Despite a bipartisan effort...

@Advocate,

"we are talking about peanuts"....

You are a poor deluded soul if you can look at billions of dollars that we'll be borrowing from China and consider them peanuts.

I am SICK of Democrats saying this! How soon all of you forget how you/I felt over the first 6 years of Bush's administration.

I expect our government to look at each and every item here and make a conscious decision that it's right for America. I don't EVER want them to think "Oh, this piece is only $80 million, I'm not even going to look at it."

I don't know about you, but I remember being PISSED at those war spending bills that had millions and millions of dollars tacked on. This is NO different.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Well since you're such an adult, perhaps you can explain to us children how the following will meaningfully stimulate the economy

$2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
• $650 million for wild land fire management on forest service lands.
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
• $850 million for Amtrak.
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

What are you, Finn, an idiot?

This is a spending bill. Money spent on anything in America has a stimulus effect.

Do you think that Coal plant is going to build itself?

Those federal buildings are going to green themselves up?

Smithsonian museums are going to build and repair themselves, and then be staffed by nobody?

Flood reduction projects are just going to build themselves?

Every item on your list either creates jobs or helps support jobs.

If you can't do better than lame cut-and-pastes, why do you even bother posting?

God, you guys are dense when it come to economics

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Advocate,

But if this had been a repub bill, you would be screaming about every penny that was being spent on what you considered wasteful stuff.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

You're damn right he would. And so would I. And that is RIGHTFULLY how it should be.

To question why republicans are screaming about this is hypocritical, and screams of trying to silence dissent.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

You're damn right he would. And so would I. And that is RIGHTFULLY how it should be.

To question why republicans are screaming about this is hypocritical, and screams of trying to silence dissent.

Let's see if we're on the same page.

What is the point of a stimulus bill, and what are they trying to accomplish?

The point is to help keep the economy going, by replacing some of the money which would be spent (during better times) by consumers and businesses with government outlays. It's the move governments take when they are facing a crisis and the private sector is not equipped to deal with it.

It can easily be argued that all monies spent by the government have a stimulus effect. Of course, there are differing opinions as to how the money should be spent, and what will provide bigger or smaller stimuli to our economy; but the idea is to spend money to help ride things out, until the private sector can start to recover on it's own.

Look at things from that light and you'll see why many of your complaints about 'wasteful spending' are really not appropriate to the situation we face. Realize that we are in a mess and figuring out the best way to deal with it is more important than bitching about the fact that we're in a mess to begin with.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Wasn't it you who said that a stimulus bill should be creating jobs? And every item in the bill should pass the test: will this create a job? If not, then it's out until we have enough money in the treasury to do something else.

And yes, how hard could that be?

Everything in that bill is major red ink right now and we should not be spending anything that we don't absolutely have to spend. If it won't generate activity that puts people in the private sector back to work, it should be declared dead for now.

Once the economy and the national treasury recovers, then they can talk about the other stuff.

2 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Hmm, ok. I shoulda just checked Wikipedia for my answer. This is how his page there describes his perspective on the crisis:

Quote:
"Consumption is its own reward for Production""meaning that without production, the US cannot indefinitely sustain its ongoing consumption. Schiff, and other adherents of Austrian economics, promote savings and production as "the engine of economic growth -- not consumption".[citation needed]

That's my belief, Cyclo. Not saying it's nimh's just because it's a part of his quoted material. If your money is spent on productive assets, you get increased production. If your spending is for the sake of spending money, you get money spent, and debt incurred.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

We crossposted, Foxfyre. Yeah, that's what I meant.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

nimh wrote:

Hmm, ok. I shoulda just checked Wikipedia for my answer. This is how his page there describes his perspective on the crisis:

Quote:
"Consumption is its own reward for Production""meaning that without production, the US cannot indefinitely sustain its ongoing consumption. Schiff, and other adherents of Austrian economics, promote savings and production as "the engine of economic growth -- not consumption".[citation needed]

That's my belief, Cyclo. Not saying it's nimh's just because it's a part of his quoted material. If your money is spent on productive assets, you get increased production. If your spending is for the sake of spending money, you get money spent, and debt incurred.

Part of the spending is just to keep afloat.

Let us compare it to a ship which is badly damaged and is listing, taking on water. The captain has to make decisions about how the resources are spent to fix it. The most productive fixes are those which not only help the ship now but increase it's potential and resiliency in the future.

But there's also a lot to be said for plugging holes so you stop taking on water, even if those patches aren't permanent solutions to the problem. A certain amount of the upcoming spending is attempting to do that. No matter what we do, the economy is going to suck this whole year, stimulus bill or not; we'll be lucky if there's a leveling off even, we're still heading downward steadily! Much of the money in the bill is designed to help people and states survive this year without drastic changes.

I understand that it pisses people off that we have to spend so much time/money 'plugging leaks,' but that's what happens when the last idiot captain steers the ship into an iceberg, b/c of his ideology about the proper way to chart courses.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Do you remember when Bush told all of us to just go shopping after 9/11?

This is just an example of our government doing the shopping.

I remember being really pissed when Bush told us all to go shopping. I'm equally pissed that Obama is now the one with the credit card.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Yeah, I've been railing against all these bailouts and excess spending since Bush was in office.

This is just more of the same.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Much of the money in the bill is designed to help people and states survive this year without drastic changes.
Cycloptichorn

Yeah, right! God forbid anyone make drastic changes. Lower interest rates to help prop up home prices. Yeah, that's part of other bailouts, and inflated housing prices are a whole big part of the current problem. Let them drop till the market clears. They will still be there, only they will be occupied by people who can afford them. It's drastic, all right. And it will work.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Much of the money in the bill is designed to help people and states survive this year without drastic changes.
Cycloptichorn

Yeah, right! God forbid anyone make drastic changes. Lower interest rates to help prop up home prices. Yeah, that's part of other bailouts, and inflated housing prices are a whole big part of the current problem. Let them drop till the market clears. They will still be there, only they will be occupied by people who can afford them. It's drastic, all right. And it will work.

Lower interest rates to what?

On December 16th, 2008, the Fed lowered the federal funds rate to 0.25%. High interest rates are not the problem.

When I say 'make drastic changes,' and you laugh at that, it would seem you don't really understand what I mean. Many states have balanced budget amendments and the drop in home prices means this year they will have to decide between funding medicare, the prison system, the highways in their state/infrastructure, or education. They won't have enough money to cover all of the bases, and not just by a little, but by a ton. This will mean drastic cuts and more jobs lost in a wide variety of industries and professions.

More jobs lost does not help the economic recovery one bit. Much of this money is being allocated to keep unemployment from going higher due to the structure of our system.

See, some of the spending is to keep things from getting immediately worse, as much as it is to recover... imagine a patient comes into the emergency room with a heart attack. Do you prescribe diet and exercise? Hell no! You stabilize the guy buy either running thousands of volts of electricity through his body or cracking his chest open and mucking around with the insides.

Are either of those good things? Heck, no! They are both terrible traumas to inflict upon someone! But there's a time for taking action to help things and a time to focus on the future and building a better, more resilient system. Part of the stimulus bill has to be focused on helping our current situation as much as it is improving the next few years.

I do believe that several billion dollars are in the bill for housing relief, though not in the form of interest rates...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I telephoned, sent telegrams, snail mails, and emails to my elected representatives (and some other people's representatives) trying to express my contempt and outrage for that ridiculous bank bailout bill they passed last year. But the Republicans were all on their way out and apparently didn't give much of a damn last year--one voted for it, two against it but didn't really lobby against it. Both Democrats voted against it.

This year we have all Democrats and they are in lockstep with Pelosi and Obama on this in the House and with Harry Reid in the Senate. I went through the motions of sending the same round of protests and I'm sure these fell on deaf ears just like last year.

The excesses of the Bush administration were inexcusable. And this indefensible pure unadulterated rape of the American people is indefensible by any known rational criteria.

I know the country has withstood government stupidity deluxe in the past and it will probably survive this, but jeeeeeeeeeesus it is infuriating as well as heart breaking.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Exactly. High interest rates are not the problem. The problem is LOW interest rates in the past, which increased housing prices, and really, they did. And now, those houses are filled with people who owe more than they are worth.

Quote:

I do believe that several billion dollars are in the bill for housing relief, though not in the form of interest rates...

Is this supposed to be a good thing? Is it supposed to stimulate the economy?

2 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

Exactly. High interest rates are not the problem. The problem is LOW interest rates in the past, which increased housing prices, and really, they did. And now, those houses are filled with people who owe more than they are worth.

Quote:
I do believe that several billion dollars are in the bill for housing relief, though not in the form of interest rates...
Is this supposed to be a good thing? Is it supposed to stimulate the economy?

Theoretically it can help, at least in the short run. People who are frantically trying to pay ballooned mortgage payments aren't spending a dime of money on extra stuff or American products, and it's not just the poor with this problem either.

It also directly affects the banks, who are still not lending much money. If they could have a little assurance that their assets aren't worthless they might ease up credit from the super-tight level it's at.

But it wouldn't be my primary focus in this bill. Infrastructure development, food stamps, and direct aid to states are FAR more stimulative and helpful than propping up housing prices, I only brought it up b/c you mentioned it.

I do believe that one of the groups demanding aid to homeowners the loudest has been Congressional Republicans...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@roger,

Low interest rates were a factor but the one single factor that most pushed a false housing bubble to the bursting point was a government policy of backing irresponsible loans and then bundling and selling them off to lending institutions that may or may not have known of the crisis this was creating. The government and their subsidiaries such as ACORN were also putting intense pressure on lending institutions to make direct loans to people that would not be entitled to credit by any normal sound lending principles. Further the lending institutions were not adequately teaching people how an ARM works nor did they look down the road to see if the mortgagee had the ability to pay a higher house payment.

But man people were buying houses like crazy. And the law of supply and demand kept pushing up those values.

And since there were not an infinite number of homebuyers nor an infinite amount of cash to loan to them, the system seized. Credit froze which hurt just about every business that depends on available credit to operate, and that hurt jobs, and that caused loss of income, and that plus ARMS kicking in caused mortgage defaults and that put the banks in trouble which caused even more of the same kinds of troubles.

So.....what did the government do? They give those banks huge amounts of taxpayer money that it hadn't collected yet with no controls on what they had to do with the money and it solved little or nothing......just created billions and billions more debt.

The government failed us then.

And they're throwing twice a much money after the bad now.

And there apparently isn't a dang thing we can do about it.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'll tell you what I think of some of the mortgage schemes. The one announced by McCain in the second presidential debate was almost enough to cause me to abstain from voting for president. The only reason I did vote on that race was the prospect of the presidency and both houses of congress being of the same party. You are simply not going to keep me hopping around trying to defend anything that says "Republican".

Infrastructure developement sounds fine, depending on what it is. An eight lane highway between East Deliverance and Rottencrotch will dump a bunch of money. If that's where the money ends up, our infrastructure is in better shape than I had ever thought.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Very little of the bill is true pork. For instance, resodding the national mall, which is a hallmark for the country, is hardly pork. Nor is developing a zero-emissions coal plant, which the world badly needs. But consider some of the legislation during the past eight years, some of which contained thousands of true pork items with no redeeming features. Do you remember the bridge to nowhere, which typified so much of the Rep pork? There is no comparison between those laws and the bill at hand.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Low interest rates were a factor but the one single factor that most pushed a false housing bubble to the bursting point was a government policy of backing irresponsible loans and then bundling and selling them off to lending institutions that may or may not have known of the crisis this was creating. The government and their subsidiaries such as ACORN were also putting intense pressure on lending institutions to make direct loans to people that would not be entitled to credit by any normal sound lending principles. Further the lending institutions were not adequately teaching people how an ARM works nor did they look down the road to see if the mortgagee had the ability to pay a higher house payment.

And since there were not an infinite number of homebuyers nor an infinite amount of cash to loan to them, the system seized. Credit froze which hurt just about every business that depends on available credit to operate, and that hurt jobs, and that caused loss of income, and that plus ARMS kicking in caused mortgage defaults and that put the banks in trouble which caused even more of the same kinds of troubles.

So.....what did the government do? They give those banks huge amounts of taxpayer money that it hadn't collected yet with no controls on what they had to do with the money and it solved little or nothing......just created billions and billions more debt.

The government failed us then.

And they're throwing twice a much money after the bad now.

And there apparently isn't a dang thing we can do about it.

This is actually not correct.

Quote:

And since there were not an infinite number of homebuyers nor an infinite amount of cash to loan to them, the system seized. Credit froze

If it was just a question of the housing markets crashing, we wouldn't have had a financial crisis. The housing crisis is bad but not extraordinary in as of itself; the correction would be a slow on our economy but not a disaster.

The step that you left out, and it's a doozy, was the collateralization of debt, specifically mortgages, into securities. Gigantic institutions which previously had nothing whatsoever to do with the housing market decided to heavily invest in said market to make a quick buck. Regulators both in and out of Congress and the Exec branch looked the other way in the name of larger donations from Big Business.

The collapse of the housing market was only the trigger, but the true problem was the drunken behavior of modern investment companies. I mean, what the hell was AIG, an insurance group, doing with so many home mortgages on their books? They had no business getting into such risky investments!

The bailout of the banks was to correct the problem caused by the over-reliance on Collateralization of debt, not the housing cycle itself. We can't do anything about the housing cycle, it will go up and down on its own. But we can restrict banks and investors from making stupid investments with people's money, and keep them from leveraging their purchases to the insane levels they did.

Make sure your blaming the right groups here. We've had housing crashes many times before, but they usually don't drag down our whole system. It is plainly obvious that the difference in this case is the CDO and Credit Default Swap market which grew over the last decade.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Despite a bipartisan effort...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know