Stimulus Package Headed to Obama's Desk [Archive]

William Haskins

02-14-2009, 08:42 PM

I don't get much about the economic issues and these stimulus packages but I'm assuming that some good will come of it since all these (possibly seemingly) knowledgeable people support it in Parliament (or whatever political system the US has).

they didn't read it.

basically, here's how it rolled out (in my opinion):

- obama wins the presidency on a wave of disillusionment, financial fear and a marketing campaign that harnessed america's celebrity culture, uneasiness about issues of race and raw political propaganda.

- congress widens majorities in both houses.

- capitalizing on mass confusion about what to do with the economy, obama uses his political leverage and rhetoric ingeniously balanced between calm optimism and fear tactics to convince the public and lawmakers that something had to be done fast.

- empowered by their majorities and obama's willingness to sign anything they send him, liberals unleash 40 years of legislative frustration to craft a bill bloated with entitlements and jobs created by simply throwing money around.

- obama poised to sign the single biggest expenditure of money in the history of the known universe.

Seaclusion

02-14-2009, 08:44 PM

The Repubs didn't vote for it because the only hope they now have to get some seats back is for the economy to completely crumble and for them to blame Obama and the Dems for it.

Richard

William Haskins

02-14-2009, 08:49 PM

Ken

02-14-2009, 08:49 PM

The Repubs didn't vote for it because the only hope they now have to get some seats back is for the economy to completely crumble and for them to blame Obama and the Dems for it.

Richard

a strategically sound manuever, if that's what they're up to. This would be, of course, a gamble. For if the stimulus succeeds....

Darzian

02-14-2009, 08:57 PM

So, theoretically, it is not possible to predict with any certainty what exactly the result will be? Wow, that is just freaky. So much at stake!

Bravo

02-14-2009, 08:57 PM

Seaclusion

02-14-2009, 09:00 PM

It has always amazed me that when the Repubs spend on pet programs it's OK but when the Dems spend it's called a waste of money.

Richard

My-Immortal

02-14-2009, 09:03 PM

Let's all hope it works--I hate to imagine what we're going to try next if it doesn't.

So...how are you going to stimulate the economy with your extra $400 this year? That figures out to...$7.69 a week or almost $1.10 a day.

A cup of instant coffee (not Starbucks--too expensive still) perhaps? A can of soda? Maybe a candy bar...? Caffeine is stimulating...

Good luck to us.

take care all -

Bartholomew

02-14-2009, 09:05 PM

he and the democrats own it now.

it's a huge political gamble made extraordinarily early in his presidency. if it turns the economy around, or even stops the bleeding, he will have pulled off a miracle. if it flounders, he's in deep shit.

i'll keep my fingers crossed that it helps, especially since the grandchildren i don't yet have will still be paying for it.

but i can't help but think that the entitlements will be sucked up as if by a sponge, and i predict that, by the end of 2009, obama and congress will be going back to the well.

$787 billion. staggering.

I'm of the opinion that these grants will help, even though I think there were better ways to stimulate the economy. The infrastructure that receives the money, ideally, will use it to buy goods and services. This will create demand, and demand creates jobs.

Fixing Social Security would have probably done a lot more to stabilize our economy in the long run, though. It makes no sense that Social Security money is not invested. As the system stands, it is merely creating fear. The money is deducted from paycheques, no matter what, and no one is really sure that they'll get back what they put in.

willfulone

02-14-2009, 09:05 PM

Can he just sign "present" to cover his heinie for when it fails?

Christine

William Haskins

02-14-2009, 09:08 PM

It has always amazed me that when the Repubs spend on pet programs it's OK but when the Dems spend it's called a waste of money.

Richard

who says it's okay?

robeiae

02-14-2009, 09:10 PM

Some parts of this bill are fine. But most of it has absolutely ZERO to do with "stimulating" the economy. So, it will not do any such thing.

But that doesn't mean the economy will not improve. It will.

But since this bill is spreading monies out over years, in some cases, the Dems will claim it "worked" if the economy improves anytime in the next decade, really.

And this is what burns my @ss. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics should FUCKING KNOW that this bill is a joke re "stimulating" the economy. Yet, they're willing to happily lap it up and even defend Congress and Obama for this monstrosity.

We're in the crapper because intelligent people are no longer willing to actually use their brains.

So William, none of your answers fit my position, which is:

The economy will improve, but this bill will have NOTHING to do with it.

Bartholomew

02-14-2009, 09:11 PM

It has always amazed me that when the Repubs spend on pet programs it's OK but when the Dems spend it's called a waste of money.

Richard

Isn't it actually the other way around? I'm fairly sure the republicans give more block grants - money that the state can spend wherever it likes - while the democrats tend to give grants that are only for specific purposes.

William Haskins

02-14-2009, 09:11 PM

So William, none of your answers fit my position, which is:

The economy will improve, but this bill will have NOTHING to do with it.

duly noted.

Bartholomew

02-14-2009, 09:13 PM

The economy will improve, but this bill will have NOTHING to do with it.

What will it do? Whoever the money goes to, they're bound to spend it, right?

rugcat

02-14-2009, 09:13 PM

as a political play, it has a great deal of merit.

they couldn't stop it, so their votes would have been academic. obama got what he wanted and it will either work or it won't.

if it does, then they will have miscalculated and it can fairly be said that they deserve no credit for the recovery.

if it doesn't, they have one hell of a "told you so" and can make the case to the american people that they sat it out on principle and deserve a chance to do something different that might work.True. If the plan succeeds, Obama and the dems will get all the credit no matter how they voted. So they're banking on the hope that it will fail. This makes them now the party of hope.

And odds are on their side. Two years from now, things may be the same or even worse, no matter what the government tries to do. It's not at all clear that anything will work. The basic idea of the stimulus is that we have to try something, but I think even those who support the bill have grave doubts about its effectiveness.

willfulone

02-14-2009, 09:13 PM

My-Immortal

02-14-2009, 09:15 PM

I'm just hoping there are more than 75,000 endangered mice in San Fran--otherwise, they'll be getting more money per mouse out of this package than we humans will....

(Hey, I'm just having fun with the math.) :)

75k mice X $400 = $30 million.

Is it greedy to want a little bit of that mouse money?

take care all -

My-Immortal

02-14-2009, 09:20 PM

What will it do? Whoever the money goes to, they're bound to spend it, right?

If all we're worried about is the spending aspect of it -- they could have taken the 787 billion dollars and divided it equally among the 181 million taxpayers in this country and we'd have each gotten a check for $4,348 instead...

I could have spent that in a few minutes paying bills...

kristie911

02-14-2009, 09:21 PM

We're in the crapper because intelligent people are no longer willing to actually use their brains.

Are you implying there were intelligent people in Washington at one time?

Because it's been so long, I can't remember any.

robeiae

02-14-2009, 09:22 PM

What will it do? Whoever the money goes to, they're bound to spend it, right?
So what? Spending money doesn't improve the economy, as a matter of course. If it did, all we'd need to do is right everyone a thousand dollar "stimulus" check.

Look, what's going on now is that companies--especially financial institutions--are watching DC. They want to know what's gonna happen--like the rest of us--and they want to know how they can best take advantage of and protect themselves from what's gonna happen.

Now, DC has made its move. People--around the world--are gonna sift through this nonsense and eventually start looking to turn profits and prevent losses. Again. The population is still going up. People are still living their lives. The worm will turn. I can't say when, with certainty, but it will happen.

Really, the chief danger with this stimulus package is that it will slow all that down. Hopefully, its effects will be negligible.

Still, it represents a huge debt increase and future debts for not only the Feds, but also for the States. And it represents a potential for rapid inflation. And those are its BEST features.

billythrilly7th

02-14-2009, 09:23 PM

this is one of the biggest fiascos since the stimulus package of '08.

That was a bailout.

Try and get your infamous, history making, earth shaking, booty quaking E-Street...oh..sorry..... uhh....spending packages, that people will talk about for for generations, straight.

kristie911

02-14-2009, 09:28 PM

Seaclusion

02-14-2009, 09:29 PM

That was a bailout.

And that makes it a better or a worse waste of money??

Richard

robeiae

02-14-2009, 09:33 PM

To quote Lewis Black:

"The economy goes up, it goes down, it goes up, it goes down...nobody knows the fuck why."

I firmly believe the economy would have stabilized without this ridiculous stimulus package. All this will do it cause out of control inflation. But it's okay, I'll have $400 to combat it with. WTF?
To quote Dan Akroyd, pretending to be Jimmy Carter when he was Prez:

Last week, I delivered a message on inflation. Since then, the dollar has dropped in value, the stock market has sustained record losses, and the whole sale price index increased 0.9%. In other words, our economic system is screwed, blued and tatooed! We just have to face the fact that there is simply no way to fight inflation in a capitolly-intensive, highly-technological, conflict-riddled, anything-for-a-thrill world of today. That’s why, tonight, I want you to try to look for in inflation, an entirely new word: Inflation is our friend.

For example, consider this: in the year 2000, if current trends continue, the average blue-collar annual wage in this country will be $568,000. Think what this inflated world of the future will mean - most Americans will be millionaires. Everyone will feel like a bigshot. Wouldn’t you like to own a $4,000 suit, and smoke a $75 cigar, drive a $600,000 car? I know I would! But what about people on fixed incomes? They have always been the true victims of inflation. That’s why I will present to Congress the “Inflation Maintenance Program”, whereby the U.S. Treasury will make up any inflation-caused losses to direct tax rebates to the public in cash. Then you may say, “Won’t that cost a lot of money? Won’t that increase the deficit?” Sure it will! But so what? We’ll just print more money! We have the papers, we have the mints.. I can just call up the Bureau of Engraving and say, “Hi! This is Jimmy. Roll out some of them twenties! Print up a couple thousand sheets of those Century Notes!” Sure, all these dollars will cause even more inflation, but who cares? Everyone will be a millionaire!

I've been told that this is actually Obama's "phase two"...

Don

02-14-2009, 09:38 PM

So, theoretically, it is not possible to predict with any certainty what exactly the result will be? Wow, that is just freaky. So much at stake!
Theoretically, it's very easy to predict what the result will be. Practically, it's more of a wait-and-see situation, and even the interpretations will be muddied enough that people will be able to point to some sort of an improvement and credit the package.

As a practical matter, what have they really done? They've passed out some money to one portion of the economy at the expense of another portion of the economy. Now, if the economy agrees that those funds have been better distributed by a few bureaucrats than it would have been by trillions of individual decisions made by the original holders of the money, the economy will improve.

Don't forget the bureaucratic overhead. Some portion of the money will pay for all the papershuffling that was required to take the money from Peter and give it to Paul, instead of to a productive use, so it doesn't represent any wealth produced. The larger that share of overhead, the harder it's going to be for those bureaucrats to outguess everybody else and have more true impact on the economy than if the funds had been left alone.

William Haskins

02-14-2009, 09:40 PM

to me, the whole thing stinks of business as usual and the same cronyism that has been so condemned for so long by the people who defend this one.

and, even for political neophytes, the stink, for instance, of the david obey situation should be quite smellable.

follow the bouncing ball:

- rep. david obey is chairman of the house appropriations committee (that's a fancy way of saying they control the purse strings)... that's his grinning mug (http://appropriations.house.gov/) at the website where they posted the stimulus plan.

- rep. obey's son, you see, is the chief lobbyist for the national parks conservation society (that's a fancy way of saying that it's his job to suck up to congress for money for national parks)

- the national parks got 2.3 billion dollars (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/29/stimulus-includes-plum-lawmakers-son/) in the stimulus. their entire annual budget is roughly equal to that. (that's a fancy way of saying they got a shitload of money)

- when recently asked about the lack of direction (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/02/06/obey-on-stimulus-waste-so-what/) from congress on how money should be spent, obey said: "so what? this is an emergency. we've got to simply find a way to get this done as fast as possible and as well as possible, and that's what we're doing." (that's a fancy way of saying, "fuck you.")

robeiae

02-14-2009, 09:50 PM

But that should stimulate the pic-i-nic basket industry, no?

http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/mcmanamon/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/yogi-and-boo-boo.jpg

blacbird

02-14-2009, 10:06 PM

The economy will improve, but this bill will have NOTHING to do with it.

Which, if the economy does improve, will be impossible to prove or disprove. Esoteric arguments 99% of people can't understand will be invoked for both positions.

And the same will happen if the economy doesn't improve. Obama eventually will get either credit or blame, as is appropriate; he's da man, now. Unemployment soared during Reagan's first two years, and it took him two more years to bring it back to the level he inherited. He was successful at blaming Carter for the first two years, and equally successful in claiming credit for the second two. In both instances, there was an amalgam of some truth with some falsehood (world oil prices, over which Reagan had absolutely no influence, fluctuated greatly in his favor in 1982, for instance).

A major reason for all this is that so much of economic matters fluctuate on complex and often irrational psychology, very hard to predict. I think the stimulus may put a floor under the slide for a while, and the psychology of that alone will likely work in Obama's favor. For a while. How long? Impossible to predict right now.

Republicans didn't vote for it mainly out of fear of their own Republican voters, who ain't real happy with 'em right now. They will likely see a large number of new faces emerge to challenge incumbents in 2010, and none of them wanted "voted for Obama's stimulus" plastered over a bull's-eye on their backs.

For his part, Obama felt he needed to get something done, quick. He tried to get Republican support, discovered that no matter what he proposed, there wouldn't be any, so he shrugged and went ahead. Now we'll see.

caw

benbradley

02-14-2009, 10:11 PM

the repubs had absolutely no problem throwing trillions of dollars at iraq, and had spent about $7.6 tril on stimulus programs before obama stepped in. (we are now at the total cost being $9.7 tril (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok))

there are fundemental problems on both sides of this debate, the ideologies are equally flawed, but when it comes down to it, i would rather they wasted money on civic programs and big, failing banks rather than military contractors and big, failing banks.

It has always amazed me that when the Repubs spend on pet programs it's OK but when the Dems spend it's called a waste of money.

Richard
It's true, there's a great deal of difference of opinion across the aisle on how to grow the government.:rant:
Let's all hope it works--I hate to imagine what we're going to try next if it doesn't.
The US Government paying off loans by selling nuclear weapons to Middle East countries the highest bidders? I'm sure some spook palace like the CIA could do this and keep it quiet.
I'm of the opinion that these grants will help, even though I think there were better ways to stimulate the economy.
There was a bill from a Texas congressman to do a tax holiday, letting individual workers decide how to spend their thousands rather than the Government creating money out of thin air taking a loan and then deciding where it should go. That flew like a lead DU balloon.
The infrastructure that receives the money, ideally, will use it to buy goods and services. This will create demand, and demand creates jobs.
So my best bet as an entrepenuer is to set up a donut stand next to a bridge project.
Fixing Social Security would have probably done a lot more to stabilize our economy in the long run, though. It makes no sense that Social Security money is not invested. As the system stands, it is merely creating fear. The money is deducted from paycheques, no matter what, and no one is really sure that they'll get back what they put in.
Talk about fear, many people see the the Federal Government as being a lot safer than any private investment.

True. If the plan succeeds, Obama and the dems will get all the credit no matter how they voted. So they're banking on the hope that it will fail. This makes them now the party of hope.

And odds are on their side. Two years from now, things may be the same or even worse, no matter what the government tries to do. It's not at all clear that anything will work.
That's "good news" for the Republicans, who will surely benefit from the backlash in the 2010 Congressional elections. It could be 1994 all over again.
The basic idea of the stimulus is that we have to try something, but I think even those who support the bill have grave doubts about its effectiveness.

That was a bailout.

Try and get your infamous, history making, earth shaking, booty quaking E-Street...oh..sorry..... uhh....spending packages, that people will talk about for for generations, straight.
All people will remember, if anything, is "The Federal Government spent a shitload of money in 2008, in Bush's last year in office [there was also a few tril in the ongoing Iraq thing, but that was spread out over several years, not obligated all at once with the stroke of a pen]. The Federal Government also spent a shitload of money in 2009, in Obama's first month in office." Or that's it so far - there's plenty of time for things to change!

I need to stock up on popcorn to see how the rest of 2009 goes.
:popcorn:

robeiae

02-14-2009, 10:33 PM

Republicans didn't vote for it mainly out of fear of their own Republican voters, who ain't real happy with 'em right now. They will likely see a large number of new faces emerge to challenge incumbents in 2010, and none of them wanted "voted for Obama's stimulus" plastered over a bull's-eye on their backs.So Dems voted for it because why? They honestly thought it was the right thing to do? While Repubs voted against it for political reasons, alone? Do I have that about right? Blah.

How about this, instead: Republicans voted against it because they knew it for what it was. A pork-fest. Dems voted for it because they knew it for what it was. A pork-fest that would benefit them, personally.

Heath Shuler voted against it, btw. (so did six other Dems in the House)

For his part, Obama felt he needed to get something done, quick. He tried to get Republican support, discovered that no matter what he proposed, there wouldn't be any, so he shrugged and went ahead. Now we'll see.
Bullshit. He hasn't read the bill, either. And neither he nor the Dem leadership in Congress wanted any Republican input, unless it was in the form of head-nodding, ass-kissing stupidity.

rugcat

02-14-2009, 10:45 PM

- the national parks got 2.3 billion dollars (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/29/stimulus-includes-plum-lawmakers-son/) in the stimulus. their entire annual budget is roughly equal to that. (that's a fancy way of saying they got a shitload of money)It’s interesting that this particular provision should rouse your ire. If nothing else, it shows how far apart everyone still is on what is appropriate and what is not.

The national parks, once free and a jewel of our country, have been understaffed and underfunded for years. There aren’t enough park rangers to monitor the parks, much less do anything proactive. Facilities and infrastructure are crumbling and unsafe. It’s a national disgrace. We are losing one of the country's greatest treasures.

Finally, some money is injected into the system, which will benefit all of us for years to come – one quarter of one percent of the stimulus package.

And not only is the preservation of our parks system a good thing, it also provides those very jobs we are so worried about. Construction on access roads and buildings. People to man lodges and concession stands, etc. These are contract workers, not government employees.

And what’s wrong with providing jobs for government employees, anyway? I know park rangers who have had thirty year careers with the parks service. They do great and valuable work, and add immeasurably to society. Do their jobs have no value? Are they to be vilified as mere government bureaucrats, unworthy because they don’t work for the private sector? Screw them -- they should get real jobs.

Great yogi cartoon, btw. A nice visual demonstrating the smug contempt that many conservatives hold for just about everything except commerce and the accumulation of wealth. I'm hoping in rob's case he's simply making a gentle joke.

robeiae

02-14-2009, 10:51 PM

Great yogi cartoon, btw. A nice visual demonstrating the smug contempt that many conservatives hold for just about everything except commerce and the accumulation of wealth. I'm hoping in rob's case he's simply making a gentle joke.
I can't speak for William, rugcat. But I can speak for myself.

And with regard to the National Parks, I have no problem with upping their budgets to some degree--maybe even a huge degree. But IT'S NOT GOING TO STIMULATE JACK SHIT.

Pass a friggin "National Parks Rebuilding Act."

What pisses me off is that this stuff is being sold to the public as part of a "stimulus package," when anyone with a clue knows that it is no such thing. And THAT is what my comment and the cartoon was intended to demonstrate.

rugcat

02-14-2009, 11:03 PM

And with regard to the National Parks, I have no problem with upping their budgets to some degree--maybe even a huge degree. But IT'S NOT GOING TO STIMULATE JACK SHIT.. .
. . .What pisses me off is that this stuff is being sold to the public as part of a "stimulus package," when anyone with a clue knows that it is no such thing. And THAT is what my comment and the cartoon was intended to demonstrate.I think it actually will be helpful in at least a minor way, and ultimately be a good thing regardless of the effect on the economy.

But I do take your point.

blacbird

02-15-2009, 12:29 AM

So Dems voted for it because why? They honestly thought it was the right thing to do?

Nowhere did I say that, but this is certainly not the first time you choose to insert word and thought that fit your views into my posts.

A lot of Dems undoubtedly voted for it because they were behaving like sheep, at least as a first priority. But the post I responded to made a point about Republicans voting against it, so that's what I responded to.

In both cases, I suspect politics of being the principal motivator, and belief about the pros and cons of the stimulus package being secondary to that. It's easy cover for legislators in both parties right now.

That clarification make you happy, Robs?

caw

William Haskins

02-15-2009, 12:58 AM

It’s interesting that this particular provision should rouse your ire. If nothing else, it shows how far apart everyone still is on what is appropriate and what is not.

i have no problem with it, if by spring, there are tens of thousands of new park rangers and maintenance workers. something tells me it won't be this.

...the accumulation of wealth.

something tells me it will be this.

robeiae

02-15-2009, 01:54 AM

Nowhere did I say that, but this is certainly not the first time you choose to insert word and thought that fit your views into my posts.

A lot of Dems undoubtedly voted for it because they were behaving like sheep, at least as a first priority. But the post I responded to made a point about Republicans voting against it, so that's what I responded to.

In both cases, I suspect politics of being the principal motivator, and belief about the pros and cons of the stimulus package being secondary to that. It's easy cover for legislators in both parties right now.

That clarification make you happy, Robs?

caw
Happy? No. Content? Somewhat.

cethklein

02-15-2009, 02:32 AM

who says it's okay?

No one, but I also don't recall hearing too many people say it WASN'T ok either. (Well Michael Moore did but I'm talking about people whose opinions actually matter.)

William Haskins

02-15-2009, 02:43 AM

there were a large number of people, on both ends of the political spectrum, who decried bush's spending.

benbradley

02-15-2009, 03:04 AM

...For his part, Obama felt he needed to get something done, quick. He tried to get Republican support, discovered that no matter what he proposed, there wouldn't be any, so he shrugged and went ahead. Now we'll see.

caw
You're not cynical enough. ;)

Obama and the Demos saw the tide of public opinion turning strongly and quickly against this thing, and so they hurried it through before it got so bad not even the democrats could vote for it without going against too many of their constituents.

billythrilly7th

02-15-2009, 03:20 AM

I've watched this five times...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

...and I can't find anything in there about handwritten notes in margins.

And things scribbled out and replaced. And pieces of the bill that the President doesn't even know about being in there. And no one apparently even reading the thing!

Ummmm....who is actually running this country? I asked earlier in a different thread "who ACTUALLY writes these things?"

There are scribbles. And cross offs.... 100 Million. 150 million(written in pen).

What the fuck is going on?

Who gets to do the cross off? A congressional intern? Are people notified?

What in the hell is happening in the hightest levels of our government?

This isn't an Obama thing.

I just happened to see a report on ABC ten minutes ago. I'm sure it's happened a thousand times before.

WTF?

My-Immortal

02-16-2009, 05:59 PM

I wonder what will happen to the interest rates of personal loans, mortgage loans, car loans etc when the little people have to compete with the US govt's attempts to borrow all this money...

I'm guessing that like most things, when there is a lot of competition, the price is going to go up.

Was there anything in the 'stimulus' package about providing a lower mortgage rate for homebuyers / homeowners looking to refi?

RickN

02-16-2009, 07:23 PM

I wonder how the bill's creation of the goverment health database to track your medical care will stimulate the economy?

robeiae

02-16-2009, 09:27 PM

New jobs for data-entry clerks?

Tirjasdyn

02-16-2009, 11:33 PM

New jobs for data-entry clerks?

So it's going to general millions of 8$ an hour jobs?

My-Immortal

02-16-2009, 11:47 PM

So it's going to general millions of 8$ an hour jobs?

787 billion dollars to create 4 million jobs...almost $200,000 spent per job.

$8.00/hour for 2000 hours a year....$16,000/year.

So does that means 4 million people will now have $8 hour jobs for 12 1/2 years!

No...wait...there's that extra $400 dollars this year (just this year or will it continue for many years to come?).

Doing the math....$400 dollars divided by 2000 hours.... an extra .20 per hour.

So, it's really 4 million $8.20/ hour jobs, this year at least.

:)

Phoebe H

02-17-2009, 12:24 AM

I wonder how the bill's creation of the goverment health database to track your medical care will stimulate the economy?

Two ways, assuming they do it right.

The first way is short term, by hiring the people to actually perform the records conversion, and buying the equipment needed for the conversion.

Long term, it will reduce overall costs for health care, which is a smaller stimulus for everybody who uses health care. (If they do a crap job, by the way, then the long term stimulus doesn't happen.)

I used to work in Records Management, and I've seen where this type of project can reduce costs pretty significantly in the long run, if it's done right. Both by reducing operating costs *and* raising the overall capacity of information you can handle.

I honestly haven't understood why the economic benefits of this program aren't immediately obvious. It seems like a no-brainer to me. The only way a stimulus program has more than a short-term effect is if you build systems that provide a long-term economic benefit -- which is something that this should do.

rugcat

02-17-2009, 12:36 AM

I honestly haven't understood why the economic benefits of this program aren't immediately obvious. It seems like a no-brainer to me. The only way a stimulus program has more than a short-term effect is if you build systems that provide a long-term economic benefit -- which is something that this should do.It's much easier to cynically mock every attempt made to improve the economic situation.

robeiae

02-17-2009, 12:37 AM

You're assuming not only that they will do it right but that they actually CAN do it right.

They can't. A new bureaucracy is not going to reduce costs, especially when that bureaucracy is a government entity and is not a revenue-producing bureaucracy.

So, there's nothing obvious about how this will stimulate the economy, since it won't. In neither the short nor long term.

The idea that a spending spree by the government leads to short term economic growth--and economic growth represents stimulation--is based on the simplistic formula, oft expressed, that "x work needs to be done, requiring y people, therefore jobs are created and the economy is stimulated." It's a crock. Might as well just send those y people a check and skip the work entirely, if the formula was actually correct.

The problem with it is that it takes as a given the idea that work--by its very nature--is a stimulant for growth. But its not. The work needs to be both productive and necessary, within the economy. Then, actual growth can occur. It's the difference between building a bridge to nowhere and building a bridge that connects two hubs of commerce, thereby allowing commerce to increase/be more efficient. The first leads to zero growth, though it does create jobs. The second creates jobs AND leads to growth. It's actually an economic stimulant.

But the federal government--and this bill--isn't the place to go to determine where to spend monies. Why? Because the government's methodology involves pork, by definition. The private sector needs to demand the projects. And when the demand is high enough, the projects will happen--through private initiative, more often than not.

This healthcare nonsense tied to a "stimulus" bill is one big lie.

robeiae

02-17-2009, 12:38 AM

It's much easier to cynically mock every attempt made to improve the economic situation.
I don't need to mock it. I can rip it apart with the reality of economics.

;)

James81

02-17-2009, 12:40 AM

this is one of the biggest fiascos since the stimulus package of '08.

That wasn't a stimulus package.

James81

02-17-2009, 12:41 AM

787 billion dollars to create 4 million jobs...almost $200,000 spent per job.

$8.00/hour for 2000 hours a year....$16,000/year.

So does that means 4 million people will now have $8 hour jobs for 12 1/2 years!

No...wait...there's that extra $400 dollars this year (just this year or will it continue for many years to come?).

Doing the math....$400 dollars divided by 2000 hours.... an extra .20 per hour.

So, it's really 4 million $8.20/ hour jobs, this year at least.

:)

The people working to build the jobs I design and send out work in construction.

Construction workers make upwards of about $30 an hour.

William Haskins

02-17-2009, 12:47 AM

they might get done cheaper since they'll favor unskilled workers.

My-Immortal

02-17-2009, 12:49 AM

The people working to build the jobs I design and send out work in construction.

Construction workers make upwards of about $30 an hour.

And on average, this bill will spend nearly $200,000 to 'create' that job too...

My-Immortal

02-17-2009, 01:06 AM

It's much easier to cynically mock every attempt made to improve the economic situation.

It's not possible to mock EVERY attempt to improve the economy cause the Dems will only allow the attempts they promote. They're playing the same role Bush did when he was Pres -- either you're with me or against me. So many Dems have come out with statements such as: if you don't vote for this, then you'd rather sit by and do nothing to improve the economy.

What?

But I guess that makes for a better sound bite than, 'we're in the majority now and we don't have to listen to anything they say.'

And congratulating the Repub Senators for their 'patriotic' vote...?

Are we to assume now that one can only be 'patriotic' if you follow the Dem party line? Geez, where did we hear that load of bull before? Last time it was the Repub party line and it was soundly rejected here. Where's the condemnation for that bit of what is and what isn't 'patriotic' now?

Same crap, different party.

James81

02-17-2009, 01:10 AM

And on average, this bill will spend nearly $200,000 to 'create' that job too...

It takes money to make money.

My-Immortal

02-17-2009, 01:21 AM

It takes money to make money.

Could have done a lottery instead. Give 4 million taxpayers $200,000 to put toward their mortgage, bills, new car, stuff -- require that the money be spent. Or better yet, lump in that TARP money and now they could have given 7.5 million taxpayers $200,000....

Heard there might be a TARP 3....1.5 Trillion. Hmmm...that's another 7.5 million.

Bottom line, they could just 'give' 15 million taxpayers (almost 10% of total---though perhaps they could have gone with taxpayers making under a certain amount of money) $200,000 to 'spend'. Banks, big business, the wealthy, states through sales tax....all of the money would have eventually cycled upwards to others....starting at the bottom and working its way up.

Instead, it's basically given to the upper layer of society in hopes it will trickle down to the poorer.

Where have we heard that before?

rugcat

02-17-2009, 01:24 AM

Are we to assume now that one can only be 'patriotic' if you follow the Dem party line? Geez, where did we hear that load of bull before? Last time it was the Repub party line and it was soundly rejected here. Where's the condemnation for that bit of what is and what isn't 'patriotic' now?

Same crap, different party.The difference is that no amount of compromise gained the support of even a single Republican in the house. No stimulus bill will ever meet their approval. The only thing they will ever vote for is a bill that cuts taxes, period.

In California, the legislature is unable to pass a budget and the state government is on the verge of collapse. The reason? Despite drastic spending cuts, even in such valuable programs as medical and social services for the elderly, there is no way to function without some tax increases as well. Republicans have blocked this. They will never vote for a bill that increases taxes by any amount, no matter what the consequences to the public are from a government in financial default.

It's ideology run wild.

sassandgroove

02-17-2009, 01:27 AM

No stimulus bill will ever meet their approval.We can't know that. This is not a 'stimulus' bill. It is a spending bill. AN actual stimulus might get a few repub votes.

rugcat

02-17-2009, 01:29 AM

I don't need to mock it. I can rip it apart with the reality of economics.

;)I admire your certitude. There are some very bright people who have spent their lives studying economics, and working in financial fields. There are often differing conclusions they come to, but they're not stupid.

Except, according to you, they are. Apparently, you are the only one who understands economic theory. Those who disagree with you are simply clueless and wrong.

I'm surprised you weren't vetted for Sec of the Treasury. Clearly no one else could do the job as well.

sassandgroove

02-17-2009, 01:30 AM

geez Rugcat, that's a bit harsh.

robeiae

02-17-2009, 01:31 AM

The difference is that no amount of compromise gained the support of even a single Republican in the house. No stimulus bill will ever meet their approval. The only thing they will ever vote for is a bill that cuts taxes, period.
Well you know, seven Dems voted against it in the House, too.

But what's there to compromise on with this bill? Nobody--in either party--really knew everything that was in it. It was a hodge-podge of initiatives and projects forced through as a "stimulus package," imo.

And per our converastion on the National Parks portion, I'm absolutely amazed at the willingness of people to accept the idea that it all was about "stimulus."

Many of the things in this bill are valid initiatives that members of Congress wanted (though I happen to oppose, personally) and could have been presented as bills in their own right. But they were tacked on to this monstrosity in order to what? Stimulate the economy? Bah! They were tacked on in order to insure their passage and stifle any debate, obviously.

So, where THE HELL is the transparency we were promised?

rugcat

02-17-2009, 01:32 AM

We can't know that. This is not a 'stimulus' bill. It is a spending bill. AN actual stimulus might get a few repub votes.How do you provide economic stimulus without spending money? Oh, that's right -- tax cuts.

That wouldn't be a tax cut bill; it would be a stimulus bill. Yes, I'm sure the GOP could get behind that.

My-Immortal

02-17-2009, 01:33 AM

1)The difference is that no amount of compromise gained the support of even a single Republican in the house. No stimulus bill will ever meet their approval. The only thing they will ever vote for is a bill that cuts taxes, period.

In California, the legislature is unable to pass a budget and the state government is on the verge of collapse. The reason? Despite drastic spending cuts, even in such valuable programs as medical and social services for the elderly, there is no way to function without some tax increases as well. Republicans have blocked this. 2)They will never vote for a bill that increases taxes by any amount, no matter what the consequences to the public are from a government in financial default.

It's ideology run wild.

Bolding/numbering mine:

1) How much compromise do you think was actually offered?

2) I guess they learned their lesson too well with the first Bush and his 'read my lips, no new taxes' bit.

I'm not saying the Repubs are 'right' -- but the whole do this and you're 'patriotic', do that and you're not, seems like the same old crap that was disliked here and elsewhere when Bush/Repubs said it before.

Is it okay to use that line now without being a hypocrite?

robeiae

02-17-2009, 01:36 AM

I admire your certitude. There are some very bright people who have spent their lives studying economics, and working in financial fields. There are often differing conclusions they come to, but they're not stupid.As YOU just pointed out, it's about ideology.

Except, according to you, they are. Apparently, you are the only one who understands economic theory. Those who disagree with you are simply clueless and wrong.
Anyone claiming that this healthcare initiative will be an "economic stimulant" is 1) clueless and wrong or 2) lying. How's that?

Honestly, do you actually believe it's about stimulating the economy? Do you actually believe it will do any such thing?

Regardless, I can cite the same list of economists I did in the "Presser" thread. Hundreds of them. And they all agree with me. Who disagrees with me? A bunch of politicians and their lapdogs.

I feel pretty secure, here.
I'm surprised you weren't vetted for Sec of the Treasury. Clearly no one else could do the job as well.
You're probably right. Put my name in for the job, would ya?

My-Immortal

02-17-2009, 01:36 AM

I'm surprised you weren't vetted for Sec of the Treasury. Clearly no one else could do the job as well.

Yeah, but Rob probably paid his taxes...on time...

<shrugs>

robeiae

02-17-2009, 01:42 AM

How do you provide economic stimulus without spending money? Oh, that's right -- tax cuts.

That wouldn't be a tax cut bill; it would be a stimulus bill. Yes, I'm sure the GOP could get behind that.
Btw, the last time I checked, the Bush admin spent money domestically like it was going out of style. If that's what stimulates the economy, why is it in the toilet?

dgiharris

02-17-2009, 01:46 AM

I believe that the package is a good idea that will do a lot of good and fix many of those 800 lb gorrilla problems that we all know exist but have (for some reason) just ignored for the last few decades.

But ultimately, the package will not bring about a solution because it does not address the root problem.

Btw, the last time I checked, the Bush admin spent money domestically like it was going out of style. If that's what stimulates the economy, why is it in the toilet?

IMHO, the root problem is the Corporations, Wall St., and both political parties fostering an environment of fiscal irresponsibility by those who have all the financial power.

The SEC and Fed Reserve is a joke. The Wall St. types operate with near impunity and serve no one but themselves. Corporations are exporting a large amount of our wealth and jobs overseas in this new 'global economy' and too many Republican types are hiding behind the 'faith' of the invisible hand and letting that faith blind them to the obvious truth. Exporting jobs, materials, resources, etc HURT the local economy. PERIOD. Duh.

Combine all of that and you have the recipe for our current economic disaster and unfortunately the 'package' does not address those root causes so ultimately, it will fail. (even though I support it).

Now, if we fix those root problems + have the package then our economy will fix itself and be stronger.

*sigh*

But it seems too many of us are blinded by our political ideologies. Both Dems and the GOP.

the other party is evil, stupid, etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.

God, we are stupid monkeys.

Mel...

My-Immortal

02-17-2009, 01:49 AM

Btw, the last time I checked, the Bush admin spent money domestically like it was going out of style. If that's what stimulates the economy, why is it in the toilet?

I'm just guessing here, but maybe because people got in the habit of spending more than they earned, then borrowed more money, and then spent it, and then borrowed more, and spent it...until finally, they ran out of credit, their cards were all maxed and they realized, holy shit, how the hell am I going to pay off all this debt?

People gotta realize that only governments can keep up that kind of spending...!

Right?

Or are we as a nation on the verge of the 'holy shit, how the hell are we going to pay off all this debt' yet?

Nah...probably not.

Take care all -

Phoebe H

02-17-2009, 02:05 AM

You're assuming not only that they will do it right but that they actually CAN do it right.

They can't. A new bureaucracy is not going to reduce costs, especially when that bureaucracy is a government entity and is not a revenue-producing bureaucracy.

You've stated this as a fact, when it is, of course, a belief. A new bureaucracy *can* reduce costs, if it eliminates an old one. Do I know that this *will* work? Of course not. But it *can* work.

The problem with it is that it takes as a given the idea that work--by its very nature--is a stimulant for growth. But its not. The work needs to be both productive and necessary, within the economy. Then, actual growth can occur. It's the difference between building a bridge to nowhere and building a bridge that connects two hubs of commerce, thereby allowing commerce to increase/be more efficient. The first leads to zero growth, though it does create jobs. The second creates jobs AND leads to growth. It's actually an economic stimulant.

I agree with this completely.

But the federal government--and this bill--isn't the place to go to determine where to spend monies. Why? Because the government's methodology involves pork, by definition. The private sector needs to demand the projects. And when the demand is high enough, the projects will happen--through private initiative, more often than not.

See, to me this is circular reasoning. You are saying that everything that the government spends money on is *by definition* wasteful. Sometimes it is. But sometimes it isn't.

And as you well know, the private sector is only going to demand projects that give an existing company a measurably acceptable ROI. By definition, projects that help an entire industry are going to be disadvantaged by private funding formulas, because they do not produce a competitive advantage against others in the industry. These are exactly the kinds of projects that the government should be taking on, because they cause an overall benefit to the system, even though their benefits aren't concentrated enough for one particular private entity to profit from.

The question that needs to be answered is: what percentage of this money will be spent on projects with a net long-term benefit. You seem to be arguing for 0%, and if you really believe that, then I suppose we've got nothing to talk about. I'm certainly not arguing that it will be 100% well spent...but it doesn't have to be for the stimulus to be a net positive.

I don't know how much they have to get right for this to be a net positive, and I don't know how good the current process is at figuring it out. I figure Obama and the Democrats have earned at least one shot to try and get it right, and let us do the grading after the fact.

From my personal knowledge of the situation, I think that converting medical records to electronic form has the *potential* to be a good area to tackle. (By your analogy, they have identified two urban centers that ought to be linked -- this isn't a bridge to nowhere.) They could screw the process up royally, but now we're talking about implementation, and *that* depends on the bid process and the contracting which haven't even started yet.

rugcat

02-17-2009, 02:13 AM

Btw, the last time I checked, the Bush admin spent money domestically like it was going out of style. If that's what stimulates the economy, why is it in the toilet?The last time I checked, the Bush admin was all about tax cuts. If that's what stimulates the economy, why is it in the toilet?

blacbird

02-17-2009, 02:18 AM

Anybody wanna talk about the billion dollars-a-day (or whatever it now is) we're spending fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, wait, I forgot. That doesn't count.

caw

robeiae

02-17-2009, 02:20 AM

You've stated this as a fact, when it is, of course, a belief. A new bureaucracy *can* reduce costs, if it eliminates an old one. Do I know that this *will* work? Of course not. But it *can* work.
What bureaucracy is being eliminated?

See, to me this is circular reasoning. You are saying that everything that the government spends money on is *by definition* wasteful. Sometimes it is. But sometimes it isn't.
No, I'm saying that when the feds look to spend money--which is what they are doing, here--the METHODOLOGY is pork. See, sometimes the feds HAVE to spend money. That's a different thing. But when they're told "look, we gotta spend a shit load of money to stimulate the economy," how do they go about it? Individual reps say "here, spend it on this!" Pork.
And as you well know, the private sector is only going to demand projects that give an existing company a measurably acceptable ROI. By definition, projects that help an entire industry are going to be disadvantaged by private funding formulas, because they do not produce a competitive advantage against others in the industry.No, that's not true. The public is the private sector, as well. So, when there's a demand for, say, housing (;)), there is a response from private concerns. And this creates needs for the government to fill, as well (ala infrastructure). But having the government say--for the most part--"let's build some infrastructure because Jimbo said his district needs some" is exactly not a response to such a need. The "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska is the quintessential example.
The question that needs to be answered is: what percentage of this money will be spent on projects with a net long-term benefit. You seem to be arguing for 0%, and if you really believe that, then I suppose we've got nothing to talk about. I'm certainly not arguing that it will be 100% well spent...but it doesn't have to be for the stimulus to be a net positive.I think it approaches zero, with regard to stimulating the economy.

But regardless, the bigger issue for me is that it's ludicrous (and--in some cases--dishonest) to look at these things and claim they're about "stimulating" the economy. They're not. In the best cases, that's just a hoped-for secondary benefit.

I don't know how much they have to get right for this to be a net positive, and I don't know how good the current process is at figuring it out. I figure Obama and the Democrats have earned at least one shot to try and get it right, and let us do the grading after the fact.
I--for one--would be a little happier about it all if they had actually read the bill before cramming it down our throats, and maybe--as was promised, then ripped away--given us a chance to read it all, too.
From my personal knowledge of the situation, I think that converting medical records to electronic form has the *potential* to be a good area to tackle. (By your analogy, they have identified two urban centers that ought to be linked -- this isn't a bridge to nowhere.) They could screw the process up royally, but now we're talking about implementation, and *that* depends on the bid process and the contracting which haven't even started yet.
Two issues:

1) It's a stepping stone, nothing more
2) I really don't like the idea of the government keeping those records, to begin with.

But either way, it's not gonna stimulate the economy. There's nothing in it that will lead to growth. Imo.

William Haskins

02-17-2009, 02:20 AM

this plan has almost 300 billion in tax cuts. might want to figure out which side you're on.

blacbird

02-17-2009, 02:22 AM

this plan has almost 300 billion in tax cuts.

Which was, at least in part, an attempt to get some Republican votes on board. Didn't work, of course.

caw

Williebee

02-17-2009, 02:29 AM

Phoebe, you will discover, if you hang around here a bit, that Robvowel does not, as a rule, do opinions. He is certain what he believes is fact. The frightening thing is, this does not always make him wrong. His certainty is sometimes not only well thought out, but correct. (I have to go wash my mouth with soap now.)

That said, as pointed out, EVERY Republican voted against the stimulus bill. So, either EVERY Republican could see something in it that most Democrats couldn't, or they just voted along party lines. The simple math and incredibly long odds would indicate that the content of the bill wasn't the reason for the vote. It's partisanship that leaves the rest of the house and senate with very few courses of action. And, it isn't honest representation of their constituents.

ETA: IMHO :)
Further ETA: Probably should point out that, Dems who voted for it just because of the party line aren't any better.

robeiae

02-17-2009, 02:29 AM

The last time I checked, the Bush admin was all about tax cuts. If that's what stimulates the economy, why is it in the toilet?
So, you're gonna dismiss reality here, are you?

Did or did not domestic spending go up under Bush? Here's a link for the first four years: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

And hey, maybe the economy is in the toilet because everyone knows the tax cuts are going to be repealed...

Regardless, the problems that caused the current situation are being tabled, in favor of a spending spree. That's obvious.

And that spending spree is about getting a bunch of stuff passed that has nothing to do with the economy. That's also obvious.

You want to defend it, knock yourself out. But recognize that any calls for "fiscal responsibility" and "controlling the deficit" are gone, for the next fifty years, minimum. Recognize that the limited success Clinton had in actually having a balanced budget is nothing but a footnote, now. And recognize that Obama has effectively abandoned just about every principle he claimed to hold, when it comes to transparency and accountability.

rugcat

02-17-2009, 02:31 AM

Which was, at least in part, an attempt to get some Republican votes on board. Didn't work, of course.Yes, that's the compromise i was talking about, that moved no one.

I'm not against some tax cuts. What i am against is the old bankrupt ideology that says tax breaks for corporations is what will fuel the economy -- that somehow, increasing Exxon's already huge profits will "trickle down" to the rest of us.

robeiae

02-17-2009, 02:32 AM

this plan has almost 300 billion in tax cuts. might want to figure out which side you're on.
Everybody gets $13 dollars back.

blacbird

02-17-2009, 02:33 AM

sassandgroove

02-17-2009, 02:36 AM

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath. geez people.

robeiae

02-17-2009, 02:38 AM

Phoebe, you will discover, if you hang around here a bit, that Robvowel does not, as a rule, do opinions.
No, no, no. I do opinions. I put "Imo" when I do them. Mac told me I had to. I try to remember the notation whenever it's called for, but I don't always remember, since I'm just a fruit pie.

robeiae

02-17-2009, 02:41 AM

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath. geez people.
Not to worry.

There's nothing to be done about it all, now. The fucker's been passed and will be signed in short order.

I've put in some orders for extra cases of baked beans and canned peaches, and I spent the weekend cleaning out the bunker. It's all good.

Williebee

02-17-2009, 02:41 AM

Miss Phoebe-

It's probably also important to point out that many of us have been around here, chewing on one another, for a bit. We've become accustomed to a certain, aggressive level of "bickering" as my Uncle LW used to say.

The occasional walk around the block usually calms things down.

ETA: Or a good dessert. Did someone say pie?

Williebee

02-17-2009, 02:46 AM

One other, sort of related observation? The MSM kept talking about how fractured and broken the Republican Party is... How they so badly need a new vision and such. There was big news when the party had it's high priced conference to pick new leadership, and what a difficult task the new leader was going to face.

But they sure put a united, unbroken face on that stimulus vote, didn't they? Maybe they aren't so fractured after all.

rugcat

02-17-2009, 02:50 AM

Did or did not domestic spending go up under Bush? Not all spending is equivalent. Bush's domestic spending transferred money from the middle class to the rich. That didn't help at all.

A perfect example was the medicare prescription bill, the one that was written by the pharmaceutical industry lobby and prohibited the government from negotiating lower drug prices. Billions of extra dollars were collected through taxes and given to pump up the profits of the pharma industry, which was already onr of the most profitable industries in the world.

As opposed to, say, a program which spends money to streamline medical bureaucracy. Right now, insurance payments and medical expenses are crippling many Americans. If medical costs could be gotten somewhat under control, it would make a huge difference in the average citizen -- enabling them to afford other things -- like food, or even consider buying a needed car.

Whether it will actually work is problematical, but there's a huge difference in spending money in an attempt to solve a real problem (and if successful, help the economy) and spending money to further enrich wealthy corporations.

Lets not forget that the Iraq war, which diverted money that could have been spent on things like schools and infrastructure here, was a huge stimulus package -- for Halliburton. It's not just about what the government spends; it's about who benefits from that spending.

robeiae

02-17-2009, 03:04 AM

Not all spending is equivalent. Bush's domestic spending transferred money from the middle class to the rich. That didn't help at all.

A perfect example was the medicare prescription bill, the one that was written by the pharmaceutical industry lobby and prohibited the government from negotiating lower drug prices. Billions of extra dollars were collected through taxes and given to pump up the profits of the pharma industry, which was already onr of the most profitable industries in the world.

As opposed to, say, a program which spends money to streamline medical bureaucracy. Right now, insurance payments and medical expenses are crippling many Americans. If medical costs could be gotten somewhat under control, it would make a huge difference in the average citizen -- enabling them to afford other things -- like food, or even consider buying a needed car.

Whether it will actually work is problematical, but there's a huge difference in spending money in an attempt to solve a real problem (and if successful, help the economy) and spending money to further enrich wealthy corporations.
Well you know, someone's gonna get that money to do that "streamlining." It's still just moving money around.

And "big pharm" employees people, too. All kinds of people.

And this is just one little bit of the bill. Do you believe that every element was designed specifically to NOT operate in the manner of Bush's prescription bill? Because guess what? That's how they all operate.

Regardless, your claim re Bush's domestic spending is demonstrably false. Much of it was simple increases in extant programs. To put it another way: Bush didn't do jack about domestic spending. He let it go unchecked--until the last year or so of his Presidency.

My-Immortal

02-17-2009, 04:03 AM

The last time I checked, the Bush admin was all about tax cuts. If that's what stimulates the economy, why is it in the toilet?

Didn't Obama make some campaign promise about cutting taxes for 95% of us? So, was he wrong to say that?

My-Immortal

02-17-2009, 04:22 AM

Which was, at least in part, an attempt to get some Republican votes on board. Didn't work, of course.

caw

I'm trying to remember the song....'a little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down...'

Seems like there was just too much pork....er....medicine and not enough sugar.

But you know, if they really wanted to get some Repub votes, and since this bill honestly looks as if it was cobbled together like Frankenstein's monster why not just do this:

Dem to Rep: Look, Obama says we can make up a wish list totally about 1 Trillion Dollars but hell, we couldn't probably get more out of him. We got you outnumbered roughly 60-40 and though we don't really need your votes to pass this beast, let's make a deal. We get to pack this sucker with a good 600-700 billion dollars of pork, you guys can put in 300-400 billion, but you gotta vote 'yea'!

Rep to Dem: But we want some tax cuts and to get some help to people with bad mortgages too.

Dem to Rep: Fine. For every tax cut you get, we get an equal amount of pork, plus say, 10 percent.

Rep to Dem: But, who's going to pay for all this?

Dem to Rep: The rich.

Rep to Dem: But...

Dem to Rep: What do you care? You'll be dead before the bill is due.

Final Bill: Dems put in a good 1.2 Trillion of pork. Reps put in 300 billion of pork + 500 billion tax cut/mortgage help.

Total package 2 Trillion - bipartisan approval and Pelosi gets to save her endangered mice.

:)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm dreaming.

Okay, back to the 'serious' discussion.

rugcat

02-17-2009, 04:46 AM

Total package 2 Trillion - bipartisan approval and Pelosi gets to save her endangered mice.A typical distortion. Great sound bite, but totally untrue. It had to do with a bill to preserve wetlands in the SF bay area -- a really important project.

I realize the environment is unimportant to most republicans, esp if it interferes with building more wal mats, but at least be honest about it.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2009/02/13/republicans-flop-on-pelosi-mouse-lie-havent-learned-environmental-lesson.html

rugcat

02-17-2009, 04:49 AM

Didn't Obama make some campaign promise about cutting taxes for 95% of us? So, was he wrong to say that?Sorry. Should have been clearer. Bush was all about cutting taxes on corporations, the rich, capital gains, etc.

I'm all for realistic tax cuts for those earning 50,000 a year, for example.

My-Immortal

02-17-2009, 05:03 AM

rugcat

02-17-2009, 05:32 AM

And before you jump to any conclusions - I didn't say it wasn't a worthy pursuit. I just wonder what it was doing in a stimulus package.That's a different matter, and a different discussion. I was referring to the characterization of the project as "Pelosi gets to save her endangered mice," the republican line that clearly wants to cast it as ridiculous and wasteful in the extreme.

James81

02-17-2009, 05:45 AM

Could have done a lottery instead. Give 4 million taxpayers $200,000 to put toward their mortgage, bills, new car, stuff -- require that the money be spent. Or better yet, lump in that TARP money and now they could have given 7.5 million taxpayers $200,000....

Heard there might be a TARP 3....1.5 Trillion. Hmmm...that's another 7.5 million.

Bottom line, they could just 'give' 15 million taxpayers (almost 10% of total---though perhaps they could have gone with taxpayers making under a certain amount of money) $200,000 to 'spend'. Banks, big business, the wealthy, states through sales tax....all of the money would have eventually cycled upwards to others....starting at the bottom and working its way up.

Instead, it's basically given to the upper layer of society in hopes it will trickle down to the poorer.

Where have we heard that before?

Ok, first of all, the idea of cutting checks to taxpayers is a Bush idea that has been done several times in the past 8 years, and absolutely has the experience of being completely and totally INEFFECTIVE. Anybody who says "why don't they just take the billions of dollars and give it to the taxpayers" needs to look at the Bush stimulus packages throughout the past 8 years and see how ineffective they truly were. In fact, LAST YEAR people started receiving stimulus checks in June and by October the stock market had crashed. How can you say that the "cut the taxpayers a check" is effective when there are so many glaring instances in which they've been ineffective?

Secondly, there is a difference between what you said ("give the money to the upper layer of society in the hopes that it will trickle down") and what this current stimulus package is actually going to do. With what you said, "the upper layer of society" would be the upper 3% (or the "rich"), and that's NOT where this money is going. In THIS bill, this money will be funding government operated programs and sections, where the money HAS to be spent in a certain way. The money HAS to "trickle down" because it HAS to be spent by these government agencies.

Trickle down economics, as you are alluding to, is only a massive failure because when you give tax breaks to the rich expecting them to spend their money or to pass those breaks onto the people below them, you are met with just the opposite. And the reason "trickle down economics" is such a failed economic idea is because the rich are rich BECAUSE they don't spend their money...that's HOW they get rich and STAY rich.

But this stimulus is not aiming toward the rich. This stimulus is going to government programs and agencies who HAVE to spend this money or they will lose it. That's the way government agencies work. If you don't spend the money, you lose it (usually by the end of June...the fiscal year).

And that is why this bill will be more effective than tax breaks for corporations and small businesses. Because giving those people tax breaks are no garauntee that the money will flow through them. In fact, just the opposite TENDS to occur--they hold onto the money and just get richer.

robeiae

02-17-2009, 06:20 AM

Ok, first of all, the idea of cutting checks to taxpayers is a Bush idea that has been done several times in the past 8 years, and absolutely has the experience of being completely and totally INEFFECTIVE. Anybody who says "why don't they just take the billions of dollars and give it to the taxpayers" needs to look at the Bush stimulus packages throughout the past 8 years and see how ineffective they truly were. In fact, LAST YEAR people started receiving stimulus checks in June and by October the stock market had crashed. How can you say that the "cut the taxpayers a check" is effective when there are so many glaring instances in which they've been ineffective?
A Bush idea? Hardly.

Regardless, you're missing the point. If you are going to claim that government spending "stimulates" the economy simply on the basis that it creates jobs and puts money in people's pockets, than there is no reason that stimulus checks would not be every bit as effective.

And note that you've offered no argument to counter this, just said stimulus checks "don't work." Your evidence to show that--btw--is flawed.

Of course, I opposed stimulus checks then and I do now.
Secondly, there is a difference between what you said ("give the money to the upper layer of society in the hopes that it will trickle down") and what this current stimulus package is actually going to do. With what you said, "the upper layer of society" would be the upper 3% (or the "rich"), and that's NOT where this money is going. In THIS bill, this money will be funding government operated programs and sections, where the money HAS to be spent in a certain way. The money HAS to "trickle down" because it HAS to be spent by these government agencies.You need to read the bill, I think.

Trickle down economics, as you are alluding to, is only a massive failure because when you give tax breaks to the rich expecting them to spend their money or to pass those breaks onto the people below them, you are met with just the opposite. And the reason "trickle down economics" is such a failed economic idea is because the rich are rich BECAUSE they don't spend their money...that's HOW they get rich and STAY rich.Nonsense. This is some kind of farcical version of reality.

I'm not saying "trickle down" economics is the end-all-be-all, but it was never a massive failure, or maybe you missed the nineties?

And the rich do spend their money--when they're making money. I'm not sure what know-nothing out there started making this claim--'cause I've seen it a great deal--but it's mind-boggling to me that people actuallly buy such tripe. And even when they're not spending it, they still look to invest it.

But this stimulus is not aiming toward the rich. This stimulus is going to government programs and agencies who HAVE to spend this money or they will lose it. That's the way government agencies work. If you don't spend the money, you lose it (usually by the end of June...the fiscal year).Which will not stimulate the economy because it will not lead to growth.

And that is why this bill will be more effective than tax breaks for corporations and small businesses. Because giving those people tax breaks are no garauntee that the money will flow through them.Of course.
In fact, just the opposite TENDS to occur--they hold onto the money and just get richer.BULL. SHIT. It's not true. If you're just shooting from the hip, you need to actually learn something about this subject. If you got this bit from somewhere, I suggest ignoring that source in the future.

Look, I'm not saying "the rich" are a bunch of free-wheeling, mad-cap spenders. As a group, they are not. Some spend more than others, some spend less.

But regardless, they don't "hold on to their money" to get richer. That won't work. They actually have to invest it to get richer. Sometimes, that means the stockmarket, sometimes it means properties, sometimes it means actual businesses.

Beyond that, the reality is that wealthy people DO spend more on pretty much everything than people in lower and middle classes. And when they are making money, they spend even more.

James81

02-17-2009, 06:28 AM

I suggest you read "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas Stanley for the spending habits of the typical rich person. ;)

And investing, as a general rule, is only half the story of the economy. The other half lies in the spending habits of the lower and middle class.

And I haven't read the bill. Nobody has done that. If you claim to have read a 1000 page bill, I'll outright call you a liar. But I DO have personal experience with this bill and I AM seeing the effects of this bill with my own eyes.

Can anybody else here say they have personal ties to this bill? Can YOU say that you are working a job that is directly affected by this bill? I dunno, but don't discount my opinion. I've read a MASSIVE amount of stuff about finance and economics in the past year and I am, as far as I know, one of the few people here discussing this that have upfront direct dealings with the effects of this bill.

Williebee

02-17-2009, 06:48 AM

Can YOU say that you are working a job that is directly affected by this bill?

Yeah. I can. The education funding that was cut would have really helped Illinois education.

Don Allen

02-17-2009, 07:48 AM

I'm taking the non-sectarian approach and agreeing with all posters tonight, except haskins, which tickles him to no end. However, I will say that this package, call it what you may, will work in concert with the economic recovery that would have happened anyway as soon as the housing mess hit bottom. I think if you step back from this and really look at the housing bubble which began to step off course as early as 1996 what we are seeing is a fundamental correction back to the prices of housing at that time. Of course this correction is also dragging the stock market, production, and every other related expenditure down with it but eventually the market, much like water, will find its own level and begin to climb back.

There are indices pointing to a normaling of the markets, the 1% retail gain in January is significant, boowhoed as gift card spending, it points to money on the sidelines waiting to spend, which what people don't fully understand is that there is huge fucking money in the mattresses right now, and slowly it will begin to find its way into the market.

I think its time to buy the market myself,,,,, and I will.....

Bravo

02-17-2009, 07:52 AM

i'm short the market.

and when it comes to money, women, politics, and movies i am never wrong.

so we'll see what happens, but i already know what's going to happen.

good luck, don allen.

you're going to need it.

Don Allen

02-17-2009, 08:00 AM

i'm short the market.

and when it comes to money, women, politics, and movies i am never wrong.

so we'll see what happens, but i already know the future.

good luck, don allen.

you're going to need it.

Bravo, you live life on the edge, and truly frighten me sometimes, though I know you have a good soul.....

blacbird

02-17-2009, 08:46 AM

However, I will say that this package, call it what you may, will work in concert with the economic recovery that would have happened anyway as soon as the housing mess hit bottom.

Ah! The Escape Clause rears its nose above the ground. The great terror among conservatives (translation: Republicans or closet Republicans) is that it actually might work, at least well enough.

Me, I don't know, and don't pretend to know (as opposed to some of the posters here). But I'm willing to give it some as-yet-undefined stretch of time to find out.

caw

Zoombie

02-17-2009, 11:51 AM

...shit, what the heck do I know? I'm only 18.

I think the bill might work...or it might not...but its better to try something than to do nothing like back in the 1930s.

Though I personally think that my plan to go militaristicaly isolationist, cut down our military spending, cut the War on Drugs, cut the War on Terror, up our spending in humanity efforts overseas to improve our image in the minds of the people who try to kill us, let the big fat rich fucks die off and make it EASIER for start up companies to make it so that we can have some gorram competition in the market...

There!

We'll call it the Zoombie Fixes Everything bill. Now I just need to run for president...

I think I'll run under my real name...

DOCTOR INSANO! Muahahahahahahahahah!

robeiae

02-17-2009, 05:10 PM

I suggest you read "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas Stanley for the spending habits of the typical rich person. ;)Read it.

And investing, as a general rule, is only half the story of the economy. The other half lies in the spending habits of the lower and middle class.I didn't say investing was the "story." I just pointed out that wealthy people don't just hold their money

And I haven't read the bill. Nobody has done that. If you claim to have read a 1000 page bill, I'll outright call you a liar. But I DO have personal experience with this bill and I AM seeing the effects of this bill with my own eyes.Yes, yes. You're gonna get a new laptop because of this bill. Regardless, you spoke about where the money in "THIS bill" would be going as a whole. You can't say that if you haven't read it.

Can anybody else here say they have personal ties to this bill? Can YOU say that you are working a job that is directly affected by this bill? I dunno, but don't discount my opinion. I've read a MASSIVE amount of stuff about finance and economics in the past year and I am, as far as I know, one of the few people here discussing this that have upfront direct dealings with the effects of this bill."Personal ties"?

This bill will affect everyone, in one way or another.

Have I read the whole thing? Almost.

My-Immortal

02-17-2009, 07:05 PM

I was driving around last night at work thinking about this stimulus/spending bill and was trying to visualize just how much money $787,000,000,000 is.

If you actually had 787,000,000,000 dollar bills and you laid them down like bricks it would take 249,686,427 of them to cover a square mile.

So, 787,000,000,000 dollar bills would cover almost 3,152 square miles.

In other words, Nancy Pelosi could walk from San Fran to Washington DC on a mile wide path of dollar bills and get there with roughly 78 billion dollars left over.

With that in mind, I wonder why congress didn't take just a wee bit more time to consider what they were doing when they passed this bill. With that kind of money, shouldn't more attempts have been made to make sure more people, dems and repubs and independents alike were behind this bill and perhaps, just perhaps, they should have limited this bill to projects that truly would have not only stimulated the economy and created/saved 3-4 million jobs (or more!), but also would have worked to return or keep people in their homes.

As I said earlier, the wetlands in San Fran may be a noble pursuit, but why was that and other projects like that included in this STIMULUS bill?

Rugcat said: "I was referring to the characterization of the (wetlands)project as "Pelosi gets to save her endangered mice," the republican line that clearly wants to cast it as ridiculous and wasteful in the extreme."

Well, when you compare that project with keeping people working and in their homes with food on their tables, then yes, I think it is just a bit of ridiculous and wasteful spending.

I mean, if you'd lost your job, was hungry, and about to lose your home and you spent your last $300 dollars to buy a Playstation 3 'cause you really really wanted it - would you really be surprised by people saying that was ridiculous and wasteful spending?

For me, it's a matter of priorities.

Good luck to us all once this bill passes. I hope for all our sakes, this thing works!

Take care -

James81

02-17-2009, 08:13 PM

but also would have worked to return or keep people in their homes.

That's what the bailout was SUPPOSED to do.

If they cut the pork out of both the bailout and this stimulus package, and aimed the bailout at saving default mortgages and the stimulus package at the projects that will create and save jobs while putting money in the taxpayers pockets, they could probably have gotten away with spending half of what they are spending.

I won't argue the fact that both pieces of legislation are bogged down with ridiculous bullshit. But the core ideas behind both SHOULD be enough to stabilize the economy, if implemented properly.

Notice I said: stabilize. Not completely rescue, and not fix things long term. But neither bill pretends to be a long term solution.

William Haskins

02-17-2009, 09:03 PM

I was driving around last night at work thinking about this stimulus/spending bill and was trying to visualize just how much money $787,000,000,000 is.

if you spent a million dollars a day, every day, since the time that christ is alleged to have walked the earth, you still wouldn't have spent it.

robeiae

02-17-2009, 09:14 PM

In 35 CE, you could have bought the entire world with 365 million dollars.

But this had to be done. Otherwise, we'd all be doomed.

robeiae

02-17-2009, 09:18 PM

Btw, Streetfighter IV was released today. That should stimulate the economy a little bit. Loads of specialty crap to go with it, too.

I've got the Collector's Edition on the way, along with Ken and Ryu controllers...

Hey, I'm doin my part.

Cranky

02-17-2009, 09:26 PM

Ah! The Escape Clause rears its nose above the ground. The great terror among conservatives (translation: Republicans or closet Republicans) is that it actually might work, at least well enough.

Me, I don't know, and don't pretend to know (as opposed to some of the posters here). But I'm willing to give it some as-yet-undefined stretch of time to find out.

caw

We're pissed because we aren't Masters of The Universe, so we hope that the country collapses under the weight of this stinky stimulus bill. Yep. That's right. Because we're Teh EvilTM. Soulless and greedy. We'd rather reign in hell, and all that.

I, for one, have reserved my seats on the handbasket we're all going down in. With investor money I stole. Hope you've got the dough for a thread of rope to hold on with. I, naturally, being a greedy, incredibly rich and don't-you-forget-it racist emeffer, have deluxe leather seating with built-in air conditioning and a massage function. Rush Limbaugh has the seat right next to mine. We'll have caviar and laugh in the face of the Devil, right before we kick his sorry ass outta the joint and take over.

He ain't got nothin on us.

johnnysannie

02-17-2009, 09:29 PM

if you spent a million dollars a day, every day, since the time that christ is alleged to have walked the earth, you still wouldn't have spent it.

I would just like to spend a million dollars in one day, one time!

robeiae

02-17-2009, 09:30 PM

We're pissed because we aren't Masters of The Universe...
Speak for yourself.

Granted, my universe is pretty small and pathetic...

Bravo

02-17-2009, 09:31 PM

financial markets down 5.47% today.

DOW down 3.4%

am i ever wrong?

robeiae

02-17-2009, 09:34 PM

After the slide following the tax-cheat's spiel last week, it really didn't take a Nostradamus to see this coming.

Of course, you were right and there are people still giddy about it all. So, maybe you do deserve come kudos.

Kudos.

Cranky

02-17-2009, 09:35 PM

Speak for yourself.

Granted, my universe is pretty small and pathetic...

Well, that's your own fault. You should upgrade to a newer, bigger, shinier universe. Sheesh. It's practically unAmerican if you don't.

robeiae

02-17-2009, 09:36 PM

Well, that's your own fault. You should upgrade to a newer, bigger, shinier universe. Sheesh. It's practically unAmerican if you don't.
Now, now. I traded my VW in for a Buick, didn't I?

johnnysannie

02-17-2009, 09:40 PM

Now, now. I traded my VW in for a Buick, didn't I?

Oh but I traded my Cadillac in for a Buick......;)

Bravo

02-17-2009, 10:02 PM

James81

02-17-2009, 10:05 PM

child: daddy, where does 800 billion dollars come from?

obama: i don't know honey, go ask your uncle china.

child: i did, he said that he can't help me this time. he said that i have to figure it out on my own. so how does $800 billion grow, daddy? how?

obama: well, son, what we do is we put a machine in one of daddy's buildings and someone brings in special secret paper and we type in a secret code and then the machine gives us as much money as we want.

child: just like that!?

obama: absolutely.

child: that's amazing! i love you, daddy!

If you think about it, though, as long as the population grows, they are going to have to print more money once in a while.

Granted, printing 800 billion dollars at one time is pretty damn excess and ridiculous, but when you get down to it, you HAVE to print and put more money into the population as it grows.

My-Immortal

02-17-2009, 11:13 PM

if you spent a million dollars a day, every day, since the time that christ is alleged to have walked the earth, you still wouldn't have spent it.

And if you laid the 787 billion dollar bills down end to end they'd stretch 76,079,151 miles. If you tack on the interest for the bill (estimated 300 billion more), those dollars now stretch to: 106,336,805 miles.

The distance from earth to the sun is only 93,000,000 miles.

With the interest added on, we could stretch dollar bills from the sun to earth, and then wrap the remainder around the equator 535.5 times.

Geez! THAT is a LOT of money!

Oh wells. Easy come, easy go.

Take care all -

ETA: With all this said, I truly do hope that this bill does work. The thought of it not working is even scarier than doing nothing at all....

James81

02-17-2009, 11:15 PM

I hear he was supposed to sign this thing at 2:40 today.

Is the deed done?

Robert Toy

02-17-2009, 11:24 PM

I hear he was supposed to sign this thing at 2:40 today.

Is the deed done?
Happening right now

My-Immortal

02-17-2009, 11:56 PM

I hear he was supposed to sign this thing at 2:40 today.

Is the deed done?

It's done.

Are we recovered yet? ;)

Just kidding.

Whew...here we go...

Bravo

02-18-2009, 12:29 AM

just shorted some more.

gobama!!

thank you

sassandgroove

02-18-2009, 12:33 AM

Ok I haven't had a chance to follow this thread since last night, but if this bill is so great, then why did I just hear on the radio "Wall Street is tanking."?

Robert Toy

02-18-2009, 12:34 AM

Commies

Don

02-18-2009, 12:50 AM

Ok I haven't had a chance to follow this thread since last night, but if this bill is so great, then why did I just hear on the radio "Wall Street is tanking."?
"Wall Street is Tanking" is good news from now on.

You know, like

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Somebody will be along to put a positive spin on it shortly. They're in the back room drawing straws to see who gets to face the lions this time. :roll:

Bravo

02-18-2009, 01:05 AM

i just wish all of the conservatives who are jumping up and down over this package had the same anger over bush and his $7.5 trillion worth of waste.

Zoombie

02-18-2009, 01:31 AM

Um, I'm a libertarian, does that make me conservative enough to be allowed to equally hate both bouts of spending?

sassandgroove

02-18-2009, 01:40 AM

A typical distortion. Great sound bite, but totally untrue. It had to do with a bill to preserve wetlands in the SF bay area -- a really important project.

I realize the environment is unimportant to most republicans, esp if it interferes with building more wal mats, but at least be honest about it.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2009/02/13/republicans-flop-on-pelosi-mouse-lie-havent-learned-environmental-lesson.html

That's a different matter, and a different discussion. I was referring to the characterization of the project as "Pelosi gets to save her endangered mice," the republican line that clearly wants to cast it as ridiculous and wasteful in the extreme.
that's right Rugcat, all repubs are evil and the dems are saints. come off it. And it wasn't a different matter and a different discussion, it was very relevant to this discussion.
...shit, what the heck do I know? I'm only 18.

I think the bill might work...or it might not...but its better to try something than to do nothing like back in the 1930s.
Dear, they do do something back then, or Roosevelt did, ever hear of the New Deal? This is the New New Deal, AKA the SAME OLD BS.

Let's Party like it is 1929!!!

Though I personally think that my plan to go militaristicaly isolationist, cut down our military spending, cut the War on Drugs, cut the War on Terror, up our spending in humanity efforts overseas to improve our image in the minds of the people who try to kill us, let the big fat rich fucks die off and make it EASIER for start up companies to make it so that we can have some gorram competition in the market...

There!

We'll call it the Zoombie Fixes Everything bill. Now I just need to run for president...

I think I'll run under my real name...

DOCTOR INSANO! Muahahahahahahahahah!Unfortunately diplomacy doesn't always work. If it did there would never be war. i agree on cutting the war on drugs, but not cutting military spending. we could use the money from the war on drugs toward diplomacy, how's that?

If you think about it, though, as long as the population grows, they are going to have to print more money once in a while.

Granted, printing 800 billion dollars at one time is pretty damn excess and ridiculous, but when you get down to it, you HAVE to print and put more money into the population as it grows.I. Don't. Even. Have. Words.

Keep doing that and toilet paper will be more valuable than than the US Dollar.

i just wish all of the conservatives who are jumping up and down over this package had the same anger over bush and his $7.5 trillion worth of waste.This conservative was angry with Bush and the "Bail Out."

Zoombie

02-18-2009, 01:47 AM

Dear, they do do something back then, or Roosevelt did, ever hear of the New Deal? This is the New New Deal, AKA the SAME OLD BS.

Let's Party like it is 1929!!!

Unfortunately diplomacy doesn't always work. If it did there would never be war. i agree on cutting the war on drugs, but not cutting military spending. we could use the money from the war on drugs toward diplomacy, how's that?

Well, I mean cutting aggressive military spending. For too long, the cause of "keeping Americans safe" has been a cover for pointless, senseless wars that gain us nothing and, in fact, make things WORSE!

Shooting these people and dropping bombs on them is NOT going to make them stop attacking us.

Trying to be NICE for a change just miiiight work. They're not trying to invade or conquer us...they, mostly, just want us to GTFO.

Also, I was thinking more of Hoover. They way it was taught to me was that Hoover sat on his ass and didn't do anything and then Roosvelt at least tried something and it was a combination of good luck and World War II that helped us out of the depression.

Not so sure if the New Deal actually DID anything to help or prolong the depression cause, well, I've asked 10 people and gotten 10 different opinions on it. I do know that we did get out of the depression...

And, if worst comes to worst, Russia and China ARE looking pretty evil right about now!

PS: Not that a third world war would be anything but a horrible thing to happen and we should avoid it...at worst, it means a full nuclear exchange, at best, it means that we have another conventional battle with millions dead.

sassandgroove

02-18-2009, 01:56 AM

I wasn't thinking about Hoover, you're right there.

Well, I mean cutting aggressive military spending. For too long, the cause of "keeping Americans safe" has been a cover for pointless, senseless wars that gain us nothing and, in fact, make things WORSE!

Shooting these people and dropping bombs on them is NOT going to make them stop attacking us.

Trying to be NICE for a change just miiiight work. They're not trying to invade or conquer us...they, mostly, just want us to GTFO. Totally different subject here.

Do you think diplomacy wasn't tried first? Do you think it's the big bad Americans against the world? Do you think we should have let Hussein (or womever you mean, since that isn't a specific post) stay in power and wait until he attacked us?
Becuase Diplomacy was used first and didn't work. And go ask the people who are out from under Hussein's thumb what they think. And I think it is better to fight the war on their turf then to wait until they bring it to ours.

sassandgroove

02-18-2009, 01:59 AM

Ok I haven't had a chance to follow this thread since last night, but if this bill is so great, then why did I just hear on the radio "Wall Street is tanking."?
Ok I am caught up now. Glib answers were enjoyed, but I was serious in asking this.

sulong

02-18-2009, 02:11 AM

Ok I am caught up now. Glib answers were enjoyed, but I was serious in asking this.

Sensationalism sells.
Same as always.

Zoombie

02-18-2009, 02:27 AM

What Sulong says.

People screaming, "THE SKY IS GODDAMN FALLING!" are going to get more attention than, say, the people pointing out that they're inside and that was a bit of plaster...

James81

02-18-2009, 04:07 AM

I. Don't. Even. Have. Words.

Keep doing that and toilet paper will be more valuable than than the US Dollar.

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but toilet paper is ALREADY more valuable than the US Dollar.

The only value our money has right now is the fact that people are willing to accept it as a trade item for their goods or services.

There is no gold standard to back it up anymore. There is nothing backing it anymore. The money is only as good as the willingness of the person selling their goods to accept it. It's worth about as much as the paper it's printed on.

And it's been that way for a long time now.

****

But to expand on what I said...think about it. As the population grows, and inflation with it, it only makes sense that the available cash per person in the population is going to go down with each new person born.

Granted, some of this is balanced by people dying, but the amount of people being born is greater than that of those dying. Especially with people having frikin octuplets. lol

Fullback

02-18-2009, 04:47 AM

The population of the world has doubled since I was born. That means there are twice as many ignorant people walking around, posting their ignorance on the internet and even voting for politicians who know just how ignorant the average person is. It's an insult to all reasonable and non-ignorant people to call this spending "stimulus."

"My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference." -- Harry S. Truman

robeiae

02-18-2009, 05:22 AM

Ah, but there are also twice as many uber-foxes at the beach...

I'm wondering if it's a fair trade-off, though.

sassandgroove

02-18-2009, 07:41 PM

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but toilet paper is ALREADY more valuable than the US Dollar.

The only value our money has right now is the fact that people are willing to accept it as a trade item for their goods or services.

There is no gold standard to back it up anymore. There is nothing backing it anymore. The money is only as good as the willingness of the person selling their goods to accept it. It's worth about as much as the paper it's printed on.

And it's been that way for a long time now.

****

But to expand on what I said...think about it. As the population grows, and inflation with it, it only makes sense that the available cash per person in the population is going to go down with each new person born.

Granted, some of this is balanced by people dying, but the amount of people being born is greater than that of those dying. Especially with people having frikin octuplets. lolWell- the only reason GOLD holds value is people agree that it does, so using it to back cash or not is meaningless. It's the same as the cash only holding value because we agree it does. And the more you print, just willy nilly, the less valueable it becomes. I mean, gold at least is supposed to be rare.

As for the population growing, yes I suppose you would need more cash, but one would also assume that with more people there would be more people working and adding to the economy. But you (general you) don't want the gov't to just spend it haphazardly like this.

robeiae

02-18-2009, 08:00 PM

Well- the only reason GOLD holds value is people agree that it does, so using it to back cash or not is meaningless. It's the same as the cash only holding value because we agree it does. And the more you print, just willy nilly, the less valueable it becomes. I mean, gold at least is supposed to be rare.Right. Ultimately, it's arbitrary.

Still, I prefer the Gold Standard, though there's little chance of going back.

Ultimately, money represents work, in theory. "Work" is exchanged for goods and services or for other work. Money is a shortcut to the exchange. So, its "value" while predicated on the acceptance of it to some extent, is really dependent on the "why" of its exchange.

As for the population growing, yes I suppose you would need more cash, but one would also assume that with more people there would be more people working and adding to the economy. But you (general you) don't want the gov't to just spend it haphazardly like this.Right, again. When the government floods the market with money it issues--with no basis in actual work or fees (taxes) on work to create said money, then it really is in danger of having no value, or at least bringing down the value of all other money in the system. And of course, we call that inflation.

sassandgroove

02-18-2009, 08:22 PM

i tried to find where I posted this thought before, but man I have a lot ofposts.

Anywho, money is a placeholder for time/goods. Say I make jam. I have more than I need. SO I offer to trade it with the baker for some bread. BUt say the baker has all the jam he needs, but wants some candles from the guy up the street. By using money, I can give the baker money (placeholder) for the bread and he can take the money and go buy candles.

blacbird

02-18-2009, 09:17 PM

Well- the only reason GOLD holds value is people agree that it does, so using it to back cash or not is meaningless.

Absolutely correct. I'm always amazed at how many otherwise smart people don't understand this. Gold has no more intrinsic "value" than that copper-nickel sandwich your quarter is made of. The percentage of gold that is actually used in making stuff (primarily jewelry, but some electronics and a few other apps) is miniscule. And even the jewelry ultimately is decorative bling we can do without, if we need to.

We'd be better off hoarding copper for our monetary standard. It's a metal essential for modern civilized existence, and is in relatively short and diminishing supply. I've seen geological estimates that more than half the copper available in mineable ore has already been produced.

caw

rugcat

02-18-2009, 09:30 PM

Still, I prefer the Gold Standard, though there's little chance of going back.". . .you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

Welcome to the 21st 20th 19th century.

blacbird

02-18-2009, 10:40 PM

I don't understand this adulation of the gold standard much, either. There were wrenching economic dislocations, depressions, recessions, under the gold standard, just as there have been since it was scrapped. "Follow the yellow-brick road and the wizard behind the curtain will make everything work" didn't work any better than what we've had since.

And the problems are close to identical as well, starting always with the concept most recently espoused by the likes of Alan Greenspan and Phil Gramm that the "free market" will regulate itself. Problem is, of course, that there is no free market, any more than there's a free lunch. The market operates much like a No-Limit Texas Hold'em tournament, with more and more money finding ways into fewer and fewer hands, so that there's a "market" only for the few, at the expense of the many. At which point the system becomes so distorted it doesn't resemble a market at all.

caw