You decide. Will this do anything to help the nearly 2 trillion in corporate deficit we will have by the end of February?
Earmarks and pet projects galore. This is nothing but a porky budget bill. President Obama can't allow this to happen. This is only about half of it. You can read the whole 600 page novel here http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf
$44 million for construction, repair and improvements at US Department of Agriculture facilties
$209 million for work on deferred maintenance at Agricultural Research Service facilities
$245 million for maintaining and modernizing the IT system of the Farm Service Agency
$175 million to buy and restore floodplain easements for flood prevention
$50 million for "Watershed Rehabilitation"
$1.1 billion for rural community facilities direct loans
$2 billion for rural business and industry guaranteed loans
$2.7 billion for rural water and waste dispoal direct loans
$22.1 billion for rural housing insurance fund loans
$2.8 billion for loans to spur rural broadband
$150 million for emergency food assistance
$50 million for regional economic development commissions
$1 billion for "Periodic Censuses and Programs"
$350 million for State Broadband Data and Development Grants
$1.8 billion for Rural Broadband Deployment Grants
$1 billion for Rural Wireless Deployment Grants
$650 million for Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program
$100 million for "Scientific and Technical Research and Services" at the National Institute of Standards And Technology
$30 million for necessary expenses of the "Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership"
$300 million for a competitive construction grant program for research science buildings
$400 million for "habitat restoration and mitigation activities" at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
$600 million for "accelerating satellite development and acquisition"
$140 million for "climate data modeling"
$3 billion for state and local law enforcement grants
$1 billion for "Community Oriented Policing Services"
$250 million for "accelerating the development of the tier 1 set of Earth science climate research missions recommended by the National Academies Decadal Survey."
$50 million for repairs to NASA facilities from storm damage
$300 million for "Major Research Insrumentation program" (science)
$200 million for "academic research facilities modernization"
$100 million for "Education and Human Resources"
$400 million for "Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction"
$4.5 billion to make military facilities more energy efficient
$1.5 billion for Army Operation and Maintenance fund
$624 million for Navy Operation and Maintenance
$128 million for Marine Corps Operation and Maintenance
$1.23 billion for Air Force Operation and Maintenance
$454 million to "Defense Health Program"
$110 million for Army Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$62 million for Navy Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$45 million for Marine Corps Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$14 million for Air Force Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$302 million for National Guard Operation and Maintenance
$29 million for Air National Guard Operation and Maintenance
$350 million for military energy research and development programs
$2 billion for Army Corps of Engineers "Construction"
$250 million for "Mississippi River and Tributaries"
$2.2 billion for Army Corps "Operation and Maintenance"
$25 million for an Army Corps "Regulatory Program"
$126 million for Interior Department "water reclamation and reuse projects"
$80 million for "rural water projects"
$18.5 billion for "Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" research in the Department of Energy. That money includes:
$2 billion for development of advanced batteries
$800 million of that is for biomass research and $400 million for geothermal technologies
$1 billion in grants to "institutional entities for energy sustainability and efficiency"
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants
$3.4 billion for state energy programs
$200 million for expenses to implement energy independence programs
$300 million for expenses to implement Energy efficient appliance rebate programs including the Energy Star program
$400 million for expenses to implement Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Infrastructure Grants to States and Local Governments
$1 billion for expenses necessary for advanced battery manufacturing
$4.5 billion to modernize the nation's electricity grid
$1 billion for the Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee Program
$2.4 billion to demonstrate "carbon capture and sequestration technologies"
$400 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (Science)
$500 million for "Defense Environmental Cleanup"
$1 billion for construction and repair of border facilities and land ports of entry
$6 billion for energy efficiency projects on government buildings
$600 million to buy and lease government plug-in and alternative fuel vehicles
$426 million in small business loans
$100 million for "non-intrusive detection technology to be deployed at sea ports of entry
$150 million for repair and construction at land border ports of entry
$500 million for explosive detection systems for aviation security
$150 million for alteration or removal of obstructive bridges
$200 million for FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter program
$325 million for Interior Department road, bridge and trail repair projects
$300 million for road and bridge work in Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
$1.7 billion for "critical deferred maintenance" in the National Park System
$200 million to revitalize the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
$100 million for National Park Service Centennial Challenge programs
$200 million for repair of U.S. Geological Survey facilities
$500 million for repair and replacement of schools, jails, roads, bridges, housing and more for Bureau of Indian Affairs
$800 million for Superfund programs
$200 million for leaking underground storage tank cleanup
$8.4 billion in "State and Tribal Assistance Grants"
$650 million in "Capital Improvement and Maintenance" at the Agriculture Dept.
$850 million for "Wildland Fire Management"
$550 million for Indian Health facilties
$150 million for deferred maintenance at the Smithsonian museums
$50 million in grants to fund "arts projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support during the current economic downturn" through the National Endowment for the Arts
$1.2 billion in grants to states for youth summer jobs programs and other activities
$1 billion for states in dislocated worker employment and training activities
$500 million for the dislocated workers assistance national reserve
$80 million for the enforcement of worker protection laws and regulations related to infrastructure and unemployment insurance investments
$300 million for "construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of Job Corps Centers"
$250 million for public health centers
$1 billion for renovation and repair of health centers
$600 million for nurse, physician and dentist training
$462 million for renovation work at the Centers for Disease Control
$1.5 billion for "National Center for Research Resources"
$500 million for "Buildlings and Facilties" at the National Institutes of Health in suburban Washington, D.C.
$700 million for "comparative effectiveness research" on prescription drugs
$1 billion for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
$2 billion in Child Care and Development Block Grants for states
$1 billion for Head Start programs
$1.1 billion for Early Head Start programs
$100 million for Social Security research programs
$200 million for "Aging Services Programs"
$2 billion for "Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology"
$430 million for public health/social services emergency funds
$2.3 billion for the Centers for Disease Control for a variety of programs
$5.5 billion in targeted education grants
$5.5 billion in "education finance incentive grants"
$2 billion in "school improvement grants"
$13.6 billion for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
$250 million for statewide education data systems
$14 billion for school modernization, renovation and repair
$160 million for AmeriCorps grants
$400 million for the construction and costs to establish a new "National Computer Center" for the Social Security Administration
$500 million to improve processing of disability and retirement claims
$920 million for Army housing and child development centers
$350 million for Navy and Marine Corps housing and child development centers
$280 million in Air Force housing and child development centers
$3.75 billion in military hospital and surgery center construction
$140 million in Army National Guard construction projects
$70 million in Air National Guard construction projects
$100 million in Army Reserve construction projects
$30 million in Navy Reserve construction projects
$60 million in Air Force Reserve construction projects
$950 million for VA Medical Facilities
$50 million for repairs for military cemeteries
$120 million for a backup information management facility for the State Department
$98 million for National Cybersecurity Initiative
$3 billion for "Grants-in-Aid for Airports"
$300 million for Indian Reservation roads
$300 million for Amtrak capital needs
$800 million for national railroad assets or infrastructure repairs, upgrades
$5.4 billion in federal transit grants
$2 billion in infrastructure development for subways and commuter railways
$5 billion for public housing capital
$1 billion in competitive housing grants
$2.5 billion for energy efficiency upgrades in public housing
$500 million in Native American Housing Block Grants
$4.1 billion to help communities deal with foreclosed homes
$1.5 billion in homeless prevention activities
$79 billion in education funds for states
List compiled by Jamie Dupree.
I'd be interested to hear what you think qualifies as pork in an $800 billion stimulus package.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
I'd be interested to hear what you think qualifies as pork in an $800 billion stimulus package.
Don't get me wrong. Some of these programs are really dandy, but they are all pets with little or no ability to stimulate private businesses or individuals to make a profit or to purchase and sell more goods and services.
This is a budget bill not a stimulus package. It's full of old bureaucracies to fix up, and new bureaucracies to feed forever. Old failed businesses to prop up, and puts forth no requirements for how those businesses should change their failing ways.
We need in excess of a trillion dollar injection into the economy to put us back on fairly level ground and everything in this bill relates to long term programs that become yolks on the necks of the taxpayers once the initial funding is spent.
There is also very little immediate relief here. Not nearly enough to make a difference once all of the new alligators are fed.
I may be wrong. Perhaps long term burocratic spending will encourage businesses to build, hire, purchase, and produce. I've never seen that.
Sure, the remodeling of a bureaucrat's office at the department of agriculture will employ some carpenters, engineers, architects and laborers, but once that is done, does the department of agriculture continue to produce a product or a service that will create new jobs and new industries?
When a grant is exhausted, it usually leads to requests for another grant. More suckling from a dry tit.
I don't doubt that some of these programs are fine investments in the future of the country, but that's not the purpose of this bill. This is like planning a birthday party while bleeding to death!
Can we focus on the bleeding and then worry about serving campaign promises?
It's done and we're in trouble. $1.2 trillion over a decade. The largest spending bill ever passed.
A few tiny stimulus nuggets strategically placed, but no immediate stimulus, and no permanent job creation.
Jobless claims report will be released today, and will cancel the pitiful job creation claims of this huge spending bill.
They could have issued a bill that would work, it would have been so easy. But no. Selfish democrats and stupid weak republicans. Now we get to learn a lesson.
+1 Gaspar.
I heard on CNN this morning that of the ~ $1,000,000,000,000.00 only $150B is being spent on infrastructure. The bulk appears to be to improve government facilities or just to increase the budget of agencies with no specific goal in mind.
I'd rather just send a check for $3,000 to every American. This will turn into a pork fight to see who "gets theirs" between states, industries, and agendas. I want to read the bill more fully, but it doesn't look good and few talking heads think it is the correct direction.
Trouble! SPEND $1 TRILLION NOW!
Worked out well the last time we just through money at the financial crisis. The banks are fixed. The auto industry is fixed. The mortgage industry is fixed. Yep.
So what? Big deal!
Would someone PLEASE contact Sullivan and Inhofe and ask them for the list of projects they requested be funded? PLEASE?????
Inhofe was chair of the committee that produced the Highway Spending Bill - which blew all records for earmarks out of the water and lead to national disgust from the GOP grassroots - and the GOP's subsequent demise. Sullivan requested $45M in bailout money for Great Plains. NOW they see the light?
These shovel-ready projects are exactly the kind of make-work projects the GOP has championed for years. In fact, THESE earmarks have 'Made in the USA' clauses which the GOP spending measures did not have. It is not perfect but politics is all about horse-trading and give-and-take. The era of get-nothing done is over - until 2010.
Tim, did you read the posts?
Only $150 Billion of the TRILLION dollars is going to the shovel ready projects. That's what we are complaining about. And I believe we both expressed plenty of disappointed with both parties.
If we are going to spend cash, may as well buy something with it.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Tim, did you read the posts?
Only $150 Billion of the TRILLION dollars is going to the shovel ready projects. That's what we are complaining about. And I believe we both expressed plenty of disappointed with both parties.
If we are going to spend cash, may as well buy something with it.
Which of the projects above are 'shovel-ready' in your opinion and which are not? Do you know? No. You are just a poser.
Do you read? Do you? Can you actually read? Can you put together sentences and words? Can you understand these letters and words? Do you comprehend English? Ha ha! Just busting!
Hmmm. Decisions, decisions. We do nothing and all the experts predict...disaster. We do what the new Democratic House has proposed as inspired by the same experts....disaster. We do what the Republican leadership proposes whose leadership including Limbaugh and Boehner are self professed experts....nothing happens which yields...disaster.
Which poison, the fast acting or the slow?
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
It's done and we're in trouble. $1.2 trillion over a decade. The largest spending bill ever passed.
It's not done yet. The Senate will surely modify it.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Which of the projects above are 'shovel-ready' in your opinion and which are not? Do you know? No. You are just a poser.
My source was Lou Dobbs from CNN:
http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/
I don't think he is a right wing pundit and has explicitly said his team has read the entire bill. A task I have not attempted and most people who will actually vote on the measure never will. I am posing as someone who is relying on someone else's analysis.
The notion that we are improving national infrastructure and creating jobs or encouraging development and small business is a farce. We are just spending money. It will have some ancillary job creation benefits of course - but ultimately will not help the economy. The projects for roads, rails, ports, power, and the like WILL ultimately help the economy. Otherwise it's just your hated "trickle down" effect of throwing money into the system.
FURTHERMORE, there is $1,000,000,000,000.00 being spent here. Don't rush it. The economy is suffering and will be suffering next week. Calm down, lets get this right.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Which of the projects above are 'shovel-ready' in your opinion and which are not? Do you know? No. You are just a poser.
My source was Lou Dobbs from CNN:
http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/
I don't think he is a right wing pundit and has explicitly said his team has read the entire bill. A task I have not attempted and most people who will actually vote on the measure never will. I am posing as someone who is relying on someone else's analysis.
The notion that we are improving national infrastructure and creating jobs or encouraging development and small business is a farce. We are just spending money. It will have some ancillary job creation benefits of course - but ultimately will not help the economy. The projects for roads, rails, ports, power, and the like WILL ultimately help the economy. Otherwise it's just your hated "trickle down" effect of throwing money into the system.
FURTHERMORE, there is $1,000,000,000,000.00 being spent here. Don't rush it. The economy is suffering and will be suffering next week. Calm down, lets get this right.
It's actually approx. $825 billion. Not sure where the trillion number is coming from.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Which of the projects above are 'shovel-ready' in your opinion and which are not? Do you know? No. You are just a poser.
My source was Lou Dobbs from CNN:
http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/
I don't think he is a right wing pundit and has explicitly said his team has read the entire bill. A task I have not attempted and most people who will actually vote on the measure never will. I am posing as someone who is relying on someone else's analysis.
So you do not know what you are really talking about, just going with the flow. OK. Just wanted to be sure. Do not get all condo-sending with me about my indignation at ya'lls phoney 'outrage' when in truth you have no earthly idea really what is going on either.
Can you read? Do you g-e-t i-t n-o-w? Ha ha ha!
Someone want to produce a list of shovel-ready projects the GOP Commissioners and Councilors and State Reps submitted? Huh? Any takers?
CF,
Don't even read it. It will make you angry. I've gone through a whole bottle of Pepsid, and my stomach is still in a knot.
P. 41: $572 million to The Coast Guard for "Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements" creating 1,235 new jobs (each job costs $460,000).
P. 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles. Page 32: $1.5 billion (with a "B") for a "carbon-capturing contest"
P. 45: "$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration."
P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.
$600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars.
$252 billion is for income-transfer payments.
Good Lord, even if you do the math directly from Obama's speech on Wednesday. We've lost 2.8 million jobs. Obama claims this will create 3million jobs. That means the cost is 400,000 per job. I would estimate that this will not create a single job because it offers little or no relief, so as it creates short term labor agreements, private companies will continue to lay off at a faster rate than the public/government sector can employ.
At least we know exactly who owns this bill.
I wished him well and said I would give Obama a chance, but it didn't take long for for him to prove his mettle.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
CF,
Don't even read it. It will make you angry. I've gone through a whole bottle of Pepsid, and my stomach is still in a knot.
P. 41: $572 million to The Coast Guard for "Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements" creating 1,235 new jobs (each job costs $460,000).
P. 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles. Page 32: $1.5 billion (with a "B") for a "carbon-capturing contest"
P. 45: "$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration."
P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.
$600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars.
$252 billion is for income-transfer payments.
Good Lord, even if you do the math directly from Obama's speech on Wednesday. We've lost 2.8 million jobs. Obama claims this will create 3million jobs. That means the cost is 400,000 per job. I would estimate that this will not create a single job because it offers little or no relief, so as it creates short term labor agreements, private companies will continue to lay off at a faster rate than the public/government sector can employ.
At least we know exactly who owns this bill.
I wished him well and said I would give Obama a chance, but it didn't take long for for him to prove his mettle.
Good work Gaspar. BTW, the jobless numbers are out and it's not good. Obama's fault? After all, if we elected him, we would not have to worry about gas and mortgage payments any more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
From an article on Real Clear Politics: (//%22http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/stimulus_plan_brings_real_reli.html%22)
quote:
The direct purchase of goods and services by the federal government produces as much as $2.50 in growth over several quarters, the CBO says. A dollar transferred to state and local governments for infrastructure spending also is estimated to produce $2.50 in growth. Getting money directly to people through programs such as expanded unemployment benefits and food assistance is estimated to produce $2.20 in growth. And general aid to states to alleviate the problems in balancing their budgets in the face of rapidly deteriorating revenues and rapidly increasing demand for basic public services would produce $1.90.
The CBO is estimating that the money will produce anywhere between a 90% to 150% return when pumped into the economy through gov't channels.
The fate of the TARP bailout is an excellent argument against direct aid to individuals and businesses. In this climate, it's fair to assume that recipients of stimulus checks will just hoard the money or pay off debt -- just like the banks did with the TARP funding -- instead of actually spending the money and stimulating the economy. At least if it's in the gov's coffers the money WILL get spent.
And I have to say that I haven't heard anything substantive from the GOP other than "nononononotaxbreakstaxbreaktaxbreakssocialismsocialismsocialismgaaaaaaaaaah . . . why Mr. Obama, how pleasant of you to stop by and attempt bipartisanship."
There's a whole lot of blather, but nary a solution to be found.
I just got them 588,000 new claims last week, and an 130,000 announced layoffs expected.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
CF,
Don't even read it. It will make you angry. I've gone through a whole bottle of Pepsid, and my stomach is still in a knot.
P. 41: $572 million to The Coast Guard for "Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements" creating 1,235 new jobs (each job costs $460,000).
P. 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles. Page 32: $1.5 billion (with a "B") for a "carbon-capturing contest"
P. 45: "$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration."
P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.
$600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars.
$252 billion is for income-transfer payments.
Good lord, even if you do the math directly from Obama's speech on Wednesday. We've lost 2.8 million jobs. Obama claims this will create 3million jobs. That means the cost is 400,000 per job. I would estimate that this will not create a single job because it offers little or no relief, so as it creates short term labor agreements, private companies will continue to lay off at a faster rate than the public/government sector can employ.
At least we know exactly who owns this bill.
I wished him well and said I would give Obama a chance, but it didn't take long for for him to prove his mettle.
Ohhhhhhhhh surrrrre you did! Fist-pump! I just love it! Ha ha ha!! YOU down with the struggle!
I cannot decide what you asking, G-dawg, but I certainly agree that partisan bickering is going to shipwreck these well-crafted plans.
English translation?
Let's see...$825 billion for money spent on jobs in America or $700 billion spent to fight a war in Iraq...
Gee, which is the smarter spending?
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
The CBO is estimating that the money will produce anywhere between a 90% to 150% return when pumped into the economy through gov't channels.
No offense Wevus, but that is ridiculous.
If government spending brought 150% returns than government spending would be a spiral to prosperity. The more you spend, the better off you are. Under Bush we spent more than ever, that didn't help.
If we are getting 90-150% return we are expecting more than a 100% return. So lets spent $10,000,000,000,000 instead of $1. That's free money! Hell, lets spend and spend and spend. Spending money makes money! (sorry for the sarcasm, but surely you see the problem with such an assessment)
And the $1 tril number comes from the Senate's additions.
Timmay:
I'm not going "just" with the flow. I cited to CNN because they are considered a more liberal source. Lou Dobbs is not associate with the Right at all. Hence, his concerns probably have more merit than Rush Limbuaghs.
Have you read the bill? I readily admitted where I am coming from, you are hiding being snide remarks and an apparent obsession with my ability to read. Basically, you've descended back to your normal state of being after a couple months of making fairly innocuous posts.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Ohhhhhhhhh surrrrre you did! Fist-pump! I just love it! Ha ha ha!! YOU down with the struggle!
I cannot decide what you asking, G-dawg, but I certainly agree that partisan bickering is going to shipwreck these well-crafted plans.
Wow.
and it's "bump" cracker
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
You decide. Will this do anything to help the nearly 2 trillion in corporate deficit we will have by the end of February?
YOU need a translator?? What are you even asking? LMAO! Bickering and posturing in a time of national crisis ought to be a crime!!
'You decide. Are poorly-propositioned fractional concepts worthy of any response at the time specified?'
National crisis? What are you talking about? I'm not in any "crisis" and I certainly do not believe using a "crisis" to fund family planning (I know, it has since been removed), STD testing, and buying "green" autos et. al. is any solution.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
The CBO is estimating that the money will produce anywhere between a 90% to 150% return when pumped into the economy through gov't channels.
No offense Wevus, but that is ridiculous.
If government spending brought 150% returns than government spending would be a spiral to prosperity. The more you spend, the better off you are. Under Bush we spent more than ever, that didn't help.
If we are getting 90-150% return we are expecting more than a 100% return. So lets spent $10,000,000,000,000 instead of $1. That's free money! Hell, lets spend and spend and spend. Spending money makes money! (sorry for the sarcasm, but surely you see the problem with such an assessment)
Guess I don't see the problem with this. Isn't this what investing is? Spending money to make money? Especially if, in this case, it's an investment that will pay off in the near term (jobs) and over time (infrastructure).
quote:
National crisis? What are you talking about?
Read the papers much, bub?
Here's Pelosi defending the STD money in the stimulus package (you figure out what she's saying):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vO0lqnyk20
Yep, this genius is second in presidential succession. [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Let's see...$825 billion for money spent on jobs in America or $700 billion spent to fight a war in Iraq...
Gee, which is the smarter spending?
That's a great argument RM. Come on, stay on point and don't change the subject.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Let's see...$825 billion for money spent on jobs in America or $700 billion spent to fight a war in Iraq...
Gee, which is the smarter spending?
Shooting yourself in the stomach, or drinking from a lead cup. Which is smarter?
Not only are the options amazingly diverse and the scenario ignores the underlying causes that precipitate the decisions - but they ignore any other options. Frankly, the argument that this package is a better financial decision than the Iraq war just doesn't have much weight. It could easily be argued that burning dollars instead of coal would have a better economic impact than the Iraq war.
None of that indicates that the current Bill before Congress is a good idea. Better financial investment than the Iraq war? That's a low threshold.
4 Million jobs....comes to just short of $300,000 per.
...so much for economics.
It is the point. One President spends billions starting a war on a different continent and you guys say nothing about the cost. Another President wants to invest in America with billions of dollars and you guys want to pick it apart because of cost.
I choose the second President's version of wasting my money.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
It is the point. One President spends billions starting a war on a different continent and you guys say nothing about the cost. Another President wants to invest in America with billions of dollars and you guys want to pick it apart because of cost.
I choose the second President's version of wasting my money.
I tend to prefer neither one did it.
Just a thought.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
It is the point. One President spends billions starting a war on a different continent and you guys say nothing about the cost. Another President wants to invest in America with billions of dollars and you guys want to pick it apart because of cost.
I choose the second President's version of wasting my money.
That's not at all why we are picking it apart. First of all 900 billion (1.2 trillion if you actually take a calculator to it) is not enough. Far more is necessary, but it would need to be spent on things that historically have been shown to stimulate the economy like reduction in marginal tax rates to the people and businesses that are in free-fall (not rebates or refunds).
Lets look at some history to review rebates v.s. real tax relief:
Tax rebates fail to increase economic growth because they are not associated with productivity or work effort. No new income is created because no one is required work, save, or invest more to receive a rebate. In that sense, rebates are economically indistinguishable from government spending programs that write each American a check. In fact, the federal government treats rebate checks as a "social benefit payment to persons." They represent another feeble attempt to create new purchasing power out of thin air.
Consider the 2001 tax rebates. Washington borrowed billions from the capital markets, and then mailed it to Americans in the form of $600 checks. Rather than encourage income creation, Congress merely transferred existing income from investors to consumers. Predictably, the following quarter saw consumer spending growth surge from 1.4 percent to 7.0 percent, and gross private domestic investment spending drop correspondingly by 22.7 percent. The overall economy grew at a meager 1.6 percent that quarter, and remained stagnant through 2001 and much of 2002.
It was not until the 2003 tax cuts—which cut tax rates for workers and investors— that the economy finally and immediately began a robust recovery. In the previous 18 months, business investment had plummeted, the stock market had dropped 18 percent, and the economy had lost 616,000 jobs. In the 18 months following the 2003 tax rate reductions, business investment surged, the stock market leaped 32 percent, and Americans created 307,000 new jobs (followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters). Overall economic growth rates doubled.It's been done several times all successfully.
Marginal tax rates were reduced throughout the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s. In all three decades, investment increased, and higher economic growth followed. Real GDP increased by 59 percent from 1921 to 1929, by 42 percent from 1961 to 1968, and by 31 percent from 1982 to 1989. Sited from Brian M. Riedl a Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesIt has never failed to turn the economy around, yet it's "OFF THE TABLE" for this crisis.
So this is not a debate on what Bush did, it's about how to stimulate private industry and stop massive bleeding.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
It is the point. One President spends billions starting a war on a different continent and you guys say nothing about the cost. Another President wants to invest in America with billions of dollars and you guys want to pick it apart because of cost.
I choose the second President's version of wasting my money.
That is not true. I have long complained about the cost of the war and the growing deficit. I went so far as to say if we want to maintain a large war we need a war tax of some kind to remind people we are spending the money.
But to take some contrary positions just for fun (which I do with the understanding that you can follow the diversion in my position):
- investing in the military IS investing in America too. At the time the war was begun it had a high level of support. Once it became clear that it was NOT going to be the endeavor we were led to believe we were locked into future expenditures or faced with a litany of bad choices.
- The stimulus package mostly isn't investing in America. It's fluff. Most of the war money was "invested in America" to as Boeing made new planes, Hummers were manufactured, body armor, and soldiers received combat pay. Most of the money spent on the war found it's way into the American economy and garnered the same 150% return that the stimulus will.
- - -
But, like I said - your basic argument is that the most recent $800+ Billion spending idea is better than the war spending idea of GW Bush. While that may be true, I believe that level of scrutiny is pathetically low. We can do better.
(I voted for Obama, I am not anti Obama by any means. Nor am I against a stimulus package, see my infrastructure suggestion from a couple weeks back)
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Let's see...$825 billion for money spent on jobs in America or $700 billion spent to fight a war in Iraq...
Gee, which is the smarter spending?
It's really pretty simple, Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress managed to reward a large bloc of their financial supporters.
That's basically what Obama and the Democrats are doing now is spreading the money around their core supporters under the guise of a "stimulous package".
I just love paying from my pocket to keep 537 of the most corrupt Americans in a well-paying job with a far better retirement and benefits than I've got.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
National crisis? What are you talking about?
Read the papers much, bub?
Nope. That's what's driving this "crisis". Just so you know, I am not in any crisis over the economic condition of this country.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
National crisis? What are you talking about?
Read the papers much, bub?
Nope. That's what's driving this "crisis". Just so you know, I am not in any crisis over the economic condition of this country.
Ah, yes.
I hope your good fortune continues.
We have a long history of government stimulus spending.
I'm reminded of Reagan's star wars and of course Baby Bush and Iraq. Democrats like to stimulate domestic spending. Republicans like to stimulate military spending. Domestic stimulation is overdue. Nation downright ragged around the edges. We are a long ways from getting out of the "depression" woods too.
Look at it this way, if nothing else will, inflation will eventually decrease our national debt.
Of course, I liked it when Clinton began to pay down the national debt for the first and only time in my life, but no, not good enough for the grey beards of Oklahoma. Throw the bum out. But that's all history and doesn't apply to current situation where we best spend some money.
We are going to spend billions of dollars no matter who is President.
Bush did it paying for a war I opposed.
Obama is doing it by investing in energy savings for schools districts, food programs for the poor, and clean water systems for rural America.
The choice is clear to me.
P.S. I didn't mean to include cannon fodder when I said "you guys" in my last post. He has always been a strident arguer for fiscal responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
We are going to spend billions of dollars no matter who is President.
Bush did it paying for a war I opposed.
Obama is doing it by investing in energy savings for schools districts, food programs for the poor, and clean water systems for rural America.
The choice is clear to me.
P.S. I didn't mean to include cannon fodder when I said "you guys" in my last post. He has always been a strident arguer for fiscal responsibility.
Irony in the energy savings area is that the last three or four federal project bids which have come across my desk have some of the least efficient heating equipment in them. According to engineering types I associate with, there are more in the works like that. I totally get that the Obama admin is just now in office, but the reality of what $$ gets spent on is usually pretty far removed from the promise.
The government for some reason is inconsistent with specifying energy-star compliant or looking for the most efficient equipment for a given project.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
We have a long history of government stimulus spending.
I'm reminded of Reagan's star wars and of course Baby Bush and Iraq. Democrats like to stimulate domestic spending. Republicans like to stimulate military spending. Domestic stimulation is overdue. Nation downright ragged around the edges. We are a long ways from getting out of the "depression" woods too.
Look at it this way, if nothing else will, inflation will eventually decrease our national debt.
Of course, I liked it when Clinton began to pay down the national debt for the first and only time in my life, but no, not good enough for the grey beards of Oklahoma. Throw the bum out. But that's all history and doesn't apply to current situation where we best spend some money.
I haven't been stimulated in a long time. I wonder when the gov't is going to decide it's my turn.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
We are going to spend billions of dollars no matter who is President.
Bush did it paying for a war I opposed.
Obama is doing it by investing in energy savings for schools districts, food programs for the poor, and clean water systems for rural America.
The choice is clear to me.
P.S. I didn't mean to include cannon fodder when I said "you guys" in my last post. He has always been a strident arguer for fiscal responsibility.
RM, I think you are missing the point. What is going on right now is an effort to stimulate the economy. Us "guys" do not think that STD testing, purchasing "green" autos, and a myriad of other projects has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. It's plain ear mark spending, which Obama once said he opposes.
You are talking about discretionary spending vs. war on terror spending. We can have that debate when it's time to do the next budget.
Rasmussan's poll shows decreasing public support for the stimulus package, 42% favor:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/public_support_for_economic_recovery_plan_slips_to_42
Conan, you were stimulated last year. Now that stimulation was about as significant as Reagan's tax cuts for the middle and lower classes, so you might not remember it. But you were definitely stimulated.
Is the honeymoon over? Or are the newlyweds just arguing over the checking account?
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Conan, you were stimulated last year. Now that stimulation was about as significant as Reagan's tax cuts for the middle and lower classes, so you might not remember it. But you were definitely stimulated.
The GDP grew by a record 31% under the Regan tax cuts. Last year's stimulus was not a stimulus (no matter what they called it). It was a rebate, and rebates have a history of failure.
I had a 48% increase in operating revenues yesterday. Someone bought me lunch.
It was easy to show great gains under Reagan. Since 1984 represented a pretty piss poor economic time period, we had nowhere to go but up. The joke at the time was, "if you're paying any taxes now, fire your tax accountant". That downward cycle was different in nature than this one and not as severe. Assuming a tax cut will cure this mess is just partisan posturing.
Ah, the simplicity of the republican mind. Just cut taxes, cut the tax rate, etc. Problem is, a tax cut for the lower 3/4 of the population only goes towards basics or reclaiming lost ground. They are debt squeezed, facing rising expenses for health care, utilities, food, real estate taxes and transportation. Meanwhile, their jobs are shaky, they are having to forego raises & bonuses (excepting the big boys) they face increased pressure and responsibility as management realizes they can now stick it to their employees in the name of "the economy". Exxon posted record earnings this morning. Q4 earnings for Office Depot matched the previous year.
But like many are quick to point out, its the top tier who pay the most taxes. That's problematic for the tax cut argument. Because, the banks didn't pump their bailout money into the economy and historically the top tier of taxpayers don't spend their new tax savings either. They don't need to. That leaves even less for government to work with to provide services. Or...is that what republicans see as a corollary benefit?
This complex problem economy is going to require more than simplistic thinking. Taxes are only a small part of the answer.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I had a 48% increase in operating revenues yesterday. Someone bought me lunch.
It was easy to show great gains under Reagan. Since 1984 represented a pretty piss poor economic time period, we had nowhere to go but up. The joke at the time was, "if you're paying any taxes now, fire your tax accountant". That downward cycle was different in nature than this one and not as severe. Assuming a tax cut will cure this mess is just partisan posturing.
Ah, the simplicity of the republican mind. Just cut taxes, cut the tax rate, etc. Problem is, a tax cut for the lower 3/4 of the population only goes towards basics or reclaiming lost ground. They are debt squeezed, facing rising expenses for utilities, food, real estate taxes and transportation. Meanwhile, their jobs are shaky, they are having to forego raises & bonuses (excepting the big boys) they face increased pressure and responsibility as management realizes they can now stick it to their employees in the name of "the economy". Exxon posted record earnings this morning. Q4 earnings for Office Depot matched the previous year.
On the other hand, the banks didn't pump their bailout money into the economy and historically the top tier of taxpayers don't spend their new tax savings. They don't need to. That leaves even less for government to work with to provide services. Or...is that republicans see as a corollary benefit?
This complex problem economy is going to require more than simplistic thinking. Taxes are only a small part of the answer.
I have to agree with that. It is a small part of the answer. Consumer confidence has a lot to do with it. But taxes and regulation are really the only factors that government has control over.
Let me make it super simple (since that's the way MY mind works)!
Like a carriage driver, taxes & regulations are the reigns. Loosen them and the horse is more comfortable and moves at a steady clip. Tighten them and the horse is less comfortable, and slows to a stop.
Stimulus in the form of rebates are the whip, they produce a burst of speed but are ultimately short lived, requiring more energy that must be recouped later, and constant whipping causes the horse to become calloused to the stimuli.
You see, the reigns are tightening, and the horse has learned to ignore the whip!
This thread is a great microcasm of what's wrong with the 2 party system. It is binary. You are either ON or OFF.
Everyone agrees that something should be done.
Most people disagree with the current bill.
But one party has the votes so it will pass.
A multiparty system would require more cooperation instead of "I win" it would have to be "we win." Party's could live and die. Minority voices would be heard. Even some new ideas might come and go.
A useful comment as always...
Voting is yes or no? Really. I had no idea. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
If you actually
think about the statement, I was referring to support for the measure not voting on the meassure. Most people disagree with the bill as it currently stands but because we have a two party system there is pressure for all Democrats to vote for it - lest they side with the Republicans. They can not stand up and say "it is a good sentiment, but needs to be changed in XYZ way to be more effective." You don't cross party lines.
If you throw other parties into the mix that issue fades away. People could vote on the MERITS of a measure instead of what party is told to support it. 90% of votes of the average member just follow the party whip - they do what they are told by the party.
quote:
Timmay saidthe Dems had 11 traitors vote agin the bill and why the Senate will have GOP go-along-types that will support it
And there's my point. From your perspective a Democrat who doesn't do what he is told by the party is a traitor, a Republican who votes along with the Democrats is a "go-along-type." Following the marching orders of the 2 party system or be mocked.
I say that I would like to see the system require cooperation and dialogue to get things done, you respond that a vote is "yes or no." Thanks again for your enlightening comments. The discussion is certainly better for knowing what buttons are on the senate floor.
Way to encourage dialogue.
Are you trying to say that you are a fan of the 2 party system?
Actually, are you trying to make a point at all or just trying to be obnoxious? Your last 3 posts can be summed up as "nah uh." Great discussion. I'm sorry I attempted to engage you.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I had a 48% increase in operating revenues yesterday. Someone bought me lunch.
It was easy to show great gains under Reagan. Since 1984 represented a pretty piss poor economic time period, we had nowhere to go but up. The joke at the time was, "if you're paying any taxes now, fire your tax accountant". That downward cycle was different in nature than this one and not as severe. Assuming a tax cut will cure this mess is just partisan posturing.
Ah, the simplicity of the republican mind. Just cut taxes, cut the tax rate, etc. Problem is, a tax cut for the lower 3/4 of the population only goes towards basics or reclaiming lost ground. They are debt squeezed, facing rising expenses for utilities, food, real estate taxes and transportation. Meanwhile, their jobs are shaky, they are having to forego raises & bonuses (excepting the big boys) they face increased pressure and responsibility as management realizes they can now stick it to their employees in the name of "the economy". Exxon posted record earnings this morning. Q4 earnings for Office Depot matched the previous year.
On the other hand, the banks didn't pump their bailout money into the economy and historically the top tier of taxpayers don't spend their new tax savings. They don't need to. That leaves even less for government to work with to provide services. Or...is that republicans see as a corollary benefit?
This complex problem economy is going to require more than simplistic thinking. Taxes are only a small part of the answer.
I have to agree with that. It is a small part of the answer. Consumer confidence has a lot to do with it. But taxes and regulation are really the only factors that government has control over.
Let me make it super simple (since that's the way MY mind works)!
Like a carriage driver, taxes & regulations are the reigns. Loosen them and the horse is more comfortable and moves at a steady clip. Tighten them and the horse is less comfortable, and slows to a stop.
Stimulus in the form of rebates are the whip, they produce a burst of speed but are ultimately short lived, requiring more energy that must be recouped later, and constant whipping causes the horse to become calloused to the stimuli.
You see, the reigns are tightening, and the horse has learned to ignore the whip!
Help me out I do not remember attempting to manipulate the economy with 'rebates' or whatever until last year. Given that, how do you know they do not work?
Did local GOP elected officials refuse to cooperate with The List or did they submit a bunch of 'shovel-ready' projects with the other inmates?
You forget the 2001 rebates of $600 to combat a decline after 911.
I'm sure you also think that 911 was an evil government plot hatched by that evil George Bush.
Anywho... The rebates were ineffective in creating lasting change, so they instituted the evil 2003 "GB tax cuts for the rich" (fancy name for across-the-board tax cuts) and the economy jumped 32%, and 5 Million jobs materialized over the next two years.
Because pro-growth tax cuts are not designed simply to "put money in people's pockets," their proponents do not focus on whether recipients are rich or poor. Tax relief policies should be designed to maximize long-run economic growth, which in turn raises incomes across the board. Thus, raising marginal tax rates on "the wealthy" to finance tax rebates from low-income families may satisfy a redistributive agenda, but it would also reduce economic growth and eventually lower incomes across the board. It is better for everyone to reduce tax rates across the board and encourage all Americans to work, save, and invest. Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D....but don't let any of this jade your argument.
Continue.
Tim,
One simple question, if "rebates" (they were also distributed to people who paid no taxes, how is that a rebate?) are key to economic prosperity, why not just have the government give all citizens $10,000 every year? Why not $100,000?
At some point that money has to be repaid. The government will have to take $1200 out of the economy to repay the original $600. In the long run, it is a net loss. Hence, they should be used sparingly.
And tax refunds? If they didn't take excess money the spending would have fed the market earlier. Tax refunds as economic stimulus is a bit like saying a good ER helps gang violence.
Tim,
Rebates work like a whip to the horse, for a very short period of time, after that the economy rebounds.
Don't just site "Dudes" until you actually read their research. You took a convenient little snippet from a much larger piece of research.
In the NBER formal Report To the President, they state that rebates are ineffective but for a short time. They even have some wonderful graphs and data. Thanks for the resource.
An economic stimulus was proposed by the President in January and passed by Congress in February, authorizing about $113 billion in tax rebate checks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and allowing 50 percent expensing for business equipment investment. The stimulus likely boosted GDP growth in the second and third quarters above what it might have been otherwise, but its influence faded by the end of the year. NBER 2009 Report To The President
It's like Afrin. A couple of sprays clears your sinuses immediately, but you pay for it 12 hours later when you can't breathe at all.
I'm afraid you wont find any statistical evidence to the contrary. Even if you scour Huffington or Salon.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Anywho... The rebates were ineffective in creating lasting change, so they instituted the evil 2003 "GB tax cuts for the rich" (fancy name for across-the-board tax cuts) and the economy jumped 32%, and 5 Million jobs materialized over the next two years.
More likely the loosening of the credit markets to the point that anybody who could sign their name could take out tens of thousands in unsecured debt and homeowners HELOCing themselves up to their eyeballs caused the jump in the economy.
Most of the growth was in the service sector.
Reagan's tax cuts were also overshadowed by loosening of monetary policy by the Feds thanks to inflation having been taken out in a significant way by the second year of his term. They probably did do a little good, though, since tax rates were higher at the time.
Now that tax rates are where they are, tax cuts are becoming even less effective as a stimulus measure. (they never were very effective, except when marginal rates were extremely high back in the middle of the century)
They're just like interest rate cuts are right now, pretty much useless since the Fed's target rate is already at or below inflation.
As further evidence, note that early on in the Clinton administration tax rates went up, yet there was still plenty of economic growth.
I love how the Chicago School policies have destroyed economies the world over, yet many still insist that's the ticket to prosperity.
We're talking nearly $3000 for every man, woman and child in the United States (nearly $4300 if you throw in the interest the gov't will have to pay on the debt, since we don't have the money).
Now, you tell me. Would we get a better bang for the buck if you just sent everyone a check ($9000 headed to my household!)? Or, knowing how well the feds run any type of program, do you feel it will be better to put it into the programs earmarked in the bill? I know how I would vote.
Those who are in dire need of money will spend the money right away, thus spurring the economy. Those who don't spend the money right away will put the money into the banks, which boosts them by providing more cash to loan.
Imagine that. The citizens would actually dictate where the money goes (not the out-of-touch goofballs in DC), depending on how they spend or save the money.
What a concept.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Now, you tell me. Would we get a better bang for the buck if you just sent everyone a check ($9000 headed to my household!)? Or, knowing how well the feds run any type of program, do you feel it will be better to put it into the programs earmarked in the bill? I know how I would vote.
It depends. If it goes toward infrastructure (highways, et al), it has a markedly better effect on the economy than direct payments to taxpayers. Revenue transfers to state governments, increases in food stamps and extension of unemployment benefits also have much better effect on the GDP than a direct rebate to taxpayers. A payroll tax holiday would create a slightly better effect, too.
Tax cuts, by the way, don't have nearly the pronounced good effects as the above.
Source: http://www.house.gov/smbiz/hearings/hearing-07-24-08-stimulus/Zandi.pdf
To me, infrastructure makes a lot of sense. You currently have roads and bridges that are 60 and 70 years old that are still being used. And seeing how commerce flocks around good roads, improved infrastructure has huge economic effects for years and years.
Let's put it this way: the stimulus bill is likely the best of a really bad situation. Can it be improved? Sure. (And I'm sure more stuff is coming down the pike. Republicans are already wanting *more* infrastructure spending.)
But it's better than doing nothing or lollygagging around, hoping things will get better. Herbert Hoover would attest to that.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
We're talking nearly $3000 for every man, woman and child in the United States (nearly $4300 if you throw in the interest the gov't will have to pay on the debt, since we don't have the money).
Now, you tell me. Would we get a better bang for the buck if you just sent everyone a check ($9000 headed to my household!)? Or, knowing how well the feds run any type of program, do you feel it will be better to put it into the programs earmarked in the bill? I know how I would vote.
Those who are in dire need of money will spend the money right away, thus spurring the economy. Those who don't spend the money right away will put the money into the banks, which boosts them by providing more cash to loan.
Imagine that. The citizens would actually dictate where the money goes (not the out-of-touch goofballs in DC), depending on how they spend or save the money.
What a concept.
There's still no guarantee that direct stimulus checks would make it into the broader economy. Some would, obviously, but some might be plowed back into debt (credit card, mortgage or otherwise) which puts the cash right back in the hoarding hands of the credit industry. Same things with making a savings deposit. It's not that banks don't have capital to lend, and it's not that they need more capital to lend. It's that they 1) can't trust the people they'll lend to, and 2) don't know enough about the liabilities on their own books to part with capital. So they're sitting on all the bailout funds they've already been given.
It's almost as if the financial industry should be firewalled from the stimulus package. There're enough closed feedback loops within it right now that any money plowed into it would be frozen right along with that first $350 billion from the TARP. (Or, you know, bonused out to the upper echelon)
This is why actually having government administer the stimulus is a good thing. The government WILL spend the money, and WILL demand that it gets things in return, like roads and bridges and a new electric grid, etc. Private financing can't and won't do that right now.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
And there it is, the dudes at the National Bureau of Economic Research (//%22http://www.nber.org/digest/apr05/w10784.html%22) felt strongly enough about the 01 rebate that they put this at the top of their web page: "the [tax] rebates did increase consumer spending significantly, helping to end the recession of 2001."
Yes that was from their paper in 2004. Their 2009 report is out now and that is where they conclude "The stimulus likely boosted GDP growth in the second and third quarters above what it might have been otherwise, but its influence faded by the end of the year."
You may read more at http://www.nber.org/erp/2009_erp.pdf
(http://bestweekever.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/more_you_know1.jpg)
I'm wondering how the hell anyone could possibly say anything worked in 2001. That September kind of jacked it all up. Was this before September, if so, how could you know the long-term effects? Was it after September, because by God the economy struggled for quite some time after. It kind of, sort of, recovered per se. Several years later, right before it completely imploded.
I don't see how anyone could say anything worked domestically over the last several years. Not with a straight face, and with the support of better than low intellect.
Ah, read it. They're saying consumer confidence was propped up, kind of a no-brainer. It makes the statement however, that the recession "ended". A position that is impossible to support. It's just as likely that the "Recession" would have continued at the end of tax rebates, had it not been for the US economy losing over a quarter of it's value shortly after September. In exactly the way the rebates of 2008 temporarily supported the economy, and consumer confidence.
An alternative and perhaps even more likely concept, is that the economy never recovered from design flaws seen in 2001. The relatively minor recession abruptly ended with the economic catastrophe and paralysis post 911. And, the economy was "propped up" every year by bigger and bigger tax cuts, while the root-causes of the recession were never addresses. Leading, naturally, to today.
Only a few months ago, "the economy" was "strong."
I am disappointed that this bill doesn't focus more on some major component of our infrastructure. Something along the lines of technology, solar, energy grid, self sufficiency, rail, inner city development etc. Its doubtful a rebate by itself will do much, just like only enacting tax cuts will do much. And its highly unlikely that the laundry lists submitted to Congress will be anything but ludicrous. The Senate has a chance to clean it up some, but republicans more or less showed their stripes by locking arms. Unfortunate.
However, time seems to be their motivation instead of focus.
It's funny. How many people have you heard on tv, here in this forum, ..... who say this isn't the perfect bill, or, this isn't the best bill, or, it could be better, or, ..... ?
Now, how many people have said the opposite? If everyone agrees this isn't the best bill, then what on earth are we doing?
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
It's funny. How many people have you heard on tv, here in this forum, ..... who say this isn't the perfect bill, or, this isn't the best bill, or, it could be better, or, ..... ?
Now, how many people have said the opposite? If everyone agrees this isn't the best bill, then what on earth are we doing?
Do you really think legislation is ever passed where *everyone* is 100 percent happy with it? Can you think of one?
Not everyone was happy with the U.S. Constitution when it was drafted, either. Yet, 230 years later, here we are.
Striving for perfect legislation is admirable. Holding out for perfect legislation is pure folly.
This is downright hilarious now.
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0710/david_obey_1023.jpg)
David Obey (D-Wis.) has snuck a little gem into the supplemental budget bill (no one is really calling this a "stimulus" any more).
Here's his little safeguard:
"insert in the Congressional Record not later than Feb. 4, 2009, such material as he may deem explanatory of appropriations measures for the fiscal year 2009."
Feb 4 is the day that the bill takes the floor, and what this does is allow anyone to tag additional earmarks to the bill without time to review or add explanatory language.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) anticipates an additional 4,000 earmarks to be added to the bill by Democrats, and if this phrase is accepted as part of the bill, passage will have to take place without review or explanation of any of them.
It's estimated that an additional $4 Billion in pet projects will be tagged to the $900 Billion of reported pet projects.
It's like watching a car wreck in slow motion.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
It's estimated that an additional $4 Billion in pet projects will be tagged to the $900 Billion of reported pet projects.
So is the whole thing-- including tax cuts -- now considered a pet project?
And $4 billion (which is *estimated*) is less than one-half of 1 percent of the total package.
That's hardly what what I would call scandalous.
And the demonization of earmarks in general is a joke. There are good earmarks and bad earmarks. To lump them all into Satan's Spawn is dishonest.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
It's funny. How many people have you heard on tv, here in this forum, ..... who say this isn't the perfect bill, or, this isn't the best bill, or, it could be better, or, ..... ?
Now, how many people have said the opposite? If everyone agrees this isn't the best bill, then what on earth are we doing?
Do you really think legislation is ever passed where *everyone* is 100 percent happy with it? Can you think of one?
Not everyone was happy with the U.S. Constitution when it was drafted, either. Yet, 230 years later, here we are.
Striving for perfect legislation is admirable. Holding out for perfect legislation is pure folly.
Plus, what you consider as perfect legislation just might be imperfect and immoral in my opinion. Democracy, I love it and wouldn't want anything else. I figure it helps keep my blood pressure pumping. America my way, not so much, America OUR way, of course and always. The 'our' includes everyone that I feel is total idiots because they do not believe exactly like I do, inspite of myself I respect that citizen to have their opinion. I even include my brother-in-law the F*x N*w* fanatic in this group. Billie OMG and Sean Insannity are his bests friend according to my sister.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
It's estimated that an additional $4 Billion in pet projects will be tagged to the $900 Billion of reported pet projects.
So is the whole thing-- including tax cuts -- now considered a pet project?
So is the whole thing-- including tax rebates -- now considered a pet project?
Fixed it for ya.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
And $4 billion (which is *estimated*) is less than one-half of 1 percent of the total package.
That's hardly what what I would call scandalous.
And the demonization of earmarks in general is a joke. There are good earmarks and bad earmarks. To lump them all into Satan's Spawn is dishonest.
The funniest term I've heard for this bill so far is "The Porkulous Package". It actually would be funny if it weren't such a fitting name. It only takes one cursory glance to see that the areas deemed worthy of re-igniting the economy read like a payback list for the DNC and to a far lesser extent the RNC.
The fact is, no one seems to agree on how best to jump-start the economy. The best advice I've heard so far is to keep gov't out of it and allow it to seek it's natural "bottom".
Sure just $4 B in additional earmarks this bill, but what about every other bill that gets earmarks attached? It adds up to a serious deficit after awhile. It's pretty sick that we've become so desensitized to how much $1 B is.
"It's only 4 billion dollars..."
State will receive $465 million for highway projects if the stimulus passes, according to the World. (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090202_11_0_OKLAHO289848%22)
quote:
OKLAHOMA CITY - The Oklahoma Department of Transportation estimates that the state will receive some $465 million for highway transportation projects once the federal government passes an economic stimulus package, officials said Monday.
The highway improvements package awarded to the state is expected to create more than 15,000 private-sector jobs, said Gary Ridley, ODOT director.
Ridley said, however, that the expected package, which Congress is debating this week, was far less than what department officials had wanted.
In recent months, department staff members and engineering consultants identified 180 highway transportation projects across the state, totaling $1.1 billion.
"We were a little disappointed," Ridley said.
Of the expected $465 million the state would receive, about $330 million would be set aside for projects on ODOT-maintained roads. The remaining $135 million would fund highway projects for individual cities, counties or municipal groups, such as INCOG.
Ridley said the department also expects an additional $33 million for public transportation projects.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
State will receive $465 million for highway projects if the stimulus passes, according to the World. (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090202_11_0_OKLAHO289848%22)
quote:
OKLAHOMA CITY - The Oklahoma Department of Transportation estimates that the state will receive some $465 million for highway transportation projects once the federal government passes an economic stimulus package, officials said Monday.
The highway improvements package awarded to the state is expected to create more than 15,000 private-sector jobs, said Gary Ridley, ODOT director.
Ridley said, however, that the expected package, which Congress is debating this week, was far less than what department officials had wanted.
In recent months, department staff members and engineering consultants identified 180 highway transportation projects across the state, totaling $1.1 billion.
"We were a little disappointed," Ridley said.
Of the expected $465 million the state would receive, about $330 million would be set aside for projects on ODOT-maintained roads. The remaining $135 million would fund highway projects for individual cities, counties or municipal groups, such as INCOG.
Ridley said the department also expects an additional $33 million for public transportation projects.
I think someone at the state DOT stole the Metro Chamber jobs calculator. I'd like to see a break-down of how that is going to create 15,000 jobs. You can't arrive at those numbers without a lot of voodoo economics (the people who explore, produce, and refine oil, equipment manufacturers, raw material and commodity suppliers, QT clerks to sell construction workers soda and Hotzies, etc.).
You are talking extreme muliplicative (is that even a word?) spending and money growth to make that happen. Not even taking into account construction materials, vehicles, right-of-way purchases, engineering, distribution of pork to the various groups like INCOG, simple division says that's $31,000 per person in that 15,000 new jobs figure. Subtract the employment costs from that $31,000 per and you are talking on average of somewhere around $20K per year net. Not exactly high-end or even mid-middle class.
I'm not saying I don't want the money spent in Oklahoma. I'm just saying the blue sky they are selling this with is absurd. I sense though they have to attach some sort of feel good job creation number to show how Congress and the Admin are going to create 2.5mm to 3mm jobs. I also have a funny feeling Tulsa will get the crumbs after OKC gets the lion's share of the package.
The nature of construction is such that many of these wouldn't be new jobs created, just more projects ahead for many already working in the construction, engineering, and related fields.
I see in all of today's reports and most of the networks that they are shifting responsibility for this bill. They have begun to build up the scape-goat. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus of Montana is being called "The Architect of The Stimulus Bill."
No big reports of his "architecture" before, but as this porculus begins to sour, the administration has "nominated" this poor sap. The media is building him up and shifting the focus from the president or his staff today.
In 3 months, when it's time to ask the people for a Stimulus Bill rather than a Budgetary Spending Bill Baucus will be "Roved" out of Washington.
Unbelievably clever. Bush attempted to do this with Rove (at Rove's advice) but couldn't pull it off because the media knew better. President Obama seems to have the media in his pocket, and they are shifting praise for this bill immediately to Baucus without question.
Quite a spectacle. I wonder if Baucus knows the number of the bus that's about to hit him?
They are referring to it as (#warning# Talking Points Ahead):
Montana's senior U.S. Senator Max Baucus' plan to get America's economy moving again.
and another:
During debate over his Economic Recovery Package, Montana's senior U.S. Senator and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus told the committee his stimulus provisions would "position our economy to be more competitive."
I'll keep posting them as they appear before tomorrow's vote.
Conan, the math is worse than that... (disclaimer that I haven't seen a study on this, just seems off to me)
$465mil / 15000 is $31,000 per job. You need to factor out equipment & materials costs (only a portion of which will create or maintain any jobs ), profit for every level, administration costs in government, and THEN your various taxes and fees.
Lets pretend we have a 85% efficiency, only 15% wasted by the government.
Lets pretend materials and equipment costs are another 15% loss (85% ends up going to create jobs).
Profit is another 15% (at all levels, not 15% on the end construction but the equipment maker, the quarry, etc.) and that doesn't create jobs.
So $465mil * .85 *.85 *.85 = $285mil in the pockets of workers. Or a cash salary of $19,000 per job - now that could reflect $40,000 for 7,500 primary jobs and $20,000 towards 1/2 of another 7,500 (or 3,750 jobs), and on down the line ('support' jobs).
I don't care how you do the math, the economics seem a bit ridiculous. The way they come up the number is to take the expenditures multiplied by a number on a chart (road building #), that is supposed to extrapolate the number of jobs created by the project and recirculation of the cash disbursements. I would LOVE to see follow up work performed to see what actually happens.
Perhaps my mocking is out of place, but I'm with Conan that the numbers seem off to me. Someone find a reputable study that confirms the numbers and I'll buy it. I might just be uninformed.
Folks, it's worse than we thought. According to Pelosi we are losing 500 MILLION jobs a month:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E
I wonder if all 57 states are affected:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Folks, it's worse than we thought. According to Pelosi we are losing 500 MILLION jobs a month:
She must be including illegal immigrants, Mexico, Canada, Europe....
I thought the population of the USA was about 300 Million.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Folks, it's worse than we thought. According to Pelosi we are losing 500 MILLION jobs a month:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E
I wonder if all 57 states are affected:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
[}:)]
That little piece of communist work is probably counting China and Russia in her figures.
[}:)]
Support for the current stimulus package at 37%:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Folks, it's worse than we thought. According to Pelosi we are losing 500 MILLION jobs a month:
She must be including illegal immigrants, Mexico, Canada, Europe....
I thought the population of the USA was about 300 Million.
Yeah, every working age adult loses their job 4 times a month.
Right now the max jobs I can lose is technically 2 this month. That would leave me empty for next month though. Unless of course Cat Feeder and Dog Feeder count as jobs, though I am not paid in monetary compensation. Only dead Raccoons and Possums and hairballs from the cat.
quote:
Originally posted by cmatt1
Right now the max jobs I can lose is technically 2 this month. That would leave me empty for next month though. Unless of course Cat Feeder and Dog Feeder count as jobs, though I am not paid in monetary compensation. Only dead Raccoons and Possums and hairballs from the cat.
". . .but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So you got that goin for ya.
Something new:
The underlying cause for the economic crisis is the availability of cheap capital coupled with governmental encouragement to buy larger houses. Tax incentives encourage rich people are supposed to buy the largest house they can afford and/or build a new customer house. Special programs help poor people leverage loans for houses. All mortgages are given special treatment as securities in tax law as well as priority in bankruptcy - encouraging people to lend. Some regulations even REQUIRE banks to make certain percentages of loans. Even more backs lenders with the power of the Federal Government on such loans.
These problems were exacerbated by poor debt rating of securitized mortgages assets. Which played major roll, but I would surmise that the above is the UNDERLYING cause. Without the underlying causes the securities would not have been an issue.
It led to over spending by consumers, over building by developers, and over lending to under qualified borrowers by banks. A self feeding loop that acted like a pump to blow the bubble up. When the cycle stopped, the pump was turned off and the bubble deflated and the circle goes the other way. Lenders don't want to loan, a glut of housing means it is less profitable to build, and people are stuck in houses they can't sell so no one wants to buy/no need to borrow (if they could).
The solution in the economic stimulus package?
4% governmental mortgages.
The new mortgages will allow people to get larger loans and buy new homes. In such a way they can sell their current houses and build larger homes. Poor people will be able to afford mortgages. Builders get back to work, financing companies start turning again... and we hope the bubble starts building (or we are encouraging people to buy property that will further decline in value).
The solution to a burst bubble? Pump it back up.
Does anyone else see a fatal flaw with this?
If they keep the cap and terms on the tax credit for purchasing a home as passed yesterday in the Senate at $15K, that would be a real good incentive to purchase a home right now. My understanding is, they were dropping the first time buyer requirement.
The $7500 and not owning a home in the last three years was good, but the GOP plan should get the housing market going again.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Something new:
The underlying cause for the economic crisis is the availability of cheap capital coupled with governmental encouragement to buy larger houses. Tax incentives encourage rich people are supposed to buy the largest house they can afford and/or build a new customer house. Special programs help poor people leverage loans for houses. All mortgages are given special treatment as securities in tax law as well as priority in bankruptcy - encouraging people to lend. Some regulations even REQUIRE banks to make certain percentages of loans. Even more backs lenders with the power of the Federal Government on such loans.
These problems were exacerbated by poor debt rating of securitized mortgages assets. Which played major roll, but I would surmise that the above is the UNDERLYING cause. Without the underlying causes the securities would not have been an issue.
It led to over spending by consumers, over building by developers, and over lending to under qualified borrowers by banks. A self feeding loop that acted like a pump to blow the bubble up. When the cycle stopped, the pump was turned off and the bubble deflated and the circle goes the other way. Lenders don't want to loan, a glut of housing means it is less profitable to build, and people are stuck in houses they can't sell so no one wants to buy/no need to borrow (if they could).
The solution in the economic stimulus package?
4% governmental mortgages.
The new mortgages will allow people to get larger loans and buy new homes. In such a way they can sell their current houses and build larger homes. Poor people will be able to afford mortgages. Builders get back to work, financing companies start turning again... and we hope the bubble starts building (or we are encouraging people to buy property that will further decline in value).
The solution to a burst bubble? Pump it back up.
Does anyone else see a fatal flaw with this?
I know. I listened to that yesterday and couldn't believe my ears. I guess we're going to try to put this depression off for another generation.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Something new:
The underlying cause for the economic crisis is the availability of cheap capital coupled with governmental encouragement to buy larger houses. Tax incentives encourage rich people are supposed to buy the largest house they can afford and/or build a new customer house. Special programs help poor people leverage loans for houses. All mortgages are given special treatment as securities in tax law as well as priority in bankruptcy - encouraging people to lend. Some regulations even REQUIRE banks to make certain percentages of loans. Even more backs lenders with the power of the Federal Government on such loans.
These problems were exacerbated by poor debt rating of securitized mortgages assets. Which played major roll, but I would surmise that the above is the UNDERLYING cause. Without the underlying causes the securities would not have been an issue.
It led to over spending by consumers, over building by developers, and over lending to under qualified borrowers by banks. A self feeding loop that acted like a pump to blow the bubble up. When the cycle stopped, the pump was turned off and the bubble deflated and the circle goes the other way. Lenders don't want to loan, a glut of housing means it is less profitable to build, and people are stuck in houses they can't sell so no one wants to buy/no need to borrow (if they could).
The solution in the economic stimulus package?
4% governmental mortgages.
That Mitch McConnell is a real piece of work. (//%22http://uk.reuters.com/article/economyNews/idUKTRE5115UL20090202%22)
quote:
"You ought to go right at housing first," Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, told reporters on Monday. "We have already indicated that we think this 4 percent mortgage proposal... is something that can work and make a difference."
I'll give him +1 for trying to target the average homeowner and the skyrocketing foreclosure rate, (//%22http://www.realtytrac.com/foreclosure/foreclosure-rates.html%22) but I give him -20 for wanting to 1) reinflate the bubble, and 2) essentially reinstate the consumer consumption-based model of the last ten years.
Also, I'm starting to understand how nationalizing the banks would be socialism, but nationalizing the housing industry would be excellent public policy.
Actually, I still don't understand that.
Why does the gov't keep wanting to reward taxpayers for taking on debt?
Rewards for mortgage interest. Now they talk about rewards for car interest.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Why does the gov't keep wanting to reward taxpayers for taking on debt?
Rewards for mortgage interest. Now they talk about rewards for car interest.
Because sadly, debt is what makes the world go round these days. If you pay cash, you're a deadbeat, since you're not giving any bank a slice of the pie.
Regarding 4% mortgages, I think it ought to be limited to refis, so as to help the people who might otherwise find themselves in foreclosure, thus driving the market down even further, yet preventing wholesale bubble-making.
I'm still pretty gobsmacked that the line that it's the lending to the poor folks that got us into this mess. More like overextended middle class folks and wealthy builders who were trying to cash in by building more and more houses. Additionally, the banks were largely responsible for making the choice to shift to having essentially no underwriting standards. No federal law requires that. The law was on the books for many years and banks were in fine compliance when they chose to loan to people with little funds but good payment history.
But when you run out of middle class and wealthy folks to loan to, why let the gravy train stop? Keep loaning to people with more and more debt and keep securitizing those loans and making a fortune.
There aren't that many poor folks who choose to own, even if the banks would be willing to throw the money at them.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Why does the gov't keep wanting to reward taxpayers for taking on debt?
Rewards for mortgage interest. Now they talk about rewards for car interest.
Because sadly, debt is what makes the world go round these days. If you pay cash, you're a deadbeat, since you're not giving any bank a slice of the pie.
Regarding 4% mortgages, I think it ought to be limited to refis, so as to help the people who might otherwise find themselves in foreclosure, thus driving the market down even further, yet preventing wholesale bubble-making.
I'm still pretty gobsmacked that the line that it's the lending to the poor folks that got us into this mess. More like overextended middle class folks and wealthy builders who were trying to cash in by building more and more houses. Additionally, the banks were largely responsible for making the choice to shift to having essentially no underwriting standards. No federal law requires that. The law was on the books for many years and banks were in fine compliance when they chose to loan to people with little funds but good payment history.
But when you run out of middle class and wealthy folks to loan to, why let the gravy train stop? Keep loaning to people with more and more debt and keep securitizing those loans and making a fortune.
There aren't that many poor folks who choose to own, even if the banks would be willing to throw the money at them.
Plus the fact you had the banks selling mortgage debt in derivatives, under the pretext that somehow the value of real estate "never" goes down.
Until now, of course.
That's the big factor that's causing banks to tighten credit -- their investments suddenly went to crap.
Tim:
4% mortgages will encourage more people to borrow. Over borrowing led to over purchasing which enabled real estate to bubble. The entire intent is to facilitate more purchasing in the housing market (don't forget new tax cuts are in there also). Certainly that will reinflate the market at least to a minimal extent.
And per artificial wage floors. Of course it creates inflation. Wealth is on a comparative basis. If you artificially raise the floor everyone else is less wealthy, thus requiring more money to maintain their comparative status. In addition, by artificially increasing the cost of doing business the price to consumers is increased by a corresponding degree. Thus, our wealth is further reduced by the extra expenditures we will be charged to offset the wage increase. So non-minimum wage jobs then need to get a raise in order to have the same purchasing power - which raises the cost of whatever task they are performing, which precipitates higher charges for that service or product.
Artificially raising the minimum wage does not create more wealth. It's as simple as that. Now, I'm not arguing against a minimum wage in totality - I'm just pointing out that the effects are without much merit.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
If they keep the cap and terms on the tax credit for purchasing a home as passed yesterday in the Senate at $15K, that would be a real good incentive to purchase a home right now. My understanding is, they were dropping the first time buyer requirement.
The $7500 and not owning a home in the last three years was good, but the GOP plan should get the housing market going again.
The 7,500 wasn't really a 'credit', it was to be payed back over 15 years (interest free). While I would be glad to take advantage, the new 15 grand cap for a true credit (10% of purchase) is huge. There is a 5% down payment requirement BTW. Since I have been casually considering buying a house and committing myself to Tulsa, this and the 4% mortgage option has got my attention. Now its gonna have to happen - I have run out of excuses to put off the commitment (incidentally, this is how I got married - minus any cash incentives). While the 4% may have the effect of getting me into a little more house for my monthly payment, the credit is going to replenish my savings that are dumped on the down payment. This is definitely going to shore up my personal spending confidence.
The main problem I see with the 4% is who isn't going to refinance? How can the lending industry even handle the paperwork?
$780 billion compromise reached. (//%22http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123393201756256999.html%22)
quote:
Originally posted by jne
QuoteOriginally posted by Conan71
If they keep the cap and terms on the tax credit for purchasing a home as passed yesterday in the Senate at $15K,
Of course, the $15k isn't really $15k if you pay less than $7500 a year in income tax, so for a significant portion of home buyers, it's not as good as a $7500 0% loan.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by jne
QuoteOriginally posted by Conan71
If they keep the cap and terms on the tax credit for purchasing a home as passed yesterday in the Senate at $15K,
Of course, the $15k isn't really $15k if you pay less than $7500 a year in income tax, so for a significant portion of home buyers, it's not as good as a $7500 0% loan.
Not sure if that will turn into a hand-out for those who don't pay a like amount in income tax or not. The details seem a bit sketchy yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Not sure if that will turn into a hand-out for those who don't pay a like amount in income tax or not. The details seem a bit sketchy yet.
It's just as much a hand out as a nonrefundable tax credit as it would be as a refundable tax credit, it just leaves out the people who probably need the incentive the most. (namely folks who make under $50,000 a year or parents with several kids)
Either way, people are being given money.
I am unsure if this has been posted yet, but it is interesting:
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state
You know Pelosi has problems when that jack donkey Cafferty is bashing her:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/10/cafferty.house/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
"Jackass" is one word, counselor.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
"Jackass" is one word, counselor.
You would know.
Well that bill's done. Boils down to $13 dollars a week for economic stimulus to the middle class, and w whole bunch of government spending on more government.
Good job Legislative Branch!
We expected nothing less!
I hope President Obama has learned never to turn anything over to Pelosi and Reed ever again.
(http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/CONGRESS_STIMULUS.sff_GFX422_20090203185919.jpg)
Now we just wait a few months and Max Baccus will get the blame for the bill, with The President and Pelosi claiming no responsibility.
Well it's now over 1,000 pages and 3.27 Trillion over 10 years. A burden of $20,000 to every tax payer.
The bill was sent off to The Congressional Members' Offices the Lobbyists for review before passage. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/2/12/congressional-offices-dont-have-the-stimulus-bill-lobbyists-do.html
This is change I can't believe!
Pelosi says "Hurry up and vote, I'm off to Rome to get an award from an Italian legislative group." WHAT?
Mr. President please get control of this thing. The kids are driving the bus and they are HIGH!
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20090212/i/r1447313307.jpg?x=243&y=345&q=85&sig=XKXNiqaUxmYVEOxp6j8dgA--)
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Well it's now over 1,000 pages and 3.27 Trillion over 10 years. A burden of $20,000 to every tax payer.
The bill was sent off to The Congressional Members' Offices the Lobbyists for review before passage. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/2/12/congressional-offices-dont-have-the-stimulus-bill-lobbyists-do.html
This is change I can't believe!
Pelosi says "Hurry up and vote, I'm off to Rome to get an award from an Italian legislative group." WHAT?
Mr. President please get control of this thing. The kids are driving the bus and they are HIGH!
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20090212/i/r1447313307.jpg?x=243&y=345&q=85&sig=XKXNiqaUxmYVEOxp6j8dgA--)
Wow, FMTT!!!
Nero fiddled while Rome burned and Obama goes on vacation rather than sign off on the urgent stimulus bill whose purpose was to prevent a "catastrophe".
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152009/news/nationalnews/whats_the_rush__155255.htm
I wonder if Kanye West will come out and accuse Obama of not caring about poor people affected by the recession/depression as he did when he accused Bush of not caring about black people following his slow response during Katrina.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Nero fiddled while Rome burned and Obama goes on vacation rather than sign off on the urgent stimulus bill whose purpose was to prevent a "catastrophe".
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152009/news/nationalnews/whats_the_rush__155255.htm
I wonder if Kanye West will come out and accuse Obama of not caring about poor people affected by the recession/depression as he did when he accused Bush of not caring about black people following his slow response during Katrina.
Hey, what's a day or two when your party controls the House, Senate, and the Presidency? PLUS it's the correct party. The one that cares for the little guy, not big business. Besides, Bush and the Republicans created this entire mess without any help from the Dems. How can you expect the Dems to fix all of the mess overnight? [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Nero fiddled while Rome burned and Obama goes on vacation rather than sign off on the urgent stimulus bill whose purpose was to prevent a "catastrophe".
Weren't you just complaining about him not observing his 5 day waiting period before signing bills to allow for public comment?
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Nero fiddled while Rome burned and Obama goes on vacation rather than sign off on the urgent stimulus bill whose purpose was to prevent a "catastrophe".
Weren't you just complaining about him not observing his 5 day waiting period before signing bills to allow for public comment?
Oh I get it, Obama is giving us the five day waiting period for public comment and not vacationing while the nation faces catastrophe. Sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Nero fiddled while Rome burned and Obama goes on vacation rather than sign off on the urgent stimulus bill whose purpose was to prevent a "catastrophe".
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152009/news/nationalnews/whats_the_rush__155255.htm
I wonder if Kanye West will come out and accuse Obama of not caring about poor people affected by the recession/depression as he did when he accused Bush of not caring about black people following his slow response during Katrina.
Considering that the federal government was closed through Monday, what difference would it make when it was signed?
More of my favorites from the Porkulus. People are going to be picking this thing apart for comedy value for the next couple of years.
Raul Alverez Disk Golf Course, Austin TX - $886,000
Education for Prostitutes, Dayton OH - $1,500,000
Solar Panels for LA Buildings - $2,160,000,000
Solar Water Heaters for Puerto Rico - $500,000,000
Downtown Quiet Zone, San Diego CA - $20,000,000
Las Vegas Performing Arts Center - $375,000,000 (because there is obviously not enough convention and performance space in Las Vegas).
According to the current tally, Tulsa gets 5,348 new jobs from the bill. Primarily road work and/or construction.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
More of my favorites from the Porkulus. People are going to be picking this thing apart for comedy value for the next couple of years.
Raul Alverez Disk Golf Course, Austin TX - $886,000
Education for Prostitutes, Dayton OH - $1,500,000
Solar Panels for LA Buildings - $2,160,000,000
Solar Water Heaters for Puerto Rico - $500,000,000
Downtown Quiet Zone, San Diego CA - $20,000,000
Las Vegas Performing Arts Center - $375,000,000 (because there is obviously not enough convention and performance space in Las Vegas).
According to the current tally, Tulsa gets 5,348 new jobs from the bill. Primarily road work and/or construction.
I guess that quiet zone thing is kinda funny.
I wonder if you can hunt wabbit in the quiet zone?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OOmfNSzmvUU/R0uh6kmEaII/AAAAAAAAAOw/gCotTojOnnM/s320/Elmer_Fudd_A_Wild_Hare.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
More of my favorites from the Porkulus. People are going to be picking this thing apart for comedy value for the next couple of years.
Raul Alverez Disk Golf Course, Austin TX - $886,000
Education for Prostitutes, Dayton OH - $1,500,000
Solar Panels for LA Buildings - $2,160,000,000
Solar Water Heaters for Puerto Rico - $500,000,000
Downtown Quiet Zone, San Diego CA - $20,000,000
Las Vegas Performing Arts Center - $375,000,000 (because there is obviously not enough convention and performance space in Las Vegas).
According to the current tally, Tulsa gets 5,348 new jobs from the bill. Primarily road work and/or construction.
I guess that quiet zone thing is kinda funny.
The actual description of the project is even funnier when associated with the cost.
Contrary to popular belief, this is not a project to hire out-of-work librarians and have them walk around downtown saying "SHHH", but is, instead, a proposal to reduce the number of intersections where trains have to blow their horns by reconfiguring those crossings. Its impact would range from Laurel Street to Park Boulevard along the main railroad route.
I'm sure it will be just lovely for the few thousand residents who live around there.
$375mm for a convention center in Vegas. That's one hell of an expensive tax-payer-funded blow job.
Actually, I take it back. I now like the quiet zone thing. Yay for projects that improve the quality of life while putting American back to work!
Also, I like the solar panels for buildings in LA thing. That's a no brainer. And heck, while you're at it, solarize some water heaters down in Puerto Rico. Anything that gets appliances off the grid is good thing.
I also like the idea of educating prostitutes. Might be a good thing if we want them to stop being prostitutes some day.
Even the Smith Center for the Performing Arts in Las Vegas (//%22http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/Government/7538.htm%22) might be worth it. LV is a metro area of almost 2 million people. You have to figure that the citizens might want/deserve/apply matching funds to federal grant money for the arts. I mean, seriously. You can only see the topless version of Cirque du Soleil so many times before you crave something more.
Like the bottomless version.
Zing!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Education for Prostitutes, Dayton OH - $1,500,000...
...must resist making sex teacher joke...don't mentioned OH spelled backwards is HO...
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
$375mm for a convention center in Vegas. That's one hell of an expensive tax-payer-funded blow job.
Now that's a stimulus I can believe in.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Education for Prostitutes, Dayton OH - $1,500,000...
...must resist making sex teacher joke...don't mentioned OH spelled backwards is HO...
I dunno if we wanna go there, since Tulsa spelled backwards is ...
Well the Frisbee golf course, even though it was approved is now dis-approved, as is the 3 million to heat swimming pools in Hawaii. Also the billions of dollars for upgrades to numerous zoos across the country.
One of the thousand caviots at the end of the document states:
"Sec. 1604. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used by any State or local government, or any private entity, for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool."
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Well the Frisbee golf course, even though it was approved is now dis-approved, as is the 3 million to heat swimming pools in Hawaii. Also the billions of dollars for upgrades to numerous zoos across the country.
One of the thousand caviots at the end of the document states:
"Sec. 1604. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used by any State or local government, or any private entity, for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool."
Somewhere in Honolulu right now, there is one pissed off pool heater salesman.
Stimulus Money Flushed Down "War on Drugs" Toilet
The new stimulus package includes $3 billion to fund the "War on Drugs" by funding ineffective and often corrupt programs like the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (//%22http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/569/economic_stimulus_bill_includes_byrne_grant_funding%22).
'The Byrne grant program, and especially its funding of the scandal-ridden multi-jurisdictional anti-drug task forces, also came in for harsh criticism from drug reform, civil rights and criminal justice groups. For these critics, the program was in dire need of reform because of incidents like the Tulia, Texas, scandal, where a Byrne-funded task force police officer managed to get 10% of the black population of the town locked up on bogus cocaine distribution charges. Scandals like Tulia showed the Byrne grant program "did more harm than good," the critics wrote in a 2006 letter demanding reform.'
'Of course, Tulia wasn't the only Byrne-related scandal. A 2002 report from the ACLU of Texas found 16 more scandals involving Byrne grant-funded task forces in Texas, including cases of witness tampering, falsifying of government records, fabricating evidence, false imprisonment, racial profiling, and sexual harassment. Byrne-related scandals have also occurred in other states, including the misuse of millions of dollars of grant money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, false convictions because of police perjury in Missouri, and making deals with drug offenders to drop or lower charges in exchange for cash or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.'
Locally, the funding goes to the Tulsa County Drug Task Force, which produces high-profile yet ineffective operations:
'there's reason to believe Tulsa may actually be better off working on their own than with a task force. In Lubbock, when they abolished their task force for fear of civil liability by rogue officers, they discovered that drug arrests in Lubbock actually increased, because enforcers weren't spread as thin working low-yield cases in rural areas.'
http://www.uslaw.com/library/Criminal_Law/Hyping_Harm_Media_welcome_decry_cuts_federal_Byrne_grant_program.php?item=101320
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Stimulus Money Flushed Down "War on Drugs" Toilet
The new stimulus package includes $3 billion to fund the "War on Drugs" by funding ineffective and often corrupt programs like the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (//%22http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/569/economic_stimulus_bill_includes_byrne_grant_funding%22).
'The Byrne grant program, and especially its funding of the scandal-ridden multi-jurisdictional anti-drug task forces, also came in for harsh criticism from drug reform, civil rights and criminal justice groups. For these critics, the program was in dire need of reform because of incidents like the Tulia, Texas, scandal, where a Byrne-funded task force police officer managed to get 10% of the black population of the town locked up on bogus cocaine distribution charges. Scandals like Tulia showed the Byrne grant program "did more harm than good," the critics wrote in a 2006 letter demanding reform.'
'Of course, Tulia wasn't the only Byrne-related scandal. A 2002 report from the ACLU of Texas found 16 more scandals involving Byrne grant-funded task forces in Texas, including cases of witness tampering, falsifying of government records, fabricating evidence, false imprisonment, racial profiling, and sexual harassment. Byrne-related scandals have also occurred in other states, including the misuse of millions of dollars of grant money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, false convictions because of police perjury in Missouri, and making deals with drug offenders to drop or lower charges in exchange for cash or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.'
Locally, the funding goes to the Tulsa County Drug Task Force, which produces high-profile yet ineffective operations:
'there's reason to believe Tulsa may actually be better off working on their own than with a task force. In Lubbock, when they abolished their task force for fear of civil liability by rogue officers, they discovered that drug arrests in Lubbock actually increased, because enforcers weren't spread as thin working low-yield cases in rural areas.'
http://www.uslaw.com/library/Criminal_Law/Hyping_Harm_Media_welcome_decry_cuts_federal_Byrne_grant_program.php?item=101320
They have 106 private jets and jet fuel expenses of 76 million every year. Most of this money goes to L-3 Communications, a private company and the DEA's largest contractor, also one of the federal government's largest contractors.
How difficult do you think it will be to follow the money?
(Answer: Imposible)
Still looking over this thing finding jewels.
2% of the total stimulus package goes to Cedra, Puerto Rico for "100 acres of energy efficient industrial zones" $17.5 billion dollars.
What the #ell is that for. Says it will create 1,600 jobs. That's 1 million dollars a job.
I'm moving!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
They have 106 private jets and jet fuel expenses of 76 million every year. Most of this money goes to L-3 Communications, a private company and the DEA's largest contractor, also one of the federal government's largest contractors.
How difficult do you think it will be to follow the money?
Im shocked that somehow a defense contractor got written into the spending package
(http://chaos.cannisgroup.net/shocked%20nazi.JPG)
Shocked, I tell you.
...tell me they are doing it for the children...
The "Free" Government money scammer on TV, Lesko, should have a field day with this.
Haven't you been seeing the "margin" ads on your computer?
"I got my $12,000 stimulus check, click here to see how you can get yours!"
Yeah, it's that simple, really!!! Ain't gonna havta worry 'bout payin' my mortgage, ain't gonna have to worry 'bout puttin' gas in my car....
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Haven't you been seeing the "margin" ads on your computer?
"I got my $12,000 stimulus check, click here to see how you can get yours!"
Yeah, it's that simple, really!!! Ain't gonna havta worry 'bout payin' my mortgage, ain't gonna have to worry 'bout puttin' gas in my car....
And next month when the banks are nationalized, they will no longer charge overdraft fees!
They will also have none of my money.
Did anyone note how CNN took Greenspan out of context yesterday before The President's speech?
CNN REPORTER "President Obama gets some unlikely support from former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. . . Greenspan thinks it would be a good idea to nationalize banking. . ."
Greenspan's actual words were "The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has told the Financial Times. In an interview, Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laisser-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers. "It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring," he said. "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do.
"You would have to be very careful about imposing any loss on senior creditors of any bank taken under government control because it could impact the senior debt of all other banks," he said. "This is a credit crisis and it is essential to preserve an anchor for the financing of the system. That anchor is the senior debt."
From "Least bad option" to "Good Idea"
LOL
WOW.
I admit to being fooled Gaspar. I didn't spend the time to look into myself. That's a pretty good stretch.
The clarified statement is more believable.
::puts on tinfoil hat::
Certainly makes you realize what direction they want to do. If the press really is in Obama's back pocket and are being fed stories, the deck is certainly stacked in favor of a nationalization effort now. Though, as Greenspan said, portions of such a move may be the least bad option.
::takes hat off::
Thus far, it seems Obama is an economic moderate. I hope that trend continues for the economies sake. It would be easy to lose our way in the midst of a downturn and destroy what enabled us to build up our economy in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Haven't you been seeing the "margin" ads on your computer?
"I got my $12,000 stimulus check, click here to see how you can get yours!"
Yeah, it's that simple, really!!! Ain't gonna havta worry 'bout payin' my mortgage, ain't gonna have to worry 'bout puttin' gas in my car....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=related
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
From "Least bad option" to "Good Idea"
LOL
Sometimes, the least bad idea is the best one you've got.
I'm still pretty pissed about WaMu being seized when they were still well capitalized. Especially since the bank's holding company had enough money on deposit with the bank to outbid JP Morgan's paltry $1.9 billion offer. There were quite a few sweetheart deals given away under the guise of crisis.
Outright theft of within-regulation institutions irks me a lot more than temporary nationalization of institutions who are actually already undercapitalized.
Not that we should really need to do that at the moment. The market price for MBS is artificially low right now due to liquidity issues and general fear in the market. They're generally priced well below the NPV of the funds they are expected to generate over the lifetime of the securities. That's making balance sheets look terrible, but isn't generating any sort of cash flow problem.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Haven't you been seeing the "margin" ads on your computer?
"I got my $12,000 stimulus check, click here to see how you can get yours!"
Yeah, it's that simple, really!!! Ain't gonna havta worry 'bout payin' my mortgage, ain't gonna have to worry 'bout puttin' gas in my car....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=related
If I help you, will you help me?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Haven't you been seeing the "margin" ads on your computer?
"I got my $12,000 stimulus check, click here to see how you can get yours!"
Yeah, it's that simple, really!!! Ain't gonna havta worry 'bout payin' my mortgage, ain't gonna have to worry 'bout puttin' gas in my car....
That aint stimulus. Lets play "Follow The Money."
Lobbyists for the cable industry were among the first to work the stimulus bill.
Paul Allen is the CEO of Microsoft and a major stockholder in Charter Communications. The bill offers companies like Allen's debt forgiveness on foreign debt until the year 2014. This will save Allen about $1 billion in taxes.
Now that's stimulus.
Who remembers this quote from Obama before the stimulus bill was signed: "Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."
Well, care to guess what company just laid off nearly 2500 employees?
To be fair, the president of Cat did state after the fact that there would be more layoffs before rehiring would begin. The question is, when?
The devil will offer you some hope here....
Greatest threat to Obama spending plan? Democrats
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/64003.html
"If all 47 Blue Dogs joined the House's 178 Republicans, they could deny Democratic leaders a House majority of 218. "
Obamabots going door-to-door to sell you Obama's budget:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EglMVfUB74
Hilarity to ensue. For those that do not know where the "Yes we can!" mantra in that video is from, well, let's walk down memory lane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1QiSi0_kTo
Continental National Bank of Illinois is too big to fail.
More stimulus/bailout requested by Obama--it's only $50 Billion this time. Whew.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/12/AR2010061204152.html?hpid=topnews
Quote from: guido911 on June 12, 2010, 08:45:50 PM
More stimulus/bailout requested by Obama--it's only $50 Billion this time. Whew.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/12/AR2010061204152.html?hpid=topnews
The sub-1% inflation numbers are an excellent argument in favor of more stimulus, and expose the folks calling for hyperinflation as what they really are.
Quote from: nathanm on June 13, 2010, 04:30:08 PM
The sub-1% inflation numbers are an excellent argument in favor of more stimulus, and expose the folks calling for hyperinflation as what they really are.
Not even worth dignifying.
From the National Conference of State Legislatures: (http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=19251)
"The state revenue nightmare continues. Officials were hopeful that fiscal year (FY) 2009 would mark the bottom of the revenue plunge, but their hopes have been shattered. Not only have revenues continued to fall below expectations, they are projected to be anemic for years to come. This means another round of budget gaps, certainly in FY 2010, but even beyond in many states.
State lawmakers closed a cumulative budget gap of $145.9 billion in their FY 2010 budgets. This was on top of the gaps they closed in FY 2009 and for many, the ones they faced in FY 2008. Now, midway through FY 2010 for most states, new gaps have opened. And that will not be the end of it. The longest economic downturn in decades appears to be well entrenched and is manifesting itself in multi-year budget shortfalls. Many states already foresee budget gaps in FY 2011 and FY 2012. It is hard to see when they will end.
Ironically, a contributing factor to future state budget gaps is the end of federal stimulus funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Those additional funds supported state budgets in FY 2009 and, to an even greater extent, in FY 2010. That money recedes in FY 2011 and, when it is gone, will leave big holes in state budgets—what many state officials are calling the "cliff effect."
This was posted in Q4 of 2009, but remains true today and into the immediate future. FY 2011's cumulative budget deficit is estimated to be $89 billion, (http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=19999) on top of the drops from FY 2008 - 2010.
So the question is, do we demand that states keep tightening their belts to the point of partial shutdown or do make sure they can continue to run with some semblance of normalcy?
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2010, 09:51:32 AM
So the question is, do we demand that states keep tightening their belts to the point of partial shutdown or do make sure they can continue to run with some semblance of normalcy?
Yes
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2010, 09:51:32 AM
From the National Conference of State Legislatures: (http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=19251)
"The state revenue nightmare continues. Officials were hopeful that fiscal year (FY) 2009 would mark the bottom of the revenue plunge, but their hopes have been shattered. Not only have revenues continued to fall below expectations, they are projected to be anemic for years to come. This means another round of budget gaps, certainly in FY 2010, but even beyond in many states.
State lawmakers closed a cumulative budget gap of $145.9 billion in their FY 2010 budgets. This was on top of the gaps they closed in FY 2009 and for many, the ones they faced in FY 2008. Now, midway through FY 2010 for most states, new gaps have opened. And that will not be the end of it. The longest economic downturn in decades appears to be well entrenched and is manifesting itself in multi-year budget shortfalls. Many states already foresee budget gaps in FY 2011 and FY 2012. It is hard to see when they will end.
Ironically, a contributing factor to future state budget gaps is the end of federal stimulus funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Those additional funds supported state budgets in FY 2009 and, to an even greater extent, in FY 2010. That money recedes in FY 2011 and, when it is gone, will leave big holes in state budgets—what many state officials are calling the "cliff effect."
This was posted in Q4 of 2009, but remains true today and into the immediate future. FY 2011's cumulative budget deficit is estimated to be $89 billion, (http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=19999) on top of the drops from FY 2008 - 2010.
So the question is, do we demand that states keep tightening their belts to the point of partial shutdown or do make sure they can continue to run with some semblance of normalcy?
No better time for government at all levels to re-invent itself by identifying essential services and getting out of areas which are not essential for the gov't to be in. You can't keep asking for more money or racking up more debt by threatening to shut down. Some services must be dropped and some need to be consolidated where possible. Government has become so big and deft, it's now assumed that every government job and function is "essential". That's an absolutely untrue assumption.
At some point the demand for more revenue is going to have to come to an end. Things like creating more government jobs with mortgaged funds isn't an appropriate way to deal with growing unemployment. Increasing government regulations on companies which make it harder and costlier to compete in a global economy whilst creating whole new bureaucracies to oversee such regs is not an appropriate way to help grow American industry.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2010, 07:18:12 AM
Not even worth dignifying.
Really? Why don't you explain what's so ludicrous about the statement that hyperinflation is not a concern when trillions of dollars were recently destroyed causing enormous deflationary pressures and inflation is below 1%, when 2% is almost universally considered to be a more healthy level.
I don't think anybody is advocating unlimited deficit spending for decades to come.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2010, 10:04:33 AM
No better time for government at all levels to re-invent itself by identifying essential services and getting out of areas which are not essential for the gov't to be in. You can't keep asking for more money or racking up more debt by threatening to shut down. Some services must be dropped and some need to be consolidated where possible. Government has become so big and deft, it's now assumed that every government job and function is "essential". That's an absolutely untrue assumption.
At some point the demand for more revenue is going to have to come to an end. Things like creating more government jobs with mortgaged funds isn't an appropriate way to deal with growing unemployment. Increasing government regulations on companies which make it harder and costlier to compete in a global economy whilst creating whole new bureaucracies to oversee such regs is not an appropriate way to help grow American industry.
What, then, shall we cut? Or rather, what more?
I'd actually challenge you back and say that "government is too big" is an unsourced canard that is getting repeated without much fact or thought. What makes you think that the government actually has lots of fat to cut? Just because government is "big" doesn't mean that it isn't doing what it's been asked to do.
As far as the state goes, what programs are you ready to cut?
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2010, 10:22:54 AM
What, then, shall we cut? Or rather, what more?
I'd actually challenge you back and say that "government is too big" is an unsourced canard that is getting repeated without much fact or thought. What makes you think that the government actually has lots of fat to cut? Just because government is "big" doesn't mean that it isn't doing what it's been asked to do.
As far as the state goes, what programs are you ready to cut?
I guess my question to you is, before I give my examples where to cut, what do you consider essential government services? Does the Parks Department, PAC, or other cultural services "essential"? What about Tulsa Transit? Must we have that?
Quote from: guido911 on June 14, 2010, 10:52:12 AM
I guess my question to you is, before I give my examples where to cut, what do you consider essential government services? Does the Parks Department, PAC, or other cultural services "essential"? What about Tulsa Transit? Must we have that?
I would argue yes. I certainly don't want to live in a city that doesn't offer recreational, cultural, and transit services.
Quote from: TURobY on June 14, 2010, 11:22:18 AM
I would argue yes. I certainly don't want to live in a city that doesn't offer recreational, cultural, and transit services.
Parks and transit are essential to the point that we mortgage our economic future on them? Seriously?
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2010, 10:22:54 AM
What, then, shall we cut? Or rather, what more?
I'd actually challenge you back and say that "government is too big" is an unsourced canard that is getting repeated without much fact or thought. What makes you think that the government actually has lots of fat to cut? Just because government is "big" doesn't mean that it isn't doing what it's been asked to do.
As far as the state goes, what programs are you ready to cut?
That's a huge can of worms you just opened, but if you must, here's but one example of more to come:
The U. S. Commission on International Religious Freedom:"Is the USCIRF a private organization, such as a religious body, an advocacy organization, or an interest group?
The Commission is a government entity created by Congress. It is funded entirely by the federal government on an annual basis and its staff members are government employees. The White House and Congressional leadership appoint the Commissioners."
Worthwhile, eh?
The Corporation For National & Community Service:"On February 1, 2010, President Barack Obama released his Fiscal Year 2011 budget request, including proposed funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service and its programs. The Corporation's FY 2011 budget request of $1.416 billion will strengthen our nation's volunteer sector, foster innovation and civic engagement, and mobilize more than six million Americans to solve critical problems through national service." Wow, could you come up with a more nebulous description for what this does?
"Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010
On December 16, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010, which includes $200 million for the Corporation for National and Community Service to support up to 25,000 AmeriCorps member positions and corresponding Segal AmeriCorps Education Awards."
WTH does this little entity do for $1.416 bln a year again?
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled "The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled maintains a Procurement List of products and services which have been placed in the AbilityOne Program, as referenced in FAR Subparts 8.0 and 8.7. Once a product or service is on the Procurement List, the Government must buy it from the organization designated by the Committee until the government no longer has requirements for that item, or until a nonprofit agency employing people with severe disabilities can no longer furnish that item."
In other words, even if the government can procure for less money elsewhere, they MUST purchase certain items from specified groups of disabled or disadvantaged. This is where $60 hammers and $500 toilet seats come from. It's not the innocent government getting buggered by greedy business owners, it's government entrapping itself into buying preference programs.
Government procurement still wastes a ton of taxpayer money at every level, but nowhere is it near as bad as the Federal level. I see it quite a bit in my industry. There was one particular job which comes to mind from a few years ago. We were contacted a few years back by a company to sub-contract some major pressure vessel repairs for a government installation. The curious part was who the prime contractor was: a fire alarm company. The type of work was nowhere related to fire alarms but the owner of that company had the good fortune to have some Indian blood in him. That gave him preference. Due to government procurement programs designed to help small and disadvantaged business, he could pick out 10 SIC codes he wanted to do business in. He selected pressure vessels as one thing even though he had no prior experience, nor qualification, nor personnel to perform any work whatsoever on pressure vessels. Long and short of it was, my company supplied five men, welding equipment, large compressor, all materials, and we even pushed the brooms at the end of every work day. He supplied one supervisor to stand around and drink coffee all day and watch our men. For this, he doubled the price of our work to the government. It did not ensure the government got better workmanship, in fact it added ZERO value to the government.
This is not an isolated incident at the Federal, State, or local level. This is incredibly common. I'm all for trying to make sure that businesses get their fair share of government business, but it should not come at such a great expense to taxpayers. The company I work for is a certified HUB Zone, Woman-owned business. Should that alone ensure that we get projects at a 25% premium over our competition? From a business and tax payer standpoint, I don't believe it should.
Here's more reading, I will be happy to audit the list and come up with a comprehensive list of wasteful areas the government is in.
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml
Quote from: guido911 on June 14, 2010, 11:34:13 AM
Parks and transit are essential to the point that we mortgage our economic future on them? Seriously?
You have no economic future without them, as people like me move away to cities with them. So... yes.
Quote from: guido911 on June 14, 2010, 11:34:13 AM
Parks and transit are essential to the point that we mortgage our economic future on them? Seriously?
Without commenting on the merits, I would argue that mass transit and parks are an "expected" government service.
Most transit companies at the turn of the 19/20th century were privately owned. (At least from my research on real trolleys.) They had to pay fees to cities for permission to operate. They had to maintain the streets when they operated there. They became unprofitable and mostly disappeared. Buses took over for a while. Buses didn't have to maintain the streets and (I believe) didn't pay any special fees to use the streets. Eventually even bus companies became unprofitable and were taken over by government units.
Wevus, here's the "E" page, I've highlighted in red ones which seem redundant to me:
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/E.shtml
Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs (State Department)
Economic Adjustment Office
Economic Analysis, Bureau of
Economic Development Administration
Economic Research Service
Economics & Statistics Administration There simply has to be some overlap here where there could be consolidation.
Education Department (ED)
Election Assistance Commission -- Seriously?
Elementary and Secondary Education
Employee Benefits Security Administration (formerly Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration)
Employment and Training Administration (Labor Department)
Endangered Species Committee
Energy Department (DOE)
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Energy Information Administration
English Language Acquisition Office
Engraving and Printing, Bureau of
Environmental Management (Energy Department)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
European Command
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Export Administration (now the Bureau of Industry and Security)
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Take the time to educate yourself on just how big government really is and peruse the list to figure out the redundancy and how many tentacles each major department has in the way of sub-departments.
Lets all take a letter. I'm taking Rs.
Radio and TV Marti (Español)
Radio Free Asia (RFA)
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)
Railroad Retirement Board
Reclamation, Bureau of
Refugee Resettlement
Regulatory Information Service Center
Rehabilitation Services Administration (Education Department)
Research, Education and Economics (Agriculture Department)
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (Transportation Department)
Rhode Island State, County and City Websites
Risk Management Agency (Agriculture Department)
Rural Business and Cooperative Programs
Rural Development
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
I'll do Ms too. . .
Maine Home Page
Maine State, County and City Websites
Marine Corps
Marine Mammal Commission
Maritime Administration
Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Agriculture Department)
Marshals Service
Maryland Home Page
Maryland State, County and City Websites
Massachusetts Home Page
Massachusetts State, County and City Websites
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
Michigan Home Page
Michigan State, County and City Websites
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission
Military Postal Service Agency
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Minerals Management Service
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Minnesota Home Page
Minnesota State, County and City Websites
Minority Business Development Agency
Mint (Treasury Department)
Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
Mississippi Home Page
Mississippi River Commission
Mississippi State, County and City Websites
Missouri Home Page
Missouri State, County and City Websites
Montana Home Page
Montana State, County and City Websites
Morris K. Udall Foundation: Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy
Multifamily Housing Office
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2010, 12:30:32 PM
Lets all take a letter. I'm taking Rs.
Radio and TV Marti (Español)
Radio Free Asia (RFA)
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)
Railroad Retirement Board
Reclamation, Bureau of
Refugee Resettlement
Regulatory Information Service Center
Rehabilitation Services Administration (Education Department)
Research, Education and Economics (Agriculture Department)
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (Transportation Department)
Rhode Island State, County and City Websites
Risk Management Agency (Agriculture Department)
Rural Business and Cooperative Programs
Rural Development
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
There's probably a fair amount of redundancy in the four "rurals" listed at the bottom of that list.
This is fun and easy. Of course I don't have any lobbyists in my lobby. ;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 14, 2010, 12:23:23 PM
Most transit companies at the turn of the 19/20th century were privately owned. (At least from my research on real trolleys.) They had to pay fees to cities for permission to operate. They had to maintain the streets when they operated there. They became unprofitable and mostly disappeared. Buses took over for a while. Buses didn't have to maintain the streets and (I believe) didn't pay any special fees to use the streets. Eventually even bus companies became unprofitable and were taken over by government units.
They were indeed privately owned, but it was prior to mass production of the car so many more people used buses/trollies. It's no wonder that private companies got out of the market as personal transportation options got progressively cheaper and more common. That said, transit is still an agreed-upon good thing, which is why government has subsidized it more and more, rather than allowing it to die out altogether.
"F" is for:
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Farm Credit Administration
Farm Service Agency
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Federal Consulting Group
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Election Commission
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Executive Boards
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
Federal Financing Bank
Federal Geographic Data Committee I would think this should fall under "interior"
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
Federal Housing Finance Board
Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
Federal Interagency Committee on Education
Federal Interagency Council on Statistical Policy
Federal Judicial Center
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Federal Library and Information Center Committee
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission I believe I saw some sort of other mine safety commission on the "M" page
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Reserve System
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Federal Student Aid
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Federal Transit Administration Not quite sure what this does different under the DOT umbrella
Federated States of Micronesia Home Page
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
Financial Management Service (Treasury Department)
Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, National Commission
Fish and Wildlife Service
Florida Home Page
Florida State, County and City Websites
Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Forest Service
Fossil Energy
Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2010, 12:46:42 PM
They were indeed privately owned, but it was prior to mass production of the car so many more people used buses/trollies. It's no wonder that private companies got out of the market as personal transportation options got progressively cheaper and more common. That said, transit is still an agreed-upon good thing, which is why government has subsidized it more and more, rather than allowing it to die out altogether.
That's one thing I'll agree with you on. I don't think anyone can appreciate how prohibitively expensive air travel would be if it were not for government subsidies in the form of airports, ATC, coordination of airline regs from country to country.
QuoteFood, Nutrition and Consumer Services
How will I know what to eat?
What if my fries are too salty?
We are kidding ourselves. Each of these agencies represents the purchase of some voting block.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2010, 01:00:14 PM
We are kidding ourselves. Each of these agencies represents the purchase of some voting block.
Certainly they do. And following that logic through, then police, fire, and protection services are the purchase of some voting block too.
Quote from: TURobY on June 14, 2010, 01:09:22 PM
Certainly they do. And following that logic through, then police, fire, and protection services are the purchase of some voting block too.
They always are. When are they
not an issue, at least in local elections?
Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs (http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/) (State Department)
"The Bureau's work lies at the critical nexus of economic prosperity and national security. As the single point where international economic policy tools and threads converge, we help promote a coherent economic policy across the U.S. Government."
Economic Adjustment Office (http://www.oea.gov/OEAWeb.nsf/Home?OpenForm)
"OEA is the Department of Defense's primary source for assisting communities that are adversely impacted by Defense program changes, including base closures or realignments, base expansions, and contract or program cancellations."
Economic Analysis, Bureau of (http://www.bea.gov/)
"BEA produces economic accounts statistics that enable government and business decision-makers, researchers, and the American public to follow and understand the performance of the Nation's economy."
Economic Development Administration (http://www.eda.gov/AboutEDA/AbtEDA.xml)
"This year, the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) marks 45 years of public service, with a mission of leading the federal economic development agenda by promoting competitiveness and preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. EDA is an agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce that partners with distressed communities throughout the United States to foster job creation, collaboration and innovation."
Economic Research Service (http://www.ers.usda.gov/)
A Dept of the USDA, researching food, farming, natural resources, and rural america.
Economics & Statistics Administration (http://www.esa.doc.gov/bs.cfm)
Umbrella organization in the Dept of Commerce that coordinates the aforementioned Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and STAT-USA, an online statistics project
Election Assistance Commission (http://www.eac.gov/)
"The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). EAC is an independent, bipartisan commission charged with developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, and serving as a national clearinghouse of information on election administration. EAC also accredits testing laboratories and certifies voting systems, as well as audits the use of HAVA funds."
I just took a handful of your recommendations, went to their websites, and looked at their FAQ's. Here's what they do:
-- standardizing economic and security policy
-- helping communities that lose military bases
-- compiling economic statistics for good policy making
-- job creation in "distressed communities"
-- coordinating statistics-gathering organizations
-- economic research focusing on food, farms, natural resources for the USDA
-- election group tasked with helping communities organize and monitor elections (enacted by Bush admin after the 2000 elections)
Some redundancy? Yes. Some probably good redundancy and some bad. Some just exist as management orgs. Given the size of the gov, that's not an inherently bad thing. Some exist for a very specific purpose (helping communities where military bases close up).
Why do you think these things exist? Why do we need an org that helps communities where military bases close up? Why would it be worthwhile for the USDA to have its own office dedicated to economic research (on food, farms, and natural resources) when the BEA collects economic data of its own? Why do we need an org dedicated to making sure localities can put on credible elections?
These are the national equivalent of parks and transit. They may not benefit the nation as a whole but they definitely help constituencies which our country have decided are worth governmental attention. This is the problem with the "starve the beast" approach to killing off government programs: the government programs that die first aren't always the most corrupt (*koff* the Pentagon *koff*) but are the ones whose constituencies are the weakest politically.
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2010, 12:46:42 PM
They were indeed privately owned, but it was prior to mass production of the car so many more people used buses/trollies. It's no wonder that private companies got out of the market as personal transportation options got progressively cheaper and more common. That said, transit is still an agreed-upon good thing, which is why government has subsidized it more and more, rather than allowing it to die out altogether.
Can you even imagine a city like New York City without public transit? I can't.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2010, 01:00:14 PM
We are kidding ourselves. Each of these agencies represents the purchase of some voting block.
What's a Democracy, then?
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2010, 01:22:55 PM
These are the national equivalent of parks and transit. They may not benefit the nation as a whole but they definitely help constituencies which our country have decided are worth governmental attention. This is the problem with the "starve the beast" approach to killing off government programs: the government programs that die first aren't always the most corrupt (*koff* the Pentagon *koff*) but are the ones whose constituencies are the weakest politically.
Wevus, do you have even the slightest idea how many bureaucrats are sucking a check off each of these agencies and committees? How is any redundancy a good thing unless you are referring to aircraft safety systems? Each agency requires it's own support staff of administrative assistants, accountants, IT professionals, managers to manage managers. Out of the agencies you investigated, how many of those are truly
essential to our every day lives?
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 14, 2010, 01:23:19 PM
Can you even imagine a city like New York City without public transit? I can't.
In cases like that, I think of transit as a major economic necessity. Work literally would come to a standstill if people couldn't take a train/bus to work.
It's different here in T-town, of course. It's definitely a social good, but it's certainly not a necessity for economic activity.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2010, 01:36:45 PM
Wevus, do you have even the slightest idea how many bureaucrats are sucking a check off each of these agencies and committees?
No. Do you?
QuoteHow is any redundancy a good thing unless you are referring to aircraft safety systems? Each agency requires it's own support staff of administrative assistants, accountants, IT professionals, managers to manage managers. Out of the agencies you investigated, how many of those are truly essential to our every day lives?
This is what I meant by constituencies.
No, my life is very much not affected by these agencies. On the other hand, I can guarantee you that some people ARE affected. Just because I don't need the particular service doesn't mean that someone doesn't.
I know, I know, how liberal of me. But it's less about my expansive love for my fellow man as recognizing that we have a huge nation and that people need our government for different things.
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2010, 02:00:34 PM
No. Do you?
This is what I meant by constituencies.
No, my life is very much not affected by these agencies. On the other hand, I can guarantee you that some people ARE affected. Just because I don't need the particular service doesn't mean that someone doesn't.
I know, I know, how liberal of me. But it's less about my expansive love for my fellow man as recognizing that we have a huge nation and that people need our government for different things.
As a nation we have an increasing population attaching itself to the tit. We cannot afford this.
We need to free some people. Sure, it will be hard and lives will be affected, but it's simply inhumane to continue to develop dependency.
We can do it willfully, or we can just let things implode, and conveniently blame Bush. :o
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2010, 02:00:34 PM
No. Do you?
This is what I meant by constituencies.
No, my life is very much not affected by these agencies. On the other hand, I can guarantee you that some people ARE affected. Just because I don't need the particular service doesn't mean that someone doesn't.
I know, I know, how liberal of me. But it's less about my expansive love for my fellow man as recognizing that we have a huge nation and that people need our government for different things.
Actually, I have quite a bit of experience dealing with government at the city, county, state, and federal level. It would probably serve all of us better to have a better idea of how big government is and how much administration goes into each level of it. It would also be a very good idea for us to know what each bureau and department does because when it comes down to finally having to wean ourselves off government services to stay solvent, we need to know what is an important function of government and what is something which we don't need or can be done via the private sector. Government creates many layers of administration via their own rules and policies. Don't believe me? Just try to navigate Federal purchasing, or the VA, or deal with the DLA.
If you fully read my first longer post, you will note that government creates scenarious where it limits competition for it's business and winds up paying more money for items in it's procurement procedures to be "fair".
So we should just assume that because the government creates an agency either as an offshoot via existing agency policy, executive order, enacted by Congress that it's necessary or an appropriate use of government authority and taxpayer money? Shouldn't we, as citizens, demand more oversight?
Saying we are a large country and therefore our government should be commensurately large isn't liberalism, it's apathy. How can the government
afford to grow, when it can't even afford the services it's trying to provide now?
Just because the government can borrow trillions of dollars to spend doesn't mean they can afford the expenditures. Now the feds are trying to send more stimulus money to states who aren't living within their means and who apparently can't raise more tax revenue out of their citizens. It's just wonderful!
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2010, 02:13:07 PM
We need to free some people.
But whom shall we "free" is the question. While Guido seems to believe parks and transit should be eliminated, I disagree. We both have our reasons, both likely equally as correct in our beliefs.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2010, 02:13:07 PM
As a nation we have an increasing population attaching itself to the tit. We cannot afford this.
We need to free some people. Sure, it will be hard and lives will be affected, but it's simply inhumane to continue to develop dependency.
We can do it willfully, or we can just let things implode, and conveniently blame Bush. :o
That's ridiculous and condescending. I'm sorry, but it is. Using government services, and in some cases demanding services from government that haven't existed up till this point, is how government is meant to function. It doesn't automatically mean that you're some benighted untermenschen because you get an FHA loan to buy a house, or take advantage of the child care deduction on your income tax to help make ends meet.
This is not dependency. This is collective action taken on our behalf. Take it or leave it but don't diminish my standing as a citizen because I think my government should respond to my needs (and yours, by the way).
There are happy mediums to all these things, and I'm willing to allow that there is corruption and "bad" (not good) redundancy in these orgs, but this hostility to all but the barest bones of government just completely weirds me out. Times change, government should change, too. Our times are more and more complex; is it any wonder, then, that our government is, too?
Nice thread. Who to follow? The simple solutions guy who can't spell "teat", or the smarter than me guy who blows me away with "benighted untermenschen"?
;D
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2010, 02:47:30 PM
That's ridiculous and condescending. I'm sorry, but it is. Using government services, and in some cases demanding services from government that haven't existed up till this point, is how government is meant to function. .... This is not dependency. This is collective action taken on our behalf.
I need struts and front end parts on my car. I think I'll demand that the government pay for it. If there isn't a program to do that, I'll petition Pres. Obama to establish one.
I think it's funny that you guys are arguing over the agencies that in total make up less than a quarter of the federal budget. What's the point in even discussing the rounding error agencies?
Even though I disagree that a large budget deficit this year or next is in any way a bad thing, I do agree that some longer term changes need to be made so that once the recession is over we'll be able to get back to where we were 10 years ago: budget surplus.
I think most everyone in this thread needs to take a good hard look at this years death & taxes infographic. Perhaps then some sanity would arrive in this thread.
Edited to add: Gaspar? Were you seriously arguing that the government shouldn't spend money on websites through which it creates more transparency by giving us a better idea of what the various agencies are supposed to be doing and what it is that they do?
Quote from: TURobY on June 14, 2010, 12:02:16 PM
You have no economic future without them, as people like me move away to cities with them. So... yes.
You might just have no economic "present" by having them. Conan, I agree that these programs are not essential and considered expected. But in times like these, shouldn't we all have a little less on the expectation side of government and focus more on what is essential?
And as for the feds, is the national endowment for the arts THAT important.
Quote from: nathanm on June 14, 2010, 07:36:29 PM
I think it's funny that you guys are arguing over the agencies that in total make up less than a quarter of the federal budget. What's the point in even discussing the rounding error agencies?
I agree. The cost of fixing my car is insignificant compared to the federal budget. It sure would help me.
Quote from: nathanm on June 14, 2010, 07:36:29 PM
I think it's funny that you guys are arguing over the agencies that in total make up less than a quarter of the federal budget. What's the point in even discussing the rounding error agencies?
Because you have to start freakin somewhere if you want to cut the budget. Do you have a budget or ever used one? Do you budget for dinners out, movies, vacations and the like when you don't have the money to pay your mortgage or put food on the table?
OK, boys, start choppin'.
http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 14, 2010, 09:11:01 PM
OK, boys, start choppin'.
http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/
Funny, I just had to reduce military spending (while still maintaining a size and budget WELL over every other country) and I fixed the issue...
Seems like I found a spot to cut the budget, Guido.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 14, 2010, 06:15:45 PM
I need struts and front end parts on my car. I think I'll demand that the government pay for it. If there isn't a program to do that, I'll petition Pres. Obama to establish one.
I'm actually open to this . . . or rather, I'm open to you pursuing this. I'd actually like to suggest that you make this a local issue, because there's a good chance that, if you federalize it, it won't get addressed in a timely fashion (cf. immigration reform).
EDIT: I would, however, like to state unequivocally that I (and most of my liberal friends) won't be voting for the Front End and Struts Party unless you can add a strong anti-global-warming plank . . . and can respect individual reproductive rights.
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2010, 10:01:19 PM
I'm actually open to this . . . or rather, I'm open to you pursuing this. I'd actually like to suggest that you make this a local issue, because there's a good chance that, if you federalize it, it won't get addressed in a timely fashion (cf. immigration reform).
EDIT: I would, however, like to state unequivocally that I (and most of my liberal friends) won't be voting for the Front End and Struts Party unless you can add a strong anti-global-warming plank . . . and can respect individual reproductive rights.
I only want to establish a government agency to assist me financially in affording to keep my car, which I need in Tulsa since we don't have effective Public Transit. Maintaining my car will allow me to keep my vehicle under control and not allow it run into other motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians. That will be the benefit to the general public. As far as green, it will take a lot less energy to fix the car I have rather than manufacturing a new car. I am not interested in establishing a new political party. This particular car has no particular relation to individual reproductive rights but it is German so it would probably support them.
Quote from: TURobY on June 14, 2010, 09:24:15 PM
Funny, I just had to reduce military spending (while still maintaining a size and budget WELL over every other country) and I fixed the issue...
Seems like I found a spot to cut the budget, Guido.
I think provide for the common defense was one of the things the founding documents called out as a responsibility of the Federal Gov.
The Federal Acquisition Regulations (I think that's the correct full name.) contribute greatly to the high cost of defense related products and services.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 14, 2010, 10:24:21 PM
I only want to establish a government agency to assist me financially in affording to keep my car, which I need in Tulsa since we don't have effective Public Transit. Maintaining my car will allow me to keep my vehicle under control and not allow it run into other motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians. That will be the benefit to the general public. As far as green, it will take a lot less energy to fix the car I have rather than manufacturing a new car. I am not interested in establishing a new political party. This particular car has no particular relation to individual reproductive rights but it is German so it would probably support them.
I think you have a compelling case but I'm (sadly) not in enough of a position of power to get your request into an appropriations bill. I might suggest that, if you know your senator/representative, you might want to take it up with him. I might also suggest that you find a way to demonstrate the popularity of your agency's mission, which might be measured in the numbers of signatures on a petition, or a list of donor's emails, or even better, a sign of their absolute willingness to support your cause come hell or high water: eg. bundled contributions to your rep or senator for the next election.
I mean, our government doesn't just dole out agencies to every Tom, Dick, or Harry. You've got to show some clout, and because our system essentially recognizes the equivalence of money as votes, you're going to want to show up at the state house with as much gelt as possible.
Quote from: we vs us on June 14, 2010, 10:47:31 PM
I think you have a compelling case but I'm (sadly) not in enough of a position of power to get your request into an appropriations bill. I might suggest that, if you know your senator/representative, you might want to take it up with him. I might also suggest that you find a way to demonstrate the popularity of your agency's mission, which might be measured in the numbers of signatures on a petition, or a list of donor's emails, or even better, a sign of their absolute willingness to support your cause come hell or high water: eg. bundled contributions to your rep or senator for the next election.
I mean, our government doesn't just dole out agencies to every Tom, Dick, or Harry. You've got to show some clout, and because our system essentially recognizes the equivalence of money as votes, you're going to want to show up at the state house with as much gelt as possible.
Darn, I though for sure I could count on you after you posted:
QuoteUsing government services, and in some cases demanding services from government that haven't existed up till this point, is how government is meant to function.
I am so disappointed.
Quote from: guido911 on June 14, 2010, 08:17:09 PM
Because you have to start freakin somewhere if you want to cut the budget. Do you have a budget or ever used one? Do you budget for dinners out, movies, vacations and the like when you don't have the money to pay your mortgage or put food on the table?
If I were looking for savings in my own budget, I'd probably start with the the entertainment or the car before I went after the chewing gum.
By the way, Red Arrow, the government would have helped you afford your car, but your fellow citizens decided they would like their suspensions to be destroyed by lack of road maintenance, so you ended up in the same boat through no fault of your own. :(
Quote from: nathanm on June 14, 2010, 11:35:24 PM
By the way, Red Arrow, the government would have helped you afford your car, but your fellow citizens decided they would like their suspensions to be destroyed by lack of road maintenance, so you ended up in the same boat through no fault of your own. :(
It has 150,000 miles it and is a 15 year old car. It
might have needed work anyway.
But, since it occurred through no fault of my own, the government should have a real desire to fix it for me. Maybe the Feds could mandate that the state of Oklahoma fix it for me without providing the funds to do so. After all, we don't want any unsafe vehicles on the road.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 15, 2010, 07:48:43 AM
It has 150,000 miles it and is a 15 year old car. It might have needed work anyway.
But, since it occurred through no fault of my own, the government should have a real desire to fix it for me. Maybe the Feds could mandate that the state of Oklahoma fix it for me without providing the funds to do so. After all, we don't want any unsafe vehicles on the road.
Who would you suggest be on the committee to review your request? They'll need to take at least 3 bids from in state and out of state businesses.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 15, 2010, 07:48:43 AM
It has 150,000 miles it and is a 15 year old car. It might have needed work anyway.
But, since it occurred through no fault of my own, the government should have a real desire to fix it for me. Maybe the Feds could mandate that the state of Oklahoma fix it for me without providing the funds to do so. After all, we don't want any unsafe vehicles on the road.
Suggest it to them. Sounds like an excellent method of purchasing votes AND deficit spending. The Welfare for Cars Program.
Quote from: Townsend on June 15, 2010, 07:51:58 AM
Who would you suggest be on the committee to review your request? They'll need to take at least 3 bids from in state and out of state businesses.
I'm actually new at utilizing the government in this manner. I was hoping to get some help from the more experienced here on the Forum.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 15, 2010, 07:53:34 AM
Suggest it to them. Sounds like an excellent method of purchasing votes AND deficit spending. The Welfare for Cars Program.
Welfare for Car Owners Program. (WCOP)
Can anyone think of a better acronym? A really catchy acronym would help me get some media attention.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 15, 2010, 08:23:38 AM
Welfare for Car Owners Program. (WCOP)
Can anyone think of a better acronym? A really catchy acronym would help me get some media attention.
Universal Fix Our Cars
They could fund it by placing a tax on new cars that cost over $45,000. Evil rich drivers should pay.
Quote from: Townsend on June 15, 2010, 07:51:58 AM
Who would you suggest be on the committee to review your request? They'll need to take at least 3 bids from in state and out of state businesses.
...and then give the business to the blind, female, 1/2 Indian 1/2 Black-owned, Hub-Zone business who can charge the government 35% more than the other bidders.
Quote from: guido911 on June 12, 2010, 08:45:50 PM
More stimulus/bailout requested by Obama--it's only $50 Billion this time. Whew.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/12/AR2010061204152.html?hpid=topnews
(http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0613-axelrod-stimulus-nbc.jpg/8118302-1-eng-US/0613-Axelrod-stimulus-NBC.jpg_full_380.jpg)
Good news yesterday! According to David Axelrod this is not a Stimulus Bill. The Blue-Ribbon Panel on Fiscal Responsibility (Bah-hah-hah!) has not come up with a classification for it yet, but it's not to be called a stimulus bill.
An additional bill is soon to be introduced to bail-out Fannie and Freddy. CBO estimates are rough so far at somewhere between 160 billion and 500 billion. PLEASE NOTE: The administration will not be calling this a "bailout" bill. Edward Pinto the former Chief Credit Officer for Fanny calls it "the mother of all bailouts," but of course he is mistaken.
The administrations Blue-Ribbon Panel on Fiscal Responsibility (Bah-hah-hah!) will be working hard to come up with new names for upcoming stimulus-like and bailout style legislation. I assume they will be holding focus groups and testing new language.
I personally like (insert your favorite cause):
Rescue Bill
Saviour Bill
Benefactor Legislation
Security Bill
Guarantee Legislation
Surety Act
Delivery Act
You can also just apply ridiculous names that represent the opposite like:
Afford-ability
Sustainability
Responsibility (my favorite)
Or, mix and match
Responsible Afford-ability Delivery Act of 2010 (perfect)
Quote from: Gaspar on June 15, 2010, 12:45:03 PMI personally like (insert your favorite cause):
Rescue Bill
Saviour Bill
Benefactor Legislation
Security Bill
Guarantee Legislation
Surety Act
Delivery Act
You can also just apply ridiculous names that represent the opposite like:
Afford-ability
Sustainability
Responsibility (my favorite)
Or, mix and match
Responsible Afford-ability Delivery Act of 2010 (perfect)
Call it the "Jesus Bill" so they can't vote against Jesus.
Quote from: Townsend on June 15, 2010, 01:30:13 PM
Call it the "Jesus Bill" so they can't vote against Jesus.
Excellent idea. Nobody hates Jesus. . . .Wait? :o
Quote from: Gaspar on June 15, 2010, 01:52:05 PM
Excellent idea. Nobody hates Jesus. . . .Wait? :o
What about the non-electrical-conducting Terminator Jesus????
Quote from: Hoss on June 15, 2010, 02:13:50 PM
What about the non-electrical-conducting Terminator Jesus????
The Terminator Jesus Responsible Afford-ability Delivery Act of 2010
Quote from: Gaspar on June 15, 2010, 02:42:35 PM
The Terminator Jesus Responsible Afford-ability Delivery Act of 2010
Passes with flying colors.
Quote from: Townsend on June 15, 2010, 03:10:33 PM
Passes with flying colors.
It's my own Personal Terminator Jesus.
(http://www.who2.com/blog/assets_c/2010/06/afterjesus-thumb-300x257-251.jpg)
OK, sorry for the thread hijack...back on topic now.
Quote from: Hoss on June 15, 2010, 03:20:20 PM
It's my own Personal Terminator Jesus.
(http://www.who2.com/blog/assets_c/2010/06/afterjesus-thumb-300x257-251.jpg)
OK, sorry for the thread hijack...back on topic now.
Someone to hear your prayers, someone who scares!
Quote from: Hoss on June 15, 2010, 03:20:20 PM
It's my own Personal Terminator Jesus.
(http://www.who2.com/blog/assets_c/2010/06/afterjesus-thumb-300x257-251.jpg)
OK, sorry for the thread hijack...back on topic now.
Hmmm, I see a re-edit of Talledega Nights coming:
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5A0-u85aAYg/0.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 15, 2010, 03:34:23 PM
Hmmm, I see a re-edit of Talledega Nights coming:
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5A0-u85aAYg/0.jpg)
That is number deux on my list of alltime favorite funny scenes in a movie. Those kids were killing me!
"I'm all jacked up on Mountain Dew!".
"I'm gonna come at you like a spider monkey".
Dammit, there I go again with the drift...
Well since we drifted this far, might as well tell us what numero uno is...
Quote from: Conan71 on June 15, 2010, 03:38:55 PM
Well since we drifted this far, might as well tell us what numero uno is...
How about this, from Porky's? Does this ring any bells?
(http://www.tulsaoilerfans.com/images/porkys.jpg)
I've watched this scene maybe a hundred times and I still laugh uncontrollably. Not at the blue language, but the genuine reaction from the teachers/coaches in the back. The old guy kills me at the end. He tries to bite his hand to keep from laughing.
The full scene can be viewed here: http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi4153737241/
WARNING: NSFW for sure..if you have headphones, USE THEM!
Edit: OK, not the full scene; they cut off the last where the coach is giving his suggestions about bringing in a sketch artist. Here's the youtube version
Yup, great scene, they had to have just rolled with that one, you cannot fake laughter like that. Another memorable laugh fest like that would be David Spade and Christina Applegate trying to control themselves when Chris Farley was doing his Matt Foley, Motivational Speaker character on SNL.
Sorry guys
/drift
Santelli again:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd2GqGaGqG
Quote from: guido911 on June 25, 2010, 03:42:45 PM
Santelli again:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd2GqGaGqG
He's gonna pop a vein!
I love that guy.