How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Is the New Bill Stimulating or Pork?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Is the New Bill Stimulating or Pork?

  Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


25 posted 02-01-2009 02:37 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So long as the Feds are going to buy cars, it makes sense to do it now instead of down the road.  That could be true, Ron. The question is - is it a valid part of the stimulus package or it is pork? Don't worry about out government leaders driving Hondas or Toyotas. Won't see that day!

People are afraid to spend money. The role of government -- and the reason the stimulus package has to be BIG and immediate -- is to calm those fears. I'll agree with that, Ron. The question is not whether or not we need a stimulus program. The question is  should a lot of pork be in it, especially when Obama vowed that wouldn't happen.

Bush once enjoyed the highest approval rating of any President since the polls started nearly a hundred years ago.  Wanna see something interesting? Check out the daily headlines during that time and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they were negative of Bush. If people were spewing a lot of negativity, as you say, isn't it at least possible they were right? It wasn't so much PEOPLE, Ron. It was leftists and the mainstream media doing the spewing, ad nauseum.

I'm not sure that would justify using the same tactics to destroy the next administration. i don't see anyone trying to destroy the current administration, Ron. I'm certainly not. I am asking for some accountability, though. I'm asking for some indication that the man means what he says. What do we have so far?

(1) He stated no one who lobbied for certain areas would be able to hold governmental positions dealing with that same area - then he appointed one, anyway
(2) He claimed all forms of torture would stop and prisoners at Gitmo would be given the same rights as any criminal - then he made exceptions
(3) He stated emphatically that he would sign no bill that crossed his desk with pork in it - he signed the pork-filled stimulus package.

In only his first three weeks, he is batting a thousand - or zero, however you prefer to look at it.


That's the true purpose behind the stimulus package. and a good purpose it is, Ron. That still isn't the question, which is does the pork belong in there?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


26 posted 02-01-2009 02:42 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

btw, if you get time, I'd like your views about that electronical medical data base.

(1) should it be part of the stimulus package?
(2) is it invasive of personal rights?

Seems to me I recall you didn't think too highly of the patriot act and I'm wondering how you feel about this one?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


27 posted 02-01-2009 09:58 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Yes, grinch, that must be it. You are smarter than 60% of the American people....congratulations.


Thanks Mike, though Iím not sure if I should be offended by your low estimation of my intelligence - Iíd have estimated it closer to 98%.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


28 posted 02-01-2009 10:41 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

....which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


29 posted 02-01-2009 11:35 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
(1) He stated no one who lobbied for certain areas would be able to hold governmental positions dealing with that same area - then he appointed one, anyway
(2) He claimed all forms of torture would stop and prisoners at Gitmo would be given the same rights as any criminal - then he made exceptions
(3) He stated emphatically that he would sign no bill that crossed his desk with pork in it - he signed the pork-filled stimulus package.

Those are interpretations, Mike, not facts. In my opinion, number one is questionable, number two is flat out wrong, and number three is an exaggeration. Filled? I don't consider most of the points you've raised in this thread to be pork. Most are things where we really do need to eventually spend the money. I would certainly prefer NO pork, but it's not a term so easily defined that everyone is going to agree what is and isn't pork.

If the President says he won't sign a bill with pork and he then signs a bill, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he didn't consider any of the items in the bill to be pork. And, yes, before you ask, I gave President Bush the same benefit of the doubt when he told me there were WMD in Iraq. Let's hope this one turns out better than that one did.

quote:
btw, if you get time, I'd like your views about that electronical medical data base.

(1) should it be part of the stimulus package?
(2) is it invasive of personal rights?

My first reaction, Mike, is to scream bloody murder. I don't like it on general principal. And I think it would take a whole lot of convincing to change my mind.

But . . . I'm willing to listen. I'll admit I don't know enough about it to make an intelligent decision and, though I scanned it, I don't have time to read the whole bill, or even just the sections dealing with "Health Information Technology."

I do, however, understand the logic behind the idea.

The cost of health care is ridiculous. If computers can bring down that cost a little, as IT has clearly done in so many other industries, I can certainly understand people leaning in that direction. Almost all the doctors seem to agree that digitizing and centralizing medical information that is already "out there" (albeit on hard copy) will make their jobs easier. I think it's questionable whether making their jobs easier will necessarily make their jobs less expensive, and even if it does, I think it's questionable whether it's worth the very real dangers to civil rights.

In short, I think we're giving up too much in hopes of getting too little. It's a bad idea.

***

Grrr. My link above doesn't work. I sure hope the guys who designed their search function aren't the same guys in charge of the Heath Information Technology?

If anyone is interested in reading the bill, go to this page (and even that one might change soon). Look for the "Economic Stimulus" line and click on the link for "H.R.1"

On the next page, click on the link for "Text of Legislation." Then click on the link for the second version of the bill, "H.R.1.EH."


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


30 posted 02-01-2009 11:57 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.


Oddly it didnít surprise the people at Mensa either Mike, nor did it impress them much by all accounts. Apparently I just managed to scrape into the top 2%, the really intelligent folk make me look like Forrest Gump.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


31 posted 02-01-2009 06:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

number one is questionable,

Last year the Pentagon paid the Raytheon Corp., its fifth largest contractor, a cool $10 billion for its missiles, missile shields and a constellation of electronics. This year President Barack Obama is putting Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist in charge of the Pentagon's day-to-day management.
In Washington that almost qualifies as business as usual, except for a small detail: on the campaign trail, Obama vowed to stop the revolving door that lets onetime lobbyists go to work for the Federal Government and oversee contracts that could harm ó or help ó their former employer. And one of the first things the new President did in office was seemingly make good on that promise, signing an Executive Order barring former lobbyists from joining his Administration to work at agencies they recently lobbied.
Not surprisingly, Obama's good-government backers were less than pleased to see the President, only a few days after signing the blanket ban, issue a waiver permitting William Lynn to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense. The lobbying loophole was allowed, Administration officials explain, because Lynn is "uniquely qualified" for the job.
The episode is a painful lesson for Obama. Even though his team asserts that it has put into place the toughest rules ever against lobbyists going to work for the Federal Government, the only thing most folks will remember is that Obama made an exception to that rule for one of his top officials. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1874165,00.html

A lobbyist who joins the Obama administration also is forbidden from working on issues they previously were involved with, he said. Any person who leaves the administration will be barred from lobbying the government for two years. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYSQ9OT7ErVU&refer=home

What do you find questionable, Ron?

number two is flat out wrong,

Under the plan being crafted inside Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obama-plans-guantanamo-cl_n_142593.html

The president-elect reportedly wants to establish a new justice system - a "third way," you might say - for prosecuting the most dangerous of Gitmoís detainees. Instead of trying to prosecute men like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh within the confines of the dubious military commissions plan, the Obama administration would bring them here to the States and prosecute them in semi-secret terror-law courts, overseen by civilian judges with FISA-like terror-law backgrounds. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/11/opinion/courtwatch/main4591623.shtml

So what is it that you see wrong, Ron? He went from open trials and constitutional rights for all to a new justice system with semi-secret terror-law courts

number three is an exaggeration.

Ok, I'll grant you that "filled" is too strong a word but there are certainly multiple examples of pork displayed in the package.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he didn't consider any of the items in the bill to be pork. In that case you are calling him a complete idiot, not even to see prostitute removal, STD research, honeybee study and the like as pork. Do you really think he is that dumb?

Most are things where we really do need to eventually spend the money. That's fine, Ron, but I think you overlooked the word "emergency" in the emergency stimulus package.It's not supposed to be for things the government will "eventually" buy, unless you want to agree with me that it's simply a democratic "shopping list".  Why not let the prostitutes run wild a little longer, the politicians drive their almost-new cars a little longer and put those millions toward tax relief and housing benefits?

The cost of health care is ridiculous. If computers can bring down that cost a little, as IT has clearly done in so many other industries, I can certainly understand people leaning in that direction.

Ok, let me rewrite that one....

The threat of terrorism is ridiculous. If selective wiretapping can bring down that threat a little, as it has clearly done in other countries, I can certainly understand people leaning in that direction. Were those your thoughts on Bush's wiretapping program? Also, i didn't see you mention whether or not you felt this belonged in an emergency stimulus package.

At any rate, thank you for your thoughts

Grinch, ok, you have me in complete awe of your mental capabilities. Be careful because if you could not type on your keyboard due to pulling a muscle while patting yourself on the back, we would all be deprived of the incredible knowledge you are kind enough to share with us from time to time.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


32 posted 02-01-2009 06:58 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Be careful because if you could not type on your keyboard due to pulling a muscle while patting yourself on the back, we would all be deprived of the incredible knowledge you are kind enough to share with us from time to time


No need to worry Mike, my computer has the latest voice recognition software which would allow me to respond to your posts even if I had both hands tied behind my back.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


33 posted 02-01-2009 08:27 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


When even the New York Times
is uncertain, you have to wonder
why bother . . .

Also, all this is supposed
to create or save three million jobs.
Do simple division and cut each a check
and then beg for leftovers at their door.

.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


34 posted 02-01-2009 11:14 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
What do you find questionable, Ron?

LOL. Why did you leave out one sentence that was otherwise embedded right in your quotation, Mike?

"Realists at the Pentagon and elsewhere put it slightly differently, saying the President was simply acknowledging that people who know how to run the Pentagon generally have been involved in the process."

And this one, while it wasn't plucked out of supporting quote, is equally pertinent, I think.

"To ease some Senators' concerns, he (Lynn) has promised to sell all his Raytheon stock and have his dealings at the Pentagon for the first year subject to an ethics review."

What I find questionable, Mike, is that this can so easily be construed as "business as usual." Obama's plan to avoid any potential conflicts of interest (which, incidentally, I never supported) has hit some snags. I don't think that means he's abandoned the idea or the ideal. And I certainly don't think it means Lynn is going to be allowed to cheat the American people.

quote:
So what is it that you see wrong, Ron? He went from open trials and constitutional rights for all to a new justice system with semi-secret terror-law courts

First, let me say I don't think that's the best way to handle terrorists. Second, let me point out the contention is only "reportedly" made. Third, we should note that closed court rooms, especially in matters of national security, are certainly not without precedent. Fourth . . . what in the world does any of that have to do with stopping all forms of torture and then making exceptions?

quote:
In that case you are calling him a complete idiot, not even to see prostitute removal, STD research, honeybee study and the like as pork. Do you really think he is that dumb?

Without more information, Mike, I don't see those issues as pork. Do you really think I'm that dumb?

Personally, there are a LOT of things the Feds fund that I believe lie way outside the mandate of government. I'd certainly be happy to discuss the role of government in scientific research, for example. But that discussion has nothing to do with this particular bill. If it is something that will be funded, this bill is as good as any other and possibly better than most.

quote:
That's fine, Ron, but I think you overlooked the word "emergency" in the emergency stimulus package.

And I honestly don't think you understand what the adjective is modifying, Mike. It is NOT modifying the line items being funded, but rather the economic situation the bill is trying to address. I would go so far as to guess there is not one single thing being funded by this bill that qualifies as a true emergency. Not one. Collectively, however, they represent a possible answer to a national emergency. A Hail Mary, if you will.

quote:
Were those your thoughts on Bush's wiretapping program?

That's not a bad analogy, Mike, and I certainly understand your point. However, remembering that I said I was opposed to both, we should nonetheless remember that a comparison between computers and wiretapping should reflect that the former is legal while the latter is not? Both, in my opinion, are an abuse of power.

quote:
Also, i didn't see you mention whether or not you felt this belonged in an emergency stimulus package.

Again, Mike, anything belongs in an economic stimulus bill so long as it circulates money domestically.


And, please, guys. Can we talk about the topic and not each other? If I have to spend all my time editing these threads, I'm not going to have any left to participate.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 02-01-2009 11:56 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

gain, Mike, anything belongs in an economic stimulus bill so long as it circulates money domestically.

Ok, Ron, in view of that statement, there's really very little more I can say. We will just have to agree to disagree. Hopefully the senate won't agree with you. Gee, if circulating money is the key, let's take those billions, divide it up between the populace and people will have enough money to buy cars, pay mortgages, send kids to college and the problem is solved. Just cut out the middle man, which happens to be the local and state governments.

Ok, I will stop the banter but I'm sure you have seen that Grinch and I have not done it in a mean-spirited way here. I think we were having a little fun with it but perhaps it sets a bad precedence....grinch, stop it!
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


36 posted 02-02-2009 12:30 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Gee, if circulating money is the key, let's take those billions, divide it up between the populace and people will have enough money to buy cars, pay mortgages, send kids to college and the problem is solved.

No, no, no, Mike!

The very LAST thing you want to do is divvy the money up equally. Do the math yourself. Call it $888 billion, divided by the US Population of just under 304 million people. That works out to slightly less than $3,000 a person. You really think that's enough to buy cars, pay mortgages, and send kids to college? Looking at the stimulus package on a per capita basis only serves to destroy the illusion. Not what we want.

Circulating money isn't the key, Mike. Building confidence is the key. Spending a whole lot of money is just a way to try to build that confidence.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


37 posted 02-02-2009 01:16 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

anything belongs in an economic stimulus bill so long as it circulates money domestically.
Circulating money isn't the key, Mike,Building confidence is the key.


Ok, confidence it is, then.  Do people get confidence by seeing taxpayer dollars go to some of the things in this package? 60% of the public doesn't. The Republicans don't. More than a few of the Democrats don't. Confidence would come from seeing the money go to pertinent areas which would stimulate the economy and provide for job creation, not from allowing the government to spend millions on their vehicles , hiring more concert pianists, or keeping hookers off the streets. Nor does confidence come from seeing a president promise no pork in bills allowing pork in bills right after he said the opposite. Confidence will come from seeing a president whose words and actions match. We are not seeing that yet, on several levels.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


38 posted 02-02-2009 05:55 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You know what I think is ridiculous? Right now there is legislation in Pennsylvania for a Universal Health Care plan. Price tag for this cradle to grave coverage? A 10% tax from wages (on top of the 3% current state income tax), plus an additional 3% tax on all other personal income. So what I now have provided by my employer, for only $7.50 per month from my paycheck, will cost me over $350. per month in new taxes if this bill passes. I struggle as it is to even afford home heating oil, and my paycheck would be reduced at least 10% if this bill passes? I wonder how long it would be before even that is insufficient, how long before that tax is increased and increased and increased. And what level of care would be provided under such a plan. From some of the horror stories I've heard from countries that have it, I'd say not very good. And with rationed care, administered by the government, would most of us be going to that grave earlier than if we maintained our current level of care?

And whom exactly would this plan benefit? Currently in PA, all children up to the age of 18, and older, I believe, if they are in college, can already apply for S-Chip, regardless of family income and private health insurance availability (a most recent change in the plan). The poor adults have Medicaid. The older folks have Medicare. So it seems this would be for the folks who are adults who don't have health care provided by their employers. Wouldn't it be cheaper for them, and the rest of us, if they just bought their own private coverage (I've seen commercials recently for private insurance for $50 a week) with assistance from the government if needed through tax credits, or if the employers were required to provide some level of coverage, with tax incentives from the government?

I hope the Republicans in the PA House & Senate shoot this down.  

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


39 posted 02-05-2009 09:10 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


According to Obama
if we don't spend a 920 billion now
that we don't have the sky will fall.


Is that a rush job
or not?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


40 posted 02-05-2009 10:15 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No more than Pelosi announcing that if the bill is not passed immediately 500 million Americans will lose their jobs. Maybe she needs a refresher course in math??

When all else fails, try fear-mongering.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


41 posted 02-06-2009 03:59 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Pay back is tough, and the last eight years have just made it tougher.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

[This message has been edited by Ron (02-06-2009 12:09 PM).]

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


42 posted 02-06-2009 08:21 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

All can talk about pork and parties until there's none left or right or hiding anywhere in the fine print, but I still think the most solid black spot on our economy is what too many Americans have demanded or have become reliant upon: "Bread and Circuses."

The gov has been supplying what the first order of gov (We The People) have been settling for, longer than any of us have been alive.

and of course there is pork and there will always be pork whether it's on a stimulus plan or not.

Food (the agriculture industry) tops water, cars, guns, and even our values as our most precious commodity.

Mega-Agribusinesses are and will be locked in on subsidies.

and we've been dependent on countries that couldn't produce their own for a time, and many have figured out how they can.

which means more money will go into ag-subsidies, or there's another industry that will go up in dust, again.
icebox
Member Elite
since 05-03-2003
Posts 4246
in the shadows


43 posted 02-06-2009 04:08 PM       View Profile for icebox   Email icebox   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for icebox

I really liked the idea of scrapping the whole bill and just giving tax payers a six moth vacation from paying taxes.  

Too simple I guess.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


44 posted 02-06-2009 08:43 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.
"People are afraid to spend money"

Or are they afraid to spend money
they still don't have and/or banks are not willing
to lend them because those banks are too concerned
about their own liquidity?

If it is so important to get money spent now
why is so much of the package for spending
that wouldn't happened until 2010 or 2011?

What if people never the less  persist
in putting aside more than 1% of their earnings as savings,
( I heard concern on NPR because it has now risen
to slightly over 2%)?

For years Iíve heard dire warnings about people living
beyond their means, (for example, a good or bad percentage of Boomers
even with Social Security not having enough to live on in retirement).
Now we want to encourage it.


.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (02-06-2009 09:14 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


45 posted 02-07-2009 12:05 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
If it is so important to get money spent now
why is so much of the package for spending
that wouldn't happened until 2010 or 2011?

Sigh. Because, John, it's not about the government spending what is essentially a little bit of money. It is, rather, about the government setting an example and convincing the population it's safe for them to spend what everyone hopes will, in the aggregate, be a whole lot more money in a much more immediate time span.

The government cannot buy the country out of a deep recession. At best they can delay it. The people, on the other hand, might just be able to turn a bad recession into a milder one.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


46 posted 02-10-2009 06:37 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

"Sigh. Because, John, it's not about the government spending what is essentially a little bit of money. It is, rather, about the government setting an example and convincing the population it's safe for them to spend what everyone hopes will, in the aggregate, be a whole lot more money in a much more immediate time span."


Sigh . . .are they afraid to spend money
they still don't have and/or banks are not willing
to lend them because those banks are too concerned
about their own liquidity?  . . .

What if people never the less  persist
in putting aside more than 1% of their earnings as savings,
( I heard concern on NPR because it has now risen
to slightly over 2%)?

And how is Obama's new fear over hope style
helping confidence?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


47 posted 02-10-2009 07:39 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The Congressional Budget Office, which is non-partisan, believes the package will ultimately cause more harm than good.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long -haul/

This chart is very interesting..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


48 posted 02-10-2009 10:18 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Sigh . . .are they afraid to spend money
they still don't have and/or banks are not willing
to lend them because those banks are too concerned
about their own liquidity?


Bingo!

quote:
What if people never the less  persist
in putting aside more than 1% of their earnings as savings ...

In my opinion, John, that will be a good thing in the long run. Before we can get to a long run, however, we have to get through the short one.

quote:
The Congressional Budget Office, which is non-partisan, believes the package will ultimately cause more harm than good.

Duh? Did somebody not already know that, Mike?

Of course, that's not quite what the CBO said, either. There's a subtle difference between "hurt the economy more in the long run that if he were to do nothing" and "more harm than good." I don't see how there can be any doubt in anyone's mind that running up the national debt isn't, in the long run, a very bad thing. It was a bad thing when we spent nearly $600 billion dollars in Iraq, and it will be a bad thing when we spend that and half again as much to stimulate the economy. Excessive debt is not a good thing.

In the long run, we desperately need to balance the budget and pay down the national debt. But, as I said to John, we have to get through the short run before we can chart a course through the long run. The CBO, in that article, was also clear that -- in the short run -- the stimulus package will likely produce a positive return.

"The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent."

Don't get me wrong, guys. Philosophically, I have always come down on the side of "hard love." I think when someone screws up they have to pay the consequences. I believe that every attempt to escape those consequences inevitably costs even more. I am not personally in favor of a stimulus package, nor do I think it's going to work. I say that, however, with what I think is a good understanding of what "pay the consequences" is ultimately going to mean. People are going to find themselves homeless in record numbers. People are going to starve. People are going to die. In the Midwest, it's already happening. For many, many families this is going to go far beyond tightening the belt, well into the realm of tightening the noose. I honestly don't think we can escape that.

I'm willing, however, to let our government prove me wrong. The stimulus package may be able to buy us a few years. When you see someone going over Niagara Falls, throwing them a life preserver seems pretty futile.

You still have to throw it.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


49 posted 02-10-2009 10:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I remember when I was in 7th grade when you bought a marshmellow cup there was a card with a cartoon and a cute saying inside the package.

One was a picture of a man who had just jumped off the roof of a tall building and, halfway down, said "So far, not so bad at all!" The caption on the bottom read, BE AN OPTIMIST!

Somehow I'm reminded of that card about now....


Really, Mike? Why, then, do you suppose so much of the bill is devoted to tax cuts? Isn't it something like a third of the money?

It appears you were misled by the Democratic claims, also, since the chart shows the actual tax cuts in the package barely over one fifth.
 
  Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Is the New Bill Stimulating or Pork?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors