Stimulus Bill Redux

[NorthSideSox72]

So, its too late now, but I had an idea recently about the Stimulus bill(s). We spent a lot of money (or will spend) on a lot of short-term stuff like construction funding, as well as some money for energy and transit infrastructure. But a lot of it isn't very sustainable, which is a shame.

 

Here is a better idea, if you are going to spend this much money, for what the federal government should have done: buy land.

 

Think about this for a second. We have an economy in the worst hole since the Depression, and one of the major factors in that is the collapse of the housing bubble. So what I would propose is, the feds should have spent the money on buying up land - land of various types, all over the country, that could be used for things like resource extraction for energy, or wild land protection, or for lease to various industry purposes. Think about the advantages in doing this:

 

--By purchasing a lot of land, you take supply out of the real estate market, helping prop up prices, and therefore people's equity, allowing fewer people to get upside down

--You also put money into the hands of people trying to sell or people in mortgage-related trouble, which allows them to go purchase other property or pay off debts

--You help the financial industry with some of the bad mortgage debt, making them healthier and more able to lend more readily

--You give yourself the ability to extract more resources (water, oil, gas), or create more energy (solar or wind fields, energy grid infrastructure)

--You can protect more wilderness and green spaces, helping improve air and water quality

--You create jobs to maintain those spaces which will actually last a while, instead of a 3 month construction job

--This creates more movement in the real estate market, which puts money into the governments of states and localities via transfer and other taxes, which they need right now

--Some of the money would ultimately go straight into the economy as spending, to help move the economy forward

--Other money is invested in the markets, helping them do better as well, which helps all of us

--Unlike, say, construction jobs, this plan puts larger chunks of money into the economy right away - it is more immediate than much of the other stim funding that is being planned.

--Land could be sold at heavy discount to industry wanting to develop something new, helping them grow.

 

The second phase of this plan would be a transfer plan. Some of the land may stay in federal hands, but much of it can be turned over to private entities. Energy-producing areas can be sold to energy companies to manage, again creating private sector jobs, and allowing the land to be sold with certain easements and caveats to protect the public interest. Wild lands can be turned over to non-profits like Nature Conservancy or Audubon Society, creating more jobs and value for those entities, still protecting the land from haphazard development but not putting the cost onus on the government. Still other land can be handed to states or localities for whatever best purpose they desire, helping those governments in their efforts at smart development.

 

The only big disadvantage to this method of stimulus, that I can see, is that even after the transfers occur over time, some of the land will still be in federal hands. It wouldn't be a huge change, but there would be an overall increase in federal land holdings, giving the feds more control. The best way to address this is through an aggressive plan to make those transfers, and furthermore, apply those transfer plans to already-held lands. This should be a government philosophy moving forward - where private or non-profit groups can make more efficient use of land in its intended purpose, make it a priority to sell it or donate it to them.

 

To reiterate my basis here, this is all under the assumption that we want to spend the money at all - I am not addressing here the question of whether or not the money should even be spent.

 

Thoughts?

[Steve9347]

Wait, so you're saying the federal government should have applied the funding to the root of the problem in America versus just throwing tons of money in all directions and praying it worked?

 

I don't see logic behind that.

[lostfan]

Wait, so you're saying the federal government should have applied the funding to the root of the problem in America versus just throwing tons of money in all directions and praying it worked?

 

I don't see logic behind that.

lol. That's what Obama originally wanted to do but he let Congress write the legislation. We ended up getting a messy pile of s***f***.

[NorthSideSox72]

lol. That's what Obama originally wanted to do but he let Congress write the legislation. We ended up getting a messy pile of s***f***.

He wanted to buy land? I don't recall that.

 

I do think he wanted something much more focused, but as you said, it got Congressed into a steaming pile of garbage.

 

[lostfan]

He wanted to buy land? I don't recall that.

 

I do think he wanted something much more focused, but as you said, it got Congressed into a steaming pile of garbage.

Not buying land, the concept Steve was pointing out (getting to the root of the problem, doing something focused that would have a long-term impact).

[ChiSox_Sonix]

So, its too late now, but I had an idea recently about the Stimulus bill(s). We spent a lot of money (or will spend) on a lot of short-term stuff like construction funding, as well as some money for energy and transit infrastructure. But a lot of it isn't very sustainable, which is a shame.

 

Here is a better idea, if you are going to spend this much money, for what the federal government should have done: buy land.

 

Think about this for a second. We have an economy in the worst hole since the Depression, and one of the major factors in that is the collapse of the housing bubble. So what I would propose is, the feds should have spent the money on buying up land - land of various types, all over the country, that could be used for things like resource extraction for energy, or wild land protection, or for lease to various industry purposes. Think about the advantages in doing this:

 

--By purchasing a lot of land, you take supply out of the real estate market, helping prop up prices, and therefore people's equity, allowing fewer people to get upside down

--You also put money into the hands of people trying to sell or people in mortgage-related trouble, which allows them to go purchase other property or pay off debts

--You help the financial industry with some of the bad mortgage debt, making them healthier and more able to lend more readily

--You give yourself the ability to extract more resources (water, oil, gas), or create more energy (solar or wind fields, energy grid infrastructure)

--You can protect more wilderness and green spaces, helping improve air and water quality

--You create jobs to maintain those spaces which will actually last a while, instead of a 3 month construction job

--This creates more movement in the real estate market, which puts money into the governments of states and localities via transfer and other taxes, which they need right now

--Some of the money would ultimately go straight into the economy as spending, to help move the economy forward

--Other money is invested in the markets, helping them do better as well, which helps all of us

--Unlike, say, construction jobs, this plan puts larger chunks of money into the economy right away - it is more immediate than much of the other stim funding that is being planned.

--Land could be sold at heavy discount to industry wanting to develop something new, helping them grow.

 

The second phase of this plan would be a transfer plan. Some of the land may stay in federal hands, but much of it can be turned over to private entities. Energy-producing areas can be sold to energy companies to manage, again creating private sector jobs, and allowing the land to be sold with certain easements and caveats to protect the public interest. Wild lands can be turned over to non-profits like Nature Conservancy or Audubon Society, creating more jobs and value for those entities, still protecting the land from haphazard development but not putting the cost onus on the government. Still other land can be handed to states or localities for whatever best purpose they desire, helping those governments in their efforts at smart development.

 

The only big disadvantage to this method of stimulus, that I can see, is that even after the transfers occur over time, some of the land will still be in federal hands. It wouldn't be a huge change, but there would be an overall increase in federal land holdings, giving the feds more control. The best way to address this is through an aggressive plan to make those transfers, and furthermore, apply those transfer plans to already-held lands. This should be a government philosophy moving forward - where private or non-profit groups can make more efficient use of land in its intended purpose, make it a priority to sell it or donate it to them.

 

To reiterate my basis here, this is all under the assumption that we want to spend the money at all - I am not addressing here the question of whether or not the money should even be spent.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Interesting. I'd agree with most of that. Unfortunately though, when you hurriedly pass reactionary bills you get what we got.

[Balta1701]

Isn't a big problem with this idea that the government already owns tons and tons of land? And people (i.e. Harry Reid's family, oil companies, and other mining companies) keep finding ways to convince the government to develop or give them that land at a huge discount?

 

Basically you'd need the government to go start buying up failing housing. You don't get much in the way of resources if you have the government buy up vacant subdivisions outside of Orange County and Las Vegas.

[NorthSideSox72]

Isn't a big problem with this idea that the government already owns tons and tons of land? And people (i.e. Harry Reid's family, oil companies, and other mining companies) keep finding ways to convince the government to develop or give them that land at a huge discount?

 

Basically you'd need the government to go start buying up failing housing. You don't get much in the way of resources if you have the government buy up vacant subdivisions outside of Orange County and Las Vegas.

You buy different land for different purposes, as noted.

 

As for the corruption, any plan anyone comes up with to fund anything will run afoul of some of that - its an X factor I cannot account for.

 

[Rex Kickass]

I wouldn't have put any tax cuts in the stimulus. Tax cuts don't stimulate quickly enough. I think the most innovative thing in the stimulus package was the additional $25 a week in UI benefits, the 65% COBRA subsidy and the additional food stamps distribution in the bill. Why? Because the extra UI benefits and food stamps gets spent almost 100% of the time.

[Balta1701]

You buy different land for different purposes, as noted.

Let me be more specific...the types of land that the government would buy up that would benefit the nation in any way...either the government already owns, or by buying it, the government would be putting mining companies out of business (i.e. they'd be buying back tracts of land sold to mining/energy companies at other times). The only way the government would have made a dent in the collapse would have been to have the government step in and waste all its money buying up bad housing units to reinflate the bubble. The problem with that idea is...the amount of wealth that has evaporated in the housing market is on the order of $8 trillion, give or take where we currently are. Pumping in $1 trillion means that the government makes a handful of very "lucky" people happy when it buys up their failed housing tract, then the market continues to crater and the government's investment is completely lost.

[NorthSideSox72]

Let me be more specific...the types of land that the government would buy up that would benefit the nation in any way...either the government already owns, or by buying it, the government would be putting mining companies out of business (i.e. they'd be buying back tracts of land sold to mining/energy companies at other times). The only way the government would have made a dent in the collapse would have been to have the government step in and waste all its money buying up bad housing units to reinflate the bubble. The problem with that idea is...the amount of wealth that has evaporated in the housing market is on the order of $8 trillion, give or take where we currently are. Pumping in $1 trillion means that the government makes a handful of very "lucky" people happy when it buys up their failed housing tract, then the market continues to crater and the government's investment is completely lost.

I think you are off on a few things here. First, the federal government only owns a small % of land in this country, so the idea that the gov't already owns anything valuable or puts mines out of business is patently false. And buying up bad housing units one-off is not what I am talking about - my plan was not meant to single-handedly fix the housing collapse, as nothing could possibly come close to doing that. Also, in terms of the economics, your numbers don't make any sense. First, money is not money, in the housing market - liquidity is a key factor here, and increasing liquidity in the market, itself, creates more equity and higher prices. And this idea that the housing market is continuing to crater is both an argument FOR doing what I suggested, and also missing the recent months' trends that all show otherwise.

 

[CanOfCorn]

I wouldn't have put any tax cuts in the stimulus. Tax cuts don't stimulate quickly enough. I think the most innovative thing in the stimulus package was the additional $25 a week in UI benefits, the 65% COBRA subsidy and the additional food stamps distribution in the bill. Why? Because the extra UI benefits and food stamps gets spent almost 100% of the time.

 

Bingo...tax cuts get put directly in the pocket for a rainy day, mostly. That's not stimulus, that's piece of mind (a very small piece at that).

[NorthSideSox72]

Bingo...tax cuts get put directly in the pocket for a rainy day, mostly. That's not stimulus, that's piece of mind (a very small piece at that).

Well, while I agree that tax cuts at this point in time were a mistake, I have to disagree with your idea of where tax cuts go. Most Americans, unfortunately, don't really save or invest much money. More money on the paycheck will likely be spent, somewhere. Your argument really only applies to the Top 5% of earners, more or less.

 

[Balta1701]

I think you are off on a few things here. First, the federal government only owns a small % of land in this country, so the idea that the gov't already owns anything valuable or puts mines out of business is patently false.

Here's some actual numbers to back me up. The Forest service alone owns 8% of the land in this country. The share held by BLM is larger but I don't have time to calculate through it all. It's something like 1/4 of the country that's held publicly, at least. Maybe more. Throw in some national parks land while you're at it.

[Balta1701]

First, money is not money, in the housing market - liquidity is a key factor here, and increasing liquidity in the market, itself, creates more equity and higher prices. And this idea that the housing market is continuing to crater is both an argument FOR doing what I suggested, and also missing the recent months' trends that all show otherwise.

Here's my problem with that. The only way it works is if the govenrment buys up the surplus housing and then demolishes it. Basically, my contention is that housing prices are going to fall back to equlibrium, or possibly even past it thanks to overconstruction. For the past 10 years, people have been able to buy more expensive houses because the value of their housing has gone up. If the value of their housing isn't going up, then they can only buy the level of housing that they actually can afford based on their income. No one in areas like L.A., Vegas, Phoenix can afford the housing prices out here. If the government pumps in money, then all that is going to happen is the government is going to take the loss, because the housing prices are going to fall back to the point where people can actually afford to buy housing. Higher prices here are actually the enemy...the only thing that supported higher prices was the presence of a bubble, and those higher prices are going to go back to normal. The only difference would be the government would be taking the loss...except the government is already taking the loss anyway (hi AIG!).

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's some actual numbers to back me up. The Forest service alone owns 8% of the land in this country. The share held by BLM is larger but I don't have time to calculate through it all. It's something like 1/4 of the country that's held publicly, at least. Maybe more. Throw in some national parks land while you're at it.

Not sure how that proves your point of value. And as I said, some owned land should be transferred away.

 

[southsider2k5]

I think you are off on a few things here. First, the federal government only owns a small % of land in this country, so the idea that the gov't already owns anything valuable or puts mines out of business is patently false. And buying up bad housing units one-off is not what I am talking about - my plan was not meant to single-handedly fix the housing collapse, as nothing could possibly come close to doing that. Also, in terms of the economics, your numbers don't make any sense. First, money is not money, in the housing market - liquidity is a key factor here, and increasing liquidity in the market, itself, creates more equity and higher prices. And this idea that the housing market is continuing to crater is both an argument FOR doing what I suggested, and also missing the recent months' trends that all show otherwise.

 

Last I knew the federal government was the largest single land owner in the entire country.

[NorthSideSox72]

Last I knew the federal government was the largest single land owner in the entire country.

Well of course they are. Who said otherwise? When I say the own a small % of the land, that alone is a HUGE number in gross size. No one person or business is anywhere in that territory.

 

[CanOfCorn]

Well, while I agree that tax cuts at this point in time were a mistake, I have to disagree with your idea of where tax cuts go. Most Americans, unfortunately, don't really save or invest much money. More money on the paycheck will likely be spent, somewhere. Your argument really only applies to the Top 5% of earners, more or less.

 

Normally, you are right, but in this economy, most of the people I've talked to about this (middle-class) are saving/investing. In the past, people have said, "I'm going to go buy X widget." But I think things are different this time. Then again, that's a very small sample size. Just a gut feeling.

[Jenksismyhero]

Alternative stimulus:

 

1/2 the money to new energy initiatives/building projects, 1/2 the money in real paychecks back to the american people (making under say 400k a household) with the condition that they have to spend it on real products (housing, appliances, cars, etc) that require raw goods, manufacturing, etc, or real services (home improvement, law, accounting, whatever). Inflation is a problem, but could be addressed by the Fed over certain intervals of time.

[bmags]

Sounds like you wanted stimulus refunds in the form of Lowe's gift cards.

[NorthSideSox72]

I couldn't find the original Stimulus Bill thread, so I'll use this one.

 

So, the Trib decided to dig into the details of ObamaCo's claims on how many jobs were saved or created from the stimulus money. They focused specifically on schools in Illinois, so that it was manageable, as an example. Not surprisingly, the numbers they are using are off - and I mean waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. Like, saying a school district with 200 teachers on staff somehow saved 350 teaching jobs.

 

But here is a really interesting thing to note - the bad numbers are present on both sides of the equation. For example, the Chicago Public Schools probably saved something like 1200 jobs, but they showed their number as zero, because of some idiotic decision made by a bureaucrat that jobs could not be considered saved unless the person was laid off, then un-laid-off. WTF?

 

This is awful, and ObamaCo should be ashamed of themselves for putting out a report this fundamentally flawed. This tells me what many have already been saying - that the numbers are meaningless and unfounded in any sort of material fact. The article simply confirms it.

 

Article link.

 

[kapkomet]

I couldn't find the original Stimulus Bill thread, so I'll use this one.

 

So, the Trib decided to dig into the details of ObamaCo's claims on how many jobs were saved or created from the stimulus money. They focused specifically on schools in Illinois, so that it was manageable, as an example. Not surprisingly, the numbers they are using are off - and I mean waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. Like, saying a school district with 200 teachers on staff somehow saved 350 teaching jobs.

 

But here is a really interesting thing to note - the bad numbers are present on both sides of the equation. For example, the Chicago Public Schools probably saved something like 1200 jobs, but they showed their number as zero, because of some idiotic decision made by a bureaucrat that jobs could not be considered saved unless the person was laid off, then un-laid-off. WTF?

 

This is awful, and ObamaCo should be ashamed of themselves for putting out a report this fundamentally flawed. This tells me what many have already been saying - that the numbers are meaningless and unfounded in any sort of material fact. The article simply confirms it.

 

Article link.

It's like they knew that this was going to happen so about week one into his administration, they came up with this bulls*** "saved or created". BUT WAIT! They didn't know how bad it was, Bush lied, people died, you know, the usual.

 

Seriously, this is some of the lamest verbage to come out of the man's mouth. It's a joke.

[bmags]

this is totes on par with going to war that costs trillions and killed thousands of americans.

[Y2HH]

this is totes on par with going to war that costs trillions and killed thousands of americans.

 

Do you mean the war they promised to withdrawal from already, but didn't because in reality, that's easy to say and not so easy to do?