The current stimulus bill... Your thoughts?

[DragonSlayer2]

Not to mention the national debt. All this does is deface the dollar even more and puts us another trillion in the hole. Also there is something called grants that do the exact same thing each year. The government has to give out something like 360 million a year in grant to different people/organizations.

If you ask me the money should actually go to small busness, and different industries to give the rest of us more jobs. (but that socialism for you)

Also that grant money if they were to put even half of it towards the national debt we could be out in a few years.

Just my thoughts, and I am no money expert, but something just doesnt seem right.

[lonewolf]

You guys totally missed this one....what is this all about?

$1 million to fund future releases of Heroscape

This is the one we should be focusing on....talk about special interest!

[Jandarforever]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

You guys totally missed this one....what is this all about?

$1 million to fund future releases of Heroscape

This is the one we should be focusing on....talk about special interest!

With that much money, we could make all of our customs into the real deal!

[jbbnbsmith]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

You guys talk in absolutes as if you are experts in all of this. Even our nation's most brilliant financial minds are befuddled by the trends in our economy but you two jokers seem to know exactly what is what.. *Cpl Hicks* "maybe we should put you in charge"

I will agree that it is wrong to use our taxpayer dollars to fund overseas abortions (or any abortion for that matter). Very disappointing.

Jokers?! Sorry, GB, let me rephrase.

There doesn't seem to me, a layman with minimal economic experience but someone who has lived through several recessions and has followed the state of the economy with interest and has observed what has worked and what has not worked in the past, to be much in the bill that will actually stimulate the economy in the short term.

Better?

[Buddy Lee]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

You guys talk in absolutes as if you are experts in all of this. Even our nation's most brilliant financial minds are befuddled by the trends in our economy but you two jokers seem to know exactly what is what.. *Cpl Hicks* "maybe we should put you in charge"

I will agree that it is wrong to use our taxpayer dollars to fund overseas abortions (or any abortion for that matter). Very disappointing.

There are absolutes (and not necessarily the Vodka kind). And this bill is absolutely the wrong way to stimulate the economy.

It will not create longterm economically viable productive jobs.

It will burden the current and future residents of this country with greatly increased national debt.

It will cause inflation, probably hyper-inflation (Zimbabwe anyone?)

It will establish govenment programs that will not go away when the "crisis" is over.

It is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill. President Obama said as much last night at the Democratic Caucus Meeting.

Buddy Lee

[SuperflyTNT]

You're right about the debasement of the currency - BUT luckily all the other western nations are doing it too and their currency is suffering as well. The Sterling (British) is WAY down against the dollar, and the Euro is better that the pound, but still down.


The government giving grants is not socialism, though. Socialism is what Obama is doing in other projects, and let me tell you why: Obama has all kinds of money that goes to government departments, which will be used to hire people. Although this is good as people will be getting jobs, this is BAD because they are government jobs and thus are subject to a yearly cost increase which grows that department's budget, and overall, the entire US budget.

Let's examine these line items that were originally posted:


$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
50 million dollars is a drop in the bucket, and we do need to restart our arts programs in the U.S. as there are jobs associated with art and artists.
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
This is a great program for single moms, and although I'd rather them go to church for help where local people can solve local problems, I'd say that if money needs to be spent it's better here than on bombs or bank bailouts. This money will be spent on foodstuffs, so it will truly be stimulating the economy by raising demand - more people want gubment cheez, well, the cheez needs to be made by private citizens who will benefit.
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
How about we cut this and have a state voucher that pays for castration of any puss that smacks around girls. That would certainly curtail the drunkards smacking their chickies around.
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
This is a BS deal. Instead of this, give 2 Billion in tax cuts to families that earn between 16K and 50K a year if they use childcare/daycare.
$6 billion for university building projects
This will have effect on jobs - it will put out-of-work tradesmen back to work for construction companies as well as boost demand for building materials.
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
Another good line item - this gets people who would normally be robbing your house out of the hood and into school to become something better and not repeat the cycle of "Knock up 8 women, get 100$ of each of their welfare checks a month, buy and sell dope with the money".

$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
I'm on the fence - although I like the idea of the gubment giving free tuition to tradeschools for people that are out of work due to an industry downturn, I'm not sure that this is the best way.
$1 billion for community-development block grants
This will put boutiques in the hood. They did this in Cincinnati and it really, surprisingly, revitalized a really, really nasty area. Still don't go down at night, but in the day it's bustling with people looking for boutique crap.
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
OK, this is codewords for putting in planned parenthoods in urban areas and things of that nature. Kill this one.
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
TV is not a right. Drop this.
$15 billion for business-loss carry-backs
This will help creditors get paid back, and this is a good idea. This helps break the chain of: small business is going under with 10K in inventory bought from a wholesaler on credit - the wholesaler goes out of business because of bad debts and then the manufacturer lays people off because no wholesalers are buying their products anymore....
$145 billion for “Making Work Pay” tax credits
Bull - Effing - Crap. Work does pay, it's called a wage. This is a welfare program for people who want to work 15 hours a month.
$83 billion for the earned income credit
This is a great program for people with lots of kids and low income. They need to fine tune the IRS code for this, but otherwise they should definately do this.

$150 million for the Smithsonian [Last time I checked, the museum didn't need a renovation]
Now is not the time.

$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
Yeah right....lease a new building, jagoffs.
$500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of Health facilities
This is a good idea - these guys work on Bird Flu and others. New labs is good.
$44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters
Nope.
$350 million for Agriculture Department computers
Nope.
$88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building
Nope.
$448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters
Nope. The Gestapo needs to be abolished. We went 220 years or so without and NOW we need a Homeland Security? Doesn't that just sound like the SS?????
$600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
LOL...Didn't we bail out the auto industry already??
$450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”)
NASA is underfunded. Most of the innovations of the 70s and 80s came from research into better spacecraft. Triple this number. Or more. I want them to find an extrasolar planet that can sustain life so I can get the F off of this rock with some scapers...

$600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”)
We need to understand how the planet works, and the oceans are 2/3s of the planet. Do this, it gets more scientists hired.
$1 billion for the Census Bureau
Why, so I can know my country is overrun with Mexicans who seem to be able to vote and not pay taxes?
$89 billion for Medicaid
Tort reform to stop people from suing doctors all the time instead. This will drop the COST to Medicaid more than 89 billion, as well as the cost to everyone else.
$30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
This is a crappy program - COBRA is so expensive that it's better to go out and get your own private insurance than pay full price for your company's larger risk pool. How about pass a law that makes all Americans part of the entire risk pool??
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
What the hell, we love welfare. Honestly, I think that we need this because of so many lost jobs. It will kill state Unemployment funds if we don't do this, and then other state programs suffer.
$20 billion for food stamps
Make a stricter law on food stamps, but I'm OK with this.

$4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FINALLY! They need to do this - this is 100% infrastructure building and research. Bump this one up to 250 Billion.
$850 million for Amtrak
F Amtrak. My buddy serves snacks on an Amtrak train and makes 90K a year because he's been a union member for 10 years. Break the union and save 850 million.
$87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
Um, Obama wants to save the ice caps and break them too? NO.
$1.7 billion for the National Park System
This is a way to hire a bunch of park rangers at 50K a year. This is SOCIALISM. Instead why not hire off some local woodsman on a contract basis?
$55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
No comment. If this means more stupid blue signs all over Pennsylvania - NO.
$7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”
Make good, hardworking rural Christian folks more seccular? Pass. Give the money to the states and let them govern the locals.
$150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases
Can you say "Farm Subsidies"? We're the largest producer of food in the world and we import it just to help out other countries, then pay farmers NOT to grow food to artificially manipulate pricing.
$150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish”
This will produce jobs, so I say yes.

$2 billion for renewable-energy research ($400 million for global-warming research NO)
I say yes, but it should be doled out in the form of 10 million dollar grants to entreprenurial companies with less than 40 employees. I want some global warming research - I want to watch some idiots in Washington burst into flame and record their levels of pain.
$2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois
Anything that exploits our own natural resources and stems pollution is good.
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
This is a good program that helps people harden their homes and businesses to inclement weather.
$3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants
No.
$3.4 billion for the State Energy Program
Yes.
$200 million for state and local electric-transport projects
NO!
$300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs
No! This lets rich people get money back for buying state-of-the-art 'green' appliances.

$400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments
Nope. Maybe if UAW was disbanded, but not now.

$1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries
This will create jobs as we would be exporting the technology...well until the Chinese rip it off and sell it for 1/10th the price. The key here is that it goes to MANUFACTURING, which has been a dirty word in the US for 20 years now.
$1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees
No.
$8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program
This is a good program as it stimulates entrepreneurship and innovation. Ie. Job creation.
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
This is for making experiments on CO2 capture caves underground. Essentially backfilling empty oil reserves with carbon atoms captured from industry. Meh...Nope.
$4.5 billion for electricity grid
Should be more like 450 billion.

$79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
Nope, how about drop the marginal tax rate by 10% for everyone and let the states pick up the slack so they can operate. Doesn't anyone see that the Feds are taxing us so much that the states are failing?!?!

OR....

How about we take the one TRILLION dollars spent here, and divide it among the 138 million taxpayers in the country. 1,000,000,000,000/138,000,000 = about 7500 dollars per person. Hmmm...how could we all spend that kind of money?

[DragonSlayer2]

Maybe to stimulate the economy.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Agent Minivann

One of the first things he does as president is announcing that we will start funding foreign abortions. My first thought was that now is a horrible time to start new (or restart old) foreign aid, regardless of whether I agree with what it is going to.

Well, if it's not a moral objection, then you have nothing to complain about. Signing that executive order did nothing to change the actual funding structure of that program, it just allowed groups that couldn't receive funding in the past to receive it, and/or allowed those groups to get involved in family planning.

Originally Posted by Agent Minivann

It isn't going to help the economy, and it isn't really holding true with what he stated on the campaign trail about cutting wasteful spending. A cursory look at the itemized list of the stimulus package suggests that it is a social program bill in an economic stimulus bill's clothing. There isn't really that much that I think will stimulate the economy.

I assume you're setting aside the tax cuts and the funding to the states, here.

But aside from that - what do you think this money goes to? If Amtrak gets money, they are either going to do maintenance or hire people. One way or the other, that's more money in the economy. If we give money to a public university, they will do maintenance, or building/procurement, or hire people with that money. Again, it's more money flowing in the economy.

You can dispute the allocations; that's reasonable. Different people have different priorities. But from a basic, Keynesian perspective, I don't understand why people are arguing this "isn't stimulus".

[SuperflyTNT]

You're right - people should not argue that it's not stimulus, as it is to some degree. It is simply not a sound plan for economic recovery.

You, yourself, have pointed out what the problems are with it:

1. Your Amtrak analogy - they will do more maintenance AND hire more people, but does that make it more or less sustainable? It makes it LESS sustainable over the long term because it raises their operating costs by the amount of new trains and/or employees, so after the money runs out, they lay people off or do what they ALWAYS do - come back for more money.

2. Public University - how does this create long term jobs? If they hire people then they simply raise the operating cost, and when the money runs out they raise tuition to cover the new tenured employees. Or, the maintenance on a new wing that gets built (which does create short-term jobs) raises the operating costs.

Money flowing into the economy is great and all, but it needs to produce LONG-TERM, LASTING results. This 'feast/famine' cycle is what has gotten us here in this recession. We need to create NEW, innovative industries that produce products that we can export, can sell domestically, and cannot easily be knocked off by Chinese competitors. We also need to rebuild our manufacturing base and invest in rebuilding our vital security needs, like energy production, military and infrastructure projects.

[dok]

Well, if it's long term you're worried about, then the energy and education (Pell Grants, for instance) portions should be just what you're looking for.

But more broadly, I think most people agree that a stimulus package is almost by definition supposed to contain temporary projects. If Amtrak hires people to repair lines, or catches up on maintenance on its fleet, and then lays those people off at the end... that's temporary. The idea is to avert a deflationary spiral by reviving monetary flow and spending in the economy. Once the economy as a whole recovers, those jobs, when lost, can be recouped through the natural rebound in private industry. Again, this is basic Keynesian economics.

I really wonder where all the fiscal conservatives in public office have been hiding for the last eight years. It's good to have them back. I mean that. Fiscal conservatism is a good basic economic idea to hang one's hat on. I didn't hear a peep out of them when we spent the better part of a trillion dollars on the Iraq war. They started to return last fall when some house Republicans opposed the bank bailout, which was a drastically more flawed bill than this one. Still, ultimately, it took a Democrat in the white house to remind Republicans what the American people like about their party.

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by dok

Well, if it's not a moral objection, then you have nothing to complain about. Signing that executive order did nothing to change the actual funding structure of that program, it just allowed groups that couldn't receive funding in the past to receive it, and/or allowed those groups to get involved in family planning.

Actually I do have something to complain about. I have never been a big fan of the sheer amount of foreign aid we dole out. Considering that the economy is in the crapper right now, I would think that it is time to reduce that amount.

Originally Posted by dok

I assume you're setting aside the tax cuts and the funding to the states, here.

But aside from that - what do you think this money goes to? If Amtrak gets money, they are either going to do maintenance or hire people. One way or the other, that's more money in the economy. If we give money to a public university, they will do maintenance, or building/procurement, or hire people with that money. Again, it's more money flowing in the economy.

You can dispute the allocations; that's reasonable. Different people have different priorities. But from a basic, Keynesian perspective, I don't understand why people are arguing this "isn't stimulus".

The questions I have are these: Who does it benefit? How does it benefit? What does it cost?

It seems like most of the items that will directly benefit jobs will do so within the beltway. Construction and renovation will get a good kick start, but almost all of it is in Washington DC. That's good for that area, but it isn't going to make that big of an impact on the national economy. The public university example you give is an interesting one. I think the amount going to universities isn't enough to do anything significant. Typically when a university gets a big influx of money they do something big (a new lab, a new building, a new piece of equipment like a supercomputer, etc.). Unless the money will be going to a few specific universities there isn't really enough to do anything. They could hire, but would those jobs ultimately be cut down the road when this one time cash runs out? Ultimately it is, to me, a question of cost. Is it really worth it to add a trillion in liabilities in a shaky economy? If that is what we are going to do, it darn well better make a significant impact on the nation's economy. I would venture to guess that this stimulus bill will not positively affect the majority of the country, but we will all be feeling its negative affects for the rest of our lives (unless by some miracle a president and congress can get together long enough to trim the budget down to a healthy level).

[jbbnbsmith]

Originally Posted by dok

I really wonder where all the fiscal conservatives in public office have been hiding for the last eight years. It's good to have them back. I mean that. Fiscal conservatism is a good basic economic idea to hang one's hat on. I didn't hear a peep out of them when we spent the better part of a trillion dollars on the Iraq war. They started to return last fall when some house Republicans opposed the bank bailout, which was a drastically more flawed bill than this one. Still, ultimately, it took a Democrat in the white house to remind Republicans what the American people like about their party.

I agree with you on this. The Bush administration and the Republicans in control of the congress during the first 6 years of the Bush administration, do indeed bear the responsibility for some of the current crisis. The Republican party went on a spending spree and expanded government. What I find ironic is that Obama claims we can't repeat the failures of the past 8 years, yet he and the Dems seem to be doing exactly that only in a grander fashion.

Yes, we need to do something. Yes we should try some new things. Yes there are many good things in the current bill. The hold up, I believe, is that there are many people from both parties who look at the details and the grand total and get a very bad feeling.

Obama said when you are heading toward a cliff you can't just continue in the same direction. I agree, but this stimulus bill, as it currently exists, just feels like we will be heading toward a different cliff.

Just the opinions of a joker.