The Stimulus Package
 

I'm in no way endorsing Glenn Beck here, as I think he can go off the deep end at times (but he is more open minded than most pundits), but I have to say he hit the nail on the head with this one. The discussion between him and Dennis Kuscinich was a good one, and a healthy one.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

I wish it was a bacon stimulus package because I love bacon. Mmm bacon. I think I would be more happy that way too.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

I want to bump this thread because yeah...155 federal programs. I think the stimulus package is kind of a joke. And I don't know much about politics especially in regards to taxes, but I agree that the best way to stimulate the economy is to let the people keep their money...and not increase taxes. This is frightening times for the US economy.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Economics interest the hell out of me.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Here's the problem as the refunds last year proved and well the last few months have proven.

In a time of crisis, people are less likely to spend their money instead they either save it in the bank or pay off their bills. Neither of which helps to stimulate the economy.

And from what I gathered (I haven't been following this bill too closely) is that its a mix of what Democrats and Republicans want and its getting so half assed on both sides that it really won't help much.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

I agree, it won't help at all. The main points that were made in the clip above were that while proponents are rushing this bill, most of the spending in the bill doesn't take place until 2010 or beyond.

Another issue I have with it is that it creates work, not necessarily business. Government replaces jobs, it doesn't create them, and from a tax view its a "loss leader" never taking in as much as it puts out. This was the same downfall of The New Deal. Government work programs in the 30's reduced unemployment from 30% to about 15-18%, but in the end when the work was done, there was NO BUSINESS left over to keep the existing jobs or create new ones. Unemployment went back up again, peaking at almost 20% after 8 years of The New Deal. Only a world war got us out of it.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_4615461...epression.html

The "Stimulus Package" is not what it claims to be, its an attempt to transform our economy and not kick start it, and if the proponents believe that the nature of our economy needs to be transformed we should have a discussion with the true intentions of both sides clear for all to understand.

The current bill is Machiavellian in the truest sense of the word, and a HUGE political mistake now that the thin veneer has been stripped from it.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

So I am curious what do you recommend.
I only look at it in a small scale sense really since don't follow politics that much.

But I could see how focusing part of it on stuff like infracstructure creates instant jobs and helps us out over the long haul.
Investing money in education and alternative energy... I see the education but alternative energy only helps those researching it now unless there is some major breakthrough won't help many people in the immediate time.
Tax cuts... I could see why its wanted, but as this holiday season proved, it is difficult for people to spend as freely as they usually do when the country is in a bind. It also doesn't help that even after the bailout banks still are rather tight with their loaning.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Well BaB, since you asked...

1) Yes, rebuild the infrastructure and invest in it, but make sure it's PRIVATE companies doing it and actually have OVERSIGHT and legitimate BIDDING for the projects. Private companies create jobs, unlike the government that just creates work. Right now infrastructure is a miniscule percentage of the overall stimulus.

2) A poor person never hired anyone. Lower and middle classes consume opportunities. The very wealthy create them. Sounds like just another evil conservative greedily eating up tax breaks, but ask any construction workers how much they're working right now, and the reason why're not working is because there are no new houses, no decks or porches being built and no pools being installed. Jobs are created by investment. The wealthy purchase/invest in things that create wealth not just for themselves but also others, and when the wealthy get hit hard, the lower and middle classes SUFFER. As we can see, its hard to argue that trickle down economics works when the chips are down.

- Immediately cut income taxes on those who PAY THEM, but with those making over $200k a year only receiving tax breaks if they are BUSINESS RELATED. Meaning: Tax breaks for job creation, expansion, internal investment, etc. DO NOT RAISE TAXES ON ANYONE. Thats stupidity.

Eventually when the economy recovers, install a flat tax so everyone pays the same percentage above 30k, but eliminate tax shelters AND most marginal taxes. Tax laws are far too complicated and they allow those with the education, resources and money to avoid paying taxes while new wealth gets hit hard because they don't know the tricks, so the rich stay rich and new wealth has a hard time keeping it. Make taxes simple, manageable and FAIR. And by eliminating the IRS we'll have a lot of accountants available to more oversight...

- Have a one+ year capital gains holiday, and in 2011 reduce the level of captial gains tazes to no more than 10%. Gapital gains are return on investments, and right now we need to ENCOURAGE investment. And as Charlie Gibson pointed out in this interview with Barack Obama, cutting capital gains taxes actually INCREASES tax revenues to the government. Its a win-win with not much thinking involved.

- Eliminate the estate taxes... PERMANENTLY. They destroy wealth, most importantly they destroy rising wealth, and if you want to know why I wrote a detailed explanation in another post recently. We want to grow wealth at this time, and not destroy it. Besides, it taxes the same wealth twice, which is immoral and IMO unconstitutional.

- To make up for some lost revenue, increase tariffs on incoming goods, coupled with a tax benefit to companies who create manufacturing jobs.

- Create more union oversight and ala Teddy Roposevelt have the government mediate union and company disagreements. Unions are KILLING us in world competition, especially in the automotive sector, and there needs to be a fair and equitable resolution. No one should make $50 an hour to screw it 4 nuts on the door. The reason why we can't compete with foreign companies when it comes to smaller cars isn't incompetence, its LEGACY, not tp mention the fact that Americans just like big cars but they are essentially forced to create small ones that no one buys and they don't profit on.

- Create regulatory oversight, not DIRECTION. There is a difference. The government is just as culpable if not more so for the housing crisis. Fannie Mae was essentially paid to buy bad loans and the Community Reinvestment Act twisted the arms of lenders to create mortgage products for buyer who couldn't afford to buy. Greed was a part of this too once the ball started rolling, but without the governments interference those loan products likely would have never existed.

The next debacle I see is the Green boom that is busting, but the government wants to make more and more mandates for things most consumers don't care that much about. Green is too expensive and sales of hybrids have plummetted since the economy went in to recession. Don't try and make companies sell steak when the world can only afford ground chuck.

That said, we need to regulate the WEALTH, not the business. Seaparate mortgages from securities and never allow them to be sold like stocks again. There were too many spoons dipping into the communal pot, and they didn;t know what they were purchasing.

- We need to let companies fail as well. The last bailout gave billions to companies with no strings attached. There have to be strings and a proposal that is accepted if they're getting public money, and if a company is a bad investment, its never too big to fail. AIG should die as most economists admit its a complete mess. We shouldn't continue to enable FAILURE, especially when we don't even require them to earn our trust before we habd them billions.

- All stimulus should directly allow people to keep more of their money, and all spending should extend unemployment benefits, enable private companies, mainly small businesses to invest in themselves through interest free loans that are potentially forgiveable if they hit various benchmarks in expansion.

- For one year allow individuals to refinance trouble loans at 6% interest.

There's more, but I'm tired and hungry. :D

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

I'd like to read the bill in full. Is there a link available (can't search right now)?

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

If you really want to:

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/...ll01-15-09.pdf

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Here is the estimate from the CBO in terms of outlays based on the stimulus package.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/stimsummary.pdf

Here is the full estimate

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9976/hr1aspassed.pdf

The funny part is that The Huffington Post cites this estimate, but in the article that links it, they claim it doesn't exist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_160495.html

They're reasoning is that its not an official report and it only analyzes about $300 Billion of $800 Billion, and its just a preliminary estimate based on computer models. Honestly, its $300 Billion of absolute shit scheduled for 2010, not 2009. Huffington is simply throwing up a red herring because of thsi report's inconvenience.

If anything, this goes to prove a point: Government is simply not responsive enough to handle immediate needs. This is why it can never replace the private sector and fails almost evey time it attempts to do so.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

One day I shall decipher the Professor's post and respond to it, but here is a bit more on the pre-Obama stimulus/bailout

I think the salary cap is both good and bad as it in some ways doesn't encourage people to work harder if they know they are going to hit a glass ceiling. While on the other hand since the gov't is paying these companies it makes sense to have some regulations.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Another downside is that the companies that need the most help won't be able to compete for the best high level talent.

An interesting side note is that the same thing was tried during the Great Depression, and it didn't work then either. In fact, it's how employer based healthcare and other benefits were included as part of someone's compensation, because companies literally could not give raises. The more I hear of the plans for stimulus, the more I see us repeating bad policies based on anger and spire, not a wish for success, and those policies extended a previous pitiful economy in the 30's and again in the 70's.

I empathize with the outrage to these bonuses, but after thinking about it over the long haul, I think controlling executive compensation has the potential to do far more harm to these already damaged companies and ecomomy than good.

I think there needs to be oversight and regulation of companies that received government money, but it should be based on their ability to meet payment and peformance benchmarks, not whether they gave out performance bonuses. If these companies that are in dire straits always have inferior talent, they'll never dig themselves out of the hole.

The stimulus should be about learning from previous mistakes and rebuilding the economy, not punishing businesses because of perceived moral indescretions. If you want to punish these individuals, do it throught the legal system, and there are plenty of people who caused this mess that deserve to be prosecuted.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

The top 1% of the Population in the United States has 40% of the countries wealth. We need to bring back the 70% tax bracket so we can spread this wealth around, and create more equality.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Question: We had 70% tax rates before (even higher, in fact) under FDR and Carter. How did those rates work out for the economy during their presidencies?

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Not nearly as terrible as the Bush tax-cuts turned out now...maybe dont raise it right now, but after the economy recovers a little we need to spread this wealth around, instead of just letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Carter was an underrated president, he actually did a lot of good for our country.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Not as bad as the Bush created economy? Really? Unemplyment under FDR never went below 14% and averaged well over 20% for all 8 years before WWII. Inflation rates under Carter were at double digits.

I'm not saying that Bush's toleration of harmful regulations and non-existant oversight were good in the end, but lets have some perspective.

How so? (Honest question)

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Carter did wonderful things for human rights all around the world, and had a very good foreign policy. He was also an advocate for gay rights, and did good things for the environment.

But you probably wouldnt understand any of this, you being a gas guzzling gay hating nascar watching truck driving Republican.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

That was a little harsh. Why all the hate?

Well-intentioned people can disagree.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

His foreign policy led to a complete mess in the Israel/Palestinian relationship, he backed the Ayatollah against the Shah in Iran that helped lead to the creating of Hamas and Hezbollah and Russia invaded Afghanistan even after Carter tried to appease them. Miserable Fail.

Environment? Maybe he tried, but inevitably failed because his plans dictated to business instead of working with buiness. He also backed rediculous ideas like photo-voltaic cells that are STILL too inefficient and expensive to be a viable energy alternative. Trying to succeed and good intentions does not equal success. Fail.

Gay rights? I agree.

1) My car gets 28mpg

2) I support gay marriage and gay rights. I believe its a civil rights issue not unlike that of the 60's and one of my best friends from high school and college is gay. You're the one in this conversation that has exhibited prejudice and blind hatred, not me.

3) I've watched about 3 minutes of Nascar in the last 10 years.

4) I don't own a truck

5) I am a Republican, so you got one right. Good for you. :drool:

Honestly, these opinions of yours just show that you listen to no one else but yourself. I've posted about gay rights numerous times on these forums, yet you just hand out blanket accusations because of my party affiliation. Everything is good vs. evil. You don't think or bother to inform yourself about anything you speak about and I'm sure you embarrass others that sympathize to your world view.

In the end, your ignorance and hate don't even bother me anymore. All I have to do is ask you questions and let you humiliate yourself. In the end, its more pathetic and sad than irritating.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

They also give a lot of people jobs/support a large portion of the economy/contribute to the government etc.

You need people with money to employ people without money, at least that's my basic understanding (and believe me I have minimal understanding) of economy.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Thats is an inconvenient truth for many people. My dad's small construction business is a perfect example of how the system works:

He is middle income and employs about 5-10 people at a time depending on the level of business he has, but his work comes from very wealthy people and large organizations/corporations.

When the wealthy get hit, they stop building new houses, additions, patios, etc. so there is no work for him to do. When the wealthy are not building or expaninding their businesses/homes he has no work, so he is forced to lay off his emplayees, who have been on unemployment since late November. They are out of work because my dad is out of work. Soemtimes I feel like people think businesses WANT to layoff workers. This is not the case as its usually a bad sign for the company as a whole.

Now if we adopt the ethic that wealthy people are the problem and then apply punitive economic measures against them, its takes them that much longer to get back to the level where they can reinvest and create more work, so its takes forever for the economy as a whole to recover, or in the case of FDR's New Deal, it takes a worldwide transformative disaster for it to recover.

This doesn't just affect construction, either. Its affects marketing, advertising, retail, manufactuting (nothing sells, why build more?) and more. Its all interconnected and WE are all interconnected. This idea of us vs. them has to end because we are all part of each other's success. Every time in out history that we've had punitive tax rates for the wealthy we have ALL suffered, and suffered for extended periods of time.

Contempt for wealth will never build it.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/doc...nal_State1.pdf

A breakdown down, state by state on how this bill will help.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Okay, while I currently don't have time to fully research this bill, from what I do know (which is limited) I am starting to feel sick.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

I'm not becoming a big fan of this "stimulus" either. It feels like I'm hearing the same propaganda that Bush's administration said the first time they wanted the bailout. "Pass it or we're doomed!" to sum it up from Bush's end. Now from Obama's end it's becoming "Pass it or the recession never ends! DOOM!"

Seriously, STFU and drop the non-stimulus bullshit. In fact, just drop it altogether. The economy will recover, it's just needing time instead of just band-aids. Hell, Obama is just not on the right track even after voting for him.

Voting to delay the DTV transition was downright stupid as hell. People will transition once you cut it off. If not, they had AMPLE warning. Hell, I only see a transition ad every 10 minutes anymore. Unless your blind and deaf, you ARE aware. YOU choose to wait. TV is not a right, it's a privilege.

Now the "This might be a stimulus" plan is souring on me too with the useless BS I already discussed above.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

I think some people doubt the resiliency of the American economy, as long as it is allowed to follow natural courses. We've had bad recessions before, and we'll have them again.

Working in the Real Estate industry, I can tell you one of the biggest enemies of economic progress is uncertainty. Before the market crash, all I heard was how there were home buyers out on the market, but they were waiting to see how low interest rates would go and if the Fed would drop rates again (nevermind the fact that the rates the Fed dropped had little to no effect on mortagages). Afterv August, it didn't matter anymore as everyone was scared to death. Things appear to be getting better now, though. A lot of realtors I have talked to have said showing and interest have gone up quite a bit.

Our economy needs decisiveness and direction, and has needed it for some time. If the government had made bold statements regarding what they will and will not do and gave the current bill any real focus, the wheels of undustry may have started turning earlier. Companies are frozen, wondering what the hell is going on in Washington. No one wants to make a move until they know what canvass they'll be asked to paint on.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

http://cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15159

If nothing else... this man would be fun to listen to.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

What frustrates me is that President Obama keeps talking about bipartisanship, but then makes a hard left turn and essentially states "Bipartisanship mean just do what we tell you to". He talks about what the American people call for, yet ignores the massive and growing public opposition to this bill, and then tries to scare them to death by threatening them with a depression if we don't rush in a spending bill (he called it as much)

To me, he has betrayed his campaign promises and its only week 3.
So much for change.

Lindsay Graham is my hero of the week. I tried to find his whole speech from the senate floor, but this clipped version was the best I could find. The part they skipped that I would include is when he said he WANTED to spend to help stimulate the economy, but that this was not the right kind of spending.




This clip from Hardball is more detailed in his views

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Obama tried Bi-partisanship, but there are way too many republicans who are just too stubborn and stupid to possibly agree with anything the Democrats are trying to do to help. Now, the Republicans are being cry babies, sore losers if you will, and making the entire country suffer in the process. Obama actually cares about the American people, thats why he has gotten a little more firm, effectivley stating "look, I won the election, the american people voted for me, and this is what im going to do and I'll get it done wether I have 1 republican supporting me or 35. Real people are suffering too much to delay this any longer, the priority is getting the bill passed, not getting 100% republican approval"

Bottem line republicans really only care about themselves and the rich.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

I think you may have made some generalizations there.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

That made me laugh so hard I literally cried.

And Jason, I understand what Obama wants to do and his world view. The problem is that the American people diagree with him in this case.

My question is this: If the public hates this bill, and they keep on hating it more and more as time goes on, if you look at the polls. Knowing this, should Obama still push it through?

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Where are you getting this information that the public hates this bill? Last I heard support had slipped some since a month ago, I'll admit that, but the numbers I saw last were 51% approve and I think 29 or 39% dissaprove, with the rest I'm assuming undecided. Thats still majority supporting it.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

According to Rasmussen Reports Americans oppose the Stimulus Package 37-43%.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Ron Paul on the compromise stimulus bill:

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

This whole thread is just funny to me. Starting it with a video from fake news.. I mean fox news first already put it on the wrong foot. From what I know, here are a few pieces of truth.

1) Republican's answer for this financial situation is to have more tax cuts. We watched Bush do tax cut after tax cut after tax cut, and we see how perfectly it worked. If it were up to the republicans we'd get down to 0% tax before they start thinking logically. Tax cuts and giving out free cash to spend to the public does not help the economy, it hurts it.

2) Jason is right to an extent, the republicans do NOT want to play ball with the democrats. As much as Obama is sucking up to them, they truly have no intention of buying into his agenda. NOT because the fact that what he's doing may be bad for hte country in the long run, but because they need something to stand on politically. The fact is Obama could come up with a stimulus package that looked like it was written by the heads of the GOP themselves, it could be exactly what they think the country needs, and they'd still reject it for political reasons. They dont' give a shit about the country, they want to have a chance in the next elections..

Which brings me to my third point...

3) The republican party right now is stuck. By them being such a small minority now, with having such a high approval rating president, they have to be a bit more wise about how they go about voting.

They could sit back and cock block and vote against the stimulus packages that Obama comes up with, and not allow it to pass. If they do this, and the economy gets worse, they will get blamed soley for every problem that happens. Especially considering Obama reached out to them to help them mold the package, they'd be an easy scapegoat for any issues. "We tried to fix things, but they didn't want to help."

I really don't think they have a choice but to go with it in the end. Even though they're talking a lot (since Obama empowered them), it'd be a political nightmare for the party if they fight it.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

By the way, the whole "its not a stimulus, its a spending bill" makes no sense whatsoever. That talking point is just a very retarded play on words to make people think its bad. I dare someone give real reasoning to why that bill isn't a stimulus package. Yes it has spending, like every stimulus package in history. And yes its purpose is to help stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Could you please elaborate on your view that tax cuts hurt the economy? Also, do you believe, in reverse, that tax increases help the economy?

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Well, he is right in the sense that we've gone through it a bit recently, and aren't in the best condition.

And as stated before, the middle/lower class are less likely to spend the money they get back instead using it to save or pay off debt.

Now the concept is giving larger companies tax breaks will allow them to invest in more jobs and stuff, but there has to be a demand for their product or service and if the lower/middle class people aren't buying that chews up a lot of your potential audience.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

As GAME said, we have had tax cuts for the last 8 years and look where it's got us. Republicans for some reason think Tax cuts will magically fix all our problems, and that couldnt be further from the truth.

Re: The Stimulus Package
 

Did you bother to listen to anything said in the first clip? Pay attention to any of the content? What about the other opinions in it? It looks like Fox isn;t the only one that is guilty of bias...

Most of the Republicans aren't calling for just tax cuts, they also want spending, but they want it aimed at stimulating the economy, and not attempting to replace it. Its a disingenuous argument and its democrats that are abusing this place and time in history to force through a plan with fear and not ideas

If you want to talk about spending plans, then it should be a discussion for appropriations, not stimulus. Its flat out dishonest.

I should remind you that 11 democrats voted againt this bill in the House. I'd also challenge you to find a Republican who still believes in handing out "free cash" as you put it. In fact, the "free cash" is integral to Obama's tax plan, not the Republicans.

I find it surprising that you would make these gross accusations and you are one of the people who are arguing on this bill without mentioning any of its content. Do you even know what is in this bill, or are are you just upset that the opposition hasn't simply handed the King his crown? Do you really believe that only one side holds the vanguard of honest discussion and debate? Is it possible that Republicans could be against this bill because they believe it would truly harm out nation?

Actually, if you look at polls this is one of the best things to happen to Republicans in a long time. The PEOPLE don't like this bill, and they don;t like it because its garbage.

What comprimise did Obama make? He talked to Republicans about his views, and that was that. No Republican was invited to help shape the bill in the least. Even Clinton and Reagan worked hand in hand with the oppositon party to shape important bills like this. Obama has done NOTHING similar beside make bold statements and expect everyone simply to do as he says, and when they disagree, accuse them of partisanship.

They likely will pass this vote, but when they do the bill will have been stripped down a bit and in the end thats a good thing.

And you seem to be very strongly behind this bill. Why?