Actually, yes, the extra #2 supersized should have a more stimulative effect on spending than sending everyone $600 in the mail. If your paycheck goes up, that money psychologically becomes part of your regular budget, and gets spent by almost everyone as pocket money. A one-time check for $600 becomes something to use to pay down a credit card or put into a savings account for a lot of people, and gets blown at Best Buy by a smaller percentage of people than the $13 will.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Anecdotal and all, but I don't know anyone who spent their $600 at retail. Mine went to a car payment (a purchase already made) and my IRA. But getting more money on my paycheck, even if I don't notice it, is 100% more likely to be spent on something. If I'd gotten my $600 spread out over the year, it would have gone into the economy, and not paying off a debt. That's all this new $400 is doing, distributing it in a way that is more likely to end up in a cash register.

_________________

me too. Perhaps it's worth remembering for both of us that we actually generally agree on a lot of things...

Obama really is the messiah though. God told me.

Stop your trickery!

Another interesting data point from CBO numbers.

About the first half of my post or the last half?

First half was an observation. Second half was just what I chew on at night wondering.

I still think someone needs to ask, say, McCain, why billions into Iraq (how much was it that just vanished into thin air with no accounting for it at all?) is neccessary, but pumping billions into our OWN economy is reckless democrat "tax and spend" policy.

I just don't get it.

I've said long before Obama won that I'd rather see those dollars spent on our own shores. I've always been a not so closeted isolationist, even if I know it isn't truly possible anymore. But the sheer hypocrisy of some of these republicans who have argued for billions to reconstruct Iraq being "good" but billions to keep the US from tanking is "bad" is just baffling to me. Even more so because I know they, on some level, believe it.

So either they know something I don't or they are so entrenched in their "rah rah, go team go" football game that they can no longer see how absolutely stupid they sound. I know which I think it is. :p

_________________

Go to your personal Personal Stimulus Generator! You May Qualify For Up To $350 Billion!

my bill

Sample text:

Not exactly, because we're STILL spending that money. It's not all just "in the past".

Part of the spending:
$11,500,000,000.00 for making federal buildings "green" (including $448 million for the Department of Homeland Security's headquarters)
$198,000,000.00 to design and furnish the DHS headquarters
$200,000,000.00 for workplace safety in Department of Agriculture facilities
$75,000,000.00 for the Smithsonian Institution
$300,000,000.00 more for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees
$180,000,000.00 for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities
$500,000,000.00 for wildland fire management
$110,000,000.00 for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
$522,000,000.00 for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
$412,000,000.00 for Centers for Disease Control headquarters
$500,000,000.00 earmark for National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland
$100,000,000.00 for constructing U.S. Marshalls office buildings
$300,000,000.00 for constructing Federal Bureau of Investigation office buildings
$800,000,000.00 for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities
$307,000,000.00 for constructing National Institute for Standards and Technology office buildings
$1,000,000,000.00 for administrative costs and construction of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration office buildings
$600,000,000.00 to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees
$125,000,000.00 for the Washington, D.C. sewer system
$75,000,000.00 for salaries of employees at the FBI
$88,000,000.00 for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service
$5,500,000.00 for “energy efficiency initiatives” at the Veterans Administration's “National Cemetery Administration”
$60,000,000.00 for Arlington National Cemetery
$75,000,000.00 to construct a new “security training” facility for State Department Security
$110,000,000.00 to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems
$200,000,000.00 in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations
$2,000,000,000.00 for a FutureGen near-zero emissions powerplant in Mattoon, Illinois
$2,000,000,000.00 for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars
$650,000,000.00 for the digital TV (DTV) transition coupon program
$1,200,000,000.00 for summer jobs for youth
$200,000,000.00 for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries
$750,000,000.00 earmark for the National Computer Center
$10,000,000.00 to fight Mexican gun-runners
$850,000,000.00 for Amtrak
$100,000,000.00 for lead paint hazard reduction
$275,000,000.00 for flood prevention
$65,000,000.00 for watershed rehabilitation
$650,000,000.00 for abandoned mine sites
$1,300,000,000.00 for NASA
$100,000,000.00 to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program
$10,000,000.00 for urban canals
$1,500,000,000.00 for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140
$500,000,000.00 for state and local fire stations
Totals $30,502,500,000.00 in spending for mostly governmental items.

$30.5 Billion in spending attached to this "stimulus" package that are questionable in their stimulus value. Yeah I know the total is over $900 Billion but this is all that I could research so far.

Also there is/was a provision in the bill that the compromise legislation had to be reviewable by the public for 48 hours. They planned a vote today or tomorrow after the compromise was reached today! The compromise legislation is over 1400 pages long.

I don't understand what is "questionable" about any of that. If they spend it, it goes into the economy...

what a bunch of shit.

$650,000,000.00 for the digital TV (DTV) transition coupon program -- nothing to do with stimulating the economy

$75,000,000.00 for salaries of employees at the FBI -- this is a budgeting Item not a stimuless item

$300,000,000.00 more for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees
$600,000,000.00 to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees

WTF 900 million for cars?

$10,000,000.00 to fight Mexican gun-runners-- again this is a budgeting item..


*head explodes*

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Fribur's theory apparently revolves around an assumption that 10 billion dollars, regardless of WHAT it's spent on, is stimulus, and all spending is created equal.

There are two parts to that theory one could argue with. The first is that all spending is stimulus, which i don't agree with. The second is that all spending will have the same stimulative affect, which i agree with even less.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington- ... ts-do.html

So, they promised 48 hours for the public to read the bill before votes, but they're not even giving the majority of congress the chance to read a document that is almost 1500 pages long.

Democrats can seriously fuck up just about anything. How can you take 75% approval ratings and turn this process into such a huge steaming turd?

To illustrate my point.

Could you explain what spending is and isn't stimulus for me? I'm asking honestly. I can agree that there may be degrees of stimulus, but to state that there is spending that simply isn't stimulus at all seems difficult for me to understand given my (apparently) limited understanding of economics.

As far as "illustrating your point," I don't really know what that illustrates. As I and others have said more than once in this forum, there isn't a magic spending bill possible that will instantly turn the economy around.

Here's one example:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123448815417580333.html

The fact that many government agencies are not setup to even spend the money, at all. Not inefficiently. Not unwisely. At all. Have you ever heard of government organizations that can't even spend their budgeted expenses in a given year?



Here's another example:



Then there's the issue of which stimulus programs are better than others. Throughout this debate, you have taken a position that, to me, says that you don't really care how the money is spent. Here are two facts that I use to judge the stimulus: 1) That the spending needs to happen quickly; 2) That the spending needs to be temporary. BTW, those are two things that Obama's own economic advisors say the bill needs to be. Yet you've embraced all parts of the bill that spend money, including elements that won't bear fruit until well past 2 years from now, at which point we can all probably agree we'll be out of the bad weather.

Last, this bill should be judged through one lens, and one lens only: Does it help fix the economy? We're spending more money than the GDP of around 15 countries. We spent half a trillion last year bailing out banks and they want us to spend another 1.5-2 trillion to bailout the banks again. Can't we agree that pet projects, regardless of how worthy they are, need to wait until the current crisis is over? Can't we also agree that half the money devil, myself and others have pointed out as wasteful could probably be better spent, if the sole purpose is to stimulate the economy?

Hell, I'm even willing to compromise. Take some of the bullshit money and put it into other questionable areas, that at least have strategic value. REmove the funding for lead-based paint, and other things that are pure horseshit, and put MORE money into energy research, or schools, or state funding.

But see, not everyone agrees on what "bullshit" spending is. One person's bullshit spending is another person's vital program.

And you are right in a sense-- while on the one hand I don't want wasteful spending, on the other hand I recognize that any spending, even stupid spending, is a stimulus on any economy (even if it is small).

Well, congrats on not addressing half my points.

Specifically:

1) That it should be short-term if it's going to have an affect.
2) That the government can't even spend the money in many cases.

I guess you missed the part about how it takes time to get economies back on track. It's like you didn't even read the entire quote, you jsut said, "This seems anti-Obama, I'll show them now!"

As for the spending...doesn't putting the money into things like new building and bridge construction give money to businesses, create jobs, and stimulate that market? Doesn't buying cars stimulate the automobile market and create jobs in a way that isn't just "Give them money."?

I mean, at first glance you might call the spending stupid, but when you fork out money to build a building or a bridge, you're injecting that money into the businesses, creating jobs to get the work done, etc.

just because you say something doesn't mean it warrants an argument

_________________

Or maybe I didn't disagree with them, asshole.

IMO it would be more "stimulative" to take that $30 billion and flew a low, slow flying airplane and dropped it out of the door than to put it into more governmental programs and agencies.

11.5 Billion to make federal offices green, good idea but should not be a part of this bill
$300 million to decorate and furnish the DHS offices? Didn't Pres. Obama just blast a private company for spending their money on redecorating their offices?

It seems to me that it would be easier to get some things working if they would have the bill split up into several parts. Bill One - unfreezing credit; Bill Two - Job creation and tax cut items; Bill Three - Spending projects; Bill Four - long term initiatives. If they would do that some of the items that there are large majorities of people in agreement would be in action and the things that are more divisive could be debated without holding up the whole thing.

I agree with that. I think that it sheer size of the bill is what makes it so hard to wrap one's head around. There's no way to pass a bill with $900 billion of spending projects and tax cuts without there being line items that someone somewhere will object to. And since everyone can find *something* to object to, but each constituency's objections are to different portions, it makes the whole thing seem less worthwhile than it probably is in reality.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Wait, what?

You think that all spending is stimulative.

So, then.. if you agree with my second point. How is spending a billion dollars for an agency that can't allocate it stimulative?

I'm so confused, Fribur. Maybe you could try to pop out more than a 2 sentence, glib answer for once and educate me on how giving the army cops of engineers more money, when they can't even spend what they have, is stimulative. It's spending, right? That must mean it's stimulative.

funny:


from drudge...

Joxur:

You simply apply a much more narrow definition to the word "stimulus" apparently than I do. You said some spending is not a stimulus. I said by definition, it seems that it is.

It may not be the short term stimulus that you want it to be (or I, for that matter), but to call it not a stimulus struck me as incongruent, as I couldn't think of a way to spend money (read: create economic activity) without it being a stimulus (read: creating economic activity).

It's really that simple.

Yes, the government doesn't have a way to spend some of this money, and yes, that bothers me. Of course, that doesn't apply to large amounts of that "omg horrible" list krby cut and pasted. NASA, for example, is perfectly capable of spending ridiculous amounts of money :p.

And no-- most of the time when you post you will get merely glib responses from me. Most of the time it just feels not worth it, for reasons many of us have already enumerated. Hell, that's true for many topics; even ones you aren't involved in. Something gets me interested enough to post? Then I'll post.

And krby (you snuck that post in while I was responding to Joxur :p), it would have been nice if you displayed the same dismay about the Patriot Act when it was passed.

I still don't understand why they don't just give more of these trillions-of-fucking-dollars to the people.

I mean, one trillion dollars = $10,000 for every household in America. (Doing rough population/family estimates.)

The vast majority of that money would just go back into the businesses in the form of saving houses via mortagage payments probably, I guess.

I suppose it's a bit of of selfish view, but especially with the banks it's annoying to see them getting funneled trillions of dollars while people are losing their homes or trapped under huge mortgages and still have to pay that money to the banks in the end anyway...why not just give people mortgage coupons or something (Like those dumb DTV coupons!) and help them with their mortgages and still be giving the banks money in the process!

Doesn't the same apply to you, in reverse?

If you read my posts without assuming that I'm automatically for the bill...

ahh fuck it. Sure-- you're right.

From http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/stimulus_individuals/index.htm?iref=topnews


So... wait, I'm confused. They're paying thris over the course of the year?? They've essentially given everyone a $0.19/hr raise? That's how they plan to fix the economy??

I'm so far from impressed that I'm depressed.

_________________

Frib, you are right, it usually is better to pass smaller more targeted bills than to try to pass one massive piece of legislation. At the time, I was generally for the USA PATRIOT Act because I believe that it extended most of the RICO laws to terror suspects.

(will post more later have to "put out a fire")

It's ok krby, no one has read the final bill anyway.

I think we'd all feel a lot better about your objections if you weren't so rabidly defensive of republicans when they did the same things.

Just call bad things bad and it'd really raise your credibility.

Oh? I think I was at least as rabidly anti GOP during the Bush days as anyone else, Bov.

You sure didn't come off that way. =/

heh, nice troll attempt. Yeesh.

I have to agree w/ Jox here. He took the Bush Admin to task with some frequency.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

search.php?keywords=&terms=all&author=vennyenn&fid[]=3&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

Maybe it was before I came back, I dunno. Perhaps you didn't start your partisan attitude until the campaign started in earnest.

For a very long time your posts could be summed up with a simple if..then consisting of, "If Obama then Flame". I seem to even recall you defending yourself by claiming that you were anti-Republican a lot, but not on this board.

Maybe that was Kula! I dunno, I kinda lumped you guys together. =/

no Jox was very Anti GWB

Couple things on the "pork". 30 billion of pork does not mean the other 870 is "bad". But, let's address the 30 bad listed.

If this puts people to work and reduces energy consumption, is that bad? I am not sure what the upgrades are, but let's say it's this: putting in tankless water heaters, using all energy efficient bulbs, installing high efficiency heating/cooling. Most of those upgrades have a payback period of 4-6 years. I don't see the problem here. It's the classic ENVIRONMENTALISM IS BAD defense. Forget the environment, I want to save money.

Guess I'm confused because the DHS is listed above at the tune of 448 mil.

Not sure.

Would need more info. But, if these employees already have cars and they're being maintained/upgraded, I'm not sure this is a problem. If there is a payback over time in fuel, I'm not sure this is a problem. Although, the economic efficiencies of hybrids is debatable.

Depends on what happens with the old building, or is this a new department.

Would need to understand more, but wouldn't we want to minimize the massive wildfires we have experienced over the last few years. True, some fires are natural, but not many.

Is it 100 million to sing songs about fish or to clean massively polluted lakes and ponds? Just because it is related to nature doesn't mean it's bad.

Again, it all depends on what is happening with the current buildings and how these contracts are built.

HOLY SHIT - REPUBLICANS AGAINST PRISONS?!?!?!?!
It is truly the end of the world.
Where are we going to lock up marijuana users and prostitutes?

Again - where are these now? Is this needed?

Wasn't this listed above?

I will avoid the obvious joke.
Our nation's infrastructure is in bad shape.
Sure, it is more fun to bomb and rebuild Iraq, but I would rather spend it on poop tunnels and roads in America.

Again, stunned. Reppublicans AGAINST law enforcement. I would need to understand where these salaries are going. Are we paying mid and low level people more, or are we giving a raises to the top tiers?

Again, depends why.

Why do Republicans hate veterans? Seriously though, this is a screwed up religious issue. Creamate, creamate, creamate. Also, it depends on how badly our buildings are in disrepair.

I wish Republicans took national security more seriously.

THis creates jobs, trains people. If it adds efficiency, that's a good thing, right?

What happens to the existing vehicles or is this all new? If this saves money, that's a good thing, right?

More power = good, right? What is the state of the current power plant?

Paid to whom? Isn't creating more efficient cars good?

I would rather see a voucher for a new TV.

Jobs doing what? Are these internships that lead to careers?

I know a lot of people who can only use the internet at a library. I want to live in a country with strong community centers. If you haven't been to a good public library lately, you owe it to yourself.

Again, anothier construction issue - see above. Also, I thought there were no "earmarks".

I had no idea the Republicans were so pro-Mexican. My how roles reverse.

For Amtrak to do what? For Amtrak to build more rails to more cities to lessen our need to fly? Um, that's a good thing, right?

Lead paint reduction where? In school rooms where children are growing retarded? Not sure I object.

God, I love floods. We definitely need to drop this one.

I don't know what this means. I'm guessing the people complaining don't either.

Will they be building party decks in the mines or safely shutting down the mines? Seems we would want to secure these?

Republicans hate NASA now too? How else are we going to nuke the Chinese from space?

So we nuked a bunch of sites and we don't want to clean it up. Hmmm.

Why are canals bad? They provide access for water commerce and other activities.

I have no idea what this means.

Again - construction. Aren't Republicans a little sad to see how shitty our infrastructure is?

With all the screaming about pork, I expected to see things like this:
$1,500,000,000 for creation of NAtional Museum of Woodborn Insects
$400,000,000 for building protective gate around the habitats of Coochdigging Donkey Mice
$800,000,000 for a grant to fund the Peformance Arts Council of San Francisco.

I am not sure if this list is the original "Republican Waste List", but if it is, I think it is painful weaksauce.

The short, short version of this thread:

Stimulus bill: $100 billion for fluffy bunny research.
Me: Fluffy bunny research is fine, but it's not good stimulus right now and should be handled separately.
You: OMG y u h8 fluffy bunniez?
Me: I don't hate fluffy bunnies I simply think that all spending in this bills hould be maximized for the greatest stimulative affect - you know, because it's a stimulus bill.
You: Bunny killr.

Um, no. You should be able to do better than that.

For example - making federal buildings more energy efficient. I wrote that if it has a net present value > 0 then it is good. Bunnies were certainly not mentioned.

The above also contained complaints about law enforcement - which if it was a Republican idea I think many people would support.

Again, no bunnies.

For perspective, Bush 2001 tax cut package was $1.25 trillion.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

All that money pumped into making the government buildings and cars green is more than just bullshit, too. It's pumping money into companies that develop non-oil based technologies.

More green companies get government contracts, more companies look into green solutions. As far as I'm concerned it's a targeted stimulus injection.

Uh oh ..... inflation here I come !!!

WE GOT YOUR MONEY. . . GONNA SPEND YOUR MONEY. . .
GONNA PRINT SOME MORE MONEY . . .



I think this picture says it all

I don't know why, but I love that picture. Can't stop looking at it and smiling!

Indeed. That's how I felt on November 5th.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Aren't those the male models from Zoolander, originally?

The funny part is when people really delude themselves into believing that one party or the other actually "cares" or "looks out" for them and the other party is bad and out to get them.

I don't think we need to be that cynical. I agree with just half of this statement.

On the positive side, I do really believe that both sides care about what is best for the country. They have pretty different ideas about how it should be done, but I believe that people on both sides of the aisle work from the sincere belief that what they advocate is good for the US.

It's the other half that I disagree with; I don't think the other party is bad and out to get me. Well, at least I don't think it's out to get me.

I have even posted here a few times over the years that I honestly believe that George Bush has been doing all the stupid shit he's been doing because of a sincere belief that he was helping things.

Such a critical rush to get this passed then the bill has to wait until the Pres gets back from vacation then travel to Denver to sign it.

lol

I think this is the smartest thing you have ever said Fribur, I fully agree with this statement.



This just made me LOL, they are not out to get you just your money, and your right that side over there (pointing to the left) is very bad, I am glad to see that you have come to your scenes about that.



I would have to agree with this too. Just like the current Administration is doing.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

I mostly disagree. I think people start out thinking they will change the world, but make a lot of compromises along the way until they love sight of what they started out to do.

I dunno...that's a very optimistic view. I'd daresay it's a more realistic view to say that a good chunk of them try to "do good" because it's their job description. Like the big-money mayor who tries to get lower crime numbers in ghetto-town. Not because he gives a shit, but because it's a number that looks good for him. Otherwise he's just looking out for himself.

I tend to think the truth lies somewhere in between those two extremes. On the one hand it's naive to think that all, or maybe even most politicians on both sides are looking after your best interests. On the other hand, it's a bit ignorant and all-assuming(is that a word?) to suggest that none of them give a damn at all, and that both sides are equal(both sides being equal somewhat defies logic... it's statistically near-impossible to have a large group of people and have both sides weigh the exact same on all fronts and issues).

More likely there are some good people who really care on both sides, and a decently-sized chunk of people who don't.

It's very much possible that one side has our interests at heart more than the other. Like I said, you can't have such a massive group of people and expect all things to come out even steven. I think you could argue that, in the macro sense, there's not a shitload of difference... but tangible, I'd say quite possibly.

Whenever you have that size of a group with differing issues at stake, you tend to get a certain swath of people caring about particular issues that may or may not follow a more "caring" path. People that care more deeply about others may tend to lean one way with regard to certain subjects, while people who don't care may lean the other. Very hard to quantify that kind of thing of course. And it doesn't guarantee by any means that the "other" side will have a massive landslide of bad, uncaring people. But easily possible that one side will have more than give a shit.

It's an oversimplification, and almost naive unto itself to rid oneself of the thought, to simply say they're both equally bad.

I believe that when questions are simple every politician will always choose the idea that is good for our country over the idea that is bad for our country.

Problems arise when their is conflict between good for the country and self-interest. This is where they fail. If an bad idea is popularized by the media or interest groups use fear tactics to protect their own people even if the country is hurt by the idea then politicians protect their own reelection chances by supporting the bad idea.

Bigger problems arise when the choice is between good short term and bad long term or painful short term but good long term. This is the conflict that we saw in the debate over the stimulus package and we all know which side won. Ten years from now, when the economy is floundering because of a devalued dollar, high interest rates, and government inability to intervene because of the high cost of servicing the debt we will ALL be sorry that short term interests won over long term interests.

Glad you have that luxury. I don't. I'm more than certain they ARE out to get me. :p

_________________