Stimulus Package - Debate & Discussion

[RightField]

Local newspapers are now assuring residents that Washington is coming to their aid with a stimulus package that directs billions of dollars to the states. But much of this money is for specific programs, which will limit how states can use it and hence won’t offset tax shortfalls. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the local school board there, for instance, stands to gain $88 million in school construction money it largely doesn’t need because enrollment is declining and 15 school buildings are already empty.

But the Dems who spout Keynesian theory would tell you it doesn't matter what they spend it on, as long as they spend it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

But the Dems who spout Keynesian theory would tell you it doesn't matter what they spend it on, as long as they spend it.

Oh, it matters, some things are better to spend it on than others in terms of both economic stimulus and other public benefits, but any spending is gonna help some.

 

[KingOrfeo]

On election day CNBC had a series of short stories on how the stock market has performed historically under various administrations.

This study had a margin of error of plus or minus total irrelevance.

 

[off2bed]

Still waiting for the brilliant minds of Lit to explain exactly how borrowing a trillion dollars from our grandkids to pay for shit like neon lights in Las Vegas is healthy for the nation.

It's like having a liver disease patient on his death bed and giving him more alcohol.

 

[Sharon_]

Still waiting for the brilliant minds of Lit to explain exactly how borrowing a trillion dollars from our grandkids to pay for shit like neon lights in Las Vegas is healthy for the nation.

It's like having a liver disease patient on his death bed and giving him more alcohol.

Well, the King told *me* that what is ordinary common sense as it applies to individuals who are broke (not borrowing money to buy things you don't need) doesn't apply to governments.

They, apparently, operate under different laws of economics (and prolly physics, too).

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So NOW they're fiscal conservatives...

Well, the King told *me* that what is ordinary common sense as it applies to individuals who are broke (not borrowing money to buy things you don't need) doesn't apply to governments.

They, apparently, operate under different laws of economics (and prolly physics, too).

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=637401

From 2001 until 2006 the Republicans controlled the Legislature and the presidency. Throughout this time we were told the economy was the "greatest story never told". At the same time, the government was clearly operating in deficit territory. In fact, according to the US Bureau of Public Debt, the US government issued over $500 billion of new new debt per year every year since 2003 (and came really close in fiscal year 2002):

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

So -- the Republicans clearly have no fundamental issue with deficit spending. Then it must be something else.

The economy was growing from 2001-2006 when the Republicans were in power. It was the "greatest story never told". That means government spending as a tool to get the economy going isn't a bad thing according to Republicans. So it must be something else.

Let's see .. what could it be ...

Oh yeah. The country is in the middle of one of the worst recessions in over 70 years. Consumer spending is falling off a cliff, industrial production is collapsing, capacity utilization is down, housing is in the tank, unemployment is rising, more and more companies are announcing big lay-offs, investment spending is falling .... you get the idea. The government is the only player who can do anything right now because every other economic player is out of the game. Yet -- according to Republican economic philosophy -- this is the time to become fiscal conservatives.

 

[Sharon_]

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=637401

<snips your crap because not a whit of it has anything to do with my post, to which you were pretending to reply to but in reality were using as a launch pad for more GOP bashing>

While Congress was busily bashing bail out recipients for going on 'get aways' on our dime, the Democrats hav got to wrap things up so they can all fly out to VA this weekend for a 4-day retreat at a 4-Star resort.

Not to considered the poor relation, the Republicans did theirs last week at Homestead.

Obviously it's not a retreat unless they can bring along their families for some of this 4-Star dining, spa treatments, etc.


Twilight Zone. That is where I am.

Un-frickin'-believable. I get to pay for Congress' retreat on top of AIG & Wells Fargo's retreat cuz "everyone deserves a break and a chance to get away"


When are Kentuckians going to get their chance to get away? When it was 3 below zero this morning would've been a great time. Oh wait, we can't afford it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

<snips your crap because not a whit of it has anything to do with my post, to which you were pretending to reply to but in reality were using as a launch pad for more GOP bashing>

You may not have liked it, but it was very much addressed to your claims of alternate laws of economics. The GOP has been far from deficit hawks, increasing the National Debt by 500 billion in new spending nearly every year from 2000 to 2006. Now, suddenly, deficit spending is a "bad thing".

Suddenly they're all about fiscal responsibility.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

We went to war stupid.

A war of choice, against a country (Iraq) that not only was no threat to the US and had nothing to do with the attacks against the US on 9/11, but not even a threat to it's neighbors. Based on false pretense and ignored intelligence.

Not to mention that the spending on the "war" was always "off the books", handled through emergency requests rather than included in the budget. Now if you want to count the war costs it's going to look MUCH worse for the GOP.

 

[off2bed]

Here's a twist

(CNSNews.com) – House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that he is concerned about the fact that much of the money that will be used for the $800-billion-plus stimulus bill under consideration in Congress must be borrowed from foreign sources, including the Peoples Republic of China.

But another top Democrat, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), told CNSNews.com that he doesn’t see “a problem” in the U.S. borrowing money from China for the stimulus.

As of November 2008, the People’s Republic of China was the largest single holder of U.S. debt at $681.9 billion, according to figures released by the U.S. Treasury Department. China, in fact, holds 10.8 percent of all publicly held federal debt.

The communist nation has increased its share of U.S. federal debt by $223 billion since November 2007 and by $95 billion since September of 2008.

If China loaned the U.S. 10 percent of the money for the stimulus bill, the U.S. debt it held would climb another $80 billion to $90 billion, depending on the size of the final bill.

This does not trouble House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), however, who said he was comfortable borrowing more money from China and that he didn’t see why people were concerned.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42950

 

[MeeMie]

"This does not trouble House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), however, who said he was comfortable borrowing more money from China and that he didn’t see why people were concerned."


If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, you must be a Democrat.


The financial crisis is fracturing conservatives almost as much as it is the credit markets. Conservative doctrine is to oppose federal bailouts.

The Tenth Amendment*– "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" – gives clear definition for limited federal government. Economic theory also supports limits, as a core principle of successful capitalism and in defense of bankruptcies.

The current financial environment is so volatile that government has interfered with these federal constraints. Reliance on Washington is intensely disturbing for less-governement, market-oriented conservatives. But as the wild spiral does not appear to be self-correcting, ideological differences must be challenged.

Adding to the ideological angst, the current administration is already in full cover-up mode. Blame is being spread deep, except to the major Washington culprits (see above quote) most at fault for encouraging financial institutions to give mortgages without proper safeguards, poor regulatory oversight and indifference to residential home equity.

 

[koalabear]

A war of choice, against a country (Iraq) that not only was no threat to the US and had nothing to do with the attacks against the US on 9/11, but not even a threat to it's neighbors. Based on false pretense and ignored intelligence.

Not to mention that the spending on the "war" was always "off the books", handled through emergency requests rather than included in the budget. Now if you want to count the war costs it's going to look MUCH worse for the GOP.

and you, you let it go on and said nothing to your elected officials.

 

[MeeMie]

A war of choice, against a country (Iraq) that not only was no threat to the US and had nothing to do with the attacks against the US on 9/11, but not even a threat to it's neighbors. Based on false pretense and ignored intelligence.

Another liberal fairy tale.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Tenth Amendment . . .

. . . based on the history of relevant case law, means very little.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Another liberal fairy tale.

It is true that Iraq was no threat to the U.S. It is true that Iraq was so thoroughly contained as to be no threat to its neighbors. It is true that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It is true that Iraq had no WMDs. It is true that the Bush Admin fixed the intelligence to fit the policy. Which part is the "fairy tale"?

 

[Slowlane]

] Which part is the "fairy tale"?

To keep it short - your post.

 

[RightField]

You may not have liked it, but it was very much addressed to your claims of alternate laws of economics. The GOP has been far from deficit hawks, increasing the National Debt by 500 billion in new spending nearly every year from 2000 to 2006. Now, suddenly, deficit spending is a "bad thing".

Suddenly they're all about fiscal responsibility.

Lets not talk about the war since it's just a drop in the bucket compared to the Democrat spending bill.

On non-war spending, Bush was decreasing spending on discretionary items year-over-year.

The CBO came out with a report today that said that the "Stimulus" bill as it stands now would actually accomplish the opposite, that is it's an "anti-stimulus" bill. (Confirmation of something that's been obvious to most Americans).

Doh!

 

[JohnnySavage]

McCain is on C-Span. As far as jobs vs cost, each job created/saved under the bill will cost $275,000.

I didn't check his math.

 

[off2bed]

McCain is on C-Span. As far as jobs vs cost, each job created/saved under the bill will cost $275,000.

I didn't check his math.

That's all right. The Chinese will sell us more stuff so they can pay for it.

 

[Sharon_]

You may not have liked it, but it was very much addressed to your claims of alternate laws of economics.

You're delusional. It was GOP bashing. I bet that consitutes 90% of your posts.

The GOP has been far from deficit hawks,

Gee, thanks for that newsflash. I surely never would've known it till you told me.

That might be why I say "congress" or "government" which, last I looked was comprised of two parties. I don't give a flying rat's behind /which/ party spends the most--I want them to STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE ON CRAP WE DON'T NEED.

[snips rest of your GOP bashing]

 

[Xplorr7]

"The sky is falling." -Chicken Little

"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece titled, "The Action Americans Need."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/congress_stimulus_126

Obama’s decision to provide broad guidelines for the stimulus -- “targeted, timely and temporary” -- rather than issuing specific legislation, was done in deference to Hill lawmakers, especially the Democratic leaders that lord over the legislative branch.

But it’s hardly a secret that the president found unhelpful the House Democrats’ decision to slip funding for special groups into its version of his stimulus bill.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090205/pl_politico/18444


Seems that President Obama "voted present" on drafting the stimulus package. If the "pork" is "unhelpful" he needs to roll up his sleeves and work with legislators until a real stimulus Bill is written and passed. Leaders lead, they don't whine and paint a bleak economic picture to get a Bill passed that will put the country another trillion dollars in debt.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You're delusional. It was GOP bashing. I bet that consitutes 90% of your posts.

Gee, thanks for that newsflash. I surely never would've known it till you told me.

That might be why I say "congress" or "government" which, last I looked was comprised of two parties. I don't give a flying rat's behind /which/ party spends the most--I want them to STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE ON CRAP WE DON'T NEED.

[snips rest of your GOP bashing]

Probably a little less than 90%, all richly deserved considering the attempts to play deficit hawk after doubling the National Debt over the past few years. $500 Billion in new deficit spending every year from 2003 to 2006 (nearly that much in 2002) and now they're bitching about 1 trillion over 10 years? How much is $500 Billion times 4? 5?

I'm looking for all of your rants about deficit spending before the elections.. Funny, I don't see any. Maybe you can point them out for me?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Lets not talk about the war since it's just a drop in the bucket compared to the Democrat spending bill.

On non-war spending, Bush was decreasing spending on discretionary items year-over-year.

The CBO came out with a report today that said that the "Stimulus" bill as it stands now would actually accomplish the opposite, that is it's an "anti-stimulus" bill. (Confirmation of something that's been obvious to most Americans).

Doh!

I'd like to see which CBO report you read because I looked at all of them and not one said anything remotely close to what you said.

Not this one: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9619
or this one: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9977
or this one: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9976

Perhaps you're thinking of the CBO report that didn't actually exist?

By the way, the cost of the "war" isn't a drop in the bucket compared to the stimulus bill. It's actually just about the same. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

IF we're out by the end of Fiscal 2009 the war on Terror will have cost over $850 billion, estimated extended costs are around $2.3 trillion.

 

[off2bed]

Chicago stimulus projects are top secret. Mayor Daley is scared to reveal them because he knows they're wrong.

Looks like we got 'em on the run.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...refuses-to-release-stimulus-project-list.html

Of course, Obama has no connections in Chicago. No possibility of corruption whatsoever.