Quantcast

The Stimulus Package

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
I heard some grumbling over Obama's Stimulus package. Unfortunately I would have to agree when I heard education and contraception were included.

There were reasons given like how spending for these things pay off in the future, which I have to agree with. But it seems irrelevant now, and simply including a social agenda onto an very important bill while Obama has political capital.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
40,942
13,135
Portland, OR
I think there are a lot of issues with a stimulus package of any sort. Look at the bank bailout and the fact that 9 of 10 heads still have a job. What did we learn from that?

So do you let the economy tank to the fullest extent, or do you put a pillow on the ground to cushion the fall when a guy jumps from a 10 story building. He still dies, right?

Bush's stimulus package didn't do what it was supposed to do, but at least Obama's has some stipulations rather than an Ed McMahon check.
 

stevew

resident influencer
Sep 21, 2001
40,494
9,524
Bush's stimulus package didn't do what it was supposed to do, but at least Obama's has some stipulations rather than an Ed McMahon check.
If I recall correctly, the congress/senate pushed that piece of sh*t through not caring if there was any oversight?

That sh*t sandwich was a team effort.
 

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,499
2,805
I don't think anyone has a real idea how to fix the economy right now. A stimulus check going to Joe Bankruptcy will have little effect other than throwing good money at bad (debt).

IMO, the only way stimulus will immediately effect the economy in a positive way is to get $ into the hands of those NOT in financial dire straights: those of us who aren't suffocating under our own bad decisions and are still contributing to the economy.

Sounds callous but financial retardation, on both the corporate and personal levels, should be treated like a rampant infection. Cut that **** out and preserve the healthy tissue that remains.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,573
24,191
media blackout
I don't think anyone has a real idea how to fix the economy right now. A stimulus check going to Joe Bankruptcy will have little effect other than throwing good money at bad (debt).

IMO, the only way stimulus will immediately effect the economy in a positive way is to get $ into the hands of those NOT in financial dire straights: those of us who aren't suffocating under our own bad decisions and are still contributing to the economy.

Sounds callous but financial retardation, on both the corporate and personal levels, should be treated like a rampant infection. Cut that **** out and preserve the healthy tissue that remains.
Exactly. You can't fix stupid.
 

dhbuilder

jingoistic xenophobe
Aug 10, 2005
3,040
0
heheheehhehehehehhehheeee.... stimulus package....
BINGO !!!!

this is nothing more than the democrats gathering up all of their spending bills and putting them in one big ol' bed pan.
that way the stench will be so bad that anyone wanting to look through and examine it, will quickly push it on past just to avoid any further wretching.

example:
http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2009/01/27/officials_family_planning_money_may_be_dropped
should have never been introduced into it in the first place.

http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2009/01/27/obama_seeks_gop_help_on_economy;_mcconnell_hopeful

just in time for re-election.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012602088.html?wprss=rss_politics
 

Attachments

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,036
7,554
we have the choice of doing something or doing nothing. doing something means deficit spending at this point since monetary policy has been exhausted. sucks but true. i'm glad that obama at least has picked good long-term goals towards which the stimulus package spending can be directed.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Ron Paul voted no.
it must've been a tough choice: join w/ his forebearers whose national treasure is fertively depicted on all currency, or smack the hands of the money changing jooz.

who am i kidding? ron paul is a national treasure
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
IMO, the only way stimulus will immediately effect the economy in a positive way is to get $ into the hands of those NOT in financial dire straights: those of us who aren't suffocating under our own bad decisions and are still contributing to the economy.
Except that won't do anything. Those people will just save it.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
so in theory, this stimulates the economy by not having an additional burden on public services?

i'm making an honest effort to understand this, but i'm just not seeing how the economy as a whole will be helped directly. individuals, yes.
 

dhbuilder

jingoistic xenophobe
Aug 10, 2005
3,040
0
so in theory, this stimulates the economy by not having an additional burden on public services?

i'm making an honest effort to understand this, but i'm just not seeing how the economy as a whole will be helped directly. individuals, yes.

it's easy to understand.
all he's doing is shuffling funds.
nothing in all of this is actually going to create anything.

and heck, nancy even wants us to stop "procreating" !!!
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
so in theory, this stimulates the economy by not having an additional burden on public services?

i'm making an honest effort to understand this, but i'm just not seeing how the economy as a whole will be helped directly. individuals, yes.
By building infrastructure, that creates jobs, those people spend money, etc.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,036
7,554
so in theory, this stimulates the economy by not having an additional burden on public services?

i'm making an honest effort to understand this, but i'm just not seeing how the economy as a whole will be helped directly. individuals, yes.
been reading eugene fama lately? try reading brad delong or paul krugman. here's delong's blog:

http://delong.typepad.com/

the short answer is that the velocity of money isn't a constant, and stimulus can increase this.

the longer answer (going back to fama) is that recent arguments against stimulus either seem to misinterpret an accounting identity or completely rely on models that do not take into account unemployment, underutilization of labor and resources, and the fact that the fed has already shot its wad by lowering the target rate to 0-0.25%.
 

dhbuilder

jingoistic xenophobe
Aug 10, 2005
3,040
0
blogs as primary info sources !!??
they may be good at spouting theory but,
the bottom line is, we've been living on borrowed $$$ for far too long.
buying cars and homes and anything else we wanted but could not pay for up front, whether you truly needed them or not.

and the democratic desire for everyone to be financially equal no matter what their education level or ability to get out and support yourself, has been the main reason we find ourselves in this mess.
homes and cars being made available to folks that had no frikkin' way of ever paying for them.

this was a jimmy carter pipe dream.
and the barney frank posse came along and iced the cake rather well.
and turbo timmy was up to his elbows in all of this as well.

this is a government created problem.
we (the workers and producers) had nothing to do with it's creation.
other than falling into the trap they so neatly set for us.

we're right where they want us.

that's what happens when most of the voters are more in tune to american idol and wheel of fortune television shows,(or the ramblings of myopic/biased blogspots) than they are with the true motives and agendas of our politicians.
 

1000-Oaks

Monkey
May 8, 2003
778
0
Simi Valley, CA
Bush's stimulus package didn't do what it was supposed to do, but at least Obama's has some stipulations rather than an Ed McMahon check.
Ummm, you mean the Pelosi/Reed stimulus package.

Jesus, doesn't anyone remember that the 95% of Republican's initially shot down the first package - which was supported by nearly 100% of democrats? But now that it failed it's a "Bush" package.

Typical revisionist history, don't expect anything more these days...
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,036
7,554
Ummm, you mean the Pelosi/Reed stimulus package.

Jesus, doesn't anyone remember that the 95% of Republican's initially shot down the first package - which was supported by nearly 100% of democrats? But now that it failed it's a "Bush" package.

Typical revisionist history, don't expect anything more these days...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7748874.stm

note that the senate voted down the bailout. this IS bush's plan.
 

Cant Climb

Turbo Monkey
May 9, 2004
2,683
10
Everything i have read and heard "the package" seems poorly designed.

I really hoping to see alot more go into science and technology.........that would lay a better foundation for the future. Seems to me Obama was let down by the Democratic leadership. The package has too much of an old politcal smell and not much innovation it seems.....which is what O was campianging for...

Not a good start for O. This might lead to much political wrangling and more of the same-old same-old....
 

3D.

Monkey
Feb 23, 2006
899
0
Chinafornia USA
I've been trying to get a handle on what this infrastrucutre will actually do for us right now, and how it will effect my line of work... so I found out how much goes to my local area.

The reno/tahoe area is expected to receive about 40 milion. The new neighborhood I'm currently building in is worth 3 times that alone, and it is currently doing absolutely nothing for this area's badly wounded economy...

As toshi mentioned, doing something is better than nothing at all, but how about spending most of this stimuli on bringing back manufacturing of tangible goods (factories) "global importance other than consuming", constructing mmmmmmassive wind and solar farms, harvesting oceanic energies, etc.

Talking about how great it would be to have energy independence and truly taking action to accomplish it, are to entirely different chingas.
 

ire

Turbo Monkey
Aug 6, 2007
6,196
4
I sent a letter to Obama telling him that if allocates $1 billion for me, I will help create jobs across the nation. The first thing I will do is buy land outside of Salem and build a mansion, employing many people. After that project is complete I will hire many servants to help with home, employing even more people. I plan to replicate this success in various cities across the U.S. I'll let you know if he accepts.
 

SkaredShtles

Michael Bolton
Sep 21, 2003
65,379
12,533
In a van.... down by the river
This is gonna be AWESOME!

10 years from now the conclusion is going to be that we should've just let all the chips fall where they were gonna fall in 2008 and gotten on with business in the aftermath.

I suspect we're going to simply postpone our day of reckoning with all this bull$hit.
 

ire

Turbo Monkey
Aug 6, 2007
6,196
4
This is gonna be AWESOME!

10 years from now the conclusion is going to be that we should've just let all the chips fall where they were gonna fall in 2008 and gotten on with business in the aftermath.

I suspect we're going to simply postpone our day of reckoning with all this bull$hit.
I think in the long run our economy would be better off letting the market reset, and companies go bankrupt. The problem is that could create a lot of unemployment and social unrest....the things most people, especially politicians, don't want. I was pissed they gave money to GM, talk about a company that can't buy a clue
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
This is gonna be AWESOME!

10 years from now the conclusion is going to be that we should've just let all the chips fall where they were gonna fall in 2008 and gotten on with business in the aftermath.

I suspect we're going to simply postpone our day of reckoning with all this bull$hit.
You are a wise man SS. The government should not interfere with the free market (not that we have a free market, mind you). If a business is not sustainable it should fail and be replaced by businesses that are.

Alternatively, they could also just give all the money to me. :greedy:
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
2009 will hopefully be the year that free market evangelism will finally be considered a fringe theory and ridiculed
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
2009 will hopefully be the year that free market evangelism will finally be considered a fringe theory and ridiculed
The problem is that most people arguing for and against a "free market" have no idea what one is. The idea of degrees of freedom is lost on 99% of the frothers on both sides.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
The problem is that most people arguing for and against a "free market" have no idea what one is. The idea of degrees of freedom is lost on 99% of the frothers on both sides.
There are plenty of people that want the government interference in the market to be minimalized as much as possible, which is a pretty good definition of free market evangelism
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf

After buzzing through it, looks like a lot of government jobs and Councils and Committees and other things will be created, but there are some good things in there as well, if the money gets oversighted properly.

Funniest thing was the section that says Illinois can't have any of this money until Bloggo isn't governor anymore.

For Dante, yes, got the link from Drudge, his headline about the 335,000,000 for STD studies is sensationalized a bit.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
There are plenty of people that want the government interference in the market to be minimalized as much as possible, which is a pretty good definition of free market evangelism
Agreed. My point is that those people are ideologues that have no real understanding of what defines a free market, let alone the complexities and subtleties of making one work properly. Folks on both sides of the argument are constantly confusing/confounding/conflating "free market" with "market mechanisms" with "anarchy" with "capitalism" etc, and most of those folks are arguing from an ideological position not a pragmatic one.

Example, Bush consistently used the term "free market" to describe cap and trade systems, which are by definition constrained markets that use a market mechanism. Layman "free-marketers" would jump all over a similar proposal from someone they perceive to be too far left because they would key into the "constrained" part of that, whereas delivered from the right they key into the "market" part, and in reality don't have a clue what they're talking about.

We don't have and will never have a truly free market. It would be a terrible idea. See the industrial revolution and read Sinclair's Jungle, and even that wasn't in a 100% free market. We don't and will likely never have a 100% planned market. What we have are carefully managed constraints on a market-based system, and the real arguments at the policy level are about the details and degrees of those constraints. Arguing about whether the market should be free or not is like arguing unicorn vs. centaur when you're trying to win the Kentucky derby.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
I'm sure Bush knows what a free market is, the word has just been twisted to mean something that it really isn't. Similar to democracy, socialism, and a number of other phrases.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
Oh, and you weren't suggesting that Bush knows what a free market is either, right?
I have no idea what Bush actually knows, but I know that he (at the behest of advisors, I assume) used the term "free-market" to describe anything he was in favor of, even when it wasn't "free-market."
 

ire

Turbo Monkey
Aug 6, 2007
6,196
4
Has anyone read the stimulus? I've read 100 of the 600 pages. I thought this was funny. The Governor could screw his state by staying in his position.
 

profro

Turbo Monkey
Feb 25, 2002
5,617
314
Walden Ridge
I don't think anyone has a real idea how to fix the economy right now. A stimulus check going to Joe Bankruptcy will have little effect other than throwing good money at bad (debt).

IMO, the only way stimulus will immediately effect the economy in a positive way is to get $ into the hands of those NOT in financial dire straights: those of us who aren't suffocating under our own bad decisions and are still contributing to the economy.

Sounds callous but financial retardation, on both the corporate and personal levels, should be treated like a rampant infection. Cut that **** out and preserve the healthy tissue that remains.
Very well said.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
this nice little piece of commentary @ wsj: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

i'm starting to not have an opinion any more. what does that mean? i don't know either.
The overall gist is right, that it's raining men in the DNC headquarters, but the specifics in the article are mostly inaccurate, ill-informed or both. As Silver has pointed out previously, the WSJ opinion section has the same journalistic quality as the NY Daily News, but with more hate.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT - WSJ hates the idea of public transportation, we get it, but leave the analysis to urban planning experts. Public transport requires a critical mass of capacity to operate profitably, something that with few exceptions (e.g. NY and DC Metro) the US has never had. In some cases they can't and shouldn't. Low speed Amtrak will likely never be viable given geographic dispertion. We shouldn't try to salvage that. However, freight rail IS viable, as are high-speed trains. This is in addition to the energy and congestion savings that could result. Selective but heavy investment in pub transport provides jobs, develops technology and expertise, provides long-term benefits to industry and the public, and contributes to our energy independence.

RENEWABLE ENERGY - WSJ hates the idea of public investment in renewables because renewables aren't profitable right now. No ****. That's why public investment is critical. Every economic and technology study says that eventually they WILL be profitable, and it is the role of government to help the industry over the hump until private investors can get a direct return on investment. Again, provides jobs, develops technology and expertise, provides long-term benefits to industry and the public, and contributes to our energy independence.

EDUCATION - The idea that education spending doubled under Bush is such a distortion of numbers that only Bill O'Reilly could offer that up with a straight face. That the WSJ could possibly believe that public education is sufficiently funded is ludicrous, and that they could ignore the very real, direct and easily quantifiable benefit public education has to the private sector (see California's emergence as the 5th largest economy in the world) tells me the author has actually never read the rest of the paper. Again, this is a system where critical mass is required, a concept clearly lost on the author in his/her outrage that the stimulus won't go to private schools.

EDA/SBA - Shocker that these horribly underfunded departments haven't performed well in the past. However, administrations of the same stated goals are required, quite specifically, for the current crisis. We could scrap the ones we have and start from scratch with the additional funding, which I would also support, but that is what we tried with Homeland Security and that didn't exactly work out well. What they need is top management, and sufficient resources to actually track results, which this package can provide.

"INCOME-TRANSFER" - nice term. I wonder how much of that we'll hear. We will have rising unemployment. That is not in dispute. This means, duh, more unemployed people that need to survive, without health insurance. Really, do they actually not understand this?

I'd also like to note how quickly the author accepts tax cuts for business without scrutiny.

Seriously, the package has a pork problem and not a penny should be doled out without being tied to tangible, proportionate requirements and results, but the author doesn't have a clue what he or she is talking about. They're just enjoying being angry at Democrats.