The Democrat Thread

[Rex Kickass]

The "bailout", as in TARP, was not only a necessity, but it was one of the more successful programs the government put in place in recent memory. They allocated $750B, used only about $200B, have gotten back almost $150B of that with interest, and will probably only have a final cost of around $40B last I looked. And considering the dire consequences of inaction, that was highly worth it.

 

Now the Stim bill, on the other hand, was poorly executed and a huge wasted opportunity.

 

Stim bills are always seen as poorly executed - because a good stim bill tends to phase in progress. This one did that, it just unfortunately wasn't quite big enough in actual spending for jobs.

[NorthSideSox72]

And yet, all things considered...it's been remarkably successful at pushing back the onset of deflation by nearly a year and a half.

 

 

Stim bills are always seen as poorly executed - because a good stim bill tends to phase in progress. This one did that, it just unfortunately wasn't quite big enough in actual spending for jobs.

 

Note that I said "poorly executed", not that it was a bad idea generally. Yes, it phased things in. Yes, the cash influx helped stave off deflation, though I am not 100% sure that was as big a danger as it was hyped to be.

 

Poorly executed means the details weren't well done. You could have had both those benefits AND built something more sustainable, if the stim bill had less emphasis on temporary construction jobs and more on long term business efforts.

 

[Balta1701]

Poorly executed means the details weren't well done. You could have had both those benefits AND built something more sustainable, if the stim bill had less emphasis on temporary construction jobs and more on long term business efforts.

And of course...the question is...could that have gotten through the Senate? (no).

[Jenksismyhero]

The "bailout", as in TARP, was not only a necessity, but it was one of the more successful programs the government put in place in recent memory. They allocated $750B, used only about $200B, have gotten back almost $150B of that with interest, and will probably only have a final cost of around $40B last I looked. And considering the dire consequences of inaction, that was highly worth it.

 

Now the Stim bill, on the other hand, was poorly executed and a huge wasted opportunity.

 

My issue with the bailout was the fact that they pushed it through without thinking. They basically said, ok wall street, you really f***ed yourself (and the country in the process), so we're going to bail you out. But there was no step 2 in the planning. They could have used that opportunity to set some major reforms and requirements to get that money, but instead it was short-term loans and then back to business as usual, especially for the biggest financial institutions in the country.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

My issue with the bailout was the fact that they pushed it through without thinking. They basically said, ok wall street, you really f***ed yourself (and the country in the process), so we're going to bail you out. But there was no step 2 in the planning. They could have used that opportunity to set some major reforms and requirements to get that money, but instead it was short-term loans and then back to business as usual, especially for the biggest financial institutions in the country.

That had to be a phase 2, there was no time in that situation to work out the other stuff. But I certainly agree that the regulations and changes that needed to follow it, have been disappointing at best.

 

[Balta1701]

That had to be a phase 2, there was no time in that situation to work out the other stuff. But I certainly agree that the regulations and changes that needed to follow it, have been disappointing at best.

And again...why would you say that is?

[NorthSideSox72]

And again...why would you say that is?

Multiple reasons. There is no one, shiny object to blame here.

 

[Balta1701]

Multiple reasons. There is no one, shiny object to blame here.

If you're going to ignore "The Senate" as the obvious candidate there, then there's really not much else to talk about.

[NorthSideSox72]

If you're going to ignore "The Senate" as the obvious candidate there, then there's really not much else to talk about.

Who said anything about ignoring anything? Quite the contrary, its obvious you will choose to ignore all other options but one, while I was saying there were multiple underlying reasons.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Note that I said "poorly executed", not that it was a bad idea generally. Yes, it phased things in. Yes, the cash influx helped stave off deflation, though I am not 100% sure that was as big a danger as it was hyped to be.

 

Poorly executed means the details weren't well done. You could have had both those benefits AND built something more sustainable, if the stim bill had less emphasis on temporary construction jobs and more on long term business efforts.

 

The stimulus was an absolute waste. 750 billion dollars of spending, and hardly any of it went towards infrastructure improvement (what, 50 billion worth?) I gave you the list the other day of wasteful spending (so far). Thanks for repaving that highway in the middle of central illinois Mr. President. Way to keep those government employees on the job working on unecessary projects. That really helped.

 

The stimulus has been a complete fail to this point. It was sold to the American people as a necessary evil to create jobs. It's created nothing to this point. Unemployment has gone up since that bill was signed, not down.

[Balta1701]

The stimulus has been a complete fail to this point. It was sold to the American people as a necessary evil to create jobs. It's created nothing to this point. Unemployment has gone up since that bill was signed, not down.

The stimulus was proposed along with estimates that said unemployment would keep going up. That was 100% assumed at the time of passage.

[Balta1701]

Who said anything about ignoring anything? Quite the contrary, its obvious you will choose to ignore all other options but one, while I was saying there were multiple underlying reasons.

Of course I could give 19 reasons if I wanted...but it's absolutely amazing how they all tie in to the Senate.

[NorthSideSox72]

The stimulus was an absolute waste. 750 billion dollars of spending, and hardly any of it went towards infrastructure improvement (what, 50 billion worth?) I gave you the list the other day of wasteful spending (so far). Thanks for repaving that highway in the middle of central illinois Mr. President. Way to keep those government employees on the job working on unecessary projects. That really helped.

 

The stimulus has been a complete fail to this point. It was sold to the American people as a necessary evil to create jobs. It's created nothing to this point. Unemployment has gone up since that bill was signed, not down.

Its not that the projects themselves were bad - highway work is needed here and there. Its that they aren't sustainable, and don't create newer, better jobs in the future. That's where they seriously f***ed up - going exclusively short term in their thinking.

 

That all said though, I would not say its a complete fail. Data is showing that UE would have been a little worse, and the added cash in the economy has helped prevent an even worse recession. So not a complete fail - just not a raving success either.

 

[StrangeSox]

The stimulus was an absolute waste. 750 billion dollars of spending, and hardly any of it went towards infrastructure improvement (what, 50 billion worth?) I gave you the list the other day of wasteful spending (so far). Thanks for repaving that highway in the middle of central illinois Mr. President. Way to keep those government employees on the job working on unecessary projects. That really helped.

 

The stimulus has been a complete fail to this point. It was sold to the American people as a necessary evil to create jobs. It's created nothing to this point. Unemployment has gone up since that bill was signed, not down.

 

 

what

[Balta1701]

Its not that the projects themselves were bad - highway work is needed here and there. Its that they aren't sustainable, and don't create newer, better jobs in the future. That's where they seriously f***ed up - going exclusively short term in their thinking.

 

That all said though, I would not say its a complete fail. Data is showing that UE would have been a little worse, and the added cash in the economy has helped prevent an even worse recession. So not a complete fail - just not a raving success either.

Zero problem with doing "Highway work". Thanks to the "Small government revolution", we've put off a couple trillion in infrastructure investment that still needs caught up on. In terms of not getting that done though..that's the problem with 60-70% of the stimulus package being made of up tax breaks, which some of us were complaining loudly about at the time of passage.

[Jenksismyhero]

what

 

what? i said hardly any. if we were just going to throw money at construction projects it should have been used to update bridges or ports or canals or whatever else is 10 years away from falling apart.

[Balta1701]

what? i said hardly any. if we were just going to throw money at construction projects it should have been used to update bridges or ports or canals or whatever else is 10 years away from falling apart.

A decent amount of that has been done/is being done.

 

Still could have used another $2 trillion though.

[StrangeSox]

what? i said hardly any. if we were just going to throw money at construction projects it should have been used to update bridges or ports or canals or whatever else is 10 years away from falling apart.

 

highways in central IL are infrastructure.

[Balta1701]

highways in central IL are infrastructure.

A number of states are letting public roads return to gravel to avoid having to spend money on upkeep.

[Rex Kickass]

what? i said hardly any. if we were just going to throw money at construction projects it should have been used to update bridges or ports or canals or whatever else is 10 years away from falling apart.

 

I can point to three specific bridge infrastructure projects within 10 miles of my house that are at least partially funded by TIGER and ARRA.

[NorthSideSox72]

A number of states are letting public roads return to gravel to avoid having to spend money on upkeep.

and I'm actually OK with that. Rural Illinois has a lot of paved roads that get very little traffic. I'd rather target the funds that might go to constant repaving, to instead work on bridges, heavily used roads, efficiency projects in transporation, etc.

 

[Balta1701]

By the way...with long term interest rates hovering around 2.5% now...there may never be a better time in the next century to borrow and undertake large federally funded construction projects of any sort.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Court halts Calif gay marriages pending appeal

A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

 

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

 

Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the Supreme Court.

 

"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case," said Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team.

 

In its two-page order granting the stay, the 9th Circuit agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case. The court plans to hear the case during the week of Dec. 6 after moving up deadlines for both sides to file their written arguments by Nov. 1.

 

A different three-judge panel than the one that issued Monday's decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question.

 

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided last week to allow gay marriages to go forward after ruling the ban violated equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

 

The Proposition 8 legal team quickly appealed Walker's ruling in the case many believe will end up before the Supreme Court.

 

Lawyers for two same-sex couples had joined with California Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the appeals court to allow the weddings, arguing that keeping the ban in place any longer would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

 

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

 

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

 

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

 

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

[lostfan]

Multiple reasons. There is no one, shiny object to blame here.

Balta's right, the Senate is worthless. It's embarrassing.

Edited August 17, 2010 by lostfan

[lostfan]

Actually, Obama ran on a platform of change in 2008. He rose a pretty high bar for himself that year, and he's paying the price now. You could say that 2006 the Democrats ran primarily on a "We're not Bush" platform, but I would argue that 2008 was very different.

 

In 2008 there was a platform that won.

Lily Ledbetter, repeal of DADT, health care reform, wall street reform, shifting the focus of the military from Iraq to Afghanistan were all key parts of his platform and many of these things were enacted.

Many of these things were in the platform of 2006, but got drowned out by the frustration.

 

You can even make an argument that the platform of rooting out corruption has, more or less, been honored as well. True, you can point to Rangel and Waters as examples of how that's not true. But in reality, the fact that two very powerful congresspeople have essentially been sidelined to the backbench due to ethics violations, and are literally being put on Congressional trial within three months of an election is a testament to how serious the Democrats have been in this regard. How many ethics trials were you seeing in 2006 held by the House of Representatives? None, because the ethics committee wasn't actually active.

 

What's different between 2006, 1994 and today is that in previous years, when you peeled back the motivating anger - there was real, serious policy. Even in 1994 with the Contract on America - there were significant policy initiatives and goals that the GOP sought to pass in their first term. This year, when you peel back the anger - you only find more anger.

Was this intentional? If not, that's pretty f***ing funny.