Stimulus plan breakdown

[allvol123]

5 billion for public housing capital!

 

[myrobbins7]

5 billion for public housing capital!

Hey, Mr. Obama did tell everyone that he was going to pay everyone house payments didn't he?

 

[rjd970]

The latest CBO analysis shows that the tax portion is where the primary stimulative effect comes from (at least over the short-term). I believe I heard that Obama wants a bit more (close to $400 billion) to be tax cuts and bit less in out year spending than the house offered.

While I still think we are cramming non-emergency spending (and probably tax cuts) in an "emergency" bill, I'm glad the Obama team recognizes the need for working the tax side of things.

According to the above article, the guys formulating this from Obama's staff are Larry Summers, Austan Goolsbee, Christy Romer, and Tim Geithner. None of those are left wing nutjobs, and all understand the need for tax breaks. Goolsbee is a University of Chicago Economics guy, which is very center-right and based in Milton Friedman economic theory.

Personally, I think Obama is very open to all ideas regarding this stimulus package, which is evident both by the guys putting it together and the actual content of what it does. There are aspects of it to love and hate by everybody.

Tax cuts only won't work in the short-term, and spending only won't work in the long-term. Reasonability dictates there should be a balance of both. Joevol, allvol, savage, mg1968, myrobbins, etc...can b**ch, moan, and ridicule all they want, but it is much better than the one Bush & Co. and Congress a slapped together in basically a week and pushed on the American public. Half of the money, of which, they have no idea where it actually went. Like it or not, there is an open and transparent list that can be debated with the Obama one.

 

[allvol123]

The above list is a pile of garbage rjd. To pretend it is some kind of serious effort to stimulate the economy is foolish.

 

[myrobbins7]

Rjd. im not b*tching about it because there's nothing I can do about it. I just hope this does SOMETHING to get things going again. Trust me, I would love to see Mr. Obama get things going again, but im not sure this plan is the way to go.

 

[volinbham]

Tax cuts only won't work in the short-term, and spending only won't work in the long-term. Reasonability dictates there should be a balance of both. Joevol, allvol, savage, mg1968, myrobbins, etc...can b**ch, moan, and ridicule all they want, but it is much better than the one Bush & Co. and Congress a slapped together in basically a week and pushed on the American public. Half of the money, of which, they have no idea where it actually went. Like it or not, there is an open and transparent list that can be debated with the Obama one.

The fact that TARP was screwed up doesn't say anything about the quality of this plan (not hard to be better than TARP).

Transparent? Maybe - Obama wants emergency only spending in this plan - surely much of that list is not "emergency" level spending so just like TARP we are being sold crap under the fear of crisis.

If it were truly transparent, non-emergency spending (eg. climate research funding) would flow through normal appropriations bills.

 

[rjd970]

The above list is a pile of garbage rjd. To pretend it is some kind of serious effort to stimulate the economy is foolish.

So what's your definition of a serious effort? Let's hear your plan. Massive tax cuts only? What kind of short term effect would that have? You don't see any benefit in the $300 Billion in tax cuts he is proposing, or are you to worried about focusing on the parts you see as an easy scapegoat to fuel your hatred of Obama?

 

[allvol123]

So what's your definition of a serious effort? Let's hear your plan. Massive tax cuts only? What kind of short term effect would that have? You don't see any benefit in the $300 Billion in tax cuts he is proposing, or are you to worried about focusing on the parts you see as an easy scapegoat to fuel your hatred of Obama?

Yes, massive tax cuts. The federal government is too bloated already, it needs no more than it is already stealing. Let people keep more of their money and let them decide what products or services are worthy enough to separate themseleves from their money.

I don't need any scapegoats to fuel my hatred. Obama will fail miserably on his own ideas. If you believe billions for education, housing stabilization, battery studies, etc. is economic stimulus then why not spend 2 trillion? Why not 3 trillion? Why not give people printing presses to put in their houses for printing money?

 

[rjd970]

The fact that TARP was screwed up doesn't say anything about the quality of this plan (not hard to be better than TARP).

Transparent? Maybe - Obama wants emergency only spending in this plan - surely much of that list is not "emergency" level spending so just like TARP we are being sold crap under the fear of crisis.

If it were truly transparent, non-emergency spending (eg. climate research funding) would flow through normal appropriations bills.

Is there crap in here:

44 million for construction, repair and improvements at US Department of Agriculture facilties
$209 million for work on deferred maintenance at Agricultural Research Service facilities
$245 million for maintaining and modernizing the IT system of the Farm Service Agency
$175 million to buy and restore floodplain easements for flood prevention
$50 million for "Watershed Rehabilitation"
$1.1 billion for rural community facilities direct loans
$2 billion for rural business and industry guaranteed loans
$2.7 billion for rural water and waste dispoal direct loans
$22.1 billion for rural housing insurance fund loans
$2.8 billion for loans to spur rural broadband
$150 million for emergency food assistance
$50 million for regional economic development commissions......
.......$5 billion for public housing capital
$1 billion in competitive housing grants
$2.5 billion for energy efficiency upgrades in public housing
$500 million in Native American Housing Block Grants
$4.1 billion to help communities deal with foreclosed homes
$1.5 billion in homeless prevention activities
$79 billion in education funds for states

...sure there is. Point me to an itemized list of this sort for TARP and we can start to compare. The problem is, there isn't...we just handed out a bunch of candy to banks, with all decisions controlled by Henry Paulson, with absolutely no idea where it went. Citigroup just bought a new corporate jet. Nice for them I guess.

Everybody on here wants to focus on just the spending part of the plan, with seemingly no interest in the tax cuts or the mix of the cuts/spending that is in the plan.

I'm disgusted we are going to see a $2 Trillion dollar deficit, but what do you expect really? Look at the mess we are in. Two wars, a recession, rising inflation, rising unemployment. Whether Bush is to blame for it or not is immaterial IMO. It is the state we are in and it is what Obama has to deal with. Obama is spending based on his agenda the same way Bush did. I just think most of this thread is extremely one-sided against a man who entered office a week ago, and inherited a huge mess from from the outgoing president who high-tailed it out of Washington as fast as he could.

All I am seeing on here is ridicule of Obama's plan, calling him a socialist, and with no mention of why he gets to push this through in the first place. How about this:

Bush is a socialist for the wealthy.

...is there any disagreement with that statement?

 

[rjd970]

Yes, massive tax cuts. The federal government is too bloated already, it needs no more than it is already stealing. Let people keep more of their money and let them decide what products or services are worthy enough to separate themseleves from their money.

No disagreement from me on the bolded. But tax cuts alone, just like spending alone, won't completely solve this problem. There are parts of the Obama plan that are idiotic IMO, but completely disregarding it in favor of all tax cuts won't do anything in the short-term for sure, and in the long term creates higher debt. The national debt increased $8.8 Trillion dollars combined with the last 3 republican presidents we've had.

I don't need any scapegoats to fuel my hatred. Obama will fail miserably on his own ideas. If you believe billions for education, housing stabilization, battery studies, etc. is economic stimulus then why not spend 2 trillion? Why not 3 trillion?

I suspect the only thing you need to fuel hatred of Obama is a (D) after his name. Substance of his policy is secondary.

Why not give people printing presses to put in their houses for printing money?

We just about have that already. It's called the Federal Reserve Bank.

 

[allvol123]

but completely disregarding it in favor of all tax cuts won't do anything in the short-term for sure, and in the long term creates higher debt.


I suspect the only thing you need to fuel hatred of Obama is a (D) after his name. Substance of his policy is secondary.

That is an assumption and could in many cases be completely wrong.

Your "suspect" meter operates about as well as GM then. Substance and principles are my primary concern. Corker has a (R) by his name and I made sure to tell his imbeciles that take his phone calls that I think he is a piece of sh*t, today.

 

[volinbham]

Is there crap in here:



...sure there is. Point me to an itemized list of this sort for TARP and we can start to compare. The problem is, there isn't...we just handed out a bunch of candy to banks, with all decisions controlled by Henry Paulson, with absolutely no idea where it went. Citigroup just bought a new corporate jet. Nice for them I guess.

Everybody on here wants to focus on just the spending part of the plan, with seemingly no interest in the tax cuts or the mix of the cuts/spending that is in the plan.

I'm disgusted we are going to see a $2 Trillion dollar deficit, but what do you expect really? Look at the mess we are in. Two wars, a recession, rising inflation, rising unemployment. Whether Bush is to blame for it or not is immaterial IMO. It is the state we are in and it is what Obama has to deal with. Obama is spending based on his agenda the same way Bush did. I just think most of this thread is extremely one-sided against a man who entered office a week ago, and inherited a huge mess from from the outgoing president who high-tailed it out of Washington as fast as he could.

All I am seeing on here is ridicule of Obama's plan, calling him a socialist, and with no mention of why he gets to push this through in the first place. How about this:

Bush is a socialist for the wealthy.

...is there any disagreement with that statement?

Who is defending TARP? Having a list of spending plans /tax cuts is better than not for transparency but we are still being sold spending and tax cuts under the guise of emergency stimulus. You're the one reading the book about using crises to implement programs - this fits well (except it's not being used to move us more towards free markets). Being more transparent than TARP is hardly an accomplishment.

Before I praise Obama for being truly transparent, I'll wait until he has the cojones to use emergency legislation for emergency plans. Clearly, this plan (and the duration) is loaded with programs that are hardly emergency in nature.

 

[utvolpj]

almost $6bil for rural internet should be a real economy saver!

Like it or not, there is an open and transparent list that can be debated with the Obama one.

didn't the last debate end with "I won, nanny-nanny boo-boo"? (I may not have actually heard that last part right)

 

[volinbham]

Bush is a socialist for the wealthy.

...is there any disagreement with that statement?

Sure I'll disagree. His overspending (e.g. prescription drug plan) was certainly not aimed at the rich.

Tax cuts are in no way a form of socialism.

The TARP plan (failed as it is) is not socialism for the wealthy -- it's intent was to ease credit markets so if it's socialistic, then it is aimed at more than the wealthy just as BO's planned spending on any particular industry sector.

 

[rjd970]

Who is defending TARP? Having a list of spending plans /tax cuts is better than not for transparency but we are still being sold spending and tax cuts under the guise of emergency stimulus. You're the one reading the book about using crises to implement programs - this fits well (except it's not being used to move us more towards free markets). Being more transparent than TARP is hardly an accomplishment.

I'm not saying your defending TARP. I'm just saying there is an awful lot of ridicule being layed on Obama's plan here, and it happens to be more balanced, and with actual tax cuts, than TARP could ever imagine. And I agree, this fits very well in the Shock Doctrine paradigm.

Before I praise Obama for being truly transparent, I'll wait until he has the cojones to use emergency legislation for emergency plans. Clearly, this plan (and the duration) is loaded with programs that are hardly emergency in nature.

I don't disagree. As I said, there is crap loaded in his plan. But at least we know what that crap actually is beforehand, intead of finding out after-the-fact about corporate jets and executive bonuses.

 

[rjd970]

Sure I'll disagree. His overspending (e.g. prescription drug plan) was certainly not aimed at the rich.

Tax cuts are in no way a form of socialism.

The TARP plan (failed as it is) is not socialism for the wealthy -- it's intent was to ease credit markets so if it's socialistic, then it is aimed at more than the wealthy just as BO's planned spending on any particular industry sector.

TARP was socialization of losses and privatization of gains. Plain and simple. As a taxpayer, until I get my dividend check from all this money we are supposedly going to make, I see no reason to change my mind. I'm sure those bonuses are well deserved on Wall Street.

And, to be fair, his overspending including a lot of benefits to contractors in the privatization of secondary functions in Iraq.

 

[volinbham]

And I agree, this fits very well in the Shock Doctrine paradigm.

From what I read of the author's premise, the shocks are continually used to move us towards more (destructive in the author's view) free market policies. I don't see that happening here.

I what I do see is the people in power using crisis to advance their agendas. Nothing unique to BO here but it sure looks like politics as usual.

 

[allvol123]

I don't disagree. As I said, there is crap loaded in his plan. But at least we know what that crap actually is beforehand, intead of finding out after-the-fact about corporate jets and executive bonuses.

So since you realize beforehand, this time, that it is crap...that makes it ok? Get over the jets thing, it is the sort of emotional mush that people like Obama play on. Is the billions Obama is wasting on his programs with our money not worse than someone buying a jet?

 

[volinbham]

TARP was socialization of losses and privatization of gains. Plain and simple. As a taxpayer, until I get my dividend check from all this money we are supposedly going to make, I see no reason to change my mind. I'm sure those bonuses are well deserved on Wall Street.

And, to be fair, his overspending including a lot of benefits to contractors in the privatization of secondary functions in Iraq.

Your second point first - how is this "for the wealthy"? BO's plans will favor specific industry sectors.

We can't tell if gains have been privatized until we see if their are gains. Like any investment, the return is unknown until exercised.

The bonuses are controversial to be sure they are the nature of the beast on Wall Street. Likewise, the spending in the proposed plan will provide high pay and perks consistent with whatever industry receives the government contract.

 

[rjd970]

From what I read of the author's premise, the shocks are continually used to move us towards more (destructive in the author's view) free market policies. I don't see that happening here.

It's actually predicated on one massive shock to jump start, then little "shocks" to keep it going.

No way Obama's plan gets passed without the recession (maybe he doesn't even get elected). Likewise, no way we invade Iraq without 9/11, no matter how justified we would have been without it.

 

[rjd970]

So since you realize beforehand, this time, that it is crap...that makes it ok? Get over the jets thing, it is the sort of emotional mush that people like Obama play on. Is the billions Obama is wasting on his programs with our money not worse than someone buying a jet?

They are both equally bad. It's the premise that matters.

 

[allvol123]

They are both equally bad. It's the premise that matters.

They are both equally bad?

What is the premise that separates them?

 

[volinbham]

It's actually predicated on one massive shock to jump start, then little "shocks" to keep it going.

No way Obama's plan gets passed without the recession (maybe he doesn't even get elected). Likewise, no way we invade Iraq without 9/11, no matter how justified we would have been without it.

What about the "free market" component. I thought the author was arguing that these shocks were used to "sell" further moves towards free markets/capitalism. I don't see how Obama's plan could fit this portion of her premise.

 

[allvol123]

Your second point first - how is this "for the wealthy"? BO's plans will favor specific industry sectors.

People are already fighting in regards to who will get the money. The asphalt and concrete lobbyists are fighting over which types of infrastructure projects should be taken up. Hilarious.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Why not have the government receive all of our paychecks and determine how much they should give us back.