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 ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

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.

Last edited by Capitalizt on Feb-27-2009 at 09:21

"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."?

___________________
Captain Planet is gey.
Water, Fire, Earth, Wind, Heart???
These forces are supposed to combine to create Captain Planet?
Bullshit.
Those forces combine to create a soaking, boiling mudstorm on Valentine's Day.

Last edited by Spam on Feb-27-2009 at 08:35

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]

___________________
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire

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!!