"Stimulus" Bill Thread

[bmags]

lol

 

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/...cking_basis.php

 

[lostfan]

yes, terrorist attacks would've helped democrats, eh? You all remember this past decade so well.

I'm pretty sure what he's saying is that as of right now and the immediate future, the poor state of the economy still hurts Republicans and they don't gain from it.

[bmags]

I'm pretty sure what he's saying is that as of right now and the immediate future, the poor state of the economy still hurts Republicans and they don't gain from it.

 

s*** stays bad they'll do much better politically than if s*** turns around, that's for sure. And this posturing that they are all the sudden so worried about being fiscally sound is so absurd.

[southsider2k5]

I'm pretty sure what he's saying is that as of right now and the immediate future, the poor state of the economy still hurts Republicans and they don't gain from it.

 

And they will probably be able to do so for a couple of years at least, based on popularity ratings.

[StrangeSox]

yes, terrorist attacks would've helped democrats, eh? You all remember this past decade so well.

 

Terrorist attacks is wrong; continued troubles in the Iraq war would be more accurate. How many times did we hear over the past 5 years from right-wing blowhards that Dems wanted America to fail?

[kapkomet]

Terrorist attacks is wrong; continued troubles in the Iraq war would be more accurate. How many times did we hear over the past 5 years from right-wing blowhards that Dems wanted America to fail?

I think they did, in a weird sort of way. In that way, to quote Obama's administration, this is a golden opportunity to pass everything we wanted in the past 25+ years and you just don't let things like this pass you by.

[bmags]

I think they did, in a weird sort of way. In that way, to quote Obama's administration, this is a golden opportunity to pass everything we wanted in the past 25+ years and you just don't let things like this pass you by.

 

I think "hoping" for collapse and recognizing the opportunity a collapse brings are two different things entirely. When things are going smoothly, it's hard to recognize potential disasters. When you are in the midst of disasters, it's easier to show the public what can help - health care, green technology, regulations, etc. The democrats always have social reform to bank off of, they may have been hoping for failure in Iraq, but really they had all the ammo they needed in the fact people were lied into the war and could paint the republicans as irresponsible hawks. I don't think the Republicans want any Americans to lose their jobs, but I think they are playing some dangerous politics for themselves right now.

[kapkomet]

I think "hoping" for collapse and recognizing the opportunity a collapse brings are two different things entirely. When things are going smoothly, it's hard to recognize potential disasters. When you are in the midst of disasters, it's easier to show the public what can help - health care, green technology, regulations, etc. The democrats always have social reform to bank off of, they may have been hoping for failure in Iraq, but really they had all the ammo they needed in the fact people were lied into the war and could paint the republicans as irresponsible hawks. I don't think the Republicans want any Americans to lose their jobs, but I think they are playing some dangerous politics for themselves right now.

I agree with this point, for sure. I just think that the "calamity" and the "disaster" and the "catastrophe" (Obama's choice word of the day) are being overused to ramrod their legislation through without anyone seriously questioning it.

 

[bmags]

You may very well be right. But, "hey it ain't so bad!" would also be a misspeak.

[Balta1701]

I agree with this point, for sure. I just think that the "calamity" and the "disaster" and the "catastrophe" (Obama's choice word of the day) are being overused to ramrod their legislation through without anyone seriously questioning it.

But there's one point you're missing in saying that the vocabulary choice is inappropriate here. We may not yet bet at March of 33 panic levels, but the longer time passes, the larger the gap that the stimulus package needs to fill is. That's one big reason why the size of the stimulus people have been proposing has rapidly increased over the last 6 months or so. Prior to Lehman bros.'s failure, people were talking a few hundred billion more. After the stock calamities through October and TARP, people were already up to talking about $600 billion. After the November job losses and the XMas season, people were talking $800 billion or more. After the continued job losses through January, its entirely reasonable to think that well over a Trillion might be required for the government to fill the output gap and turn this around.

 

This is a case where a snowball rolling down a hill is an accurate metaphor. The more job losses the country suffers, the more a pounding the consumer spending market takes, the more effort it's going to take from the government to stop that snowball. And you don't want to let the snowball hit the cabin below.

[southsider2k5]

But there's one point you're missing in saying that the vocabulary choice is inappropriate here. We may not yet bet at March of 33 panic levels, but the longer time passes, the larger the gap that the stimulus package needs to fill is. That's one big reason why the size of the stimulus people have been proposing has rapidly increased over the last 6 months or so. Prior to Lehman bros.'s failure, people were talking a few hundred billion more. After the stock calamities through October and TARP, people were already up to talking about $600 billion. After the November job losses and the XMas season, people were talking $800 billion or more. After the continued job losses through January, its entirely reasonable to think that well over a Trillion might be required for the government to fill the output gap and turn this around.

 

This is a case where a snowball rolling down a hill is an accurate metaphor. The more job losses the country suffers, the more a pounding the consumer spending market takes, the more effort it's going to take from the government to stop that snowball. And you don't want to let the snowball hit the cabin below.

 

Come on. We all know the reason it keeps getting added to is that each Sen/Rep is adding their pet projects to it because they know it "has" to pass.

[Balta1701]

Come on. We all know the reason it keeps getting added to is that each Sen/Rep is adding their pet projects to it because they know it "has" to pass.

Even if I grant you that point, the reality is...the people doing the math saying how big this package needed to be watched that number rapidly grow as time ran on. And the longer we hang this up in the Senate, the less effective it will be and the bigger it will need to be to be effective.

 

Even if Bush had been able to push another $100 billion or so out the door late last year in the form of a stimulus package, even if it were the less effective tax cut variety, it would have significantly cut how big this package would have needed to be by getting it out sooner.

[kapkomet]

Even if I grant you that point, the reality is...the people doing the math saying how big this package needed to be watched that number rapidly grow as time ran on. And the longer we hang this up in the Senate, the less effective it will be and the bigger it will need to be to be effective.

 

Even if Bush had been able to push another $100 billion or so out the door late last year in the form of a stimulus package, even if it were the less effective tax cut variety, it would have significantly cut how big this package would have needed to be by getting it out sooner.

No it wouldn't.

 

Quit drinking the kool-aid, please.

 

[Texsox]

From what I have heard from a couple agencies here, the government is looking for projects that are ready to go *now*. What are the projects where shovels are ready to go. No 5-year studies, no 18 month bid process. They want the money pumping through *now*. So there may be more deserving, but too far off projects, that are not funded while less worthy, but ready to go stuff, gets funded.

 

I know of a couple projects here, relatively small potato stuff (

 

I do see the reasoning behind that criteria. What good are projects that will not happen for a couple years?

[NorthSideSox72]

From what I have heard from a couple agencies here, the government is looking for projects that are ready to go *now*. What are the projects where shovels are ready to go. No 5-year studies, no 18 month bid process. They want the money pumping through *now*. So there may be more deserving, but too far off projects, that are not funded while less worthy, but ready to go stuff, gets funded.

 

I know of a couple projects here, relatively small potato stuff (

 

I do see the reasoning behind that criteria. What good are projects that will not happen for a couple years?

Actually, a lot of transit projects fall into this category. Proposed, planned, approved and even some money ready to go, just waiting for enough funding to proceed. Those could get going pretty quickly.

 

[Texsox]

Actually, a lot of transit projects fall into this category. Proposed, planned, approved and even some money ready to go, just waiting for enough funding to proceed. Those could get going pretty quickly.

I did want to add that to the mix. It is probably unfair to debate the merits of projects based on a single line description.

[Balta1701]

No it wouldn't.

 

Quit drinking the kool-aid, please.

LOL, I submit to your detailed logic.

[kapkomet]

LOL, I submit to your detailed logic.

I know.

 

I didn't have time to explain myself. I haven't had time to put a lot of time into this... but I will, hopefully.

 

Still trying to catch up from the weekend trip to the inlaws.

[southsider2k5]

Actually, a lot of transit projects fall into this category. Proposed, planned, approved and even some money ready to go, just waiting for enough funding to proceed. Those could get going pretty quickly.

 

Interesingly enough, judging from my municipalities perspective, most of the projects I have seen proposed for stimulus spending, where things we were planning on doing anyway, but might not have been able to do because of cutbacks. Most of these things were going to happen anyway though. Has anyone else seen this happen on a local level?

[NorthSideSox72]

Interesingly enough, judging from my municipalities perspective, most of the projects I have seen proposed for stimulus spending, where things we were planning on doing anyway, but might not have been able to do because of cutbacks. Most of these things were going to happen anyway though. Has anyone else seen this happen on a local level?

One big project in my neighborhood of Chicago is the rebuild of the Fullerton/Damen/Elston intersection (which is probably the worst in the city). They originally proposed making Fullerton go underneath the other two, but that was very pricey. They've now settled on "moving" Elston avenue, to have it intersect in multiple places, kind of like what Lincoln does around Lawrence/Western.

 

Anyway, the plans are there, the city and state have approved them (I think), and they are now "saving up" money for it. A project like that, for example, which is a high priority for the city because of the value of reducing the traffic there, could get going now instead of in 3 years if it got money from something like this.

 

[Balta1701]

I think that it's probably impossible to better illustrate how far off beyond Pesky's pole the Republicans are on this matter than a vote last night did. Senator DeMint introduced a bill that would remove every bit of spending from the Obama plan and replace it with a series of permanent (not temporary) tax cuts, including several things that wouldn't hit for years (i.e. until the Bush tax plans start expiring - 2011 and beyond)

o Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;

o Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15 percent;

o Permanently kill the Death Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the tax rate to 15 percent for those above;

o Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;

o Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;

o Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

o Lower top marginal income rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.

o Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent.

o Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent.

This got the support of 36/40 Senate Republicans. Essentially, 90% of the Republican caucus in the Senate is opposed to the concept of a stimulus package.

[Texsox]

Interesingly enough, judging from my municipalities perspective, most of the projects I have seen proposed for stimulus spending, where things we were planning on doing anyway, but might not have been able to do because of cutbacks. Most of these things were going to happen anyway though. Has anyone else seen this happen on a local level?

 

Exactly what I pointed. Shovels poised waiting on the money.

[southsider2k5]

I think that it's probably impossible to better illustrate how far off beyond Pesky's pole the Republicans are on this matter than a vote last night did. Senator DeMint introduced a bill that would remove every bit of spending from the Obama plan and replace it with a series of permanent (not temporary) tax cuts, including several things that wouldn't hit for years (i.e. until the Bush tax plans start expiring - 2011 and beyond)

 

This got the support of 36/40 Senate Republicans. Essentially, 90% of the Republican caucus in the Senate is opposed to the concept of a stimulus package.

 

Or they are just in favor of the Democrats new definition of a "stimulus" plan, because they can get some of their pet projects through as well.

[mr_genius]

I think that it's probably impossible to better illustrate how far off beyond Pesky's pole the Republicans are on this matter than a vote last night did. Senator DeMint introduced a bill that would remove every bit of spending from the Obama plan and replace it with a series of permanent (not temporary) tax cuts, including several things that wouldn't hit for years (i.e. until the Bush tax plans start expiring - 2011 and beyond)

 

This got the support of 36/40 Senate Republicans. Essentially, 90% of the Republican caucus in the Senate is opposed to the concept of a stimulus package.

o Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;

o Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15 percent;

o Permanently kill the Death Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the tax rate to 15 percent for those above;

o Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;

o Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;

o Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

o Lower top marginal income rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.

o Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent.

o Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent.

 

I like the things listed there. The GOP should vote for that (unless there is trillions in BS spending on top of those tax cuts). But I need a reliable source on this, TPM is basically a joke.

Edited February 5, 2009 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

I like the things listed there. The GOP should vote for that. But I need a reliable source on this, TPM is basically a joke.

Senator DeMint's website

 

I love this. You guys spend a week going crazy about the CBO report that says that only 79% of the stimulus will be out the door by 2011. Such ineffective stimulus...it won't be nearly fast enough!

 

Senator Demint proposes huge tax breaks that won't hit until 2011 and after.

 

You guys cheer.