Stimulus Package Headed to Obama's Desk

New jobs for data-entry clerks?

robeiae said:

New jobs for data-entry clerks?

Click to expand...

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

Tirjasdyn said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

RickN said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Phoebe H said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

rugcat said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Bravo said:

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

Click to expand...

That wasn't a stimulus package.

My-Immortal said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Construction workers make upwards of about $30 an hour.

James81 said:

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

Construction workers make upwards of about $30 an hour.

Click to expand...

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

rugcat said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

My-Immortal said:

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

Click to expand...

It takes money to make money.

James81 said:

It takes money to make money.

Click to expand...

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?

My-Immortal said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

No stimulus bill will ever meet their approval.

Click to expand...

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.

robeiae said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

geez Rugcat, that's a bit harsh.

rugcat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

sassandgroove said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

rugcat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

rugcat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

You're probably right. Put my name in for the job, would ya?

rugcat said:

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

Click to expand...

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

<shrugs>

rugcat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

robeiae said:

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?

Click to expand...

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...