"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


I know. But on Jan 21 we can blame it all on Obama according to your
logic.
Seriously, we are in bad shape. Not sure there is a way to recover.
I need to think about this some more.

Do that and get back to me.
I'm going to make a cup of coffee.
Should be enough time for you to work it out.

--Vic


I used the word "logic" to refer to your previous acknowledgement that you
hold the sitting POTUS responsible for whatever the current state of affairs
is. So does Harry. That's why you were lumped together. Perhaps I should
have used the word "illogical". :-)

Ok. Back from thinking. Here's the dilemma and my idea.

According to the economic think tank panel on the CNN presentation, the
prime reason for the economic mess we are in is our credit card mentality.
It goes way beyond credit cards however. We want, so we buy with money we
don't have. Sub-prime mortgages follows the same mentality and brought the
life style problem to a head.

The (almost) unanimous recommendation of the panel was for the country to
return to a post depression mentality and concentrate on savings. People
who lived through the depression learned a lesson and were much more fugal
in their spending habits, putting money away for a rainy day. Somewhere
along the line we shifted away from this mentality, and got into a buy now,
pay later style of living. Saving for the future changed it's meaning to
401k investment planning, relying on others for a secure future.

But now, here's the current problem in trying to recover from this mess:

The government's solution is to encourage us to spend more now. The
"stimulus" programs are intended to encourage spending. This is 180 degrees
out of phase of what most conservative economic experts recommend and
continues the "I want it now" mentality. It probably won't work because
smart people *are* concerned and will most will put any extra money received
through give a ways or tax reductions into savings.

Here's my proposal.

Forget about big business bailouts and stimulus checks/tax relief programs
to private individuals.
Establish a federal version of the state small business administration
(SBA) programs and use a fraction of the bailout monies being spent on
bailouts to provide start-up funding or growth funding for small businesses
nation-wide. This is where 80 percent of the population works. Some of
those who have lost jobs will apply for start-up funding to create new ones.
Obviously not all new businesses will make it, but those that do will hire
more people, many from the unemployed ranks. Small businesses are better
suited to focus on new technologies, green programs, or service sector areas
anyway because they don't have the diverse baggage to carry like big
business.

A recovery won't be fast, but it will be based on a solid footing and will
open the door to re-establish manufacturing in the US.

Eisboch

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:20:22 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .


I know. But on Jan 21 we can blame it all on Obama according to your
logic.
Seriously, we are in bad shape. Not sure there is a way to recover.
I need to think about this some more.

Do that and get back to me.
I'm going to make a cup of coffee.
Should be enough time for you to work it out.

--Vic


I used the word "logic" to refer to your previous acknowledgement that you
hold the sitting POTUS responsible for whatever the current state of affairs
is. So does Harry. That's why you were lumped together. Perhaps I should
have used the word "illogical". :-)

Ok. Back from thinking. Here's the dilemma and my idea.

According to the economic think tank panel on the CNN presentation, the
prime reason for the economic mess we are in is our credit card mentality.
It goes way beyond credit cards however. We want, so we buy with money we
don't have. Sub-prime mortgages follows the same mentality and brought the
life style problem to a head.

The (almost) unanimous recommendation of the panel was for the country to
return to a post depression mentality and concentrate on savings. People
who lived through the depression learned a lesson and were much more fugal
in their spending habits, putting money away for a rainy day. Somewhere
along the line we shifted away from this mentality, and got into a buy now,
pay later style of living. Saving for the future changed it's meaning to
401k investment planning, relying on others for a secure future.

But now, here's the current problem in trying to recover from this mess:

The government's solution is to encourage us to spend more now. The
"stimulus" programs are intended to encourage spending. This is 180 degrees
out of phase of what most conservative economic experts recommend and
continues the "I want it now" mentality. It probably won't work because
smart people *are* concerned and will most will put any extra money received
through give a ways or tax reductions into savings.

Here's my proposal.

Forget about big business bailouts and stimulus checks/tax relief programs
to private individuals.
Establish a federal version of the state small business administration
(SBA) programs and use a fraction of the bailout monies being spent on
bailouts to provide start-up funding or growth funding for small businesses
nation-wide. This is where 80 percent of the population works. Some of
those who have lost jobs will apply for start-up funding to create new ones.
Obviously not all new businesses will make it, but those that do will hire
more people, many from the unemployed ranks. Small businesses are better
suited to focus on new technologies, green programs, or service sector areas
anyway because they don't have the diverse baggage to carry like big
business.

A recovery won't be fast, but it will be based on a solid footing and will
open the door to re-establish manufacturing in the US.

It's a good idea and goes hand-in-hand with fostering an
entreprenurial, green-driven economy.

The problem is, it'd need to go through the banking system which,
apart from dicey mortgage loans, has never been a big fan of playing
venture capitalist. They have a hard time with investment banking,
let alone venture.

The SBA isn't set up to handle the load. It'd be like FEMA trying to
get a handle on New Orleans.

Again, good idea but where the agency to handle the traffic?

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:20:22 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..


I know. But on Jan 21 we can blame it all on Obama according to your
logic.
Seriously, we are in bad shape. Not sure there is a way to recover.
I need to think about this some more.

Do that and get back to me.
I'm going to make a cup of coffee.
Should be enough time for you to work it out.

--Vic


I used the word "logic" to refer to your previous acknowledgement that you
hold the sitting POTUS responsible for whatever the current state of
affairs
is. So does Harry. That's why you were lumped together. Perhaps I
should
have used the word "illogical". :-)

Ok. Back from thinking. Here's the dilemma and my idea.

According to the economic think tank panel on the CNN presentation, the
prime reason for the economic mess we are in is our credit card mentality.
It goes way beyond credit cards however. We want, so we buy with money we
don't have. Sub-prime mortgages follows the same mentality and brought
the
life style problem to a head.

The (almost) unanimous recommendation of the panel was for the country to
return to a post depression mentality and concentrate on savings. People
who lived through the depression learned a lesson and were much more fugal
in their spending habits, putting money away for a rainy day. Somewhere
along the line we shifted away from this mentality, and got into a buy
now,
pay later style of living. Saving for the future changed it's meaning to
401k investment planning, relying on others for a secure future.

But now, here's the current problem in trying to recover from this mess:

The government's solution is to encourage us to spend more now. The
"stimulus" programs are intended to encourage spending. This is 180
degrees
out of phase of what most conservative economic experts recommend and
continues the "I want it now" mentality. It probably won't work because
smart people *are* concerned and will most will put any extra money
received
through give a ways or tax reductions into savings.

Here's my proposal.

Forget about big business bailouts and stimulus checks/tax relief programs
to private individuals.
Establish a federal version of the state small business administration
(SBA) programs and use a fraction of the bailout monies being spent on
bailouts to provide start-up funding or growth funding for small
businesses
nation-wide. This is where 80 percent of the population works. Some of
those who have lost jobs will apply for start-up funding to create new
ones.
Obviously not all new businesses will make it, but those that do will hire
more people, many from the unemployed ranks. Small businesses are better
suited to focus on new technologies, green programs, or service sector
areas
anyway because they don't have the diverse baggage to carry like big
business.

A recovery won't be fast, but it will be based on a solid footing and will
open the door to re-establish manufacturing in the US.

It's a good idea and goes hand-in-hand with fostering an
entreprenurial, green-driven economy.

The problem is, it'd need to go through the banking system which,
apart from dicey mortgage loans, has never been a big fan of playing
venture capitalist. They have a hard time with investment banking,
let alone venture.

The SBA isn't set up to handle the load. It'd be like FEMA trying to
get a handle on New Orleans.

Again, good idea but where the agency to handle the traffic?


Skip the banks. As you must know by running a business a bank is the last
place to
go when you *need* funding.

The money will come from already approved and future "bailout" funds.
Forget about billions and trillions also. If someone made a million dollars
available to me tomorrow, I'd attempt to fire up a new business on Tuesday.

State run SBA *is* too small. I am proposing a temporary federal version of
SBA to get things started, funded by the already approved bailout funding.

Eisboch

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:31:44 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:20:22 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


I know. But on Jan 21 we can blame it all on Obama according to your
logic.
Seriously, we are in bad shape. Not sure there is a way to recover.
I need to think about this some more.

Do that and get back to me.
I'm going to make a cup of coffee.
Should be enough time for you to work it out.

--Vic


I used the word "logic" to refer to your previous acknowledgement that you
hold the sitting POTUS responsible for whatever the current state of
affairs
is. So does Harry. That's why you were lumped together. Perhaps I
should
have used the word "illogical". :-)

Ok. Back from thinking. Here's the dilemma and my idea.

According to the economic think tank panel on the CNN presentation, the
prime reason for the economic mess we are in is our credit card mentality.
It goes way beyond credit cards however. We want, so we buy with money we
don't have. Sub-prime mortgages follows the same mentality and brought
the
life style problem to a head.

The (almost) unanimous recommendation of the panel was for the country to
return to a post depression mentality and concentrate on savings. People
who lived through the depression learned a lesson and were much more fugal
in their spending habits, putting money away for a rainy day. Somewhere
along the line we shifted away from this mentality, and got into a buy
now,
pay later style of living. Saving for the future changed it's meaning to
401k investment planning, relying on others for a secure future.

But now, here's the current problem in trying to recover from this mess:

The government's solution is to encourage us to spend more now. The
"stimulus" programs are intended to encourage spending. This is 180
degrees
out of phase of what most conservative economic experts recommend and
continues the "I want it now" mentality. It probably won't work because
smart people *are* concerned and will most will put any extra money
received
through give a ways or tax reductions into savings.

Here's my proposal.

Forget about big business bailouts and stimulus checks/tax relief programs
to private individuals.
Establish a federal version of the state small business administration
(SBA) programs and use a fraction of the bailout monies being spent on
bailouts to provide start-up funding or growth funding for small
businesses
nation-wide. This is where 80 percent of the population works. Some of
those who have lost jobs will apply for start-up funding to create new
ones.
Obviously not all new businesses will make it, but those that do will hire
more people, many from the unemployed ranks. Small businesses are better
suited to focus on new technologies, green programs, or service sector
areas
anyway because they don't have the diverse baggage to carry like big
business.

A recovery won't be fast, but it will be based on a solid footing and will
open the door to re-establish manufacturing in the US.

It's a good idea and goes hand-in-hand with fostering an
entreprenurial, green-driven economy.

The problem is, it'd need to go through the banking system which,
apart from dicey mortgage loans, has never been a big fan of playing
venture capitalist. They have a hard time with investment banking,
let alone venture.

The SBA isn't set up to handle the load. It'd be like FEMA trying to
get a handle on New Orleans.

Again, good idea but where the agency to handle the traffic?


Skip the banks. As you must know by running a business a bank is the last
place to
go when you *need* funding.

The money will come from already approved and future "bailout" funds.
Forget about billions and trillions also. If someone made a million dollars
available to me tomorrow, I'd attempt to fire up a new business on Tuesday.

State run SBA *is* too small. I am proposing a temporary federal version of
SBA to get things started, funded by the already approved bailout funding.

Eisboch

Have you seen what the federal gov't did with the program it initiated
to help victims rebuild their homes in NO? Yikes. Bureaucrats are
good at layering bull**** between good intentions and execution.

"jps" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:31:44 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


State run SBA *is* too small. I am proposing a temporary federal version
of
SBA to get things started, funded by the already approved bailout funding.

Eisboch


Have you seen what the federal gov't did with the program it initiated
to help victims rebuild their homes in NO? Yikes. Bureaucrats are
good at layering bull**** between good intentions and execution.


The mistake made there was depending on a bureaucratic government to execute
the details of
the program. The government is good at approving and allocating money,
that's all.
Make the funding available to hands-on people that know how to get things
done.

Normally, I wouldn't even propose federal funding for new company start-ups
(or even SBA loans) because I think learning how to self-fund a company is
as important as the product or service you provide. However, given the
crisis that currently exists and the increase in un-employment, a temporary
avenue for start-up funding using federal money (now being completely wasted
on bailouts and so called "stimulus" packages) would be money much better
spent in the long run with benefits to the economy and country that are more
concrete and long lasting.

Just an idea.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:31:44 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


State run SBA *is* too small. I am proposing a temporary federal
version of
SBA to get things started, funded by the already approved bailout
funding.

Eisboch


Have you seen what the federal gov't did with the program it initiated
to help victims rebuild their homes in NO? Yikes. Bureaucrats are
good at layering bull**** between good intentions and execution.


The mistake made there was depending on a bureaucratic government to
execute the details of
the program. The government is good at approving and allocating money,
that's all.
Make the funding available to hands-on people that know how to get
things done.

Normally, I wouldn't even propose federal funding for new company
start-ups (or even SBA loans) because I think learning how to self-fund
a company is as important as the product or service you provide.
However, given the crisis that currently exists and the increase in
un-employment, a temporary avenue for start-up funding using federal
money (now being completely wasted on bailouts and so called "stimulus"
packages) would be money much better spent in the long run with
benefits to the economy and country that are more concrete and long
lasting.

Just an idea.

Eisboch



Reduce government regulation at the local, state and federal levels and
cut long term capital gains to 5%. Let businesses be businesses and not
bureaucracies. Get the current capital in the market working again.

BAR wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:31:44 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


State run SBA *is* too small. I am proposing a temporary federal
version of
SBA to get things started, funded by the already approved bailout
funding.

Eisboch


Have you seen what the federal gov't did with the program it initiated
to help victims rebuild their homes in NO? Yikes. Bureaucrats are
good at layering bull**** between good intentions and execution.


The mistake made there was depending on a bureaucratic government to
execute the details of
the program. The government is good at approving and allocating
money, that's all.
Make the funding available to hands-on people that know how to get
things done.

Normally, I wouldn't even propose federal funding for new company
start-ups (or even SBA loans) because I think learning how to
self-fund a company is as important as the product or service you
provide. However, given the crisis that currently exists and the
increase in un-employment, a temporary avenue for start-up funding
using federal money (now being completely wasted on bailouts and so
called "stimulus" packages) would be money much better spent in the
long run with benefits to the economy and country that are more
concrete and long lasting.

Just an idea.

Eisboch



Reduce government regulation at the local, state and federal levels and
cut long term capital gains to 5%. Let businesses be businesses and not
bureaucracies. Get the current capital in the market working again.

YES

BAR wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:31:44 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


State run SBA *is* too small. I am proposing a temporary federal
version of
SBA to get things started, funded by the already approved bailout
funding.

Eisboch


Have you seen what the federal gov't did with the program it initiated
to help victims rebuild their homes in NO? Yikes. Bureaucrats are
good at layering bull**** between good intentions and execution.


The mistake made there was depending on a bureaucratic government to
execute the details of
the program. The government is good at approving and allocating
money, that's all.
Make the funding available to hands-on people that know how to get
things done.

Normally, I wouldn't even propose federal funding for new company
start-ups (or even SBA loans) because I think learning how to
self-fund a company is as important as the product or service you
provide. However, given the crisis that currently exists and the
increase in un-employment, a temporary avenue for start-up funding
using federal money (now being completely wasted on bailouts and so
called "stimulus" packages) would be money much better spent in the
long run with benefits to the economy and country that are more
concrete and long lasting.

Just an idea.

Eisboch



Reduce government regulation at the local, state and federal levels and
cut long term capital gains to 5%. Let businesses be businesses and not
bureaucracies. Get the current capital in the market working again.

We've had eight years of little or no regulation...no thanks. We're
supposed to trust business to do the right thing, when its motivation
seems to be greed and short-term profit? The behavior of business gives
me no warm and fuzzy feelings we should return to the 19th century.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:20:22 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's my proposal.

Forget about big business bailouts and stimulus checks/tax relief programs
to private individuals.

Establish a federal version of the state small business administration
(SBA) programs and use a fraction of the bailout monies being spent on
bailouts to provide start-up funding or growth funding for small businesses
nation-wide. This is where 80 percent of the population works. Some of
those who have lost jobs will apply for start-up funding to create new ones.
Obviously not all new businesses will make it, but those that do will hire
more people, many from the unemployed ranks. Small businesses are better
suited to focus on new technologies, green programs, or service sector areas
anyway because they don't have the diverse baggage to carry like big
business.

A recovery won't be fast, but it will be based on a solid footing and will
open the door to re-establish manufacturing in the US

Yabbut...

The point that everybody is missing is this; we are at a nexus point -
a historical confluence of events that is shifting the course of human
events. We will not be able to control it because it's ineffable - it
can't be described becasue nobody truly understands it or what will
happen when it finally changes the historical dynamic.

It's not like it hasn't happened before - discovery of the wheel, the
discovery of the concept of zero, printing press, scientific
revolution, industrial revolution, etc.

Where we, as humans, make the mistake is in trying to control events
and make them conform to us - it's an essential element of human
nature. This time there are major convergences of historical
imperatives - cultural, social and economic. In the past, these
events have led to major wars and it will probably happen this time.

This is important to understand - we have no say in the matter. We
cannot change the historical imperative no matter how we try. Upheaval
is necessary for progress otherwise we stagnate. Expand or die.

It's as simple as that.

--

Honesty is the best policy, but insanity
is a better defense.

"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:20:22 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's my proposal.

Forget about big business bailouts and stimulus checks/tax relief programs
to private individuals.

Establish a federal version of the state small business administration
(SBA) programs and use a fraction of the bailout monies being spent on
bailouts to provide start-up funding or growth funding for small
businesses
nation-wide. This is where 80 percent of the population works. Some of
those who have lost jobs will apply for start-up funding to create new
ones.
Obviously not all new businesses will make it, but those that do will hire
more people, many from the unemployed ranks. Small businesses are better
suited to focus on new technologies, green programs, or service sector
areas
anyway because they don't have the diverse baggage to carry like big
business.

A recovery won't be fast, but it will be based on a solid footing and will
open the door to re-establish manufacturing in the US

Yabbut...

The point that everybody is missing is this; we are at a nexus point -
a historical confluence of events that is shifting the course of human
events. We will not be able to control it because it's ineffable - it
can't be described becasue nobody truly understands it or what will
happen when it finally changes the historical dynamic.

It's not like it hasn't happened before - discovery of the wheel, the
discovery of the concept of zero, printing press, scientific
revolution, industrial revolution, etc.

Where we, as humans, make the mistake is in trying to control events
and make them conform to us - it's an essential element of human
nature. This time there are major convergences of historical
imperatives - cultural, social and economic. In the past, these
events have led to major wars and it will probably happen this time.

This is important to understand - we have no say in the matter. We
cannot change the historical imperative no matter how we try. Upheaval
is necessary for progress otherwise we stagnate. Expand or die.

It's as simple as that.



I don't know about that. Like many I like to eat, nexus point or no nexus
point.

Eisboch