And now it's in the Senate

[Glafna]

Re-read my post. I did not say, nor infer that. My comment was used to make a point that something needs to be done before things get that bad.

Its not hysteria... Maybe you need to take off the rose-colored glasses

Gotta Reiterate....

Where are the sources justapixel, WHERE ARE THE SOURCES???????

 

[Kulindahr]

He can't fit them into just one pixel.

 

[NickCole]

This Stimulus bill is a disaster.

There aren't enough votes in the Senate to pass it so Dems are going to compromise with Republicans to get more votes. That means more tax cuts or less spending. Getting rid of the education and NEA and all the rest of the non-stimulus stuff is good but it should be replaced with real stimulus items. It needs to be big or it won't have an impact.

The problem with the plan is it isn't a cohesive principled plan -- of course it isn't because Obama is not a principled man. They can do all the monkeying around with it they want but the more piecemeal they make it the worse it'll be. It needs to be big, at least a trillion, bold and precise.

Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress are screwing this up exactly as I said they would. I called for a cohesive plan back during the General Election, said Obama should be pressed to tell us what his plan was, and Obama supporters said wait til he's in office. Okay, what are we waiting for now? Because this is a genuine crisis that's deepening, they get one shot at this part of it. Where's the leadership? Where's the great plan we need?

 

[NickCole]

People who know something about economics to discuss the matter. You know, people who aren't you. As you've said, you're just some guy voicing his (uninformed) opinion on a gay message board... you seem to be taking yourself and that opinion of yours far too seriously.

That bill is a result of politics, not principle that's discussed among people who know something about economics. Nobody who knows something about economics recommended a bill that looks like that.

It's shit.

It doesn't even meet Larry Summers' criteria of what an economic stimulus bill should be!

People who know something about economics have been discussing "the matter" for many weeks now. Opinions have been formed. It's beyond that stage now. Now it's Republicans and Democrats arguing about which way to go. It's politics as usual, just what Obama promised would end. Where's his leadership in creating the bill and getting it through? Where's Obama? He's at an elementary school chatting with children or pleading "I screwed up" in nominating tax cheaters to high level positions.

 

[HenryReardon]

How does $150 billion for education help kick the economy back into gear?
The only way it would be relevant if it's for deferred maintenance, which would help cut costs for local districts.

Can't find the link at the moment, but the education portion includes $70 or so million for a school district in the midwest that

a) has 14 vacant buildings
and
b) has no plans for new construction.

Just another handout to reward a politician, or so it would seem.

 

[NickCole]

Can't find the link at the moment, but the education portion includes $70 or so million for a school district in the midwest that

a) has 14 vacant buildings
and
b) has no plans for new construction.

Just another handout to reward a politician, or so it would seem.

The whole education portion should be removed.

 

[NickCole]

NickCole, so you like to believe, but for me economics isn't a matter of faith and spin. If you have any knowledge of these so-called "principles" you like to harp on about, why don't your absolutism prove itself? I eagerly await your learned insight on the matter, since you talk such a big game.

I've outlined in detail what I think should be done, and argued it. I'm not going into all that detail now, and certainly not with you. With you it's not worth the trouble.

 

[HenryReardon]

The whole education portion should be removed.

No argument there. WHy throw good money after bad.
Need to revamp education first - especially find some way to reward the good teachers and get rid of the bad. Teachers unions don't like that, but too bad. They don't like merit pay for teachers either.

 

[NickCole]

No argument there. WHy throw good money after bad.
Need to revamp education first - especially find some way to reward the good teachers and get rid of the bad. Teachers unions don't like that, but too bad. They don't like merit pay for teachers either.

I agree education --in particular the role the Fed plays in it-- needs to be revamped. That requires study, debate, and ultimately a principled coherent consistent approach. Packing an undebated huge education program into the stimulus plan was just plain sneaky and wrong.

But back to the topic, I suspect you and I disagree about what the stimulus bill should be? I think it should have virtually no tax cuts in it and should be potent with job creation, infrastructure works programs and private sector development (green energy, etc). You?

 

[HenryReardon]

I agree education --in particular the role the Fed plays in it-- needs to be revamped. That requires study, debate, and ultimately a principled coherent consistent approach. Packing an undebated huge education program into the stimulus plan was just plain sneaky and wrong.

But back to the topic, I suspect you and I disagree about what the stimulus bill should be? I think it should have virtually no tax cuts in it and should be potent with job creation, infrastructure works programs and private sector development (green energy, etc). You?

For one thing it needs to get money in two places -

1 - into the hands of people that spend it - for an immediate jump start of the economy

2 - into the hands of people that will use it to create jobs

Much of the crap in the bill is long term - won't kick in for a year or more - and of dubious distinction in the first place. In other words, ear marks and pork.

I like the idea that Neal Boortz came up with during the auto bailout - give taxpayers a voucher good for XXX dollars toward the purchase of a new car - good at any dealer of the big three, and let them vote with their pocketbooks.

That would certainly have kept GM from sending $1 bil of their bail money to Brazil for investment. As a long time Ford driver I'm glad Ford turned the govt down - or at least they had last time I looked.

As for infrastructure work - do you have any idea how long it takes to get any government project off the ground? The paperwork alone could take years.

 

[NickCole]

For one thing it needs to get money in two places -

1 - into the hands of people that spend it - for an immediate jump start of the economy

2 - into the hands of people that will use it to create jobs

Much of the crap in the bill is long term - won't kick in for a year or more - and of dubious distinction in the first place. In other words, ear marks and pork.

I like the idea that Neal Boortz came up with during the auto bailout - give taxpayers a voucher good for XXX dollars toward the purchase of a new car - good at any dealer of the big three, and let them vote with their pocketbooks.

That would certainly have kept GM from sending $1 bil of their bail money to Brazil for investment. As a long time Ford driver I'm glad Ford turned the govt down - or at least they had last time I looked.

As for infrastructure work - do you have any idea how long it takes to get any government project off the ground? The paperwork alone could take years.

We agree more than I thought.

I agree the package needs lots of quick effect but there's nothing wrong with long term effect as well. I don't have a list of specifics, that's what I'd hoped the "experts" would come up with, like when I suggested Obama use the Small Business Administration to figure out where to spread money in private businesses that'd be effective. Like you, my bf really liked Boortz's idea for car vouchers. I'm less enthusiastic about it but not totally opposed to it. With infrastructure, some towns and cities do have projects ready or nearly ready for work but haven't had the money to commit -- I know the town where we have a weekend house has a number of projects that've been planned and approved and are just waiting for money in the budget, and that may be true in lots of places around the country.

Anyway, I think the bill should be as big as possible but agree with you that it should be without pork and without non-stimulus programs. And then I think the administration and Congress should continue to work diligently to come up with new ways to stimulate the economy and submit new stimulus bills.

 

[HenryReardon]

We agree more than I thought.

I agree the package needs lots of quick effect but there's nothing wrong with long term effect as well. I don't have a list of specifics, that's what I'd hoped the "experts" would come up with, like when I suggested Obama use the Small Business Administration to figure out where to spread money in private businesses that'd be effective. Like you, my bf really liked Boortz's idea for car vouchers. I'm less enthusiastic about it but not totally opposed to it. With infrastructure, some towns and cities do have projects ready or nearly ready for work but haven't had the money to commit -- I know the town where we have a weekend house has a number of projects that've been planned and approved and are just waiting for money in the budget, and that may be true in lots of places around the country.

Anyway, I think the bill should be as big as possible but agree with you that it should be without pork and without non-stimulus programs. And then I think the administration and Congress should continue to work diligently to come up with new ways to stimulate the economy and submit new stimulus bills.

I hope they have sense enough to remove all those billions for ACORN that are in the current bill. Acorn is under investigation in how many states???

 

[NickCole]

I hope they have sense enough to remove all those billions for ACORN that are in the current bill. Acorn is under investigation in how many states???

I don't know if it's billions for ACORN specifically but I definitely agree with you!

 

[HenryReardon]

I don't know if it's billions for ACORN specifically but I definitely agree with you!

I don't care if it's 3 billion 3 million or 3 cents - it's too much.

 

[Glafna]

I don't care if it's 3 billion 3 million or 3 cents - it's too much.

The problem is that even though it's good matured, people abuse it to make money, like with quite a few government funded projects. I say, have the government put in a decent amount, then have the politicians who support it match the amount.

Doubt it would work though, since politicians are paid sssooo little.

 

[Kulindahr]

As for infrastructure work - do you have any idea how long it takes to get any government project off the ground? The paperwork alone could take years.

That depends on how it's approached. It would be simple enough to ask each state to nominate road/highway projects already on the boards, but waiting for funding, and tap the top three in each state. Then ask each state capital for a list of deferred maintenance work -- streets, sewers, bicycle paths, bridges, etc. -- and start assigning funds to projects.

Oregon has several hundred million worth of needed highway improvements. Since we're not a really populous state, my bet is that if every state threw their lists in the hopper, the choke point wouldn't be the paperwork, but having enough workers to handle the construction.

 

[NickCole]

It sounds like Obama is finally trying to talk tough. I hope it's not more of his Just Words, I hope there's something behind it because solid leadership on this economic stimulus bill is what's desperately needed.

This bill is bad and it's getting worse.

Instead of an overwhelming fiscal stimulus, they're creating a bill that's too small, too wasteful and too wrongly-focused.

And Obama's piece-meal policy concerning the banks continues to be troubling. Tacking on a salary cap yesterday, clearly not as a principled action (if it'd been principled he'd have done it days before, back when he'd thought Just Words, "shameful!", would be enough) but rather as a reaction to criticism through the media. That's a bad sign. But the real problem is bigger. Instead of bold coherent action to recapitalize banks, which means public control of insolvent banks, at least temporarily, Obama clings to the Paulson policy of bailing out those with “toxic assets."

 

[NickCole]

You see, this is troubling.

Collins and Nelson are working together to draft a bill that could cut as much as $200 billion in questionable items from the stimulus package. It's a work in progress with no hard numbers or details just yet on which things would be eliminated. We're told there are more than 20 other senators working on this effort.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/04/1780795.aspx

Obama is not leading, he's being led. Willfully. And it goes back to my criticism and warning about him not being a man of principle. He doesn't have a principle to offer and he doesn't know how to commit to someone else's. He's willing to cede negotiation of this monumentally important plan to a group of 20 or so Senators, which is no different from his position from the beginning, with statements like, “I want this to work. This is not an intellectual exercise, and there’s no pride of authorship. If somebody has an idea for a tax cut that’s better than we’ve proposed, then we’ll embrace it," he said at the beginning of January. It's one thing to collect good ideas and formulate a principled cohesive policy and bill; it's something very different to hand it over to a committee and let them slice and dice the bill to compromise a fit between completely different points of view.

Meanwhile, Gregg has recused himself from voting on the stimulus bill, which is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton showed up for votes while her SoS nomination was being considered; no reason Gregg couldn't.

And Jim Cooper is bragging that the Obama administration encouraged him to oppose the current size of the stimulus.

And I see it across the blogisphere, and here, Obama supporters don't know what to do because they're not being told. After very clear action alerts directing them during the campaign, he's left them without direction about the stimulus bill and they're pathetic lost sheep.

 

[NickCole]

While those jackasses in Washington monkey around, our economy is melting.

Initial jobless claims rose 35,000 to a seasonally adjusted 626,000 in the week ended Jan. 31, the Labor Department reported. This put the number at the highest level in 26 years.

Meanwhile, the four-week average of new claims rose by 39,000 to 582,250. The four-week average draws the attention of economists and investors because it smoothes out distortions caused by bad weather, strikes or the timing of holidays. It is now at the highest level since Dec. 4, 1982.

Continuing jobless claims rose by 20,000 in the week ended Jan. 24 to a seasonally adjusted 4.79 million, the most since the government's records began in 1967.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...FEAD-1798-4EF1-B08F-B2857FECD580}&dist=msr_17

The January employment report will be released tomorrow with probably another half million job losses for the third consecutive month.

Come on Obama and Democrats, the ball is in your court. Let's go!

 

[opinterph]

Meanwhile, Gregg has recused himself from voting on the stimulus bill, which is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton showed up for votes while her SoS nomination was being considered; no reason Gregg couldn't.

I tried to find more information about Senator Gregg’s reasoning for recusing himself. There isn’t anything on his official website and not much anywhere else (that I can find). I noticed that he cited Joe Biden as an example of this decision and yet I cannot find any information to substantiate that then-Senator Biden actually announced his intent to recuse himself – even during the short period of his service in the 111th Congress.

February 4, 2009

Gregg said he will probably recuse himself from all work on legislation and all votes while he remains in the Senate. He said that Vice President Joe Biden recused himself, "and I might take that approach also. I haven't made a final decision." [Link]