[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I think you misunderstood the theme of his entire campaign.

I don't think so. "Change" the way things are done in Washington. You know, the stuff people don't like. He promised to not to engage in the old ways of partisan bickering and embrace inclusiveness. I think it's clear that Obama misunderstands what "partisan' means.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Apparently, the problem with the term "bipartisan" is that it's *very* subjective. All we can safely say is that your definition of "bipartisan" is clearly different from Obama's.

100% agreed. Obama thinks that allowing Republicans to tell him what they think their constituents (which make up nearly half of the US) want BEFORE telling them "tough sh*t, I ain't budging" is being "bipartisan", despite the fact that the guy who he followed out of office also invited the opposition in to hear their thoughts, but didn't go as far as telling them "I won". It's sort of like how whether Clinton engaged in felonies depended on what your definition of "is" was. I don't think most people would buy Obama's current definition though. I'd be willing to bet that most would consider the sort of back and forth that John McCain always strived for to be a more representative model of what "bipartisan" means.

I think it's pretty clear that Obama's definition is a phony invention created for propaganda purposes, to help him get elected. If that's good enough for you, then you're most likely "part of the problem" as far as what's wrong with the government, rather than part of the solution.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And like has been pointed out several times, there is no "evidence" - this is just quasi-scientific spin.

He wasn't willing to compromise (except a couple of areas where the Democrats where getting really bad PR from the press) and told the Republicans to go pound sand, he wasn't budging because "he won". If that's not evidence of a lack of bipartisanship, I'm not sure what is. Up is down, right is left. I get it.

Originally Posted by kobi 

Straw man.

What exactly is the "straw man" you are talking about? Kind of a vague rebuttal.

Stupendousman, It's clear that no matter what Obama does or doesn't do that you'll approve of it. That's your right and I respect that.

It's clear that this type of rebuttal is the perfect solution for someone who can't defend what is being debated, so instead they will shift the blame to some supposed flaw in the person making the complaint. That's known as an "ad hominem" logical fallacy.

It's also clear that you didn't understand Obama's campaign platform, it wasn't change from the Democratic party platform, it was change from the last eight years of the Republican failure.

Sorry. FAIL.

I don't expect him to change from the Democratic party platform, unless the platform specifically calls for partisanship and wasteful spending.

I expected him to keep his promise not to put "partisan zealots" in charge of government the way he claims Bush did with Karl Rove, yet he put one of the most partisan zealots (Rahm Emanuel) in Washington is essentially the same position as he decried Bush for. He's letting Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do exactly what he decried Tom Delay for doing.

I expected him to keep his campaign promise to find a broad coalition from the middle who would support reasonable legislation, yet he really didn't even try and gave nothing to compromise in regards to the bigger picture. He wouldn't budge. THAT IS NOT BEING BIPARTISAN by any reasonable standard. Sorry, that simply isn't a credible claim if that's what you are saying.

Where you fail is in your argument that Obama, claimed John McCain's goals to win the campaign. If John McCain's goals were the right direction for the country, then John McCain would have won.

Obama didn't run on his record. He ran on being an agent of "change" in Washington who would get things done in a bipartisan way, similar to what McCain had a reputation for. He talked of forming broad coalitions from the middle to create great change in the way things are done in Washington.

Essentially, he said he'd give us what McCain had a reputation for, yet he's doing just the opposite. If he refuses to compromise and refuses to govern from at least center/left, then he's not following through on how his campaign positioned him prior to the election, in order to beat a guy known for bipartisanship and governing from the center. They did everything they could to try and fool people into believing Obama would govern like McCain, and fool people they did. No one expects Obama to have all the same goals and priorities as John McCain, but I do think that everyone expected Obama to at least try to have real compromise and not be arrogant and unswerving in his grab for complete power.

..and dude. If 3 PERCENT of America voters voted differently, John McCain would be in office. 3% more Americans agreed with Obama after hearing him lie about how he would be bipartisan and reasonable. If you want to use that as a "I won" mandate to enact huge radical leftwing change, I think you're going to be really disappointed in 2 years when people are still really unhappy and the people currently in charge are put to blame. That means huge losses for the Democrats.

Obama is making the exact same mistakes that Clinton made coming into office with a Democrat majority in Congress. If Clinton was up for election in 1994 he would have lost in a landslide. While I disagree with him on innumerable things, have no respect for him due to his inability to be discreet, his lack of self control, and his willingness to engage in criminal behavior - I appreciate Bill Clinton for his last six years after he "got the message" and often times worked the middle between the Republican and Democrat hardliners to do stuff a lot of Americans actually wanted or at least provided the ability to stop both the extremes in politics from moving too fast to enact changes that were not necessary, or would alienate a huge portion of the population.

Obama could keep one campaign promise and still get a lot of what he wants. Instead, now in power, he's going to abuse it, be a total partisan, and likely end up feeling the wrath of the people. I'm not going to feel a bit sorry for him.

Here's a great story that sums it up better than I could

SF Politics Examiner: Obama's plan to end partisanship: agree with him, since he won, and you lost

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If 3 PERCENT of America voters voted differently, John McCain would be in office. 3% more Americans agreed with Obama after hearing him lie about how he would be bipartisan and reasonable. If you want to use that as a "I won" mandate to enact huge radical leftwing change, I think you're going to be really disappointed in 2 years when people are still really unhappy and the people currently in charge are put to blame. That means huge losses for the Democrats.

-t

[besson3c]

I think it's kind of funny that you guys gave Bush a free pass for not simply weeks or months, but *years*, and now you're all over Obama in just a matter of days. Where were you for the last eight years?

This is tangential, I know...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think it's kind of funny that you guys gave Bush a free pass for not simply weeks or months, but *years*, and now you're all over Obama in just a matter of days. Where were you for the last eight years?

This is tangential, I know...

FWIW, Bush did not produce a $ 900B FAIL package in his first two weeks.

Obama is really the greatest

-t

[subego]

^^ Bush had 9/11.

Also, as I said, Republicans are generally better at the party unity bit.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..and dude. If 3 PERCENT of America voters voted differently, John McCain would be in office. 3% more Americans agreed with Obama after hearing him lie about how he would be bipartisan and reasonable. If you want to use that as a "I won" mandate to enact huge radical leftwing change, I think you're going to be really disappointed in 2 years when people are still really unhappy and the people currently in charge are put to blame. That means huge losses for the Democrats.

Do you happen to recall the margin of difference in the popular vote between Bush and Gore and Bush and Kerry?

[subego]

2% for Bush the 2nd time, like -0.5% the first time (I think).

McCain would have likely won had he picked someone other than Palin. I probably would have voted for him at least.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think it's kind of funny that you guys gave Bush a free pass for not simply weeks or months, but *years*, and now you're all over Obama in just a matter of days. Where were you for the last eight years?

Bush? You mean the guy who let Ted Kennedy write his legislation? You mean the guy who for most things other than the war, was so wishy washy that he lost support of his own party? The guy who never came into a meeting with the opposition and simply told them "I won" and refused to do any kind of real compromise right out of the box? Even when he had a Republican congress? The Bush who didn't run against a guy known for his bipartisanship which Bush did everything he could to co-opt so he could get elected?

That Bush? If that's the one you are talking about, you are comparing apples to oranges. When even a San Francisco newspaper is giving a liberal Democrat a big FAIL when it comes to how he's handling things the first week or so in office, you know he's probably not doing things right. There's going to be enough REAL issues for everyone to disagree over in the next 2 years or so that if Obama can't even do the basics right, and tries to ramrod stuff through that makes little sense, he's going to get what he deserves. Even his liberal supporters should be smart enough to see that as well.

[turtle777]

The good thing is, at the current FAIL rate, Obama is not going to survive 4 years.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The good thing is, at the current FAIL rate, Obama is not going to survive 4 years.

-t

Perhaps, but Bush survived a full 8 years at a much higher FAIL rate.

Point being, FAIL is very subjective. What *you* believe to be a FAIL may not be what 50%+1 of voters believe to be a FAIL.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

2% for Bush the 2nd time, like -0.5% the first time (I think).

McCain would have likely won had he picked someone other than Palin. I probably would have voted for him at least.

It'd be interesting to know if anyone in here were among those who believed that Bush's wins were mandates for "huge radical [right]wing change". It's too bad Abe isn't here; I know he believed Bush's wins were "landslides" and that they signaled a global shift to the right.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The Bush who didn't run against a guy known for his bipartisanship ...

It's really too bad that the guy known for his bipartisanship didn't pick a running mate who was also known for bipartisanship. By choosing a very obviously partisan running mate he flushed all his bipartisan cred down the toilet.

[besson3c]

I've been waiting for you guys to provide concrete examples of what is wrong with the stimulus bill, and how what is in there is, in fact, porky. As it turns out, while I'm sure that there are legitimate cases in there, it seems to me like you guys have a greater problem with the basic premise of the stimulus package, and the overall concept of a bailout...

I think that you guys fail to realize what Greenspan did, that the Republican principles behind what we saw in Bush (and possibly in general, I haven't sorted this out) simply do not work any longer. The idea of a hands off approach to market regulation hasn't worked, and the idea of trickle down economics especially coupled with assumptions about the free market do not work either.

I'm getting the sense from Turtle's difficulty in seeing the virtues of a bail-out and ebuddy even suggesting that allowing these corporate jets might provide some stimulus that these old ideas are still being clung to. Tax breaks work up to a point, and letting the free market roll around without oversight also works up to a point, but we've seen what happens to a market left unregulated (and to be fair, yes, Clinton carries some blame in getting the ball rolling with granting mortgages), and I've yet to see a case made as to Bush's tax cuts really helped us, and how relying purely on more tax cuts now will get us out of this crisis.

You can label the stimulus bill whatever makes you feel better (I still like "failulus") - socialist, whatever, but what choice do we have? It's all about jobs, and simply letting these companies and bankers die is basically like watching your house burn to the ground in terms of the loss of jobs this represents. I agree that it would be very nice and would feel great to just let these companies die miserable deaths for the damage they have caused, but how would we be better off with all of these jobs no longer available?

The argument about *when* the stimulus bill will apply is a legitimate one, I think, but simply questioning the design of the bill is not, and clinging to the very ideas that helped get us into this mess as solutions does not help us any either. The way you get an economy moving again is jobs, jobs, jobs. Investing into research creates jobs, infrastructure improvements create jobs... While ebuddy is right that allowing the purchase of corporate jets also creates jobs, but the recipients of this bail out money were granted this money so that the jobs that they offered are not axed, since these jobs represent a greater economic loss than the stimulus provided by the sale of an expensive commode or a rug.

Please sit down and write up an answer as to what alternatives exist for compensating for this loss of jobs? What parts of the bill that you dislike do not create jobs? Is what you dislike about the bill the premise of a bail-out, or a specific facet of the bill?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Please sit down and write up an answer as to what alternatives exist for compensating for this loss of jobs? What parts of the bill that you dislike do not create jobs? Is what you dislike about the bill the premise of a bail-out, or a specific facet of the bill?

Okay, I've got some free time, so I'll do some research.

I want to repeat the basic thesis again here, because it seems like you're conflating a few things.

The government can regulate the market. AFAICT, how that should be done hasn't been closed for debate, nor even really discussed.

The government can prop up the market. These are the bailouts, and are entirely separate from the stimulus package. Whether a particular bailout is a good idea or a bad idea will depend on the specific bailout.

The government cannot stimulate the market. With the dubious exceptions I have mentioned twice above.


Here's an exercise for you while I do my research. If you think the bailout will help, justify why we are spending so little. Why not 3 trillion, or 5 trillion? Wouldn't that help more?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've been waiting for you guys to provide concrete examples of what is wrong with the stimulus bill, and how what is in there is, in fact, porky.

Sorry, dude, but you're just too dense.

Read the countless links that I posted in the other thread.
I don't know how you can call something "stimulus" if only 12% of it go to funding economic growth and true job creation that is involved in value-adding activities.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's really too bad that the guy known for his bipartisanship didn't pick a running mate who was also known for bipartisanship. By choosing a very obviously partisan running mate he flushed all his bipartisan cred down the toilet.

I'll have to disagree with both you and subego on this one. McCain choosing Palin is not why he lost the election. While I'm wholeheartedly opposed to the notion that Sarah Palin is "the future face of the Republican Party", (Steele is) she is also quite well known for reaching across the aisle. What lost McCain the election was that he knee-jerked into campaign suspension so he could run to Washington, say nothing, and sign off on a bill that 60+% of the American people opposed. He failed to defend fellow Republicans, he failed to defend himself against the knocks against him, and he failed to accurately represent what had happened in the several years leading up to this election; a Congressional failure that only worsened when the Dems took office in 2006.

All this and what may go down as one of the most feeble bids for Presidency in the history of this country and Obama still barely managed to sqeek out a victory in popular vote. This ain't no mandate.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Sorry, dude, but you're just too dense.

Read the countless links that I posted in the other thread.
I don't know how you can call something "stimulus" if only 12% of it go to funding economic growth and true job creation that is involved in value-adding activities...

... and may take several years to even know if it stimulated anything at all.

[besson3c]

Okay, so what is that 12% figure based on? How was it derived?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

All this and what may go down as one of the most feeble bids for Presidency in the history of this country and Obama still barely managed to sqeek out a victory in popular vote. This ain't no mandate.

Considering how scathingly you indict McCain, it's almost as if you're arguing the only thing that propelled him to such heights was Sarah Palin (and perhaps Obama suckitude).

I'd prefer to give McCain a little more credit at least. The subtext of my post is in almost total agreement with your point: McCain lost by a slim enough margin that had he done almost anything differently he would have won.

This includes picking someone other than Sarah Palin, who only energized those who were going to vote for him anyways, and turned off twice as many who were on the fence.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so what is that 12% figure based on? How was it derived?

$825 billion total (as of 1/16/08)

• $550 billion in new spending
• $275 billion in tax relief ($1,000 tax cut for families, $500 tax cut for individuals through SS payroll deductions)
• $ 90 billion for infrastructure
• $ 87 billion Medicaid aid to states
• $ 79 billion school districts/public colleges to prevent cutbacks
• $ 54 billion to encourage energy production from renewable sources
• $ 41 billion for additional school funding ($14 billion for school modernizations and repairs, $13 billion for Title I, $13 billion for IDEA special education funding, $1 billino for education technology)
• $ 24 billion for "health information technology to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies" and "to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments."
• $ 16 billion for science/technology ($10 billion for science facilities, research, and instrumentation; $6 billion to expand broadband to rural areas)
• $ 15 billion to increase Pell grants by $500
• $ 6 billion for "higher education modernization."

$90 billion on "infrastructure" is 10%. That leaves an additional $16 billion for you to decide what exactly comprises stimulus.

Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.... What I want to emphasize ... is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches.
~ President Obama

It's a good thing Obama didn't say "read my lips" at the end of that statement, the media would be having a field day. Right?

[besson3c]

$550 in new spending... Why doesn't this count towards stimulus?

[besson3c]

For that matter, why doesn't anything else on that list count as stimulus? Lots of potential job creation there...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so what is that 12% figure based on? How was it derived?

RTFA.

I posted all the links in the other thread.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For that matter, why doesn't anything else on that list count as stimulus? Lots of potential job creation there...

Because it doesn't create any VALUE ADD. By just throwing money at pet projects this country will not become more competitive. What you want is invest in things that help the US to produce goods and services more efficiently, and be able to sell those. The litmus test should be:

a) will it produce sellable goods ?
or b) will it make the production of sellable goods cheaper.

If you just hand out money, the individual might get stimulated, but there is no real trickle down and multiplier effect.

I'm sorry, but these are really basic economic principles. It's just so f***ing sad to see that Obama has no clue what would *really* help the economy in the long run.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Considering how scathingly you indict McCain, it's almost as if you're arguing the only thing that propelled him to such heights was Sarah Palin (and perhaps Obama suckitude).

Firstly I want to be clear that I think Obama's campaign was brilliant. There's no "suckitude" to Obama other than his politics over pragmatism. With regard to McCain, you sound as if something, anything "propelled him to such heights" to begin with. I think you'd be hard-pressed to say McCain ever really enjoyed any "heights" before or after the Palin pick. I think the McCain campaign mismanaged Palin severely. She was no more a liability to McCain than Biden was to Obama, but the Obama campaign was able to keep him almost entirely silent. The few opportunities he had to speak, he botched, but for whatever reason it was not nearly as newsworthy as it was fun to beat up on the girl from Alaska. This of course is not to suggest that I think Palin is brilliant, but she's better than she was perceived IMO.

I'd prefer to give McCain a little more credit at least. The subtext of my post is in almost total agreement with your point: McCain lost by a slim enough margin that had he done almost anything differently he would have won.

I really believe the failure of his bid reached its pinnacle at the suspension of his campaign to be entirely ineffectual in the process he supposedly suspended his campaign to engage. This was generally viewed as a very unhealthy reaction to "crisis" and brought his ability to lead seriously in question. He would enjoy a couple of short bursts of momentum, but they would not sustain.

This includes picking someone other than Sarah Palin, who only energized those who were going to vote for him anyways, and turned off twice as many who were on the fence.

I disagree. This pick actually energized a great many conservatives who were fence-sitting between voting and not voting at all. Both campaigns were struggling for the Hillary Clinton vote, McCain was struggling for the conservative vote (Soros), and both campaigns were struggling for the female, aged 40+ vote. The Palin pick was targeted quite well, politically.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Because it doesn't create any VALUE ADD. By just throwing money at pet projects this country will not become more competitive. What you want is invest in things that help the US to produce goods and services more efficiently, and be able to sell those. The litmus test should be:

a) will it produce sellable goods ?
or b) will it make the production of sellable goods cheaper.

If you just hand out money, the individual might get stimulated, but there is no real trickle down and multiplier effect.

I'm sorry, but these are really basic economic principles. It's just so f***ing sad to see that Obama has no clue what would *really* help the economy in the long run.

-t

No. This stimulus package is not designed to make the U.S. more competitive, but to create jobs to get our economy back on its feet. Jobs drive our economy and our GDP.

What in the expenditure list do you feel does not create jobs?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

$550 in new spending... Why doesn't this count towards stimulus?

Reconsider and address what subego asked earlier. If $550 billion in new spending will actually work to stimulate the economy, why stop there? Why not throw $1 trillion? $1.5 trillion? Here's the concept in a nutshell;

- you line up 10 people and have them all cup their hands. The 10th person needs water.
- you pour 1 cup of water into the hands of person #1, they pour their portion into the hands of #2, and so forth.
- by the time the 9th has poured his portion into the cupped hands of #10, it is 2011, there is precious little left, it is worth less than it was when you started, and it has been filtered through 9 pairs of dirty hands serving only to bloat bureaucracy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Reconsider and address what subego asked earlier. If $550 billion in new spending will actually work to stimulate the economy, why stop there? Why not throw $1 trillion? $1.5 trillion? Here's the concept in a nutshell;

- you line up 10 people and have them all cup their hands. The 10th person needs water.
- you pour 1 cup of water into the hands of person #1, they pour their portion into the hands of #2, and so forth.
- by the time the 9th has poured his portion into the cupped hands of #10, it is 2011, there is precious little left, it is worth less than it was when you started, and it has been filtered through 9 pairs of dirty socks serving only to bloat bureaucracy.

Because every economic strategy only works up to a point. You can provide tax cuts until what point, there is no tax left? You can provide economic stimulus packages up until our currency is so worthless that other foreign companies can just start plucking up our companies. Some might say we are already there, there were rumors of China buying up GM...

What we are doing is trading off the value of our dollar for job growth. This is an imperfect solution, to be sure, but the way I see it an economy is not too much unlike a game of Sim-country. Right now we need jobs, so we make this trade off. When we no longer need jobs, this no longer becomes necessary. This is the point in which the question of "why not dump $1 trillion into stimulus all at once" is answered.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Because every economic strategy only works up to a point. You can provide tax cuts until what point, there is no tax left?

Both income and corporate tax rates could use a cut.

You can provide economic stimulus packages up until our currency is so worthless that other foreign companies can just start plucking up our companies. Some might say we are already there, there were rumors of China buying up GM...

Cutting taxes does not make your currency worth less. Printing more money to dole out over $800 billion dollars in new spending is what makes your currency worth less. Instead of the ludicrous fiscal policy of giving someone money, having them filter it through countless programs, then give it back to you, why not just take less to begin with?

What we are doing is trading off the value of our dollar for job growth.

What you're advocating is the spending of up to $250k per proposed job saved/created. This is not sound logic no matter which way you want to look at it, particularly economic.

This is an imperfect solution, to be sure, but the way I see it an economy is not too much unlike a game of Sim-country.

This could explain some of the dichotomy in ideals here. I think it's a lot more like the game of Real-country.

Right now we need jobs, so we make this trade off. When we no longer need jobs, this no longer becomes necessary. This is the point in which the question of "why not dump $1 trillion into stimulus all at once" is answered.

If we need jobs why are we spending $87 billion in additional Medicaid aid to states?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No. This stimulus package is not designed to make the U.S. more competitive, but to create jobs to get our economy back on its feet. Jobs drive our economy and our GDP.

What in the expenditure list do you feel does not create jobs?

A job != a job.

Some jobs create VALUE, some just waste money. Heck, just because you employ someone doesn't mean that this person really creates a tangible BENEFIT.

Most of the job created by the Failulus just create jobs for the jobs sake. This is unsustainable. What happens to those jobs after one year, or whenever that money runs out ? Ever thought of that ?

ALL the money of the Stimulus should have gone to jump-starting businesses and creating jobs, that become self-sustaining after a short while. However, Obama succeeded to create mostly jobs that will be forever enslaved to Federal funding.

Do you get that difference ?

-t

[subego]

CREATE JOBS WITH CLEAN, EFFICIENT, AMERICAN ENERGY

Total cost: $54 billion


Here are the ones that seem like they could actually create some (not particularly good, short term) jobs, and will require purchase of material:

GSA Federal Buildings: $6.7 billion ($6 billion for energy efficiency)
Local Government Energy Efficiency Block Grants: $6.9 billion
Energy Efficiency Housing Retrofits (HUD): $2.5 billion
Energy Efficiency Grants and Loans for Institutions: $1.5 billion

This section has jobs in the title, right? So a lot of it will go to create jobs, right?. About 33%.


Here's the R&D:

Cleaning Fossil Energy: $2.4 billion

This strikes me as a completely legit piece of government subsidized R&D. It's basically mandating the creation of something that doesn't exist, which wouldn't make you money anyway until much farther down the line. Bravo. A paltry 4%.



Now we start to get into WTF territory.


Reliable, Efficient Electricity Grid: $11 billion

Rebuilding our electrical grid will be a great stimulus to the economy. Well, it will after we pay $11 billion dollars to figure out how to do it, to the people who make money from energy consumption. Green corporate welfare on crack. Brilliant!


Renewable Energy Loan Guarantees: $8 billion

As appealing as renewable energy is, how's about making sure banks can make loans.


Home Weatherization for Low-Income Families: $6.2 billion

That's what low-income families need right now, weatherproofing.


Advanced Vehicle Battery Loans and Grants: $2 billion

Because our advanced vehicle manufacturers are doing so well.


This is a hair more than 50% of the section.


37% good, 50% suck, leaving 13% unreported (all but one below a billion per item).


Next up: Science!

[turtle777]

Most of that crap is not self sustainable.

So we either get used to shelling $ 900B each year, or those great jobs will go away in a year or two. And then what ?

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Reconsider and address what subego asked earlier. If $550 billion in new spending will actually work to stimulate the economy, why stop there? Why not throw $1 trillion? $1.5 trillion? Here's the concept in a nutshell;

- you line up 10 people and have them all cup their hands. The 10th person needs water.
- you pour 1 cup of water into the hands of person #1, they pour their portion into the hands of #2, and so forth.
- by the time the 9th has poured his portion into the cupped hands of #10, it is 2011, there is precious little left, it is worth less than it was when you started, and it has been filtered through 9 pairs of dirty hands serving only to bloat bureaucracy.

Trickle-down economics at its best.

[subego]

TRANSFORMING OUR ECONOMY WITH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Total Cost: $16 Billion


Rural Wireless and Broadband Grants: $6 billion

Not a bad idea. Creates (again, not great) short term jobs, has long term benefits.


Scientific Research: $10 billion

A decent amount of this will go to good government jobs at places like the NSF, NIH, and NASA. Economy transforming sciencey stuff.

Makes you wonder why they can cough up more for researching the total reconstruction of our electricity grid. Maybe instead of hiring scientists, NASA should hire lobbyists.


100% good, 0% suck. 2% of the total package.


Part three ahead: roads.

[subego]

MODERNIZE ROADS, BRIDGES, TRANSIT AND WATERWAYS

Total Cost: $90 Billion


There's some shenanigans going on here as the bit by bit breakdown is $11 billion short of the $90 billion total given in the precis (this is all from the House press summary). I'll do the best I can.


Highway Infrastructure: $30 billion
Transit and Rail: $10 billion

What you'd expect. Short term jobs. Needs to be done. Gets the subego stamp of approval.


Clean Water, Flood Control, and Environmental Restoration: $19 Billion

All fine things that won't stimulate jack. If any government agency doesn't need to hire lobbyists, it's the EPA.


The remaining $31 billion is hard to pin down. It's listed "to modernize federal and other public infrastructure with investments that lead to long term energy cost savings", and is where the missing $11 billion seems to be hiding. What they do list are things like getting new computers for the State Department and fixing army barracks. Despite the fact these won't stimulate the economy much, I'll let it slide.


The part that the Republicans begrudgingly accept in theory musters a 78% good to 22% suck ratio. Remember this is only 11.25% of the total package.


I'm tired, so y'all can look forward to me taking a ruler to the knuckles of education tomorrow.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Both income and corporate tax rates could use a cut.


Cutting taxes does not make your currency worth less. Printing more money to dole out over $800 billion dollars in new spending is what makes your currency worth less. Instead of the ludicrous fiscal policy of giving someone money, having them filter it through countless programs, then give it back to you, why not just take less to begin with?


What you're advocating is the spending of up to $250k per proposed job saved/created. This is not sound logic no matter which way you want to look at it, particularly economic.


This could explain some of the dichotomy in ideals here. I think it's a lot more like the game of Real-country.


If we need jobs why are we spending $87 billion in additional Medicaid aid to states?

ebuddy: we could carry this on by debating these various point by point fragments, but I feel that this thread is fragmented enough as it is with a lacking sense of focus. We have some saying that Obama is too partisan now, some complaining about the timing of the stimulus being provided by the package, some about our global competitiveness, others about the package being porky. It seems at underneath all of this is a set of philosophical differences which we are not going to resolve here.

However, there is also no point in debating this bill as long as these philosophical differences persist either. The bill is designed a particular way, and trying to criticize for not being designed another way is like complaining that an apple is not an orange.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

A job != a job.

Some jobs create VALUE, some just waste money. Heck, just because you employ someone doesn't mean that this person really creates a tangible BENEFIT.

Most of the job created by the Failulus just create jobs for the jobs sake. This is unsustainable. What happens to those jobs after one year, or whenever that money runs out ? Ever thought of that ?

ALL the money of the Stimulus should have gone to jump-starting businesses and creating jobs, that become self-sustaining after a short while. However, Obama succeeded to create mostly jobs that will be forever enslaved to Federal funding.

Do you get that difference ?

-t

Yes, that's a valid point (albeit made in a very roundabout fashion). Many of these projects are just temporary jobs, but how do you create permanent jobs via a stimulus package like this, and should this be the focus of this package? The focus of this bill is to inject some life back in the economy in the short term so that it can being to revitalize itself from this crash. A short term jolt is all that this stimulus generally is intended to provide, AFAIK, whether you are investing in defense contracts or whatever else has been historically done in times such as this.

I hear you about the need to be competitive globally and our trade deficit, I really do. However, this is a far more fundamental problem and one that isn't best solved when our house is on fire, metaphorically speaking. These sort of fixes (e.g. retooling our education system) are much more long term fixes than they are short term ones.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Reliable, Efficient Electricity Grid: $11 billion

Rebuilding our electrical grid will be a great stimulus to the economy. Well, it will after we pay $11 billion dollars to figure out how to do it, to the people who make money from energy consumption. Green corporate welfare on crack. Brilliant!

How do you figure this? This could mean redesigning the redundancy in the grid, in improving it to be more efficient in terms of energy consumption, or any number of other things that we don't understand, but even with my limited understanding I can see how this could create jobs in researching and constructing all of this.

I'm not saying that this project is worthwhile because I don't know that, but if the object is for it to create jobs, I'm not certain that this can be dismissed as failubus either without knowing more....

Renewable Energy Loan Guarantees: $8 billion

As appealing as renewable energy is, how's about making sure banks can make loans.

I think the WTF part of this is that it isn't clear how this creates jobs?

Home Weatherization for Low-Income Families: $6.2 billion

That's what low-income families need right now, weatherproofing.

Sure, this is a great source of job production for the people that would be doing this, and it would reduce heating bills. You'd be surprised how much of a difference weatherproofing can make on a heating bill.

Advanced Vehicle Battery Loans and Grants: $2 billion

Because our advanced vehicle manufacturers are doing so well.

Why would this R&D have to be used by our domestic consumer auto makers?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, that's a valid point (albeit made in a very roundabout fashion). Many of these projects are just temporary jobs, but how do you create permanent jobs via a stimulus package like this, and should this be the focus of this package? The focus of this bill is to inject some life back in the economy in the short term so that it can being to revitalize itself from this crash. A short term jolt is all that this stimulus generally is intended to provide, AFAIK, whether you are investing in defense contracts or whatever else has been historically done in times such as this.

You do this a lot besson, you call for details and when they're given you say something to the effect of; "we could debate all these details, but we'll never agree". So... why do you ask? You wanted details. You wanted to discuss the 12% figure and how it was arrived at. You were told. You've been told time and again. You go into great detail about the intent of the package above, but can you indicate when the first "immediate" new job will be created by increasing medicaid expenditure?

At first I thought Turtle was being hard on you, now I'm not so sure. You're saying how the stimulus is designed for immediate jobs, but none of the jobs are immediate. First of all, we're spending more per "proposed" job than the jobs will pay in 5 years. Secondly, by the time the funds trickle-down into an actual new job created (as opposed to not simply keeping current people employed by that time), we'll be over 10% unemployment because none of this injects funds to the grassroots for long-term, sustainable business growth. The "this is not the time for profit" mentality is wholly destructive to the intention of business and job creation; growth. You're saying it's for an immediate jolt, but people are telling you there's nothing immediate about it and there are precious few who think a "jolt" is in there anywhere. We have Japan as an excellent model of this failed "philosophy".

We have some saying that Obama is too partisan now, some complaining about the timing of the stimulus being provided by the package, some about our global competitiveness, others about the package being porky.

He is governing politics over pragmatism, exactly what I was hoping Obama wouldn't do. The timing of this stimulus has been estimated at 2011. This is not an "immediate jolt" to anything. Our global competitiveness is a huge concern and while we spend more per student we're ranked 16th among industrial nations in math and science. The solution; more money??? The package is porky. So... yeah there are a wealth of reasons to oppose this stimulus package.

I'll let you count up the jobs once the stimulus is passed. Assuming Congress has the bullocks to do this without Republican support. Trust me, this is Obama's Iraq and there is no surge to fix it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Most of that crap is not self sustainable.

So we either get used to shelling $ 900B each year, or those great jobs will go away in a year or two. And then what ?

-t

... then we get pissed off because we can't see the new jobs created through the ones that were lost waiting on stimulus, vote 'em all out of Congress, and hopefully entertain the notion that cutting the corporate tax rate will make it more appealing to conduct business in the US. More business, more jobs. Instead of taking money from people and filtering it through countless pet projects in the hopes that it'll get back to them eventually, cut the income tax rate and not take it from people in the first place. That's immediate stimulus.

[ort888]

What if they hire nutritional experts to come into our homes and teach us how to eat? That would be more permanent.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you figure this?

a) The press release calls it "for research and development, pilot projects, and federal matching funds for the Smart Grid Investment Program".

b) Google "Smart Grid Investment Program", you won't find much because AFAICT it didn't exist until 4 days before Bush left office. This is an indication to me we aren't talking about a particularly well developed program.

c) What little I could find about it listed a consortium of major companies who just love the idea, many of whom have a business model based on profiting from energy consumption.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think the WTF part of this is that it isn't clear how this creates jobs?

Sure, this is a great source of job production for the people that would be doing this, and it would reduce heating bills. You'd be surprised how much of a difference weatherproofing can make on a heating bill.

Why would this R&D have to be used by our domestic consumer auto makers?

All of these are variations of the Jon Stewart chicken soup joke. You're leg is broken? Have some chicken soup.

Our banks are going insolvent and will probably have to be nationalized (you heard it here first)... Let's make loans for projects that aren't economically viable.

You own a home, you're broke, you're about to lose your job and default on your mortgage... here's some weatherstripping.

In a couple years we may not have an vehicle industry... but here's $2 billion to make us the world leaders in vehicle battery production.


FWIW, I've peeked ahead here, and except for the tax breaks there is almost nothing that will stimulate the economy. We're going to get a lot of 0% good and 100% suck coming up. There's a reason they opened with the halfway decent penny ante ****. They're hoping you've already gotten bored.

Regardless, if you think putting $27 billion into the good pile will make that big of a difference in the final tally, go ahead with your bad self.

[stupendousman]

This is all pretty much off topic to the original post.

The question should be whether or not Obama could do more with the bill to get Republican support than he has, given the fact that even the CBO says that most of the spending in the bill will not go or do anything for "stimulus" to get us out of the recession.

You can start another thread about what we should be doing other than throwing the money away. The fact is that the very BEGINNING of the problem is Obama's unwillingness to afford any kind of reaonable compromise (unless it's some kind of PR remedy) to create a consensus. All we get is the "master" asking the "slaves" why it is they aren't happy, even though he's let them sit on the porch and said nice things to them.

Is Obama's brand of "bipartisanship" better, worse or the same as what's came before, and if it's either of the latter options, why after only a week or two has he abandoned the "post partisan" goals he supposedly had and promised America?

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This is all pretty much off topic to the original post.

Since we're trying to determine how partisan Obama was with this bill, I thought an analysis of what's actually in the bill might be relevant, but whatever.

Upthread, I put forth an argument about how Obama actually had very little power in this situation and that Pelosi held all the cards. Feel free to respond if you want the thread back on topic.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

What if they hire nutritional experts to come into our homes and teach us how to eat? That would be more permanent.

Better yet, let's hire a panel of 35 people to define " nutritional expert", then we'll form a committee to determine where these nutritional experts should be dispatched, and a task force to address their travel.

Think of all the jobs created!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This is all pretty much off topic to the original post.

The question should be whether or not Obama could do more with the bill to get Republican support than he has, given the fact that even the CBO says that most of the spending in the bill will not go or do anything for "stimulus" to get us out of the recession.

You can start another thread about what we should be doing other than throwing the money away. The fact is that the very BEGINNING of the problem is Obama's unwillingness to afford any kind of reaonable compromise (unless it's some kind of PR remedy) to create a consensus. All we get is the "master" asking the "slaves" why it is they aren't happy, even though he's let them sit on the porch and said nice things to them.

Is Obama's brand of "bipartisanship" better, worse or the same as what's came before, and if it's either of the latter options, why after only a week or two has he abandoned the "post partisan" goals he supposedly had and promised America?

Let's break this down then. What does "bipartisan" mean to you, exactly? That we do what Limbaugh says and allow 46% of the bill to be drafted by Republicans? That there is agreement on everything? Some of the time? What percentage of the time? That a genuine effort is made?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You do this a lot besson, you call for details and when they're given you say something to the effect of; "we could debate all these details, but we'll never agree". So... why do you ask? You wanted details. You wanted to discuss the 12% figure and how it was arrived at. You were told. You've been told time and again. You go into great detail about the intent of the package above, but can you indicate when the first "immediate" new job will be created by increasing medicaid expenditure?

At first I thought Turtle was being hard on you, now I'm not so sure. You're saying how the stimulus is designed for immediate jobs, but none of the jobs are immediate. First of all, we're spending more per "proposed" job than the jobs will pay in 5 years. Secondly, by the time the funds trickle-down into an actual new job created (as opposed to not simply keeping current people employed by that time), we'll be over 10% unemployment because none of this injects funds to the grassroots for long-term, sustainable business growth. The "this is not the time for profit" mentality is wholly destructive to the intention of business and job creation; growth. You're saying it's for an immediate jolt, but people are telling you there's nothing immediate about it and there are precious few who think a "jolt" is in there anywhere. We have Japan as an excellent model of this failed "philosophy".


He is governing politics over pragmatism, exactly what I was hoping Obama wouldn't do. The timing of this stimulus has been estimated at 2011. This is not an "immediate jolt" to anything. Our global competitiveness is a huge concern and while we spend more per student we're ranked 16th among industrial nations in math and science. The solution; more money??? The package is porky. So... yeah there are a wealth of reasons to oppose this stimulus package.

I'll let you count up the jobs once the stimulus is passed. Assuming Congress has the bullocks to do this without Republican support. Trust me, this is Obama's Iraq and there is no surge to fix it.

ebuddy: let's just move on from this. You will have to take my word that I was just generally confused as to where to focus our attention here. There are several different arguments being bandied about that each require extensive debate, I was trying to figure out what the main one was, but stupendousman has since steered has back on track.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

a) The press release calls it "for research and development, pilot projects, and federal matching funds for the Smart Grid Investment Program".

b) Google "Smart Grid Investment Program", you won't find much because AFAICT it didn't exist until 4 days before Bush left office. This is an indication to me we aren't talking about a particularly well developed program.

c) What little I could find about it listed a consortium of major companies who just love the idea, many of whom have a business model based on profiting from energy consumption.






All of these are variations of the Jon Stewart chicken soup joke. You're leg is broken? Have some chicken soup.

Our banks are going insolvent and will probably have to be nationalized (you heard it here first)... Let's make loans for projects that aren't economically viable.

You own a home, you're broke, you're about to lose your job and default on your mortgage... here's some weatherstripping.

In a couple years we may not have an vehicle industry... but here's $2 billion to make us the world leaders in vehicle battery production.


FWIW, I've peeked ahead here, and except for the tax breaks there is almost nothing that will stimulate the economy. We're going to get a lot of 0% good and 100% suck coming up. There's a reason they opened with the halfway decent penny ante ****. They're hoping you've already gotten bored.

Regardless, if you think putting $27 billion into the good pile will make that big of a difference in the final tally, go ahead with your bad self.

I'd like to discuss this further, but perhaps we should do so in a separate thread as to remain on good terms with stupendousman.

[ort888]

Won't anyone think of Stupendousman's feelings here?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Won't anyone think of Stupendousman's feelings here?

Yeah, were's the sense of bipartisanship here?

Besson: I already answered your question. You still haven't explained how Obama's refusal to compromise at all meshes with his promises to build coalitions and stop engaging in "politics as usual".