas, and the neighborhood is classic.

If you want a good read "The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live," by Sarah Susanka, (1998) the book embraced the notion of smaller, simpler shelters that better meet the needs of the way we live.

Here's another perspective on what the cut from the Feds means:

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnbc/080122/22783168.html?.v=1&.pf=loans

Bottom line. Get rid of your debt.