The Bipartisan Stimulus Package - Page 10 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #91 of 217 (permalink) Old 01-31-2009, 02:54 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Mar 2006
Vehicle: 1999 ML320
Location: Ratville
Posts: 24,029
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
I agree with that completely. I only play with the other answers as I find the nit-picking focus on 0.02% of the package to be both funny and indicative of a much larger problem. Folks really need to look at the very big picture on this.

To get it through Congress and the 535 votes necessary to make it happen, there will be compromise and give and take. That is what a bipartisan government should be. I might not like reduction of funding for something that I think is important but I understand that the whole of the project is much more important than the nits. There will NEVER be 0.0% fluff unless we remove democracy from the process.
You misunderstand, those are just specific examples, there could well be many more.
mlfun is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 217 (permalink) Old 01-31-2009, 03:06 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlfun View Post
You misunderstand, those are just specific examples, there could well be many more.
I understood. Those are the ones that the folks on the right are focusing on after thorough review of the HOUSE side. The key word on your post is COULD. They KNOW what is in that bill - line by line. If there were considerably more, you would have heard of them well before now.

The negotiations that ironed out what did get passed had much bright light shown on both sides. Things like the "new sod for the Mall" got dropped [even though the folks doing the work sure could have helped provide stimulus].

We will see a few more examples come to light as it comes to the Senate next week, and I wouldn't be surprised if some new stuff, damned important to some Republican Senator's state doesn't get included to insure his vote.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #93 of 217 (permalink) Old 01-31-2009, 06:57 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Let's look at those "lib" pet projects.

The $2B in child care subsidies as an example. That money would go to people who have kids, who then pay child care centers to take care of their kids so they can go work. The child care center can pay their employees. Now you have paychecks going to a multiple of low and middle income people who will, statistically then spend the money on consumables. Isn't that what the stimulus program is suppose to do?

Now, same with the National Endowment for the Arts. Monies go to radio shows, Educational TV programs, video, producers, editors, directors, photographers, museum workers. They cash their checks and infuse money into the economy. Isn't that what the stimulus program is suppose to do?

Global warming research: That money goes to Universities which pays researchers, teachers, labrats, technicians who all cash their checks and...

Amtrak is part of Infrastructure, that puts lots of people to work either building train cars or laying rail or rebuilding stations. They get paychecks.

Only one I don't really get is the digital TV conversion coupons and I have two thoughts on it. First, the feds are selling the frequencies at 20X what the coupon program costs so it is not a burden program and Second, with the coupon folks would buy the box which I would assume would churn the economy at some level. I would think they might hope folks will buy a new TV since they get the new digital conversion box. Churn. Money. Stimulus.
These are good examples of shallow liberal thinking about stimulus Most of your examples are just sustituting private money for federal money to pay for goods or services, using Democrat favorite winners to receive the largess.

Real stimulus is priming the pump, feeding the engines of job creation. What works is changing the tax code so that return is higher on investment which encourages growth, purchase of business equipment, and hiring producers. To use an overused expression, this creates sustainable growth.

What works is getting government out of the way with its excessive regulation and oversight so that economic growth can occur. Swarzzenager is already asking for a suspension of some EPA oversight so that even this lame stimulus can be implemented.

Straight expenditure of borrowed federal funds has very little stimulating effect, but nicely positions the Dems to be political good guys.

.02% is pork, McBare? I have a lot of evidence that math is not your strong suit.

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
post #94 of 217 (permalink) Old 01-31-2009, 07:33 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
These are good examples of shallow liberal thinking about stimulus Most of your examples are just sustituting private money for federal money to pay for goods or services, using Democrat favorite winners to receive the largess.

Real stimulus is priming the pump, feeding the engines of job creation. What works is changing the tax code so that return is higher on investment which encourages growth, purchase of business equipment, and hiring producers. To use an overused expression, this creates sustainable growth.

What works is getting government out of the way with its excessive regulation and oversight so that economic growth can occur. Swarzzenager is already asking for a suspension of some EPA oversight so that even this lame stimulus can be implemented.

Straight expenditure of borrowed federal funds has very little stimulating effect, but nicely positions the Dems to be political good guys.

.02% is pork, McBare? I have a lot of evidence that math is not your strong suit.
I never said .2% is pork. I said the folks on the right are using the same six or eight examples from the Stimulus package which account for .2% of the total. I am sure that, when folks look through it instead of just getting their info from Rush and Hannity they will find that there is more, depending on how they want to define pork.

Depending on the expenditure, straight expenditure CAN have a 17-25%ROI.

Now, If I am not mistaken, we "primed the pump" over the last eight years, changed the tax code for businesses and made it a much better environment for the business community. Many used the bigassed loopholes that W and the Republican Congress gave them to purchase business equipment everywhere but in the US. And offshore both manufacturing and service jobs.

How exactly did that "priming of the pump" go. We deficit spent by $5Trillion to try and keep up, even though we added 50% to the federal budget. I am just not seeing the "sustainable growth" you suggest. It didn't happen when Reagan tried TrickleDown. It didn't happen when GHW Bush tried TrickleDown and it didn't happen with G W Bush tried TrickleDown.

Seems to me a little proof would be in order to show that your suggestions actually work. So far all we have seen is FIVE recessions in the three Republican Trickle Down Presidencies, each worse than the last.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #95 of 217 (permalink) Old 02-02-2009, 11:56 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Mar 2006
Vehicle: 1999 ML320
Location: Ratville
Posts: 24,029
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
A good editorial from LA times of all places..
Quote:
Barack Obama, economic stimulus package, tax cuts - Los Angeles Times
Editorial
The nation needs jobs, not a political agenda
Use the stimulus package to prop up the economy, not push a party line.
February 2, 2009

Few things bring politicians together like a crisis. And by just about any measure, the worsening economy qualifies as one of those rallying events -- the gross domestic product just declined more than it has in 26 years, the number of people receiving unemployment benefits reached the highest level in at least 41 years, new-home sales dropped to the lowest level on record, the list goes on and on. The outlook is so dim, the Democrats who control Congress and the White House could have crafted the largest stimulus package since World War II and still garnered some Republican support. Instead, the House of Representatives approved the $819-billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on a party-line vote, with all 177 Republicans in the chamber opposing and all but 11 of the 255 Democrats supporting it. GOP lawmakers dissented in part because it didn't meet their predictable demand for more tax cuts. They also complained, however, that too many of the bill's provisions would advance the Democrats' agenda, not address the country's need for jobs. And on that point, they had a legitimate objection.

Stimulating the economy is more of an art than a science. A country relies partly on the strength of its resources -- such as its workers' productivity, the availability of cheap capital, the markets for its goods -- and partly on consumers' confidence. The latter is especially important in the United States, where consumer spending accounts for about 70% of the economy. Because any legislative effort to boost employment and end the recession will take months, if not years, to deliver its full benefits, it's important that the psychic benefits are felt immediately. If people and businesses believe that the effort will improve job security and increase the demand for goods and services, they'll be more likely to spend more and take more risks. But if they see the stimulus package as just another boondoggle for special interests, they'll continue the miserliness that is exacerbating the downturn.

President Obama and congressional Democrats have emphasized that their proposal isn't the typical exercise in pork-barrel politics. Lawmakers haven't been allowed to pile on earmarks for pet local projects, and the largest sums are being divided among the states and cities through existing formulas. But too many of the items have little apparent connection with economic growth -- witness the nearly $5 billion for prevention, wellness, "comparative effectiveness research" and training in the health field, the $2.1 billion for Head Start and the $300 million to improve teacher quality, just to name a few examples from the 647-page House bill. Other provisions, such as the $64 billion for preventing layoffs at schools, colleges and "high priority" state programs, are about saving jobs, not creating them. In the short term, there may be no difference between preventing job cuts and increasing payrolls -- one prevents a bad situation from worsening, the other makes a good situation better. But an investment this large should pay long-term dividends by increasing productivity, and that's hard to do when so much of the money is going toward maintaining the status quo.

As for the Republicans' other point, we think the mix of tax cuts and spending increases in the stimulus package should be based on effectiveness, not ideology. And because there's no time-tested formula to follow, we're not offended by the balance struck by Democrats. Tax cuts tend to be more effective when permanent, which poses a problem for the runaway federal budget deficit, and they've had more impact in good times than bad, according to a study often cited by the GOP.

But there's a more important issue implicit in the GOP's lament over the bill's contents. Democrats don't have to accept Republican philosophical arguments about how to stimulate the economy. As Obama reportedly told top lawmakers from both parties at a summit on the bill last month, he won the election, so he gets to lead. And right now, the country is looking for leadership on one thing: the economy. Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill will have plenty of opportunities to advance their views on education, healthcare, poverty and other social issues. But those are battles for another day. They shouldn't use the stimulus package as a way to circumvent those debates.
As I said before, it's the economy, stupid.

Last edited by mlfun; 02-03-2009 at 12:02 AM.
mlfun is offline  
post #96 of 217 (permalink) Old 02-03-2009, 12:40 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Mar 2006
Vehicle: 1999 ML320
Location: Ratville
Posts: 24,029
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
By bad mouthing the economy in its zeal to trash the BA, the OBA has already lost the battle to boost the public's confidence using this stimulus package which is why Bush specifically advised Obama not to make economic projections.

They might as well scrap the package and start again.

Quote:
Public mixed on stimulus package - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON — Americans overwhelmingly want Congress to pass an economic stimulus bill, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, but expectations are low that it will help their families or turn the economy around this year.

Two-thirds of those surveyed predict that Obama's package of tax cuts and new spending would boost the nation's economy, at least by a little. When it comes to their own family finances, though, half say it either would have no effect or even make things worse.

"It's sort of paradoxical: They're both supportive and pessimistic," says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies public opinion. Still, President Obama "has been saying this is going to be a long process, so maybe it's not so surprising that voters would pick up the idea that there's no quick fix."
mlfun is offline  
post #97 of 217 (permalink) Old 02-03-2009, 12:59 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Mar 2006
Vehicle: 1999 ML320
Location: Ratville
Posts: 24,029
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
I never said .2% is pork. I said the folks on the right are using the same six or eight examples from the Stimulus package which account for .2% of the total. I am sure that, when folks look through it instead of just getting their info from Rush and Hannity they will find that there is more, depending on how they want to define pork.

Depending on the expenditure, straight expenditure CAN have a 17-25%ROI.

Now, If I am not mistaken, we "primed the pump" over the last eight years, changed the tax code for businesses and made it a much better environment for the business community. Many used the bigassed loopholes that W and the Republican Congress gave them to purchase business equipment everywhere but in the US. And offshore both manufacturing and service jobs.

How exactly did that "priming of the pump" go. We deficit spent by $5Trillion to try and keep up, even though we added 50% to the federal budget. I am just not seeing the "sustainable growth" you suggest. It didn't happen when Reagan tried TrickleDown. It didn't happen when GHW Bush tried TrickleDown and it didn't happen with G W Bush tried TrickleDown.

Seems to me a little proof would be in order to show that your suggestions actually work. So far all we have seen is FIVE recessions in the three Republican Trickle Down Presidencies, each worse than the last.
Hey Bear,
Pork is pork. I agree completely with Sen McCaskill.

Quote:
Stimulus Backers Face Growing Skepticism Over Need for Government Action - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com
But even Democratic leaders on the Hill are calling for significant changes. Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson told FOX News he's looking to strip out "tens of billions" of dollars worth of spending items from the bill.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a top Obama ally, told FOX News Tuesday that some of the spending is uncalled for in this package.

"We've got to cut some of the spending for programs," she said. "This is not the place to increase spending on programs."

She criticized billions for programs like alternative energy loans and the Census Bureau.

"We may have to fund the Census Bureau but not in a stimulus bill," she said. "That's the problem here. We have got to be disciplined about making sure this bill does only two things: Get money directly into the economy and create jobs. Period. That's it," McCaskill said.
mlfun is offline  
post #98 of 217 (permalink) Old 02-03-2009, 01:49 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlfun View Post
Hey Bear,
Pork is pork. I agree completely with Sen McCaskill.
I pretty much agree with her assessment. But no, pork is not pork.

Look at the GOP list of what they consider pork in the nearly $1Trillion Stimulus Package [I am not optimistic that is will be much under that]

The total listed is $19,090,500,000. Of that amount, $13,183,000,000 is infrastructure type items [those shovel projects that the stimulus is suppose to be] but listed as "pork" because they are not GOP sponsored. That 69% of the whine list can be fully justified as building jobs and building jobs.

Now, another Billion is for changing the types of cars that the government uses. That can be pork or it can be cost savings AND support for the auto industry at the same time.

Now the other $6Billion, from that list, I think need to go on separate bills. They would just make sense otherwise.

But, to bring all this back to the original point of my comments at the beginning of this thread, the entire package of complaints amount to 1.9% of the package and, if you take out infrastructure, it amounts to only 0.6% of the entire Stimulus package.

Pork is an important issue to address. But the 98.1-99.4% that is NOT pork deserves much more attention and should be getting the focus by everyone to start moving the economy forward. Whining about even 2% is just silly when so much is at stake.

What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill - CNN.com

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #99 of 217 (permalink) Old 02-03-2009, 04:47 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
I pretty much agree with her assessment. But no, pork is not pork.

Look at the GOP list of what they consider pork in the nearly $1Trillion Stimulus Package [I am not optimistic that is will be much under that]

The total listed is $19,090,500,000. Of that amount, $13,183,000,000 is infrastructure type items [those shovel projects that the stimulus is suppose to be] but listed as "pork" because they are not GOP sponsored. That 69% of the whine list can be fully justified as building jobs and building jobs.

Now, another Billion is for changing the types of cars that the government uses. That can be pork or it can be cost savings AND support for the auto industry at the same time.

Now the other $6Billion, from that list, I think need to go on separate bills. They would just make sense otherwise.

But, to bring all this back to the original point of my comments at the beginning of this thread, the entire package of complaints amount to 1.9% of the package and, if you take out infrastructure, it amounts to only 0.6% of the entire Stimulus package.

Pork is an important issue to address. But the 98.1-99.4% that is NOT pork deserves much more attention and should be getting the focus by everyone to start moving the economy forward. Whining about even 2% is just silly when so much is at stake.

What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill - CNN.com
Any reference to a CNN story is bogus on the face of it. Why don't you ever post anything real or substantial? Who knows: Even you may begin to understand that a $Billion here and a $Billion there, and before you know it, you are talking about real money...

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #100 of 217 (permalink) Old 02-03-2009, 06:02 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk View Post
Any reference to a CNN story is bogus on the face of it. Why don't you ever post anything real or substantial? Who knows: Even you may begin to understand that a $Billion here and a $Billion there, and before you know it, you are talking about real money...
Yeah, that makes sense, a CNN story that criticizes the Demorcats Stimulus package by outlining the talking points of the Republican opposition.

Faux would have posted it but they were having an All Hands meeting to scrub down O'Really and Hannity's studios after their post Daschle sploog-fest.


As for the amounts, I agree that it adds up. But if the money is moving into the economy, it should not really matter what the vehicle is as long as it is pushing bucks through the system in the most efficient manner that spurs recovery. And again, the entire list is less than 2%. Focus on the BIG picture.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Obama stimulus could reach $1 trillion: report Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 6 12-15-2008 02:18 PM
    Economic Stimulus Payments Schl. livefreeordie Off-Topic 9 03-18-2008 03:07 PM
    New Bush Stimulus Package Qubes Off-Topic 8 03-15-2008 08:09 PM
    Tax Stimulus Captions............. Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 11 01-24-2008 11:13 PM
    On the "Stimulus Package" Marsden Off-Topic 64 01-21-2008 09:06 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome