Senate passes the Pork

[Parkbandit]

Grats America, you now have a "stimulus" bill that has very little chance of stimulating the economy.

But hey.. Good ol' Chuck said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw

[Cephalopod]

I assumed this thread was related to Dick Durbin having a really good bowel movement this morning. Disappointing.

[Khariz]

Grats America, you now have a "stimulus" bill that has very little chance of stimulating the economy.

But hey.. Good ol' Chuck said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw

Apparently he's right.

[CrystalTears]

During a recession, you bet your ass we care.

[Khariz]

During a recession, you bet your ass we care.

Apparently we don't' care enough to get a handle on our Senators and MAKE them not to do this bullshit.

[BriarFox]

Apparently we don't' care enough to get a handle on our Senators and MAKE them not to do this bullshit.

Mostly because it's always okay if our senators do it, but not if *other* senators do it. Self-interest ftl.

[Methais]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/Clipboard03.jpg

With any luck, this bill should kill Obama's chance of re-election once people see it do nothing for the economy and put everyone the country into even more debt for 247823047204 more years. Unfortunately I have no faith in people having any sense anymore though.

Digital TV coupons and telling people to wear a condom will surely fix the economy.

And whatever the fuck national endowment for the arts is.

[TheEschaton]

Ask a person if they approve of a project for their constituency that was passed with a "pork" amendment, and they usually say yes. Ask them if they approve of "pork" in a bill, and they say no.

It's just semantics, which clouds the fact that, overwhelmingly, people tend to support these sorts of projects.

The only valid question for debate in this case is whether such spending is appropriate for a bill labelled as a "stimulus" bill. IMO, probably not, but they do have secondary and tertiary connections to stimulating things - modernizing the computers at SSI makes the government more efficient, spend less money, and thus pay less taxes.

Not to mention, tax cuts (the GOP's alternative solution to everything "pork") have hardly ever worked, despite the GOP's insistence that they have. They didn't work under Reagan, and they didn't work under Bush II. Bush I, who seems more like a genius every day, realized that increased spending would stave off the Reagan recession, not fuel it. It cost him a second term, but what the hell.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

All of which, added up, Methais, is what, less than 10% of the stimulus bill?

[Methais]

All of which, added up, Methais, is what, less than 10% of the stimulus bill?

What exactly is it stimulating?

[TheEschaton]

Progress?

[BriarFox]

All of which, added up, Methais, is what, less than 10% of the stimulus bill?

Just over 1%, actually. It's pretty insignificant.

[CrystalTears]

Just over 1%, actually. It's pretty insignificant.
And it's pretty sick that a billion dollars spent on bullshit is insignificant.

[Methais]

Progress?

Progress toward exactly what?


Just over 1%, actually. It's pretty insignificant.

That doesn't make it any less of a stupid waste of money.

Especially the TV tuners.

[Keller]

Just over 1%, actually. It's pretty insignificant.

It's alright, it's insignificant.

I'm all for sexual education and STD prevention. But let it stand on its own merits. Tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs. This is NOT the bill to fatten up and say, "Oh well -- it's only 1%."

[Clove]

$100,000.00 x 10,000 is significant enough for me.

[Khariz]

Not to mention, tax cuts (the GOP's alternative solution to everything "pork") have hardly ever worked, despite the GOP's insistence that they have. They didn't work under Reagan, and they didn't work under Bush II. Bush I, who seems more like a genius every day, realized that increased spending would stave off the Reagan recession, not fuel it. It cost him a second term, but what the hell.

-TheE-

I really just want to post "LOL" and walk away from this one. Do you seriously believe all that?

You realize that tax cuts don't have an immediate effect right? Direct spending has much more of an immediate effect, and much worse of a long term effect. Tax cuts are basically opposite of that. They take a while to get rolling, but they have an overall positive effect in the end.

If you come out with a tax bill that says "In 2009, businesses will get a HUGE MOTHERFUCKING TAX BREAK on buying large equipment (amount, type, etc defined)." Then SOME TIME that year businesses will take advantage of this, either because they actually NEED a new big piece of equipment, or because the economic opportunity cost of not buying it and offsetting tax they would otherwise have to pay makes it not worth it to NOT buy it during the period where they get the tax break.

So they eventually buy the piece of property, and now they need people to run it, so they hire new employees to run this piece of equipment that they purchased. The employees running the equipment makes the company more profit, and propels the whole market forward for years to come.

Juxtapose that with direct spending or government project. The government allocates XYZ dollars to project ABC. 200 people get on the project and complete project ABC over the course of two years. So for two years 200 people have "work" paid by a government funded project. The project ends, the "work" is over, and 200 people are back in the shitter.

Government doesn't create *JOBS* through spending. It creates "work" and solves short term problems. When the money from this spending is used up, there will be nothing but tertiary benefits left over (like better roads and whatnot). Tax cuts take longer to get rolling, but they cause long term, more permanent results that the whole economy benefits from (by price reductions, more competition, people with steady jobs feeling secure and spending/borrowing more money that they have the ability to pay back, etc).

[Methais]

I really just want to post "LOL" and walk away from this one. Do you seriously believe all that?

You realize that tax cuts don't have an immediate effect right? Direct spending has much more of an immediate effect, and much worse of a long term effect. Tax cuts are basically opposite of that. They take a while to get rolling, but they have an overall positive effect in the end.

If you come out with a tax bill that says "In 2009, businesses will get a HUGE MOTHERFUCKING TAX BREAK on buying large equipment (amount, type, etc defined)." Then SOME TIME that year businesses will take advantage of this, either because they actually NEED a new big piece of equipment, or because the economic opportunity cost of not buying it and offsetting tax they would otherwise have to pay makes it not worth it to NOT buy it during the period where they get the tax break.

So they eventually buy the piece of property, and now they need people to run it, so they hire new employees to run this piece of equipment that they purchased. The employees running the equipment makes the company more profit, and propels the whole market forward for years to come.

Juxtapose that with direct spending or government project. The government allocates XYZ dollars to project ABC. 200 people get on the project and complete project ABC over the course of two years. So for two years 200 people have "work" paid by a government funded project. The project ends, the "work" is over, and 200 people are back in the shitter.

Government doesn't create *JOBS* through spending. It creates "work" and solves short term problems. When the money from this spending is used up, there will be nothing but tertiary benefits left over (like better roads and whatnot). Tax cuts take longer to get rolling, but they cause long term, more permanent results that the whole economy benefits from (by price reductions, more competition, people with steady jobs feeling secure and spending/borrowing more money that they have the ability to pay back, etc).

Stop being so un-American.

[BriarFox]

The purpose of a stimulus bill is to spend money and to create projects that will, in turn, create more jobs and more money. These at least fall into the first category. Also, the tv coupons have been planned for at least 2 years (they'll also help people save money to spend on other things), while the sex ed money is desperately needed after Bush's moronic abstinence-only programs; in the long run, it'll probably save money because on medical bills and whatnot for unprepared families. These things aren't just random ideas people have shoved into the stimulus bill. Personally, I'm more concerned by other aspects of the bill.

[Khariz]

Stop being so un-American.

:hug2:

Edit: Oh, you forgot Racist too.

[Ignot]

With any luck, this bill should kill Obama's chance of re-election

Can we give the guy 4 years first and if Bush got re-elected anything is possible. Oh and U R RACIST!

[Methais]

while the sex ed money is desperately needed after Bush's moronic abstinence-only programs; in the long run, it'll probably save money because on medical bills and whatnot for unprepared families.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows they should at least wear a condom when banging random sluts.

The government can do all the STD education they want. It's nothing most if not all people don't already know, and they're gonna keep having unprotected sex and catching diseases anyway.

All the government spending in the world isn't gonna make those people stop being like "Fuck it, I don't have time to unwrap this thing, I'm sticking it in NOWWWWWW!" or "Damn, I forgot my condoms at home. No sex tonight bitch!"

If anything, the government should spend that money giving all males a vasectomy at birth. Then if they decide they want kids when they're older, they can get it reversed.

I guarantee the government will save a lot more money that way in the longrun, and the world will have a lot less welfare/rape/crack/should have never existed people running around. It'll also solve the whole abortion issue.

When people become too stupid to exist, as things are now and rapidly becoming worse, natural selection can only do so much.

Sure, you might have missed out on some laughs if this were around 20-30 years ago because people like Warclaidhm would never be born, and the annual Darwin awards might not exist, but like Obama says, we all have to sacrifice.

[Daniel]

I really just want to post "LOL" and walk away from this one. Do you seriously believe all that?

You realize that tax cuts don't have an immediate effect right? .

Wait...what?

This + republicans bitching that the stimulus package doesn't "stimulate" anything is ultimately irony.

If the rationale of tax cuts is "people get more money, people spend more money" then why exactly wouldn't government spending the money on neccessary investments and infrastructure have the same effect?

It's the same premise. You create jobs that propell the economy forward. What is the difference?

Or do you really expect us to believe that CEO's making more money will roll downhill when they buy fancy cars and vacation trips is a long term, sustainable mechanism for economic growth, but building energy efficient infrastructue is not?

I wish that above statement was pure hyperbole but Rudy Guilani said exactly that about a week ago. It almost made me puke.

[CrystalTears]

I'm all for upgrading and repairing the infrastructure. I just don't see how digital TV coupons and 200 million on putting down grass helps the economy.

[Methais]

I'm all for upgrading and repairing the infrastructure. I just don't see how digital TV coupons and 200 million on putting down grass helps the economy.

YEAH WELL IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THEY WON THE ELECTION SO STFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!111111

[Daniel]

I'm all for upgrading and repairing the infrastructure. I just don't see how digital TV coupons and 200 million on putting down grass helps the economy.

Honestly,

No idea. I'm not familiar enough with these initatives.

[TheWitch]

The bill reads like the side of an Oscar Meyer package.

No, it's not anything as blatant as 2B for the makers of wooden arrows.

And in fairness, the birth control crap was taken out, as were a lot of stinky sausagey things.

They are simply hiding the pork so it looks like turkey.

It's still turkey.

[Methais]

Honestly,

No idea. I'm not familiar enough with these initatives.

Not familiar enough with what initiatives? That $600m for digital TV tuners and $200m for grass isn't going to help the economy?

Legalize marijuana and tax the shit out of it. That'll help if not fix the economy.


And in fairness, the birth control crap was taken out, as were a lot of stinky sausagey things.

Taking the sausagey things out IS birth control.


It's still turkey

Still pork you mean?

Pelosi/Obama '08!

[TheWitch]

Doh, yes. It's still pork. Not turkey.

[TheEschaton]

The TV tuners thing is ridiculous, I'll grant you that. They made a decision a year or so ago to convert all TV signals to digital, which means you can no longer get a TV signal using rabbit ears or antennas. The reasons behind doing this are not all that complex, using digital frees up many different airwaves for other things.

Now, because it was a government standarization that said they had to switch to digital signals, many in the gov't (and the tv industry who were afraid of losing viewership) thought that they should provide people who couldn't afford digital tuners (IE, what comes with Comcast/verizon/Time Warner, etc, already), with the ability to turn in their rabbit ears for the boxes.

How does it stimulate an economy? Who knows, but like Briar said, this thing has been in the works forever.

Oh, and Khariz, nice of you to trumpet Michael Steele's talking points from this weekend. I see you picked them up right well, especially on the supposed distinction between "work" and "job." The fact of tax cuts during economic downturns is that people and small businesses, when given a tax break, save that money - they don't spend it, which is what the whole point of the stimulus is.

Not to mention, 40% of the bill is tax cuts anyways, to promote that long term growth (which it possibly may do). How much is 40%? Oh yeah, it's apparently 40x the amount of "pork" in the bill.

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

Taking the sausagey things out IS birth control.
:rofl:

[jhiggs]

If anything, the government should spend that money giving all males a vasectomy at birth. Then if they decide they want kids when they're older, they can get it reversed.




The problem with that is the chance on reversing a vasectomy is always 100% and the long its been since you have had the vasectomy the lower the % of it being successfully reversed.

[TheEschaton]

Furthermore, I disagree with Keller's idea that every idea has to stand alone. If Congress tried to appropriate funds for every damn project separately, it would do less than it already does, which is close to nothing.

[Daniel]

Not familiar enough with what initiatives? That $600m for digital TV tuners and $200m for grass isn't going to help the economy?

Legalize marijuana and tax the shit out of it. That'll help if not fix the economy.




Neither of these are in the senate version of the bill. So, do you have other things to bitch about or can we just consider the matter closed?

[Keller]

YEAH WELL IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THEY WON THE ELECTION SO STFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!111111

Who is saying that?

[CrystalTears]

Neither of these are in the senate version of the bill. So, do you have other things to bitch about or can we just consider the matter closed?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2340765,00.asp

The Senate on Tuesday passed an economic stimulus package that includes millions for broadband grants and the DTV transition.
....
The bill still includes $650 million for the digital TV converter box coupon program. The president is expected to sign a bill that moves the DTV transition from February 17 to June 12, but funds from the stimulus bill are required to help the coupon program.

[Keller]

Furthermore, I disagree with Keller's idea that every idea has to stand alone. If Congress tried to appropriate funds for every damn project separately, it would do less than it already does, which is close to nothing.

I am saying in this instance -- when you're trying to gather bipartisan support for a stimulus -- just let the things pass on it's own.

There is a time and a place for letting efficiency dictate hybrid bills. This is not the time or the bill.

[Daniel]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2340765,00.asp

My bad. I didn't realize it was coupled with another provision.

I'll tell you what. We'll call this a "stimulus tax cut" for those who need television converters. Will that make it better?

[Parkbandit]

Just over 1%, actually. It's pretty insignificant.


So, what amount would you classify as "insignificant"? Is it capped at 1% of the total? 5%? Maybe it should be put in terms of money. Since you believe $8,300,000 is "insignificant", what at $10,000,000? $100,000,000? $1,000,000,000?

Just give me a number I can work with is all I am asking.

The Obama Administration announced a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR banking bailout program today. Very little in ways of details.. but I can only hope that it works just as well as the $350 BILLION already spent. I mean if 350 BILLION dollars worked as well as it did, I can only imagine how spending 3X that much money would do.

[Methais]

Neither of these are in the senate version of the bill. So, do you have other things to bitch about or can we just consider the matter closed?

I have other things to bitch about.


Who is saying that?

"We won the election. We wrote the bill." -Nancy Pelosi


The problem with that is the chance on reversing a vasectomy is always 100% and the long its been since you have had the vasectomy the lower the % of it being successfully reversed.

Even better!

[Kembal]

The sex ed program funding is dumb and should be in regular appropriations. The digital TV converters are not, considering there's a waiting list for the coupons and it's estimated that 6.5 million households don't have the coupons yet. They could have easily attached it to the digital television delay bill though, since that passed faster than this.

As for the new bank bailout, the devil's completely in the details on this one. I can't tell if it'll work or not, based on the complete vagueness of the plan.

[CrystalTears]

The sex ed program funding is dumb and should be in regular appropriations. The digital TV converters are not, considering there's a waiting list for the coupons and it's estimated that 6.5 million households don't have the coupons yet. They could have easily attached it to the digital television delay bill though, since that passed faster than this.I hate to sound insensitive but I'm going to anyway...

So what if millions of people don't have TV? Is this essential to life now?

[Keller]

I hate to sound insensitive but I'm going to anyway...

So what if millions of people don't have TV? Is this essential to life now?

No -- but that'll drive down advertising revenue. That will, in effect, reduce the money in the TV economy (actors, studios, set designers, coffee shops near the studios, etc).

I think that we should tax both the TV studios (maybe on ad revenue) and also whoever picks up the vacated radio wavelengths to pay for the converters. I'm not sure how I feel about subsidizing the TV stations ad revenue.

[CrystalTears]

Yay for lower advertising? I personally hate it.

[Keller]

Yay for lower advertising? I personally hate it.

Well -- that's how they pay for Heroes. Do you hate Heroes, too?

[Clove]

Well -- that's how they pay for Heroes. Do you hate Heroes, too?Do you really think advertisers would pull out of NBC (and network TV) if over-the-air broadcasting withered? Would they suddenly all go to USA and TBS and drop CBS, NBC and ABC?

There may be millions who watch over-the-air television; but many millions more watch via cable and satellite. What's waiting in the wings to replace TV advertisements if over-the-air viewers dry up?

I just can't see Madison avenue saying "Well now you only reach 200 million instead of 260 million... I'm shifting all my ad dollars to magazines" I'm sorry, but you just can't sell the notion that ad-funding for high-quality programming hinges on over-the-air-broadcasting in 2009 to me.

[Keller]

Do you really think advertisers would pull out of NBC (and network TV) if over-the-air broadcasting withered? Would they suddenly all go to USA and TBS and drop CBS, NBC and ABC?

There may be millions who watch over-the-air television; but many millions more watch via cable and satellite. What's waiting in the wings to replace TV advertisements if over-the-air viewers dry up?

I just can't see Madison avenue saying "Well now you only reach 200 million instead of 260 million... I'm shifting all my ad dollars to magazines" I'm sorry, but you just can't sell the notion that ad-funding for high-quality programming hinges on over-the-air-broadcasting in 2009 to me.

I meant they wouldn't charge as much for the airtime if there are less viewers.

[Clove]

I meant they wouldn't charge as much for the airtime if there are less viewers.That's a given but you don't really think TV advertising rates would plummet so much so that shows like Heroes would go away, do you? HBO and Showtime certainly seem to be able to produce excellent programming without advertising dollars at all. Sci-Fi pushes out plenty of good shows with ad dollars that aren't even aimed at over-the-air viewers.

Sure it would have an effect on advertising, but do you really believe it would have such a drastic effect on television quality and the ad industry? I don't. As far as I'm concerned the digital conversion has been FAR too overblown and it's much ado about nothing. It's Y2K part deux.

Just sayin'.

[Back]

When you consider the sheer amount of spending the Republican Congress/President put into place... Republicans complaining now looks kind of sad.

Very agreed.


With that said... for my own part... I have nothing against spending that amount on STD prevention, just not here. The National Endowment for the Arts didn't belong in this bill. America could do without digital tv coupons as a whole. One could note that the coupons weren't a specifically Democratic proposition however.

Very disagreed.

Raising the quality of living for everyone regardless of income is very much worth the expense.

[Parkbandit]

Raising the quality of living for everyone regardless of income is very much worth the expense.

That's fine.. but don't try to sneak it in a STIMULUS package.

[Rathgar]

Let us all bow down to our Chinese overlords!

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/f/fu_manchu_karloff.jpg

u pay layer !!

[Methais]

No -- but that'll drive down advertising revenue. That will, in effect, reduce the money in the TV economy (actors, studios, set designers, coffee shops near the studios, etc).

I think that we should tax both the TV studios (maybe on ad revenue) and also whoever picks up the vacated radio wavelengths to pay for the converters. I'm not sure how I feel about subsidizing the TV stations ad revenue.

People who are so broke that they have to watch TV on rabbit ears probably are probably welfare rejects and aren't going to be out spending money on things that are advertised on rabbit ear TV to begin with.

[Parkbandit]

People who are so broke that they have to watch TV on rabbit ears probably are probably welfare rejects and aren't going to be out spending money on things that are advertised on rabbit ear TV to begin with.

LOL

Thankfully, the people I've seen in HuD, THA or S8 all seem to have nice cable TVs.

[Daniel]

Wait...what?

This + republicans bitching that the stimulus package doesn't "stimulate" anything is ultimately irony.

If the rationale of tax cuts is "people get more money, people spend more money" then why exactly wouldn't government spending the money on neccessary investments and infrastructure have the same effect?

It's the same premise. You create jobs that propell the economy forward. What is the difference?

Or do you really expect us to believe that CEO's making more money will roll downhill when they buy fancy cars and vacation trips is a long term, sustainable mechanism for economic growth, but building energy efficient infrastructue is not?

I wish that above statement was pure hyperbole but Rudy Guilani said exactly that about a week ago. It almost made me puke.


I love how no one responds except through the rep system.

[TheWitch]

I love how no one responds except through the rep system.

Well...I didn't respond either way, but since you want to hear someone respond.

Government spending should work similarly, yes. In a perfect world, maybe it would. However, IMO, the issue is the sluggish and wasteful rate at which government spending actually happens. How much of each dollar that the government spends actually ends up doing what it's supposed to do? I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that if I have an extra dollar in my pocket, I'll spend 100% of it. Even if I only spend 50% of it, I would wager that's a more effective spending rate than the government dollar.

Second, as someone has already pointed out, while this may be a wheel-greaser and have some long-term benefit, it's a mid-range bandaid IMO. It's going to take several months for this spending to make it through the pipeline, I don't care how "shovel ready" they claim these infrastructure projects are. Then once the project is done...it's done. Then what, redo it to keep those people employed? Cross fingers and hope that the spending trickled down to private sector projects?

Not to mention all the non-stimulative, pork disguised as turkey that's lurking in this 1,600 page (last I heard, probably bigger now) pile of dead trees.

No, Daniel, I don't have any faith in this "trickle down" crap either anymore, not with the greed and avarice that these upper echelon bankers have shown over the past few months.

I don't disagree a stimlus needs to happen, and I think extending things like unemployment benefits and the like are worth it. The magnitude, and iffiness of the whole thing, is alarming to say the least.

[Clove]

I love how no one responds except through the rep system.I guess people weren't worried because in the worst case scenario you'd respond to yourself. And no, I wasn't one of the people who gave you rep. Question: If rep is so pointless, why do we have to hear your musing about it?

[Khariz]

I didn't respond because I explained the difference between giving tax cuts and government money spending in my initial post.

[DeV]

The TV tuners thing is ridiculous, I'll grant you that. They made a decision a year or so ago to convert all TV signals to digital, which means you can no longer get a TV signal using rabbit ears or antennas.

-TheE-Pretty much. And if I had to guess I'd say the inclusion has everything to do with the TV converter box coupon program having reached its funding cap. It's also something the government probably didn't think they'd have to provide at the capacity they've reached. Most people without digital televisions probably don't have the money to spend on a new television so they'll go with the inexpensive converter boxes instead, which the government has to pick up the tab and an even bigger bill considering the current state of the economy equates to more people needing them.

[Daniel]

Well...I didn't respond either way, but since you want to hear someone respond.

Government spending should work similarly, yes. In a perfect world, maybe it would.

Okay check.

Thanks for the clarification. There is no difference in the theory. Thus, as tax cuts have not helped this crisis don't you think it's time to try something else?



Second, as someone has already pointed out, while this may be a wheel-greaser and have some long-term benefit, it's a mid-range bandaid IMO. [/q It's going to take several months for this spending to make it through the pipeline,


Hence the irony about saying that Tax cuts don't immediately go through the pipeline either. Tax cuts don't immediately get spent on things that people need. This of course ignores the fact that the money could very well be saved or spent on existing debts (which is exactly where my stimulus check went).



No, Daniel, I don't have any faith in this "trickle down" crap either anymore, not with the greed and avarice that these upper echelon bankers have shown over the past few months.

I don't disagree a stimlus needs to happen, and I think extending things like unemployment benefits and the like are worth it. The magnitude, and iffiness of the whole thing, is alarming to say the least.

Why don't you feel that a stimulus needs to happen?

That's not to say that the scale and mangnitude are not debatable but do you think we should just sit by and let things happen? Do you think the US can afford a "lost decade" like in Latin America, East Asian or Japan?

[Daniel]

I didn't respond because I explained the difference between giving tax cuts and government money spending in my initial post.

No you didn't. You stated something as a fact and I asked you explain it. My post was in direct response to yours.

I asked you explain why interjecting money into the economy through funding *needed* infrastructure projects was less effective than tax cuts?

In both cases, money is being interjected into the "market" and will have a sustained effect. Why is it that you think that giving people money for free will have a longer term effect then giving people money for doing things that we need done anyway?

In both cases, people get money and "spend it" thus energizing the economy. I'm failing to see the difference.

[Daniel]

I guess people weren't worried because in the worst case scenario you'd respond to yourself. And no, I wasn't one of the people who gave you rep. Question: If rep is so pointless, why do we have to hear your musing about it?

Because it's still full of lol when people decide to not respond to the points raised and hide behind their rep shield?

You understand that I can not care about rep and still ridicule people's use of it right?

I know you're a bit slow, but surely you can grasp that simple concept.

[TheWitch]

Okay check.

Thanks for the clarification. There is no difference in the theory. Thus, as tax cuts have not helped this crisis don't you think it's time to try something else?

You left out the rest of it, where I stated that I don't have any faith in the governments ability to do this spending in an efficient, effective manner. They could, however unlikely it might be, immediately reduce payroll taxes.

I don't claim allegiance to either party, so please don't start in with the "conservative" accusations. I simply do not trust government to do what they say they're going to do. I don't want to see it get bigger. Far too many of them are just as bad as the Wall Street fatcats, completely out of touch, and doing whatever the hell they want.


Why don't you feel that a stimulus needs to happen?

Maybe the double negative was confusing, but I do think some sort of effort needs to be made, if for no other reason to give the public some sort of a "relax, they've got this" feeling.

I am just not convinced that the package as it exists is the answer. Just as an example, I'd like to see a butt load more money and effort directed at alternative fuel sources. IMO, that's a hell of alot more stimulative, in a more long term way.

[CrystalTears]

I am just not convinced that the package as it exists is the answer. Just as an example, I'd like to see a butt load more money and effort directed at alternative fuel sources. IMO, that's a hell of alot more stimulative, in a more long term way.Very much agree with you here.

[DeV]

They could, however unlikely it might be, immediately reduce payroll taxes.


I agree. Either reduce or suspend payroll taxes altogether for a specified period of time. I think we would see an immediate boost to disposable household income and in the process it would foster incentive for companies to keep people employed. One excuse could be that taking on such a measure would cost billions and threaten medicare and social security.... my ass.

[Parkbandit]

I love how no one responds except through the rep system.

Troll the fuck out of the boards for months, not contributing a single thing of value or intelligence.. then bitch and moan when ONE of your on topic posts doesn't get immediately responded to.

QQ

[Parkbandit]

I agree. Either reduce or suspend payroll taxes altogether for a specified period of time. I think we would see an immediate boost to disposable household income and in the process it would foster incentive for companies to keep people employed. One excuse could be that taking on such a measure would cost billions and threaten medicare and social security.... my ass.


I'm not sure that would make me want to hire more people.. or just save the money and put it away to ride this storm out.

One thing is for certain.. unless they focus on the people that actually HIRE people with some meaningful stimulus, this economy won't turn around as quickly as people need.

[DeV]

I'm not sure that would make me want to hire more people.. In theory that's not the immediate goal. As a business your focus would be to retain the people and jobs you currently have. Small businesses are barely in the position to take on new employees as it is, but could use a boost in sales, no matter how slight.



One thing is for certain.. unless they focus on the people that actually HIRE people with some meaningful stimulus, this economy won't turn around as quickly as people need.True. And if people keep losing jobs at the current rate it will take even more money than they're approving now to turn things around. The impact should be on those who will use the money immediately and for those small to medium sized businesses who are suffering rather critically on the lower end.

[BriarFox]

I love how no one responds except through the rep system.

I didn't respond because your posts make my eyes glaze over.

[Rocktar]

I love how no one responds except through the rep system.

There is no response to idiotic bullshit other than to get a shovel or walk away.

[Methais]

I like how they tried to sneak nationalized health care into this package.

Doctors having to get approval from the government for anything they plan to do to treat their patient will surely stimulate the economy and ensure a better quality of life for everyone.

At least Ted Kennedy won't be around much longer if all that goes all the way through, because by the time they get around to doing more surgery or whatever, he'll probably be dead already.

[DeV]

That's exactly what an HMO does, correct me if I'm wrong. Even PPO's. What's interesting is that you don't have to get anything pre-approved with Medicare. The majority of people have HMO's and most people require approval prior to getting specialized treatment or certain types of medications anyway, Methais. I mean, really, I'm not seeing a difference. If I'm missing something here please clue me in.

[Methais]

I know that, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.

[DeV]

Honestly, I'm not up to date on the technical aspects of its inclusion, but if it will stop retards like the mother of the octopulets from further breeding I might have to consider its merits.

[Methais]

Honestly, I'm not up to date on the technical aspects of its inclusion, but if it will stop retards like the mother of the octopulets from further breeding I might have to consider its merits.

I don't see how it could do that, but props to them if it works.

Speaking of idiots and babies, some chick in New Orleans yesterday had a baby (not in a hospital), cut the cord (on her end) and then tossed the baby into Lake Ponchartrain with the cord still attached to it. Kid drowned of course. Don't think they tracked the mom down yet.

New Orleans is such a good, clean, and wholesome city.

[Parkbandit]

I like how they tried to sneak nationalized health care into this package.

Doctors having to get approval from the government for anything they plan to do to treat their patient will surely stimulate the economy and ensure a better quality of life for everyone.

At least Ted Kennedy won't be around much longer if all that goes all the way through, because by the time they get around to doing more surgery or whatever, he'll probably be dead already.


Um.. he's got his own Insurance paid for by us. He'll get the best care available.

[Parkbandit]

That's exactly what an HMO does, correct me if I'm wrong. Even PPO's. What's interesting is that you don't have to get anything pre-approved with Medicare. The majority of people have HMO's and most people require approval prior to getting specialized treatment or certain types of medications anyway, Methais. I mean, really, I'm not seeing a difference. If I'm missing something here please clue me in.

What's it doing in a stimulus bill again? There are items in there that have nothing to do with spending and everything to do with the initiation of socialized healthcare.

It's being snuck into this emergency bill because they don't want the debate and the Republicans have no balls to say anything for fear of being called racists.

[DeV]

Yeah, that happens a lot. People like that save us a few tax dollars on one end (welfare), but ream us royally on the other (incarceration). Sickingly ironic.

[DeV]

It's being snuck into this emergency bill because they don't want the debate and the Republicans have no balls to say anything for fear of being called racists.Yeah, bunch of pussies.

[Parkbandit]

Here's the thing though.. I think everyone knows we have to do SOMETHING with the current insurance/healthcare fiasco. I had the flu last week.. my 12 pills cost me $85 after insurance. That is fucking ridiculous.

But this isn't the way to go about making changes.. sticking things into a stimulus bill and hoping no one notices until it's too late. It's fucking typical dirty politics as usual from DC.

[Methais]

sticking things into a stimulus bill and hoping no one notices until it's too late. It's the hope and change and transparency we've all been praying for from DC.

Fixed.

[Parkbandit]

:rofl:

ONE of the spending items that actually would have helped stimulate the economy was dropped from the recent negotiations.. the up to a $15,000 tax credit for purchasing a house.

That's fucking awesome....

[CrystalTears]

Except that all administrations are guilty of doing that as well. It's just more focused on this time because of the panicky recession we're in.

[Methais]

Except that all administrations are guilty of doing that as well. It's just more focused on this time because of the panicky recession we're in.

And because Obama isn't coming through on any of this hope and change he's been parading.

[CrystalTears]

And because Obama isn't coming through on any of this hope and change he's been parading.
It's only been a month. Give it some time. At least 100 days for crying out loud. :tongue:

[Keller]

And because Obama isn't coming through on any of this hope and change he's been parading.

I'm pretty hopeful.

And it's been a nice change to have a POTUS that takes questions from a non-homogenized audience.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

when I have more time I'll read through more of this, but I have one point.

This is being bantered about as the "Democratic Stimulus Plan"... I don't know the exact counts, but didn't they have to pass several voting bodies by majority to pass it? Wouldn't that imply it's "OUR" stimulus plan, not just democrats?

[BriarFox]

when I have more time I'll read through more of this, but I have one point.

This is being bantered about as the "Democratic Stimulus Plan"... I don't know the exact counts, but didn't they have to pass several voting bodies by majority to pass it? Wouldn't that imply it's "OUR" stimulus plan, not just democrats?

The Republicans in the House essentially all voted against it, while a handful of Republicans in the Senate supported it. That could change, of course.

[TheRunt]

I asked you explain why interjecting money into the economy through funding *needed* infrastructure projects was less effective than tax cuts?

In both cases, money is being interjected into the "market" and will have a sustained effect. Why is it that you think that giving people money for free will have a longer term effect then giving people money for doing things that we need done anyway?

In both cases, people get money and "spend it" thus energizing the economy. I'm failing to see the difference.

Perhaps because the "needed" infrastructure projects once they end will provide no more effect on the economy where as a tax cut will continue. Also how is a tax cut giving people money for free? It just means they get to keep more of their money.

[Gan]

Troll the fuck out of the boards for months, not contributing a single thing of value or intelligence.. then bitch and moan when ONE of your on topic posts doesn't get immediately responded to.

QQ

irony...


:lol:

[Daniel]

Perhaps because the "needed" infrastructure projects once they end will provide no more effect on the economy where as a tax cut will continue. Also how is a tax cut giving people money for free? It just means they get to keep more of their money.

Of course that makes no sense.


Once the money is out of your hands you have no control over it. You are depending on people to get the money and then spend it, thus stimulating the economy.

If interjecting money into the economy is going to have move downhill then it will do it either way.

[Daniel]

You left out the rest of it, where I stated that I don't have any faith in the governments ability to do this spending in an efficient, effective manner. They could, however unlikely it might be, immediately reduce payroll taxes.

I don't claim allegiance to either party, so please don't start in with the "conservative" accusations. I simply do not trust government to do what they say they're going to do. I don't want to see it get bigger. Far too many of them are just as bad as the Wall Street fatcats, completely out of touch, and doing whatever the hell they want.


I left it out because there's nothing I can really say then. If you don't trust the government to do something, then there is nothing they can do. As a basic premise, I trust the government to do their best to do what they can. Afterall, that's their responsibility. I have no faith in business to do it, and I don't think it's just going to happen on its own.

It's a rough decision but that's the fact.



Maybe the double negative was confusing, but I do think some sort of effort needs to be made, if for no other reason to give the public some sort of a "relax, they've got this" feeling.

I am just not convinced that the package as it exists is the answer. Just as an example, I'd like to see a butt load more money and effort directed at alternative fuel sources. IMO, that's a hell of alot more stimulative, in a more long term way.

I have no problems disagreeing on whether or not the bill will have the desired effect. The problem is that a lot of the people here cling to old economy theories that simple do not work and political rhetoric.

As it is, a cursory look at the bill shows that 43 BILLION is being used for energy investment, the least of which is 2.3 billion for research into alternative fuels, 2 billion into advanced battery systems, and 6.5 into renewable energy infrasturcture. To say nothing of the initiatives for transportion, green buildings etc etc.

So why exactly do you think that is NOT in the bill?

[Daniel]

Troll the fuck out of the boards for months, not contributing a single thing of value or intelligence.. then bitch and moan when ONE of your on topic posts doesn't get immediately responded to.

QQ


irony...


:lol:

No kidding.

[TheWitch]

Honestly, Daniel, the more days pass and negotiations on this progress, I'm having less trouble with it. They've removed some of the things that I thought were not only non-stimulative, but also had some serious potential to just keep digging the overspending hole we've already dug - ie the HUGE tax credit for homebuyers.

I realize what the goal of that was. However, it's a slap in the face.

I still disagree with the way the tax breaks are structured, but this being a democratically controlled Congress it's probably better than it could be. My main objection is welfare via tax credits to people that don't pay taxes to begin with.

And yes, I have a fundamental distrust for government. Which is not to say I trust finance and the automotive industry, etc, more, they're all equally corrupt and wasteful, IMO. Just in different ways.

Not because I think the government is looking to rip people off, but because it has this uncanny knack of buying toilet seats for $1,500. And it bothers me more with government, because that's MY - and YOUR - money they're fucking around with. At least with the car makers/banks/etc, - up until these 700 billion dollar boondoggles, anyway - people had a choice with whom to trust/spend their money. The government takes it, and ... then what?

I will always, in a simplistic way of stating it, default to letting people keep the money they earned and choose how to spend it as opposed to giving it to the government to waste.