Zombie Rush the Stimulus Package...don't read it, just pass it! (1 Viewer)

[Denny Crane]

[video=youtube;JEfICUoWKBw]

 

[barfo]

Anyone see Obama's prime time press conference?

I found it ironic (to say the least) that he was talking about Elkhart Indiana, the motorhome capital of the world. Those things certainly guzzle gasoline and throw CO2 into the atmosphere. So much for Green Guilt.

You think he should have said "Ah, those people built motorhomes. Screw them. They deserve to be unemployed."?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You think he should have said "Ah, those people built motorhomes. Screw them. They deserve to be unemployed."?

barfo

Green Guilt says they should be out of work, eh?

Maybe he could have talked about how they could be building motorhomes that use ethanol and have solar panels on top.

 

[barfo]

Green Guilt says they should be out of work, eh?

Maybe he could have talked about how they could be building motorhomes that use ethanol and have solar panels on top.

I don't know what green guilt is, but yes, I suppose he could have talked about green motorhomes. However, he did talk about fuel efficient cars, which is probably a much higher priority given the relative numbers of cars and motorhomes.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't know what green guilt is, but yes, I suppose he could have talked about green motorhomes. However, he did talk about fuel efficient cars, which is probably a much higher priority given the relative numbers of cars and motorhomes.

barfo

Symbolism over substance. The Democrats' creed.

 

[PapaG]

I'm surprised the nobody pointed out that it took Obama 4 full days to sign this bill that needed to be passed hours after being finalized.

 

[PapaG]

Over 500k private sector jobs lost in May while deficits and debt continue to skyrocket.

Stimulus, my ass. Amost 3 million jobs lost since Obama took office, and no end in sight.

U.S. private sector axes 532,000 jobs in May

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090603/bs_nm/us_usa_economy_employment_adp

 

[barfo]

Over 500k private sector jobs lost in May while deficits and debt continue to skyrocket.

Stimulus, my ass. Amost 3 million jobs lost since Obama took office, and no end in sight.

U.S. private sector axes 532,000 jobs in May

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090603/bs_nm/us_usa_economy_employment_adp

How many jobs would have been lost in May w/o the stimulus package?

I have no idea, myself. How about you?

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

How many jobs would have been lost in May w/o the stimulus package?

I have no idea, myself. How about you?

barfo

Why are we even referring to this as a "stimulus package"?

It clearly isn't, and never was a "stimulus" package.

We had to hurry up, rush, and pass this "stimulus" package, yet several months later, only ~6% of the "stimulus" package has been spent.

It was clearly a political ploy by the democrats, using scare tactics, to get their programs passed for increasing the size of the government.

 

[barfo]

Why are we even referring to this as a "stimulus package"?

It clearly isn't, and never was a "stimulus" package.

We had to hurry up, rush, and pass this "stimulus" package, yet several months later, only ~6% of the "stimulus" package has been spent.

It was clearly a political ploy by the democrats, using scare tactics, to get their programs passed for increasing the size of the government.

Maybe. Or maybe, just maybe, the government is a very slow and bureaucratic organization. And if that's so, maybe those who rushed to pass the stimulus package had that fact in mind. If something is going to take a long time, and if time is critical, perhaps it is better to start on it sooner rather than later?

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

Maybe. Or maybe, just maybe, the government is a very slow and bureaucratic organization. And if that's so, maybe those who rushed to pass the stimulus package had that fact in mind. If something is going to take a long time, and if time is critical, perhaps it is better to start on it sooner rather than later?

barfo

Great, start on it sooner than later. But don't use scare tactics to get pet-project spending bills passed. Don't try to force congress to pass bills they haven't even read.

We're starting to see some news that might suggest the recession is at least slowing down. This with only about $20billion of the "stimulus" package spent? Maybe the democrats' approach to the problem wasn't the necessary solution.

The government should give the taxpayers all of that money back.


** I will concede that perhaps the psychological effect of knowing the money is available and coming has helped. But I'm not convinced that individuals would start to make home purchases (and there has been positive data in home sales) because they know the government is going to fun pet-projects.

 

[Minstrel]

But I'm not convinced that individuals would start to make home purchases (and there has been positive data in home sales) because they know the government is going to fun pet-projects.

You can't project your own belief ("fun pet-projects") on everyone and then use that to determine what the psychological effect might be. Considering Obama's high approval rating, it's more likely that people see it as stimulus than agree with you that it's corruption/pork.

Whether they are right or you are right, the question is what most people believe.

 

[maxiep]

You can't project your own belief ("fun pet-projects") on everyone and then use that to determine what the psychological effect might be. Considering Obama's high approval rating, it's more likely that people see it as stimulus than agree with you that it's corruption/pork.

Whether they are right or you are right, the question is what most people believe.

Minstrel, you're smart enough to separate the man and his policies. While President Obama is personally very popular (60%+), his specific policy poll numbers are significantly lower and almost all below 50%. And insofar as the "stimulus" package, the last poll numbers I saw was that the bill had a popularity rating in the mid 30s.

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel, you're smart enough to separate the man and his policies. While President Obama is personally very popular (60%+), his specific policy poll numbers are significantly lower and almost all below 50%. And insofar as the "stimulus" package, the last poll numbers I saw was that the bill had a popularity rating in the mid 30s.

The "popularity" of the stimulus package seems to vary from poll to poll, based on wording. But more importantly, I wasn't commenting on how popular his stimulus plan was. I was commenting on how people see it...whether they actually see it as a stimulus plan, or as pork/corruption (as blazerboy and various others do).

People can view it as a stimulus (government spending to inject cash into the economy) and still be against it, so I don't think polls on the plan tell us what people consider it (stimulus or pork). Considering most people are high on Obama (as a leader, not just as a person, since he also does well in things like whether he's handling the economy well and whether the country is on the right track), I think it's more likely that they see it as stimulus, not as pork. In other words, considering that most people believe in Obama as a President, I think it's more likely that they believe the plan is what he says it is, rather than a deception.

That's not relevant to whether the "stimulus bill" is right or wrong, but is relevant to any "psychological benefits" of it, that blazerboy alluded to.

 

[maxiep]

The "popularity" of the stimulus package seems to vary from poll to poll, based on wording. But more importantly, I wasn't commenting on how popular his stimulus plan was. I was commenting on how people see it...whether they actually see it as a stimulus plan, or as pork/corruption (as blazerboy and various others do).

People can view it as a stimulus (government spending to inject cash into the economy) and still be against it, so I don't think polls on the plan tell us what people consider it (stimulus or pork). Considering most people are high on Obama (as a leader, not just as a person, since he also does well in things like whether he's handling the economy well and whether the country is on the right track), I think it's more likely that they see it as stimulus, not as pork. In other words, considering that most people believe in Obama as a President, I think it's more likely that they believe the plan is what he says it is, rather than a deception.

That's not relevant to whether the "stimulus bill" is right or wrong, but is relevant to any "psychological benefits" of it, that blazerboy alluded to.

If there were any phychological benefits to the "stimulus" package, it's being pretty well hidden. We've lost almost 2MM jobs since it was passed and President Obama is talking about worse times ahead. At some point, this situation can't be "the other guy's fault".

 

[Minstrel]

If there were any phychological benefits to the "stimulus" package, it's being pretty well hidden.

I have no idea whether there is one or not.

We've lost almost 2MM jobs since it was passed and President Obama is talking about worse times ahead. At some point, this situation can't be "the other guy's fault".

At some point, certainly. Where that point is, isn't exactly clear. That said, I'm not one who blames the economic crisis on Bush. I certainly don't think, though, that it is now "on Obama" five months into inheriting a financial mess that economists were projecting turn-around to be in 2010 at the very earliest.

The second derivative of jobs (the rate of job loss) has slowed down, which is one good sign. The crisis hasn't reached the apocalyptic nightmare proportions some were forecasting in October of last year and economists now don't seem to believe it will. It is "merely" really bad. So while I can sympathize with concerns about running up debt, the crisis doesn't seem to have worsened under Obama. Whether it has gotten better that it would under someone else, or minus the stimulus, is impossible to say. Ultimately, Obama will be graded at the next election on results.

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe. Or maybe, just maybe, the government is a very slow and bureaucratic organization. And if that's so, maybe those who rushed to pass the stimulus package had that fact in mind. If something is going to take a long time, and if time is critical, perhaps it is better to start on it sooner rather than later?

barfo

It was billed as an emergency, outside the budget, an immediate need. There's a technical definition of emergency spending by govt. and it includes all of the above, typically meant for wartime.

 

[barfo]

It was billed as an emergency, outside the budget, an immediate need. There's a technical definition of emergency spending by govt. and it includes all of the above, typically meant for wartime.

Failing economy seems like an emergency, both technically and colloquially.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Failing economy seems like an emergency, both technically and colloquially.

barfo

Actually, it seems like a recession, which is a normal part of the business cycle.

 

[barfo]

Actually, it seems like a recession, which is a normal part of the business cycle.

That's because the stimulus package worked. See, everything is better now. Obama rulez.

barfo

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

 

[Denny Crane]

Failing economy seems like an emergency, both technically and colloquially.

barfo

But the spending wasn't emergency spending.

Your house may be on fire, a real emergency, but it doesn't make sense to go charge up your credit cards buying a new car (not related to putting out the fire).

http://www.thecapitol.net/glossary/def.htm#Emergency_Spending

"Emergency" Spending:
Spending with the "emergency" designation does not count against budget caps. While often used for one-time, unforeseen events, this designation has also been used to circumvent budget limits. For example, spending for the census has been designated as "emergency" spending. (Source: CQ Today)

http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2008/03/13/curbing-emergency-spending/

As part of the debate over the Congressional budget resolution, Ohio Senator George Voinovich introduced an amendment to curb “emergency” spending. Trying to eliminate the abuse of this type of spending is long overdue.

The federal budget process is a complicated one. If Congress wants to spend money, it must comply with a variety of rules. However, there are a variety of loopholes that make federal spending easier. One of the most abused is “emergency” appropriations. By labeling something “emergency” spending, Congress can bypass ordinary rules and essentially spend money “off budget.”
Senator Voinovich’s office put it in this way:

If spending is designated as “emergency,” it is exempted from budget controls and spending limits. An example of the sort of emergency spending that concerns Sen. Voinovich is the designation of funding for the 2000 Census as emergency, even though the U.S. Constitution has required a census every 10 years since 1790.
​

Congressman Ron Paul describes it in these terms:

Congress funds the federal government through 13 enormous appropriations bills, but even an annual budget of more than $2 trillion is not enough to satisfy Washington’s appetite for new spending. As a result, a new category of spending bill has emerged, known as the “emergency supplemental” appropriation.

There’s no real emergency, however; Congress simply needs a 14th spending bill as a grab bag filled with hundreds of pages of goodies for countless favored groups, industries, individual companies, and foreign governments. It’s common for dozens of amendments to be added to the supplemental bill, all with more money for somebody.

So-called emergency supplemental spending bills, once a rarity, have become the norm over the last ten years in Washington. There’s always some excuse why Congress cannot stick to its budget, so supplemental bills are passed to permit spending extra “off-budget” funds. “Emergency” spending now has become routine, planned spending.
​

Finding a way to curb this abuse of the budget process is an imortant step in restoring fiscal discipline.

 

[barfo]

Finding a way to curb this abuse of the budget process is an imortant step in restoring fiscal discipline.

Ok, whatever. This seems pretty much unrelated to the topic at hand. If the census - the single most predictable spending item there could possibly be - is funded via emergency funding, then whether or not the stimulus is funded by emergency funding is pretty much irrelevant.

I don't see that it really makes any difference. The spending caps that Congress exceeds with emergency funding are caps they set themselves, so putting it into the regular budget is only going to change the label.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Ok, whatever. This seems pretty much unrelated to the topic at hand. If the census - the single most predictable spending item there could possibly be - is funded via emergency funding, then whether or not the stimulus is funded by emergency funding is pretty much irrelevant.

barfo

Two wrongs don't make a right. In this case, the 2nd wrong is a disaster.

Speaking of disasters, Katrina/New Orleans is worthy of the emergency designation. Funding a war effort is worthy of the designation.

Funding "shovel ready" projects for the next election year that have nothing to do with stimulating an economy in "crisis" is beyond folly.

 

[PapaG]

Trend is getting worse instead of better, and now the unemployment rate is actually higher than Obama predicted if this scam of a "stimulus" wasn't rushed through Congress.

Unreal

 

[PapaG]

That said, I'm not one who blames the economic crisis on Bush. I certainly don't think, though, that it is now "on Obama" five months into inheriting a financial mess that economists were projecting turn-around to be in 2010 at the very earliest.

That's great that you don't blame it on Bush, but Obama does and takes every opportunity to talk about the mess he "inheriited". I have to wonder, what the hell did the guy do as a Senator for four years; two of which (and the worst economically) in the MAJORITY. Sit with his thumb up his ass? As we near 10% unemployment this summer, and as gas prices again reach $4/gallon, I'm guessing shit will start to hit the fan.

 

[Minstrel]

That's great that you don't blame it on Bush, but Obama does and takes every opportunity to talk about the mess he "inheriited".

Of course he does. First of all, he did inherit it and second of all, it's good politics. He's a politician. The previous administration placed the blame for 9/11 on Clinton and that happened deeper into their term.

I have to wonder, what the hell did the guy do as a Senator for four years; two of which (and the worst economically) in the MAJORITY.

He spent it being one out of a hundred members of one-half of the Congress. Certainly much more power than any of us, but hardly enough to guide the direction of the nation himself. Besides which, most economists say this disaster has been building for much more than four years.

 

[Denny Crane]

Unfortunately, Obama's taken a smoldering fire and poured trillions of $dollars on it to turn it into an out of control raging fire.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

The two massive spending bills that no one read and rushed to sign into law that I have so far lived through has done different things to my local library:

The first one allowed government agents to look at my library records, the second gave my library a new eco-efficient roof!

 

[PapaG]

Trend is getting worse instead of better, and now the unemployment rate is actually higher than Obama predicted if this scam of a "stimulus" wasn't rushed through Congress.

Unreal

Yes, I am quoting myself, but worst-case unemployment without the "Stimulus" scam was to be 8.8 %. We are now at 9.4, above what Obama predicted would happen without rushing through this debt buster.

Will anyone defend this bill?