TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Stimulus package full of pork?
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

Robert Reich:

quote:

The stock market reached a six-year low today. Why? Some blame loose talk (including that of former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan) about nationalizing the nation's banks. Others blame Obama's new plan for helping homeowners who may not be able to pay their mortgages. But the real culprit is the accelerating decline in aggregate demand -- consumers, businesses, and exports. Companies are losing money because their customers are disappearing. That's precisely why the stimulus is so important -- indeed, why many of us fear it's too small. One of the oddest of right-wing claims is that FDR's New Deal didn't pull America out of the Great Depression, so Barack Obama's "New New Deal" won't, either. While it's true that the New Deal didn't end the Great Depression, three points need to be impressed on the hard-pressed conservative mind: 1. The New Deal relieved a great deal of suffering by establishing social safety nets -- Unemployment Insurance, Aid for Dependent Children, and Social Security for retirees. Most have remained, a worthy legacy. But because the structure of the economy has changed (a much higher percentage of the working population is now employed part-time in several jobs or as independent contractors, for example), there are gaping holes in the safety net which a New New Deal should fill in order that the Mini Depression we're experiencing not cause excessive harm. 2. FDR's public works spending did help the economy somewhat. By 1936, U.S. the economy was showing some life. Unemployment was declining and consumers were beginning to buy. But FDR cut back on public-works spending, and the economy sank back into its former torpor. A warning to Obama: Don't worry about so-called "fiscal responsibility" when aggregate demand still falls far short of the economy's total capacity. 3. The Second World War pulled the nation out of the Great Depression because it required that government spend on such a huge scale as to restart the nation's factories, put Americans back to work, and push the nation toward its productive capacty. By the end of the war, most Americans were better off than they were before its start. Yes, the national debt ballooned to 120 percent of GDP. But the debt-GDP ratio subsequently declined -- not just because post-war spending dropped but because the economy continued to grow as war production converted to the production of consumer goods. Lesson: The danger isn't too much stimulus, it's too little stimulus.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.co...e-new-new-d.php

Much as I dislike Krugman, I thought his editorial yesterday was pretty interesting.

quote:

February 20, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Who�ll Stop the Pain? By PAUL KRUGMAN Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve released the minutes of the most recent meeting of its open market committee � the group that sets interest rates. Most press reports focused either on the Fed�s downgrade of the near-term outlook or on its adoption of a long-run 2 percent inflation target. But my eye was caught by the following chilling passage (yes, things are so bad that the summarized musings of central bankers can keep you up at night): �All participants anticipated that unemployment would remain substantially above its longer-run sustainable rate at the end of 2011, even absent further economic shocks; a few indicated that more than five to six years would be needed for the economy to converge to a longer-run path characterized by sustainable rates of output growth and unemployment and by an appropriate rate of inflation.� So people at the Fed are troubled by the same question I�ve been obsessing on lately: What�s supposed to end this slump? No doubt this, too, shall pass � but how, and when? To appreciate the problem, you need to know that this isn�t your father�s recession. It�s your grandfather�s, or maybe even (as I�ll explain) your great-great-grandfather�s. Your father�s recession was something like the severe downturn of 1981-1982. That recession was, in effect, a deliberate creation of the Federal Reserve, which raised interest rates to as much as 17 percent in an effort to control runaway inflation. Once the Fed decided that we had suffered enough, it relented, and the economy quickly bounced back. Your grandfather�s recession, on the other hand, was something like the Great Depression, which happened in spite of the Fed�s efforts, not because of them. When a stock market bubble and a credit boom collapsed, bringing down much of the banking system with them, the Fed tried to revive the economy with low interest rates � but even rates barely above zero weren�t low enough to end a prolonged era of high unemployment. Now we�re in the midst of a crisis that bears an eerie, troubling resemblance to the onset of the Depression; interest rates are already near zero, and still the economy plunges. How and when will it all end? To be sure, the Obama administration is taking action to help the economy, but it�s trying to mitigate the slump, not end it. The stimulus bill, on the administration�s own estimates, will limit the rise in unemployment but fall far short of restoring full employment. The housing plan announced this week looks good in the sense that it will help many homeowners, but it won�t spur a new housing boom. What, then, will actually end the slump? Well, the Great Depression did eventually come to an end, but that was thanks to an enormous war, something we�d rather not emulate. The slump that followed Japan�s �bubble economy� also eventually ended, but only after a lost decade. And when Japan finally did start to experience some solid growth, it was thanks to an export boom, which was in turn made possible by vigorous growth in the rest of the world � not an experience anyone can repeat when the whole world is in a slump. So will our slump go on forever? No. In fact, the seeds of eventual recovery are already being planted. Consider housing starts, which have fallen to their lowest level in 50 years. That�s bad news for the near term. It means that spending on construction will fall even more. But it also means that the supply of houses is lagging behind population growth, which will eventually prompt a housing revival. Or consider the plunge in auto sales. Again, that�s bad news for the near term. But at current sales rates, as the finance blog Calculated Risk points out, it would take about 27 years to replace the existing stock of vehicles. Most cars will be junked long before that, either because they�ve worn out or because they�ve become obsolete, so we�re building up a pent-up demand for cars. The same story can be told for durable goods and assets throughout the economy: given time, the current slump will end itself, the way slumps did in the 19th century. As I said, this may be your great-great-grandfather�s recession. But recovery may be a long time coming. The closest 19th-century parallel I can find to the current slump is the recession that followed the Panic of 1873. That recession did eventually end without any government intervention, but it lasted more than five years, and another prolonged recession followed just three years later. You can see, then, why some Fed officials are so pessimistic. Let�s be clear: the Obama administration�s policy initiatives will help in this difficult period � especially if the administration bites the bullet and takes over weak banks. But still I wonder: Who�ll stop the pain?

I think that part of the problem with any solution is that in this day & age of information sharing and tv soundbites, nobody is giving any of these "fixes" time to work before reacting in a negative way based on the latest news.

There isn't a short term fix, but everyone seems hungry to FIX IT NOW DAMMIT!!!! and get back to the way things were when the houses of cards were still standing.

The more I read about all this (and I'm certainly no economist) the more I fear we are digging a deeper hole for humanity. Why not just implode the whole system now and focus on starting something fresh while there is still some momentum left in the global economy?

I know the "market" has never been one for caution and patience, but I think it's hurting itself more than helping with the pannicked speculation and reactions to what-ifs based on the latest panel of experts on tv.

Take note, Lebez and other other believers in the "stimulus"

The Market Is Shorting Obama's 'Stimulus'
By George Bittlingmayer & Thomas W. Hazlett

quote:

President Barack Obama's "stimulus" plan invokes the 1930s fiscal strategy put forward by British economist John Maynard Keynes, who saw capitalism as pretty much spent. Having exhausted their store of innovative ideas, investors curled up. Workers lost jobs, spent less, and sent still other workers walking. Budget deficits � government spending without taxes to "pay as you go" - would pull unemployed workers off the street and arrest the downward spiral. Investors� �animal spirits� would be calmed, new capital risked, and economic vitality restored. So the Obama theory � government spending is stimulus. If so, financial markets should feel the love. The U.S. budget is awash in red ink, and $800 billion more of it should easily move the needle on our economic prospects. Indeed it has � in the wrong direction. Financial markets don't want more government debt or a scramble for "shovel-ready" spending projects. They want the skeletons in the banking sector's closet exposed and expunged. The Bush Economy went up in smoke in September-October 2008. The financial meltdown hit Wall Street, devastating bank equities and laying waste to America's 401-Ks. The Republican ticket, McCain-Palin, was a 50-50 bet on Sept. 15; by Oct. 15 it was a 5-1 long-shot. Voters saw the carnage: the Dow Jones Index lost 17% of its value from Sept. 2 through Nov. 3. In a flash, Americans lost years of toil, and Republicans the election. Decisively. The election marked a turning point. Investors looked forward to the economic policies crafted by Democrats in Congress and the White House. More pointedly, they wanted decisive, well-crafted action on the banking crisis. Hence the Dow soared 6.5% Nov. 21 on news that Timothy Geithner, the highly-respected head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, was Obama�s pick for Treasury Secretary. Yet, from Nov. 4, 2008 through Feb. 12, 2009, the DJI overall fell 18% -- a larger drop than during the Sept-Oct plunge. In January, when the Obama plan, promising far greater deficits than the two much smaller "emergency stimulus" plans signed by Pres. George W. Bush in 2008, was unveiled, the market tanked � the worst January performance in 113 years.

... which Lebez and MisterOpus belive have nothing to do with Obama's policies.... just a coincidence or probably Bush's fault right? lol

continued....

quote:

More pointedly, key political victories for the Team Obama spending plan have not been viewed as buying opportunities on Wall Street. A string of negative market reactions began with the December 18 announcement of a stimulus bill of $700 billion (Dow down 2.5%), continued with the January 7 announcement that the actual plan would be "on the high side" (-2.7%) and continued with last week's 61-36 Senate vote supporting the Administration's fiscal plan. The White House victory and the new bank bail-out plan announced the following day by Treasury Secretary Geithner were met with a 5% wipe-out in the DJI, and a decline in Treasury bond yields, indicating a "flight to quality." There are many problems with Keynes' "stagnationist thesis," as Joseph Schumpeter called it, not the least of which is that it didn't test so well when applied by New Dealers. U.S. unemployment was perniciously high throughout the 1930s, peaking at 25% in 1933 but still over 17% in 1939. Many claim that World War II brought us out of the Great Depression, but the lesson to be learned is still being debated. Federal budget deficits soared (reaching 26.5 % of GDP in 1942 as calculated by Harvard economist Robert Barro), providing Keynesians an argument for spending as stimulus. But WWII also brought a profound shift in the New Deal's regulatory policies. Attorney General Thurman Arnold's vigorous campaign to break-up "the bottlenecks of business" in major industries like steel, chemicals and electrical equipment was shuttered, and America's largest corporations enjoyed a respite from threats of dismemberment (Arnold was kicked upstairs to a judgeship). As Thomas K. McCraw writes in his superlative Schumpeter biography, "Under the life-and-death pressure of war mobilization� the Roosevelt Administration, which had been hostile toward alleged monopolies, now decided that big business must lead in the job that had to be done." The only thing guaranteed by the spending stimulus is more national debt. One stroke of the presidential pen has now increased it by $800 billion. Democrats recently screamed about W-era profligacy. On July 28, 2008, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chair of the Senate Budget Committee declared, "If they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver and bronze. With his eight years in office, he will have had the five highest deficits ever recorded. And the highest of those deficits is now projected to come in 2009, as he leaves office." Kent Conrad was right. The projected 2009 deficit then stood at $482 billion. In January it was forecast by the Congressional Budget Office at $1.2 trillion.Pres. Obama's new plan now ups that to $1.7 trillion. If W got the gold, the new Administration has landed the Platinum in just its qualifying heat. If historic U.S. budget deficits are any indication, the economy is already "stimulated." The predicted 2009 federal deficit stood at 8.3% of GDP before Obama's package sent it to about 12%. This is a stunning level of debt, double the previous post WWII high when Reagan's 1983 budget deficit amounted to 6% of GDP. That time around, the 10.8% unemployment rate, the worst since the Great Depression, was soon reversed.

... important to note for all you Reganomics bashers who love to cry, "Regan's tax cuts lead to a huge deficit! Wahhh!" Note the difference in % of GDP then compared to now.

continued....

quote:

Keynesians claim that the Reagan boom was an outcome of just this deficit strategy; for sake of argument, let us assume the Keynesian position. Reagan's budget deficit, half the size of Obama's as a fraction of GDP, was able to pull the economy out of an unemployment trough deeper than the 7.6% hole we're in today. How do economists know that, while a deficit amounting to 6% of GDP budget was sufficient to spur the economy back to health in 1983, it will take more than twice that federal borrowing to do the same now? They don't. Economic models are all over the place in their projections. Indeed, Prof. Barro's cutting edge analysis of fiscal policy finds no historical stimulus from peacetime deficits. Of course, we've never seen so massive a deficit � one that would bar the U.S. from membership in the European Union, on grounds that our government finances are a mess -- and so we lack empirical evidence to inform the precise experiment we're running today. We do, however, know the accounting trends: our government faces massive new spending increases as Baby Boomers retire and their Social Security and Medicare bills come due. Market investors are wary of new spending, guaranteeing either future tax increases or inflation, as a run-up to the demographically guaranteed spending spiral. The quest for "shovel-ready" projects makes one think, Where's Senator Ted Stevens when we need him? In any event, this fiscal bridge to nowhere is not spurring markets. Government deficits are nonetheless being sold as doctor's orders, an elixir that � while it looks ugly and tastes bitter � will propel us back to economic health. Yet the best forecast currently on the table is the one made by investors risking their own money. They are shorting the "stimulus." George Bittlingmayer is the Wagnon Professor of Finance at the University of Kansas. Thomas Hazlett is Professor of Law & Economics at George Mason University.

couldn't have said it better myself

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/02/the_market_is_shorting_obamas.html

great thread.

But the bottom must be hit for the markets to correct themselves. And they will correct themselves. Big government spending will only delay the fall to the bottom, providing jobs solely dependant on government funds. And while it may cushion the hit, making it a bit less painful, we will sacrafice years of economic recover for it.

Although unpopular around these boards, I do feel that tax cuts are a better solution. Spending is the way out of this mess, and it should be done by the consumer not government. This will eliminate wasteful spending and corrupt government pork. Everybody says we cant cry about a few million here or there, but rest assured that those millions will turn into billions.

I do recognize immediate needs for states such as my own (CA) for crucial programs to keep government functioning, but not 787 Billion dollars worth. And this is just the beggining, when this one doesnt work Obama will move into phase two, three, and four of economic stimulus. 8 years later we may see a recovery and will have to thank our children for picking up the bill (2,3,4 trillion by then with interest) for our cushioned economic collapse.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Take note, Lebez and other other believers in the "stimulus" The Market Is Shorting Obama's 'Stimulus' By George Bittlingmayer & Thomas W. Hazlett ... which Lebez and MisterOpus belive have nothing to do with Obama's policies.... just a coincidence or probably Bush's fault right? lol

Umm, gosh, I must have been completely asleep for the past 8 years to not consider what got us into this mess in the first place. I do find it wee bit odd, however, that you present an op-ed from a Conservative website as your supporting evidence to the contention that the DOW tanking in the past month has been attributed largely to Obama and/or his stimulus plan. Goodness, why am I not surprised.

I'll get back to that thought in a moment.

quote:

continued....

Hmm, going back to verify the dates the author was referring to is interesting. Let's look a little closer:

quote:

A string of negative market reactions began with the December 18 announcement of a stimulus bill of $700 billion (Dow down 2.5%),

Umm, yeah, there really wasn't much in the market tanking that had to do with Obama that day:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/18/mar...wyork/index.htm

Moving on:

quote:

continued with the January 7 announcement that the actual plan would be �on the high side� (-2.7%)

Again, nothing attributing to Obama:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/mar...wyork/index.htm

And finally:

quote:

and continued with last week�s 61-36 Senate vote supporting the Administration�s fiscal plan. The White House victory and the new bank bail-out plan announced the following day by Treasury Secretary Geithner were met with a 5% wipe-out in the DJI, and a decline in Treasury bond yields, indicating a �flight to quality.�

Finally we get something involving Obama and the stimulus plan:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/09/mar...wyork/index.htm

It's also worth noting some of the other bad news that day along with the stimulus plan.

But hey, 1 out of 3 days isn't TOO misleading, is it? Jesus.

quote:

... important to note for all you Reganomics bashers who love to cry, "Regan's tax cuts lead to a huge deficit! Wahhh!" Note the difference in % of GDP then compared to now.

How is anything that was cited in that last paragraph equate to your statement in any way? A few things come to mind:

1. You really making the claim that Reagan's tax cuts didn't lead to a huge deficit? Care to explain then why he decided to follow his tax cuts with the biggest tax increase in history, followed by more and more tax increases?

2. Care to also explain why my Senator from Kansas, Bob Dole, a Republican, mind you, had to tell Reagan enough with the tax cuts?

3. Care to explain how all those wonderful things that trickle-down voodoo economics seemingly sank us further down into the abyss, to which we had to climb our asses out of in 1987, 1989, and again in the early 90's, to which yet another Republican had to raise taxes (against his word, mind you)?

quote:

continued.... couldn't have said it better myself http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...ing_obamas.html

I'm trying hard to hold my tongue on that last thought.......

BTW, Bittlingmayer is fairly well known around here (my hometown of Lawrence, Kansas - home of KU). He's pretty well-respected, however it's a little disappointing to see him mislead a little in the article above. I'd also like to pick his brain as to what he would consider a better option would be for a stimulus bill.

I'm also waiting to hear your ideas on that as well.

I'd also like to ask or rather see if you could clarify whether or not you truly believe the DOW tanking was attributed entirely to Obama being in the office for the past month, and not attributed to anything that has led up to the recent downturn in the markets over the past few years.

And I'm also wondering if you're going to maybe come up with some evidence that is not an op-ed from one of your favorite Right-leaning websites?

in case some of you were still under the assumption that one man got us into this mess (bush)

http://vimeo.com/3261363

Additionally, can sombody please tell me how this "stimulus bill" fixes the problems with our financial system outlined in this video? All I see is a 787 billion dollar cushion to ease the pain of an inevitable fall caused by an unstable system. The quicker we get to the bottom, the sooner our economic recovery begins.

The most benificial actions that should be taken must be directed at fixing our consumer confidence, and its apparent that neither Obama nor his "stimulus bill" are going to accomplish that.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I'm trying hard to hold my tongue on that last thought.......

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen in case some of you were still under the assumption that one man got us into this mess (bush) http://vimeo.com/3261363 Additionally, can sombody please tell me how this "stimulus bill" fixes the problems with our financial system outlined in this video? All I see is a 787 billion dollar cushion to ease the pain of an inevitable fall caused by an unstable system. The quicker we get to the bottom, the sooner our economic recovery begins. The most benificial actions that should be taken must be directed at fixing our consumer confidence, and its apparent that neither Obama nor his "stimulus bill" are going to accomplish that.

The stimulus isn't designed to fix structural problems - it's merely designed to spur output and increase demand in order to keep GDP growth close to projection through hiking up consumption (which hopefully keeps profits up, and therefore employment from free-falling).

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The stimulus isn't designed to fix structural problems - it's merely designed to spur output and increase demand in order to keep GDP growth close to projection through hiking up consumption (which hopefully keeps profits up, and therefore employment from free-falling).

Thats my point, it really isnt going to solve anything (even democrats acknowledge that), just prolong the inevitable at a cost of 787 billion. The markets need to fix themselves. The best thing we can do right now is increase consumer confidence and spending, quickest way to do that is to put money back in the hands of the consumers and the companies that employ them.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen Thats my point, it really isnt going to solve anything (even democrats acknowledge that), just prolong the inevitable at a cost of 787 billion. The markets need to fix themselves. The best thing we can do right now is increase consumer confidence and spending, quickest way to do that is to put money back in the hands of the consumers and the companies that employ them.

Except that it doesn't work like that. Take the 2008 tax refunds. Even conservative economists were dismayed to find that only 15% of the money put into the hands of taxpayers was spent - the rest went to put down personal debt. There are structural issues with the economy that need to be addressed, and they will. The stimulus is intended to be just that - a stimulus to demand designed to keep GDP growth going. Failure to do that won't lead to market correction - it will lead to a complete collapse of consumer demand, losses across the economy, and layoffs even more prolific than what we're already experiencing.

To borrow a summarization of Paul Krugman's argument:

quote:

Krugman outlined: The housing sector has collapsed. Consumers have sharply decreased their spending, due to a declining stock market, home prices, and stagnant wages. Businesses are cutting investment. Exports, the formerly one strength of the economy, are plunging, as the recession grips emerging markets. The Fed has already cut short-term interest rates to zero. And there are signs of deflation. In sum, the U.S. economy is very close to the dreaded negative spiral that tends to feed on itself, and that could continue for a long, long time without fiscal stimulus. Hence, the nation needs to pass the fiscal stimulus package, and if anything, the current package is too small, he argued.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/...-to-choose-cor/

The stimulus is needed, not to correct the structural shortcomings of our domestic economy, but to stimulate demand and keep our economy from wrenting itself apart (to the detriment of the millions who would be laid off in that event).

PORK! I love how less than 30 days ago we got this:

"We have to make sure the money is well spent."

quote:

February 26, 2009 House Passes Spending Bill, and Critics Are Quick to Point Out Pork By ROBERT PEAR WASHINGTON � The House on Wednesday passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill packed with pet projects requested by Democrats and Republicans alike. The 245-to-178 vote came just a week after President Obama signed one of the largest spending bills in the nation�s history, a $787 billion measure meant to rejuvenate a sluggish economy. The new bill, a reflection of Democratic priorities, increases spending on domestic programs by an average of 8 percent in the current fiscal year, which began in October. On Thursday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to send his budget for the next fiscal year to Congress. He did not take a formal position on the bill passed by the House. �It�s a big document,� a White House official said. �We are still reviewing it.� Republicans, however, did not mince words in describing the spending bill as wasteful. And one watchdog group said the bill provided nearly $8 billion for more than 8,500 pet projects favored by lawmakers, including $1.7 million for a honey bee laboratory in Weslaco, Tex.; $346,000 for research on apple fire blight in Michigan and New York; and $1.5 million for work on grapes and grape products, including wine. Representative John Fleming, Republican of Louisiana, said Mr. Obama�s call for fiscal responsibility, in a speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, was �sandwiched between two wasteful spending bills.� Representative Mark Steven Kirk, Republican of Illinois, pointed out that the new bill came just two days after the White House held a forum to promote fiscal restraint. The legislation includes nine of the regular appropriations bills for this fiscal year. Unable to reach agreement with President George W. Bush last year, Congress provided most domestic agencies and programs with a short-term infusion of cash, which runs out at the end of next week. Democratic leaders of the House and the Senate have already negotiated and agreed on the contents of the new legislation. But conservative Republican senators could try to amend the bill, to pare it down or delete earmarks. If they succeed, the bill would need to go back to the House before it could be presented to the president. The bill increases budgets for the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation, among others. Over all, it provides $19 billion more than Mr. Bush requested for the same agencies and $31 billion more than what they got in the last fiscal year. Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the bill �turns the page once and for all on the last eight years.� Democrats boasted that they had not included earmarks in the economic stimulus bill, but lawmakers of both parties relished the opportunity to stuff the new bill with pet projects. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, counted more than 8,500 �Congressionally designated projects� in the bill and said the cost of these earmarks totaled $7.7 billion., up 3.4 percent from last year. Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said it was unseemly for Congress to finance so many pet projects at a time when �the Justice Department is investigating the connection between earmarks and campaign contributions.� By a vote of 226 to 182, the House killed a proposal by Mr. Flake calling on the House ethics committee to investigate such connections. Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said earmarks were a small part of the bill and had been fully disclosed. Without the earmarks, he said, �the White House and its anonymous bureaucrats� would control all spending. Moreover, Democrats said 40 percent of the spending on earmarks went to projects that had been requested by Republicans. Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said that to understand the magnitude of new federal spending, one must look at the money in the omnibus bill and the money for the same agencies in the economic stimulus law, which together total $680 billion. That sum is 80 percent higher than spending for those agencies last year, he said. A number of policy changes are included in the bill. It would, for example, make it easier for Americans to visit immediate relatives in Cuba. And it would forbid Mexican trucks to operate outside certain commercial zones along the border with the United States. The Teamsters union, which supported Mr. Obama�s election last year, had sought the restriction. Among the pet projects is one to help producers of genuine pork, in contrast to the Congressional variety. The bill includes $1.8 million to conduct research in Iowa on �swine odor and manure management.� The legislation includes $173,000 for research on asparagus production in Washington State; $206,000 for wool research in Montana, Texas and Wyoming; and $209,000 for efforts to improve blueberry production in Georgia. It also includes $208,000 to control a weed known as cogongrass in Mississippi; $1.2 million to control cormorants in Michigan, Mississippi, New York and Vermont; $1 million to control Mormon crickets in Utah; and $162,000 to control rodents in Hawaii. Democrats also earmarked money for the presidential libraries of three Democrats: Franklin D. Roosevelt ($17.5 million), John F. Kennedy ($22 million) and Lyndon B. Johnson ($2 million). The bill even includes earmarks requested by some lawmakers who have left Congress, like Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, and Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana. House Republicans have been divided on the merits of earmarks. Some, like Mr. Flake and the minority leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, do not request earmarks. But other Republicans, including many on the Appropriations Committee, do request such projects. In the Republican response to Mr. Obama�s speech on Tuesday night, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana said Republicans lost the public�s trust in recent years because they �went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington.�

Nobody's gonna mess with Joe!

So really, is that the extent of the "pork"?

The total value of it is 7.7 billion?

Stimulus package full of pork?

I'm still at a loss here.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis So really, is that the extent of the "pork"? The total value of it is 7.7 billion? Stimulus package full of pork? I'm still at a loss here.

Earmarks ("Pork") are traditionally defined as pet projects that congress members tack on to large spending bills after the major priorities are met. Obama may be right that there is technically no pork in this bill..but that is because the pork IS the bill. There were no grand priorities or guiding principles in the stimulus to begin with. What we ended up with is basically a huge collection of pork projects rolled into one big bill under the name of "stimulus".

There was no need for members to make amendments or to tack on special programs after the bill was complete..because those programs were part of the main bill to begin with! Pelosi added all sorts of little spending projects that would normally be called considered earmarks into the main legislation..so dozens of "pork" programs were already locked into the substance of the bill before it even reached the floor for debate.

"The bill even includes earmarks requested by some lawmakers who have left Congress, like Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, and Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana."



most ethical Congress EVAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't like Beck but he nailed it here..

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I don't like Beck but he nailed it here..

Nailed indeed. We have an Orwellian nightmare on our hands. That's the only word that keeps coming back to me when I think of how to describe what's happening. Did you see Biden yesterday? He said Jindal's state is losing 400 jobs a day... meanwhile, they are the only state that is creating jobs in a time when others aren't! It's fucking lunacy! Strait up, irresponsible lying. But I don't expect much else from Biden.

quote:

Giving the Republican response to President Obama's speech Tuesday night, Governor Bobby Jindal pointed out fundamental differences in how Republicans and Democrats see the economy, and Joe Biden says, "In Louisiana there's 400 people a day losing their jobs, what's he doing?" But that claim is wrong, if you look at the numbers from the Louisiana Workforce Commission. "In December, Louisiana was the only state in the nation besides the District of Columbia, according to the national press release that added employment over the month," says Patty Granier with the Louisiana Workforce Commission. According to her, not only is Louisiana not losing jobs. "The state gained 3,700 jobs for the seasonally adjusted employment,' Granier said of the most recent figures."

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9906943

I've noticed that whether it's earmarks/pork, blatant lies like this, and/or other hypocrisies we see streaming on a daily basis, the Obama supporters fall in line lock-step and don't say shit, and don't give a shit (except Groundhog Boy... he's getting fed up fast). Marching hammers, I tell ya.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Except that it doesn't work like that. Take the 2008 tax refunds. Even conservative economists were dismayed to find that only 15% of the money put into the hands of taxpayers was spent - the rest went to put down personal debt.

How does paying down personal debt NOT help the long-term health of the economy? After all, they can spend their tax rebate on whatever they want, but they're still going to owe the bank $200,000 on their mortgage. Spending money they don't actually have only delays the inevitable, that one day the bank is going to need it's $200,000 and realize it's not there to be collected.

Was it not irresponsible credit that triggered this whole situation in the first place? In fact, was it not all perpetuated by a demand from Clinton's democrats that they make easy credit available to the poor so that they could 'afford' to purchase housing? In the long-run, a fiscally responsible population results in a successful national economy. does it not?

After all, we got into this mess by letting people "spend" money they didn't have in the first place (much like the root cause of the Great Depression). And now they're looking at the banks with their pockets pulled inside out going "Shit dude, sorry, we don't got that."

After which, the banks say to borrowers "Fuck guys, that money we thought we had comin our way to lend to you... sorry, we don't got that."

After which businesses say to their employees "Dammit, we feel really bad, but like... that money we thought we had comin our way to make payroll? Sorry, we don't got that. Btw, we can't afford to employ you anymore, here's a lay-off notice."

Those newly laid-off employees now can't find a job, but fuck, they still have a mortgage to pay, but with what money? Suddenly THEY'RE lookin at the banks going "Hey, ya know that mortgage payment we owe? Well, we all just lost our jobs so like... Sorry, we don't got that."

Do you notice a pattern here?

But instead of fixing the problem and putting plans in place to prevent that problem repeating itself (the problem is easy credit and bad debts people, it's not rocket science), the government perpetuates the problem by increasing it's own debt to prop up the fiscally irresponsible people that got us in this mess to begin with? How the hell is that going to fix anything?

That's not to say I'm against all forms of government spending. Infrastructure investments, for example, I see the long-term benefits. Make a new highway, attract new business, create new jobs for the long-term, increase future tax revenue to pay down the debt from that infrastructure investment. Pretty simple theory from where I'm sitting.

But I don't understand where the money's coming from to pay for everything else (social programs that generally prop up the irresponsible and unproductive, for instance... most would call it welfare). What happens 15 years down the road when the government has to repay it's debts to... whoever the fuck the government borrows from, and they have to stand there with their own pockets pulled inside out saying "Shit, sorry China... We don't got that."?

Spam, your post above has too much common sense. Modern "economists" won't be able to grasp it.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Spam, your post above has too much common sense. Modern "economists" won't be able to grasp it.

It pains me that labeling yourself an 'economist' is so often akin to dragging your name through the mud. It shits me no end that people who obviously have no clue about economics give themselves this label like its a fukn status symbol.


on a side note, our reserve bank governor stated that he doesnt mind if these fiscal stimulus packages are used to pay down personal debt, as it will inevitably bring forward the time that normal levels of consumption will resume. But hey, it's not my job as a prudent tax payer to help pay the personal debts of some fukwit who doesnt know how to handle his fukn credit card - they can all go get fuct and join the welfare queue for all i give a shite

[/endrant. sorry, it's been a long day at work]

quote:

Hoyer: Congress, not Obama, to decide on earmarks * Story Highlights * House leader says Dems need to cut down on the number of earmarks * Sen. McCain is a staunch critic of pork-laden earmarks found in spending bills * Current spending bill keeps the federal government operating through September 30 * Some of Obama's Cabinet members have earmarks requests included in bill WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declared Tuesday that Congress, not President Obama, will decide whether to put more limits on earmarks in upcoming spending bills. Asked about White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' statement Monday that the Obama administration was formulating guidelines for earmark reform, Hoyer said flatly, "I don't think the White House has the ability to tell us what to do." He paused deliberately and quipped to reporters in the room, "I hope you all got that down." Earmarks are unrelated pet projects that members of Congress insert in unrelated spending bills. Hoyer pointed out that Democrats have cut down the number of earmarks and now require that all requests get posted on the Internet. But, he conceded, "I think there are additional things we can do and consider." And the Maryland Democrat added, "It is certainly appropriate for the White House to suggest ways of going forward so that we can have agreement between the White House and ourselves." He said congressional leaders have talked to the White House about "concerns it had," but refused to offer any specifics. CNN reported Monday that, according to Democratic sources at a White House meeting last week, Obama urged Democratic leaders to "limit" future earmarks and, in what one official described as a "tense" exchange, the leaders told the president they'll do what they can to continue reform, but that earmarking projects for districts and states is a prerogative of Congress. Hoyer, who attended the White House meeting, vigorously defended earmark requests Tuesday, calling them "the congressional initiative process." "I philosophically believe it would be an undermining of the Article One responsibilities given to the Congress of the United States if it were to abandon its right to add items that it believes are priorities for our country and for the communities we represent as members of Congress," Hoyer said. The majority leader dismissed a reporter's question on whether the $410 billion spending bill for the rest of this year is becoming an "embarrassment" to Obama, and reiterated Obama's argument that the package is "last year's business." Hoyer also said that even though Obama, then a senator, did not request any earmarks in last year's spending bill, he did request projects for Illinois in prior years he served in the Senate. Longtime pork barrel spending critic Sen. John McCain, who opposes earmarks, offered an amendment to the spending bill Tuesday that would have frozen spending at 2008 levels through the 2009 fiscal year, which ends September 30. McCain's amendment failed to pass Tuesday, which means the spending bill made up of about 1 percent earmarks will now go to a vote. Obama has said he will sign the bill by Friday or the government runs out of money. Critics, including McCain, have said the excessive spending in the bill would be contrary to the president's recent pledge to cut unnecessary government spending and pork-laden earmarks. Cutting "wasteful" government spending was a pledge Obama made on the campaign trail and has repeated as president. Despite Obama's promise, the administration says it inherited the spending and he will sign it. On the Senate floor Monday, McCain blasted the president -- along with fellow Democrats and Republicans -- for the bill's earmarks. "If it sounds like I'm angry, Mr. President, it's because I am. The American people today want the Congress to act in a fiscally responsible manner, and they don't want us to continue this corrupting practice [of unnecessary spending]," McCain said. "We're giving them [the American people] a slap in the face, Mr. President ... so much for the promise of change." Several members of Obama's administration served in Congress and have earmarks listed on the bill. Vice President Joe Biden requested $750,000 for a University of Delaware program during his time as a senator from that state. Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was a Democratic congressman from Illinois, requested $900,000 for a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. An Emanuel aide told CNN on Monday the request was submitted more than a year ago and is leftover business. But Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, said Washington is in a "state of denial." "It seems that every morning you pick up the newspaper, you're reading about another multibillion-dollar government spending plan being proposed or, even worse, passed. ... We become numb to what the dollar figures really mean, or the obligation that accompanies them," he said in the weekly Republican address Saturday. Last week, the House of Representatives passed the $410 billion spending bill. House GOP leaders said the spending increases in the bill -- $31 billion more than the previous fiscal year -- are too large. The bill passed on a largely party-line 245-178 vote, with most Democrats voting in favor of it and most Republicans opposed. Republicans also criticized $7.7 billion in earmarks designed to support pet projects in individual lawmakers' districts. Democrats defended the size of the bill, saying it was necessary to help counter the economic downturn. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group, listed some of the earmarks being proposed by members on both side of the aisle.Read more of the group's analysis Democrats defended the size of the bill, saying it was necessary to help counter the economic downturn and restore budget cuts made under former President George W. Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03...arks/index.html

i hate this Hoyer character. i can't believe he used the constitution to support his claim that earmarks are a good thing. unbelievable!!

obama supporters sure are looking like suckers.. were we suposed to know this was going to happen? that a large portion of what he was 'promising' during his campaign was a lie? is it our fault that we intentionally elected him into his office, if we really believed he was going to do what he said he was going to do? will this go down as one of the biggest shams in US History? lying president dupes 70 million people into voting for him?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.