The House version of the $819 billion stimulus bill just passed 244-188. But in a minor surprise, the bill apparently passed without ANY Republican member voting for it. Twelve Democrats voted against the bill, meanwhile, based on the C-SPAN tally.
So here's the key question: do the Republicans, having shown this much unity in the House, actually have a chance of filibustering the bill in the Senate?
I think that remains unlikely, for three reasons:
Firstly, the House Republican Caucus has shown much greater party discipline (or, if you prefer, much more partisanship) than the Senate has. In looking at the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, for instance, just 3 of 178 Republicans (1.7%) voted for the bill on the House side, but 5 of 41 (12.2%) did on the Senate side. Similarly, on the TARP (bailout) extension vote, Republican members of the Senate were considerably more likely than those in the House to side with the Administration. These sorts of differences are not necessarily uncommon and may be a consequence of the cultural and structural differences
Secondly, the Senate will be voting on its own version of the bill, not the House's, and there has arguably a more bipartisan process in formulating the Senate version of the bill than in the House's (Barack Obama's meetings with House Republicans notwithstanding).
And thirdy, voting against a bill is one thing -- filibustering it is another. Maybe an Olympia Snowe or a Judd Gregg, residing in states that Obama won by overwhelming margins, can get away with voting against the bill. But preventing it from coming to the floor is another, particularly when Obama has the advantage of the bully pulpit.
1.28.2009
Stimulus Passes House With NO Republican Support -- Zip, Zilch, Nada
@ 6:22 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
140 comments
Time for the gloves to come off.
Well that's that. House Republicans want to heckle and make demands, but they have no interest in taking a constructive role in governing. Why, again, are we including them? When it's time to vote again, the public is going to ask themselves whether or not the economy is working for them, not about how included the House Republicans feel.
In general, House members should be more extreme than Senators. Senators obviously represent entire states, which usually will have some degree of political heterogeneity. House members, in contrast, represent smaller districts that are much more liable to be ideologially homogeneous.
I heard this will was only 1% of GDP, and lacked the sufficient "punch" to really get things going again. By comparison, China has authorized as much as 20% of GDP to go to stimulus, which allegedly will propel their economy through this rough time. Granted, this was Jim Cramer on "Hardball," but I found it to be a strong argument -- is the stimulus too small???
People tell me that Obama is playing a wise strategic game, but it seems to me either that he's getting rolled or he's triangulating. A British friend of mine thinks that he'll be a Tony Blair, and while that's not proven yet, it sure isn't disproven.
Obama has to confront the Republicans head to head on an important vote and defeat them, or the fucking Democrats will be cringing for the next four years. They're like a bunch of whipped dogs.
This has been treated as business as usual, and the Republicans have gotten away with their same sloganeering and posturing despite the fact that they've nearly wrecked the country and have a terribly weak hand in Congress.
vote republican = save money
Yes We Can 2010 !
Emerson - Obama is playing reverse triangulation. The guy is pleading and pleading for Republicans to support an overwhelmingly Democratic bill as opposed to actually changing the bill substantially for them.
Good to see Real Joe back
hi Antmatic
any new polls ? ;)
I do kind of have to wonder what all that talk about getting the Republicans to support this bill was. Does the lack of Republican votes indicate the process of wooing Republican votes, despite whatever concessions were made in the bill to make it happen, has failed? Does it indicate the comments about "we want Republican support for this bill" referred only to the Senate? What?
Antmatic, the original bill had already been changed for the Republicans (with the tax breaks, for example). It would have been a much better bill if it hadn't been.
mcc
President Obama is trying to get some senate republicans on his ship
drinks with republicans lol
They country wants to do something to guide the country. What they don't want is a big, bloated spending bill that is loaded with pork and wasteful spending by anyone's account.
Even the dems think it is a piece of crap. They don't care but want to spend anyway.
What are we supposed to have got in exchange for all those concessions? And why were they put in at all if we didn't need their votes to pass it?
I think that Obama's efforts might have been worth it--they didn't really cost anything, as this was the size of stimulus they wanted. They temporarily lost a few small things from the bill--no big deal, they can try again later. They didn't lose much, and they gained a lot of good will from elites and a lot of actual Republican voters in places like Texas and Kentucky. Not too bad.
I think the Republicans come out of this looking much worse. Obama tried to cut them in on the process and they whined about birth control pills. Obama showed himself to be a serious, adult leader. The Republicans just revealed their hollowness.
Nathan
we played you
lol
change is coming 2010
Jack be nimble is a moron and has no understanding of what a stimulus bill is.
A stimulus bill is, by definition, a big spending bill. That's the only thing a stimulus bill can be.
What a mess. This isn't a stimulus package; this is a bundle of pork labeled with something to inspire consumer confidence.
I have my fingers crossed that the senators from Arkansas, North Dakota, and Montana, as well as the junior senator from New York and the senior senator from Oregon, will stand up to oppose fast-tracking this deeply flawed bill through the Senate and to the desk of the president.
Nate,
What might be going on here is that all House Republicans voted against the initial version of the bill, but after it goes to the Senate and gets modified in conference, then many of the GOP members might get on board. Then they will boast to their constituents that they fought hard to get some concessions (pork), and thus try to posture as tenacious and effective political leaders. I think that is the scam at work in this instance.
Emerson,
There's a difference between spending on things that will create economic incentives, new jobs, sustainable energy, etc., and spending on random Democrat-backed pet projects. It's like they think we're too stupid to notice.
What's more, Obama's "quick jolt to the economy" won't see even half of its funds released by the time his first term as president ends in January 2013. How is that expected to boost the economy in any way more direct than inspiring a placebo effect?
Nate's letting partisanship get in the way of clear thinking and good judgment again. He's not alone.
The House vote is a harbinger for the Senate's growing backbone. Filibuster is a given if the condescending attitude of Dem leaders persists in not having a bi-partisan product. This package isn't so important that quickly passing something -- anything -- is more important than doing the right thing.
It's going to take more than token changes to get any Republicans on board. Why should they let themselves get steamrolled?
I laugh at the insistance among some here that to the victor goes the spoils. That's not the way it works in America. Good luck with that.
Just as the Republicans paid the price for arrogance when they were in like position to Dems today, so will the current Dem hubris hurt them longer term. There is not widespread popular support for this abortion of a bill. So, it's predictible that the loyal opposition will continue taking a principled stand and filibuster where they have greatest leverage, in the Senate. I think Obama understands this. Pelosi does not.
Nate, I pretty much agree with your assessment. One thing I have noticed is Senators are usually more moderate, since they are usually elected state-wide. Representatives however represent small districts that are more likely to be very red or very blue. While there are differences and exceptions to the rule Representatives often take aggressively partisan, ideological stands on issues compared to their counterparts in the senate. I have also noticed Senators seem to be more educated and take more advice from better sources than their representatives.
I am surprised that Republican Senators have not done more to try to negotiate the amount of spending or tax cuts.
Also, I have to respond to some people who are attacking the stimulus bill. Let's not forget that a bulk of the spending is going to needed infrastructure maintenance and ready-to-go projects. These are expenses that were likely to occur over the next 4 or 5 years. We will re-coup some of what we are spending by not having to spend this in the general budget later. The real loss is the interest we pay on the money between now and when we would have originally put money down on each project.
This is why we can not simply increase the amount of tax cuts and decrease the amount of spending. In the long run the tax cuts are much more costly to us than the spending.
I think the first three words are enough said.
Stimulus Passes House.
Clay,
Infrastructure is great. That's a solid investment. So is R&D for reliable, high-output green energy, so are environmental and urban renewal projects, that's all good.
Unfortunately, of the $820 or so billion dollars being allocated by this bill, only a couple billion are going toward things like that. The rest is pork and stuff that central planning doesn't manage well.
This stimulus plan is all screwed up. I'm disappointed that it didn't spend more time being debated on the floor of the House, and I hope that it's gone over with a fine-toothed comb in the Senate before anything close to resembling it oozes its way down Pennsylvania Avenue.
Rudy, I disagree with you. In this instance democrats (particularly Obama) listened to Republicans. For the most part the only feedback they got was they didn't want any spending at all. The only single thing pointed out was the contraceptives for poor funding, which they axed. They like the tax cuts, but Obama preemptively asked for tax cuts, even though him and his own advisers say infrastructure spending will give our GDP a better return. If the situation was reversed Republicans would have only passed a bill with tax cuts and no spending on infrastructure at all (similar to Bush's stimulus).
How can democrats negotiate or try to include the Republicans when all Republicans will say is they don't want it at all.
The lack of bipartisanship is not soley to blame on the party in power. If Republicans want bipartisanship, then they need to accept they can not get everything they want and attempt to negotiate!
Where is the break down of what is actually in the bill? I keep hearing about how horrible it is, but where is the item by item listing of sections? Maybe with a +/- on how controversial they are to each of the parties?
squili: what the republicans have become.
It's something like $276 billion for infrastructure, all told. Not all of that infrastructure is going to have a direct effect on the economy, and even more damningly, those funds are going to trickle out. It's the slowest jolt to anything I've ever seen. If it were a pair of defibrillator paddles, the patient would be dead by the time the current even started to flow.
Jason, the text should be appearing here within 24 hours:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1
Also if you go to thomas.loc.gov and type "H.R. 1" into the box that appears it will bring up the text.
Neither of these sites as far as I can tell yet have the amended version actually passed by the house.
@Rudy
There is widespread supports for this bill among Americans. Over 70% according to the CNN poll from a couple weeks ago. It's going to get passed without filibuster and my guess is that a few republicans in the house will vote for the final version.
I think the Republicans (and I'm a Republican voter) have played this smart. The bill is nothing more than a government boon doogle, with precious little stimulus in it. The Republican version (as lifted from powerlineblog)was much better with:
1. Reduce the lowest individual tax rates from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to five percent.
2. Allow small businesses a tax deduction up to 20 percent of income.
3. Finance a $7,500 credit for home-buyers who put down at least 5 percent.
4 Expand Net Operating Loss carryback rules to give companies that have been profitable in the past but are now losing money prompt infusions of cash.
5. Provide an above-the-line tax deduction for private health insurance to equalize tax treatment between those who have employer-sponsored health plans and those who don't.
They tried to involve Republicans, but Republicans would rather play victim and be obstructive. I say, fuck them. Remove their "contributions" to the bill and go ahead. Time to show them what "political capital" really means.
Kudos to the House Republicans! This was their best play and they ran it perfectly. If the stimulus succeeds, they'll at least have their right flank locked up. If the stimulus fails, they can count on a potent political issue.
They showed a level of political courage you NEVER see from Congressional Democrats. Regardless of your political leanings, you have to admire this move.
It's fascinating watching Obama act like an adult and include the Republicans while they go on TV and whine like the bitches they are.
Now the entire world sees them for the bitches they are, and pussies like Joe and Jack here are too stupid to realize they are being played. Next up is the heads exploding when Obama's and the Democratic congress's approval numbers go up while the bitches are on the outside looking in, bitching about contraception and ACORN.
Suck it losers!
Who's walking in goose step with their leader, Rush Limbaugh? Every single Republican
For Economic Recovery: 244 Democrats, ZERO Republicans
@Jason- good question!
I am pretty sure that it includes the first payment installment on the new electric transmission lines. I guess the plans for these are pretty well worked out-
Sometimes it seems that infrastructure is in the eye of the beholder. I still think Obama is waiting for a full evaluation from the DOE before he starts proposing the most relevant infrastructure plans. They need a realistic energy plan before they can make a blue print for the commuter, freight, and long-distance travel infrastructure.
We can't make the plans with out knowing where the energy is gonna come from and Obama has made it pretty clear that he understand that oil is no longer an option. unfortunately there are many senators that simply do not accept this as reality. Mary Landrieu in particular seems very unwilling to entertain this idea. After watching her question Steven Chu I bristle when I hear/see her.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that for the first time in 8.04 years, the Republicans "care" about reining in spending. And, it is only a little bit ironic that this spending actually has a chance serving the national interest.
Oh, how I love this sudden vigorous fiscal conservatism from the folks who brought us a whopping $10 trillion federal deficit under Bush II (especially since he started with a $127 billion surplus).
I'm not saying the current bill doesn't have its problems, but face it, the Republicans know no equal when it comes to wasteful, pork-barrel spending, and it is enormously hypocritical of them to now claim the mantle of Protectors Of The Taxpayer Dollar.
If the Republicans do attempt to filibuster: If ever there were a time for Harry Reid to grow a spine and force a real filibuster, instead of alowing a "procedural" filibuster, this would surely be it. By all means treat the American people to the sight of Republicans reciting from phone books while the economy continues to hemhorrage jobs daily.
Obama has to confront the Republicans head to head on an important vote and defeat them,
Yeah, uh, newsflash: THE BILL PASSED. If this is a "victory" for the GOP, I'm anxious to see what a defeat looks like.
Kudos to the House Republicans! This was their best play and they ran it perfectly. If the stimulus succeeds, they'll at least have their right flank locked up. If the stimulus fails, they can count on a potent political issue.
LOL!
Translation: Republicans better pray for the destruction of their country, otherwise they're only getting 30% of the vote in 2012.
Looks to me like Boehner put on his Jim Jones cap and got his lemmings to agree to a suicide pact, but hey, keep looking for that silver lining...
Obama's attempts at bipartisanship are having the effect of marginalizing the GOP. What's the best way to deal with a bratty child? Argue with him, scream at him? Throw up your hands? Or act toward him with perfect calmness and rationality yet firmness. The latter course is the one Obama has chosen, and I think it will pay off handsomely as the GOP descends more and more into a party of crybabies and squabblers.
And yes, by all means a "real" filibuster should be forced if the GOP shows signs of balking on the stimulus in the Senate. This is the firmness part of dealing with them; if they are going to act like babies then they must do so on the record.
wv coudetab: When your diet soda takes over the refrigerator.
I suppose we can now use the tactic they tried to use on Obama - as tax cuts were included on this bill, every Republican in the House of Representatives can now have ads run against them claiming they voted against tax cuts.
Remember, the definition of Congressional "pork" is "Funds that went to some other representative's district, not yours." The current corollary among Republicans is "Funds that went to a Democrat representative's district."
Once they see how much of the electrical transmission infrastructure project, for example, is in red states, they may reconsider.
wv: undou What's happening to the unconstitutional stuff we've peen putting up with for 7 years.
See i KNEW this would happen!!! Obama tried so hard to get republicans on board with this. Tons of tax cuts are in it and many say its not even big enough and despite this it gets ZERO republican votes! Obama reached his hand out to the GOP and got the cold shoulder. Nothing is good enough for the republicans, they simply are NOT willing to work with Obama.
Thats the thing...democrats are all about being bipartisan and makeing compromises but republicans are all about being as far right as possible and simply wont negotiate.
Look at Obama and bill clinton. Obama talks about bipartisanship and meets with GOP leaders all the time and Clinton was center left. But look at George W. Bush and Reagan, they were hard right wingers and demonized the left. It was Reagan that made "liberal" a dirty word.
There were a dozen democrats that voted against this but ZERO republicans, not even the ones from liberal districts like kirk, King, and Cao.
Republicans are MUCH more likely to vote with their own party than democrats with their own party, that's the way its always been.
Why should any Republican vote for the bill, when there's enough Dems (who everyone KNOWS will vote yea) that every Republican can vote no, and the bill still passes, and by a comfortable margin, at that?
Now all these GOPs, even if they believe, fundamentally, that the stimulus is necessary, get to go back home and say, "I did my best, I voted against it, but it passed anyway." If the stimulus package succeeds, everyone's happy anyway, and if it doesn't, they get to wash their hands of the fiasco.
Having such a large majority of Democrats may be better for the country, but anyone who ever thought it would actually curb partisanship is just plain nuts.
Lot of Republicans here!
Steve Moss, tax cuts are the Republican cure for everything from cancer to global warming, but they won't work here.
Everyone talking about pork, if you're saying that money was wrongly spent on one project instead of another, you may have a point. But basically, stimulus bills are big-spending bills. If you don't like big spending bills, you have no place in this discussion.
the worst pork in the bill is the Republican tax cuts, and I hope they're cut out of the final bill.
Rock and roll-
Real joe, how stupid are you repubs? The economy WILL come back int he next two years naturally, and you just went went with Rush "adict" Limbaugh for short term gain and LOST AGAIN!
I love repubs, so stoned by belief that facts can't enter their minds...
People who think that Obama should listen to the Republicans -- have you listened to the Republicans in Congress? All they're doing is repeating the same slogans they've been parroting for the last 20-30 years. They're brain dead. They have no udnerstanding whatsoever of what's happening.
In that they resemble many on this thread, of course.
Not enough tax cuts for the rich. Only tax cuts for the people who need them, not for the people who can easily afford to pay theirs. Nice change.
And Obama immediately removed the two high-profile items that were complained about 24-7, so what's the talk about no concessions.
Boy do they look like spoiled brats, only interested in squeezing the last dollars for their rich friends.
Nice article in Huffpost about McCain's tax falsities.
Marvelous Ape, the watered-down bill passed without any Republican votes. How is that a victory?
Morons are not quite evenly distributed between the two parties, but neither party is deprived.
john emerson-
it is pure and total victory as the WORLD watched while the repubs sucks the gay, stoned, limbaugh cock.
Obama just owned you, as when the economy naturally turns he gets credit and you fucking assholes lose.
HAHAHSA! Beautiful, gorgeous. Where is James Dobson's God now? The one that hates blacks?
Of course the House Republicans can bluster and act tough. They get to pretend they actually won something. They do not have to win, they just pretend to win.
Bottom line, they can play (dis)loyal opposition all they want. I do not care, neither does the American public. We just want results.
Pragmatus, government is not a daycare center. What you said is just plain idiotic. In politics you have to defeat your opponents. It isn't the place for warm fuzzies and touchy feely.
I see no evidence that most Americans realize at this point that the Republicans are totally clueless, or that they're being mindlessly obstructionist. And they got a lot form Obama without giving anything at all.
If this is the way they're going to play it, every business tax cut in the bill should be removed in conference. If it's going to be a party-line vote, why should we give a nod to their discredited trickle-down theories? After all, Obama won.
@Pragmatus:
Obama's attempts at bipartisanship are having the effect of marginalizing the GOP.
Quite right. Obama is going to kill the obstructionists with kindness.
Which is all the Dittoheads deserve. Rush & Sarah will help these lemmings run headlong to being 1/3 of Congress, and 1/3 of the popular vote by 2012, IMHO.
So keep it up, Rush! I LUV YOU!
Just as I always loved Sarah!
Brad, I'm a Democrat. I'm asking why Obama made so many concessions to the Republicans when he didn't get any votes out of them. The bill is much worse than it had to be.
Learn to read.
Just about every Republican left in the House comes from a solidly Republican district. The vote against the stimulus makes sense as it will help them avoid a primary challenge, which is likely the only way they can be defeated.
There will be more defections in the Senate given the need to pay attention to more homogenous constituencies. However, don't expect too many: they, too, still have to worry about primary challenges.
I agree that the Senate Republicans will be less disciplined, but I think that also may have something to do with the difference in demeanor between congressmen and senators. I'm anxiously awaiting your prediction on how that vote will end up.
Side note: There were 11 D's against the bill--one switched over after CSPAN took the scoreboard off the screen.
244 D + 0 R = 244
177 R + 11 D = 188
John Emerson-
You are a complete idiot. Use lube and you head may emerge from your ass soon.
Obama got the bill he wanted. Was he so freakin' stupid as to really want Pelosi's condoms onrecovery.org forever? NO
Was Obama so dumb as not to realize that the natural trend is for the economy to come back second half of 2009 so this was irrelevant? NO
He used this to change America for the batter, pull you head out of that tight ass, you MIGHT seeit, but I have little faith...in you.
Obama, survived IL and will own the world.
"Was Obama so dumb as not to realize that the natural trend is for the economy to come back second half of 2009 so this was irrelevant? NO"
Brad, this shows that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what's happening with the American economy. If what you said was true, we wouldn't need any stimulus at all. Just shut up.
There are morons in both parties, though I have no idea any more which one you're the moron of.
Relax, the repubs betting it all on the long shot that the economy will not turn is just insane. The economy ALWAYS turned in the past, so if you bet against it, well, not so smart.
Real Joe - how much you want to put on McCain/Palin in 2012?
Palin as Hillary - the HillPAC play by Palin is just hilarious! Please nominate Palin in 2012, please?
Nate,
Is there any way you can provide a post to highlight the dramitic difference between Dem/Rep impact on our public debt (as a percentage of GDP). The graph, that I'm sure you've seen before,, is provided in the link below:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/history/history.htm
Please explain how Republicans have been considered the party of fiscal responsibility until 2006??? Why doens't anyone point this out when Republicans talk about how Dems are wreckless and irresponsible with tax dollars?
What am I missing? Welcome any thoughts....
I think Obama's playing a very, very clever game...
His bipartisan approach can't fail. He either manages to convince some more moderate Republicans, or else, as in this case, he comes out of things looking adult, statesmanlike, above party politicking; conciliatory and mindful of the times we live in.
The Republicans come out of this looking petty, vindictive, childish, petulant and ignorant of what's going on in the real world.
I wonder which approach is going to garner the most votes?
Ok, I may not be an economist, but as an average taxpaying citizen it seems to me that the goal of the stimulus plan was to get money moving around quickly. It is clear that last year's bundle of checks to everyone did relatively nothing to that end as most people used it to pay down debt or stashed it in savings. So it becomes necessary to force feed spending towards projects that can be quickly implemented. The criteria should be can it be spent quickly and provide employment. You will never satisfy everyone about the worthiness of a particular program nor do we have time to really scrutinize all of the projects for effectiveness. The tax relief side of this bill offers relief for ALL working taxpayers since we are all suffering from the poor economy.
As a side note, my brother-in-law is taking his family to the Super Bowl at a total cost of $12000...and charging it off to his business, on top of his season tickets, both family cars, annual business vacations to Las Vegas and Caribbean. I am not in favor of giving him any more tax relief, when my 85 year old dad is struggling to pay his $550 gas bill this month.
Fred: The economy ALWAYS turned in the past, so if you bet against it, well, not so smart.
As I just said, this is all wrong. That's why we're talking about a stimulus package. You have no idea what's going on and should also just shut up.
Mirrormirror, that's how things look to you, but you aren't everyone. And it's not just about getting the most votes two or four years ago, it's about running the country. Obama made major sacrifices to get republican votes, and he didn't get any. We've got a worse bill than we would have otherwise.
This isn't business as usual. we're in the worst economic crisis since 1945, probably since 1929.
Tax relief isn't the best way to get a stimulus, and it doesn't benefit everyone, and the Republicans wanted tax relief that benefitted better off people, not worse-off people.
This is precisely why the GOP is afraid of Senator Franken. Were he seated, assuming the two independents vote for cloture, the Dems would only need for one or two GOP votes for cloture to stop McConnell's filibuster. One or two is low-hanging fruit. There is a little trickier.
Kudos to the House Republicans! This was their best play and they ran it perfectly. If the stimulus succeeds, they'll at least have their right flank locked up. If the stimulus fails, they can count on a potent political issue.
One could make a persuasive case for the truth of the latter bit in particular, at least as far as those inclined to see things their way in the first place are concerned.
To the vast and very worried middle --most of whom don't look upon this as a spectator sport in quite the same way as do we geekoids in here and who tend not to deal themselves into the action until the full heat of a campaign season comes around-- I ain't so sure.
I do wonder just how inclined the electorate would be to punish the party in charge for the failure, or a slow pace of progress anyway, of economic recovery in the age of the 24-hour news cycle as compared to during Roosevelt's first term when, IIRC, things got worse (or at least stayed pretty f'kin bad) before they got any better --yet the party in charge kept getting rewarded at the polls.
Eh whatever, we'll see. Partisan politicians doing as partisan politicians do, as the good Earth makes another full turn.
Oh hey, Loomis --I used to work with you dude lol.
You are a complete idiot. Use lube and you head may emerge from your ass soon.
Brad: Your points are generally valid but geez, calm down! You're starting to sound like David Sirota or something.
Brad's points are about as valid as his language.
andrew said...
"I heard this was only 1% of GDP"
Actually the estimated 2008 US GDP was $14.3 trillion, so this is 5.7% of GDP, not 1%.
China on the other hand announced a stimulus package that is 17.8% of it's GDP - and it's economy is expanding, not contracting. The reason the Chinese want to stimulate their economy is that growth has slowed from 12% to 9%.
While 9% growth in GDP sounds insanely large, it is China's minimum growth necessary given that 25 million people enter its workforce each year. China is stimulating its economy just as it hits the sustainable point in order to keep it from growing to slowly to support its growing workforce.
The analogy would have been for us to have passed a massive stimulus package two years ago, when home prices started diving, and growth in GDP started shrinking. Rather than waiting for a terrible contraction, as we've done, we could have anticipated the Chinese model and nipped it in the bud.
Of course two years ago a stimulus flew in the face of not only Republican, but Democratic orthodoxy as well. We were still in the age of Reagan, which thankfully has ended. Some of us have been arguing for 28 years that the age of Reagan was bound to end painfully.
What will the Republicans do if the $889 Billion clearly helps, but not enough? Will they vote in lockstep to prevent a second round of proven effective therapy? Probably. And again, it probably won't matter and may cost some of them their seats, when both plans pass against their opposition and when the economy starts improving rapidly in 2010. By November 2010 dems will be able to take all the credit.
I think a lot of voters will see this as the Democratic party working to fix the economy and the GOP doing nothing to help and in fact getting in the way. The GOP is looking like they are choosing partisan politics over doing anything about a very bad situation.
They are getting played.
@ John Emerson: Obama made major sacrifices to get republican votes, and he didn't get any.
Well, apparently he's having to learn a few things the hard way. He's given the Republicans a fair chance, but my guess is if they continue their intractability, he won't waste his time continuing to reach out to them. It's still a little early in the game to start freaking out about how Obama is rolling over for the Republicans.
I need to add that China is in a much better position to spend nearly 17% of their GDP on a stimulus package. They have a tiny national debt and a trade surplus. In many ways, our 6% stimulus will be more painful for us. China can afford it's stimulus, which will only make it stronger. Ours will jump start our economy at a cost. It is necessary, but it will sting for a long time.
Thanks for all the tax cuts Gee W. If only we had taken all that borrowed money that you spent on tax cuts and spent on infrastructure, sustainable energy, and jobs.
And the Republicans are still barking up that tree.
I haven't given up on Obama, but I'll believe it when I see it. I don't trust him. He's made a lot of substantial concessions already for no apparent reason and with no real results.
I'd pay a thousand bucks to be proven wrong on this.
Brad, if you think that business cycles always end in a year or two without any action by the government, look at the Great Depression. You seem to have no knowledge of history. We are facing the possibility of another depression, and it's quite uncertain that the economy will turn around even WITH the various stimuluses (stimuli?). And cut the trash talk.
John Emerson--
Keep betting against history. Got a put I can go against you on?
Always remember, there is always a group calling for the end of the world and the end of the market. They have always been wrong - if they happen to be right my retirement is the least of my problems.
Got that lube for your head and your ass?
This is staging for 2010. Vitter, for example, has gone from a low profile to challenging every bill and cabinet nomination Obama has made, and vocally at that.
As Nate suggested, the GOP Senators in states that went heavily for Obama might vote for cloture, but that means all the Dems will do likewise and Lieberman will stay on the wagon. This will be very tricky. If done with finesse, Obama can hold off the GOP until Franken takes his seat and thus reduces the number of GOP votes for cloture needed. If botched, it will set a dangerous precedent for years to come-bills sail through the House and die on the Senate floor before a single vote is cast.
The number of Democratic defections has to be kept as close to zero as possible - I hope the Senate Majority Whip realizes this.
It's still a little early in the game to start freaking out about how Obama is rolling over for the Republicans.
He needs to know that people are watching. He's acting like almost every Democrat since 1984, and that's what we need to get away from.
I'd pay $1000 to be shown that I'm wrong about him. But to Obama, $1000 is nothing.
Fred, no one who knows anything agrees with you. What comic book did you get your information from?
People who do this for a living say that this is certainly the worst crisis since 1945, and probably the worst since 1929, and some of them are close to panic.
You know nothing and bring nothing to the table except stupid insults.
Obama isn't rolling over. They loaded this bill with the expectations that Republicans will have to trade political capital to shave portions off. This was meant to be slow and calculated.
If it passes, we're looking at the foundation of a long-term Dem majority.
Even if it fails, the Dems look like they're reaching across, and the Repugs look like... well repugs. It's a win, win.
Sim, that's Koolaid talk. The original bill was better than this one, and the Republicans lost no more political capital than if they'd voted against the unfixed bill.
@ John Emerson: He needs to know that people are watching.
I agree 100%. And I think getting skunked by the House Republicans today is a bit of an embarrassment given all his efforts to woo them. But I also think he is keenly aware of how closely he is being watched and how much the public expects results. This all fits in with his "pragmatic" approach: if something doesn't work, toss it and try something else. So if playing nice with the Republicans is obviously going nowhere, he should have no trouble trading the carrot for the stick.
This is pure politics from the Republicans, and in that context, it's a smart move - perhaps their only move, but still smart. The strong likelihood exists that this bill will not move the economy enough in the short term. Even as a liberal, I see lots of problems with its spending priorities. So the GOP is gambling. If the economy continues to lag badly, eventually, the Dems and BO will get blamed for passing a hugely expensive yet ineffective bill. By taking a unanimous stand against it, the GOP can then say they toldja so. There is enough uncertainty from economists of all stripes that their votes are defensible to their own constituents. If they had let their votes be split, their toldja so case would be less robust. If they had gone along, they would be the either be the second fiddles to the triumphant Dems in the case of a resurgent economy, or the feckless dupes who failed to take a stand against a popular but inexperienced new president (that is, they'd be the 2000-2008 congressional Democrats). They have made a move to win, as opposed to a move not to lose. If the economy recovers, people's attention will be easily diverted to other matters which the GOP can still use to seek votes. Any GOP members who privately believed in the bill knew they could vote with the party without costing a bill that might save the country. So voting with Obama on this bill was a non-starter for the GOP. I agree that the Senate will be different.
Always remember, there is always a group calling for the end of the world and the end of the market. They have always been wrong
Um, what about the people who were calling this, say, two years ago? They seem to have been, you know, right. I mean, there's that whole thing about every investment bank ceasing to exist one keeps hearing about. That certainly sounds like the end of a market. Then there's the bit about entire countries' banking systems collapsing, America's banking system being widely claimed to only be not collapsing because of unprecedented bailing out by the fed and federal government...
It seems like you're pointing at a history of the market teetering on the verge of collapse and then being saved at the last moment by government intervention; and then saying "see, we don't need government intervention, the market can never collapse because it's always saved at the last moment by [mumble mumble]."
Just one more reason to think Republicans are going to be in the wilderness for years to come.
I want to shift the conversation a little bit on to a new topic.
I have been watching CNN and I am growing concerned at how the stimulus package is being reported.
They keep showing the screen with a breakdown of how the $550 billion is spent. In their break down they claim only $90 billion is spent on "infrastructure." It further mentions more spending in other categories, such as energy, education, and healthcare.
Only problem is their definition of infrastructure comes only out of the housing and transportation part of the bill. They are breaking everything down the way it is in the bill.
However, a good bit of the money spent in the "education" and "energy" sections are also -infrastructure-. Updating the power grid is infrastructure. Rural broadband is infrastructure. Budgets for education facilities is infrastructure. The health care section provides spending for medical facilities infrastructure.
Basically I am just trying to say that schools, hospitals, and power lines are infrastructure too!
With all the pork in this bill, like funding for the arts, it should be filibustered. Remove the pork, then it should be supported.
And I voted for and support Obama. But enough of this pork nonsense.
John,
Was your expectation that this bill would be passed without objection? That's sounds more like kool-aid talk.
My point is that Republicans haven't lost capital yet, but will if they are given several concessions, and still turn it down. Public support for the bill is strong, so there will be backlash (no matter what kind of distortions are drummed up by Rush or Drudge).
The theme of the campaign was bipartisonship. Democrats have to stick to thier end of the bargain. If pugs play politics, it will show.
Congressional democrats are rioting, looting the nation. They’re breaking the windows, stealing the TVs and Nikes, running out with arms full of merchandise.
Tell me what is related to the crisis - is it the things that are already funded in the normal budget, like smoking cessation and birth control? Analog Tv conversion boxes are going to restore someone’s 401K - exactly HOW?
This is insanity.
This is like saying you are giving money to Katrina victims to rebuild their lives and fix their homes and then taking that money and using it build a skatepark in Denver.
Does anyone really believe painting a bridge somewhere is going to fix anything? Family planning is already in the national budget. Or does the REGULAR already huge budget count for NOTHING?
This is supposed to be money being spent and invested to FIX the mess - that means making the credit markets open up, it ought to mean restoring 401K funds, making people whole again, NOT a massive free for all give away to god knows who.
NO ONE has stopped to THINK about what they are doing. In a drunken orgy - our legislators are throwing pizza at the walls.
“Infrastructure” birth control, no white guys, PORK, PORK, PORK!
Nobody stopping to think, or reason. Just throw that money out the door as fast as we possibly can.
You will wake up tomorrow to the scene of the devastation, windows broken, drapes pulled down, guacamole, semen and feces ground into the carpet and pizza stuck to the ceiling.
In the meantime, the person whose retirement funds were just evaporated by half or worse gets no help. The business who can’t get his usual line of credit closes. No help, no restoration, not even any consideration, lost to the world, invisible to the legislators who only want to do what looks like they are solving the problem.
They’ll happily impose higher fees, taxes and restrictions in the name of “solutions” and the libs’ll drink that latest batch of kool-aid like it is the finest champagne.
It is sickening. You’ll be at 4 trillion before this orgy is over.
enough of this pork nonsense.
Yeah, but bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good.
Schwartz, stimulus is pork. Stimulus is spending for spending's sake. It's like you don't realize which world you're living in. All the 100-year-old bullshit slogan cliches about pork and earmarks are irrelevant.
There are various things that could have been done better, and the Republicans got far too many concessions, but it's bone stupid to whine about pork.
Sim, nothing was gained by making concessions to the Republicans, and these were big concessions on the most important bill in a decade or more. You're trying to put a happy face on it, but you're fooling yourself. Maybe the Republicans will lose political capital eventually, but as of right now they got something for nothing.
Rose, you're a moron. Your side did its best to ruin this country, and our side trying to fix it. Just crawl in a hole and shut your stupid mouth.
Mr. Schwartz,
I'm in the same boat. I had hoped Obama would stop this pork-barrel spending and special interests in government. Unfortunately, he has championed this sloppy, selfishly designed bill and has completely ignored his own ethics regulations regarding lobbyists in the administration AT LEAST three times for nontrivial posts.
I didn't like feeling like I couldn't trust President Bush, and I don't like feeling like I can't trust President Obama, to do the right thing and work for the American people. I hope this administration changes its tune soon - or that this travesty of a stimulus bill works, even though it would make no economic sense for it to do so.
Mr. Schwartz,
Funding for the arts is not necessarily pork.
Pork is funding for pet projects for congressional members of congress in their respective district. In is usually part of a informal vote buying to get someone to vote for a bill.
The stimulus bill for the most part did a good job of not establishing funding for one certain bridge or one particular road (or one particular theater in the case of the arts).
The part of the bill referring to the arts is a $50 million grants to fund state and regional non-profit arts organizations. The projects are to be competitively selected and/or distributed in the same manner as current funds are distributed. This is just like every other sub-category where money is spent in the bill. There are -no- pet (pork) projects in this part of the bill.
Emerson,
You're wrong. Government spending on random crap doesn't stimulate the economy; it devalues the dollar and "fixes" the free market in favor of partisan political interests.
I have come around to thinking that government should do some spending in order to get things going, since the corporations have shirked so much of their social responsibility and people are really hurting. But handouts to faith-based charities, ACORN, after-school snacks, the Department of Commerce? More undue support for unpromising technologies like wind power and corn ethanol? That's not stimulus; that's more of what got us into this mess.
Go to hell, Mark. You're spouting Republican cliches, have no idea whatsoever what got us into this mess (it wasn't pork, that's for sure), and have no idea what stimulus is.
I'm glad that you finally quit supporting the Republicans after you spent so much time helping them do their best to ruin the country, but what made you think that Obama was going to do all those cliche Republican things you want him to do? He never said he would.
Why should anyone listen to you? Sit down, shut up, and listen for awhile.
Emerson,
You're as ignorant as Bush and Palin's ilk. You can drink the blue kool-ade all you want, but this plan is flawed. I hope it works and I want this administration to do everything Obama promised, but I feel I have legitimate concerns and I'm not going to "shut up" about voicing them. I'm a citizen of this country, goddammit, and I've got a voice too.
For the record, I never did anything to help the Republicans in what they did; I'm not a member of either party and I intend to never become one. I don't want to transmogrify into someone like you who can't comprehend anything they can't stick a left/right label on.
Mark said...
Unfortunately, of the $820 or so billion dollars being allocated by this bill, only a couple billion are going toward things like [infrastructure, R&D for . . . green energy, environmental and urban renewal projects]. The rest is pork and stuff that central planning doesn't manage well.
Me thinks that "Mark's" political (undyed) philosophical 'roots' are showing. Who but RepubliCANTs call US federal government spending 'central planing? That's Cold War era, John Birch Society talk for 'Communism', which, according to the JBS, was anyone to the left of the JBS - or about 99% of the US electorate.
More BS from Mark...
Not all of that infrastructure [spending] is going to have a direct effect on the economy, and even more damningly, those funds are going to trickle out.
Trickle out, according to who? Lush Rimbaugh?
You might want to expand your source for information and talking points, and maybe you will get some FACTUAL information, instead of spoon-fed propaganda. To start, here's a few media reports on what the CBO and others have to say about the stimulus plan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012602088.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/stimulus/2009/01/27/cbo-majority-of-stimulus-money-would-enter-economy-by-end-of-2010.html
And even an article spouting a fairly conservative estimate of how fast the funds will hit the economy rebuts your "trickle out" statement.
http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/01/27/will-stimulus-work-fast-enough/
And here is some rationale for the unanimous RepubliCANT vote against the Stimulus package:
"Republicans Petrified That Economy Will Improve"
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/122811/republicans_petrified_that_economy_will_improve/
Mark said...
But handouts to faith-based charities, ACORN. . . .
And your source that the stimulus package gives money to ACORN is...?
Lush Rimbaugh?
Bill O'Lielly?
As I suggested above, please expand your source for information, and you might find that some of the lies you are believing and spouting here as 'The Truth' are in actuality nothing but BIG FAT LIES:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200901280011?f=h_latest
Mark, you're a total moron if you think that porkbarrel spending is what got us here. It's a free country and no one can make you shut up, but quit embarrassing yourself.
Guys, please call your Senators tomorrow morning and tell them to pass this stimulus. Even if they won't listen to you, call em anyway. We might be able to sway them
The saddest part of "talking points" is that, economically speaking, there is truth and then there is politics.
The truth of economics states that the market is efficient. But the market always depends on 1) perfect information 2) rational self-interest and 3) zero external influences.
The POLITICS of economics is more about who regulates the markets, why they do so and what their desired outcomes are. The market does have an annoying tendency to not match the desired outcomes.
Why do we regulate markets? Well, if people were both perfect and honest, and had perfect information, regulation would not be required. But since this is not the case, regulation to prevent those with MORE information taking advantage of those with LESS information is generally desired. (Some people do not have such qualms) SOme people TAKE ADVANTAGE of external power to manipulate the market. These are called Monopolies, Duopolies and Cartels. They act ONLY in self-interest and CRUSH others if allowed.
What are the desired outcomes? Well, if you believe that despite IMPERFECT information and human nature that markets should be unfettered in any way, your desired outcome is monopoly.
If you believe that the market should be completely controlled, your desired outcome is communism.
If you think that SOME things in the market should be controlled or regulated, then your desired outcome is socialism. Here are some "SOCIALISTIC" ideas that Americans hold near and dear.
People that use oil and drive gas-powered vehicles should be taxed to support roads.
People that earn income should pay for common defense and upholding justice with trained police officers.
People that earn income should pay for the education of ALL the children in the country, even if the taxpayer does not have children.
Political beliefs are fine to debate and argue about as if we know something. However, when it comes to the effects of "stimulus" compared to "tax reduction", or some other economic policies, there is a much broader consensus. Only extremists ON BOTH SIDES are convinced they know the truth path to economic problems. Most economists are like plumbers, they have a set of tools, and wehn a new problem comes along, they first try all tools they know. However, when a KNOWN problem occurs, they pull out the correct tool and use it.
This is a big bill and it is going to take me some time to get through all of it, but after scanning all titles and sub-sections the closest thing to being a 'pork' project is $200 million given to the national mall revitalization fund.
Perhaps the democrats were worried they were losing that edge they had in D.C. After all Obama only won by 93% in D.C. in the election.
I'll admit I think that is a bit much for such a small space unless they have a big upcoming project for it, but I just can't write it off as 'pork.'
Explanation of what the word "stimulus" means, for the morons here:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press
There are a number of reasons why the House Rethuglicans voted as one to deny a stimulus for the ailing American economy.
First, they come from increasingly right-wing-base (in every sense of the word) districts as a result of gerrymandering. So, their seats are safe.
Second, they know they will have a second chance when the bill from the Senate comes to the House. They'll have a chance to vote on the conference bill, and some of them will. But they will also take credit for hanging tough and voting against the terrorist-loving President.
Third, remember they are against spending and for tax cuts. Some of them actually think that if you gave big business large tax cuts that would stimulate the economy and people would get jobs and start spending again. Yes, many if not most of these Rethuglicans are idiots as well as ideologues.
And, fourth, these Rethuglicans desperately want to marginalize their party and themselves into insignificance. And they are doing a grand old job of turning the Grand Old Party into a cocktail hour joke.
I don't normally post links from (or read, or watch) FOX, but take it as you will: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/
Unfortunately, it's only being reported by the righty media; I'm not a liberal-media conspiracy theory, but it is kind of weird that nobody else but Murdoch outlets is reporting it. Wish I could independently verify it. I know ACORN is bogeymanned by the Republicans (I really don't think it was part of any voter conspiracy as much as it was poorly set up and exploited by individuals) but I don't think any group like that, whether or not ACORN itself is one of them, should be getting funding from the government. Where they're fair and act ethically, I applaud their contributions to society, but I think it muddies the waters for government to give them money.
Oh, and about the funds being released slowly... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/20/AR2009012003980.html
BTW, if you can't comprehend that I oppose deficit spending and am also not a Republican, I don't really know what to say to you. I have misgivings about this stimulus plan and I think it could be better conducted. After the past eight years, I'm definitely not keen on putting Washington in charge of things like, say, job training.
I wish this stimulus plan was directed FULLY toward freeing up Americans' wallets and providing us and our children with a more sustainable future.
Hey Joe,
The free marketeers argue for lasseiz-faire capitalism on the basis that markets and people are essentially rational. For instance, the housing bubble would never have gotten out of control in a completely deregulated market because the mortgage lenders would not have offered mortgages to people who could not afford them. Doing so violates the self-interest of the mortgage lender, since they would lose money if the market were to become glutted with houses that nobody wanted to buy.
Which is exactly what happened. The central flaw in Alan Greenspan's (who not only read Ayn Rand, he knew her personally and attended the Brandeis Institute-whose curriculum was written around Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism) argument is that human beings like to believe they are rational beings but in fact we are anything but.
We're told that the thing that sets mankind apart from the rest of the animals is that we have the capacity to reason, and many presume that to mean that we always use that capacity. In fact, we rarely do. We are passionate creatures, driven by emotions, hungers, and prejudices. Our very notions of self are based upon presumptions inherited as a function of how we were raised, where we were born, what religion we subscribe to, and the kind of education we have received. And since there is an amazing amount of diversity in these areas, we differ widely in terms of how we perceive the world. And who's right? Which one is correct? It may be seen as in your self-interest to smoke cigarettes if you are a teen and want to impress the people you want to fit in with-and incredibly stupid if you are a little older and better educated and realize what it does to your body. Either action-smoking or not smoking-may seem perfectly rational, depending on who you are.
We have this concept of common sense, and yet sense is not common. What one person believes is so evident it requires no explanation eludes another, and not for lack of logical ability. In the end, all our arguments are based upon assumptions we assume others share even when they do not, and yet we always assume that these assumptions are rational.
As such, Greenspan's model blows up; the bubble bursts, the banks fall. Humanity does not behave according to the model, as the model presumes we are mathematical in our decision making. We indulge urges with abandon, eating far more than we need and never anything beneficial to our bodies or minds. We drink, smoke, use drugs, have unprotected sex with anonymous partners, drive without seatbelts, declare war over rocky, dusty patches of land you can't even grow anything on. We drive cars that emit carbon and dump poison into the air and water. We leave the lights on when nobody's home, and the heat on with the window open. And somehow we think we are rational animals, that will only look after our self-interests, and never do anything that could backfire upon us.
I've never heard anything so irrational as Adam Smith's invisible hand. If the banks were so rational, why do they refuse to lend money to each other, despite every economist on earth saying that's what they need to do, the Fed throwing cheap money at them, and Washington's handing them bailouts that have the electorate screaming at their Congressmen?
I wonder if maybe we think we are superior to the animals because we have lawyers and bankers and civilization, when in fact the animals are smarter because they do not need these things.
The thing that may separate us from the rest of the animals is not our intelligence, but our stupidity. The stupidity of assuming that we know what we're doing.
Mark,
The problem with using Fox News as a source is they are desperate to link democratic things that are unpopular with the republican base (aka Acorn)
That provision the article is talking about is in the section "Department of Housing and Urban Development"
It directly states "For a further additional amount for `Community Development Fund', $4,190,000,000, to be used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008."
It is for organizations that actively redevelop abandoned properties. I haven't heard of Acorn doing this before.
The provision certainly has nothing to do with funding get out the vote organizations.
actual stimulus vote result: 244-188
Nate had predicted earlier today: "about 250-183, with 10-15 Republicans..."
not bad except that there were no GOPers voting AYE...
and fewer DEMs abandoned the ship of state than NATE projected
WV - carail
the stimulus package had money for 'ca rail' infrastructure improvements...
Mark, FDR ran as a deficit hawk, but when he got into office, he realized that deficit hawkishness wasn't appropriate in 1932. It isn't appropriate in 2009, either. I'm normally a deficit hawk, too. I hate that GW and his merry band of collaborators spent and tax-cutted their way to tremendous unproductive national debts. We will have to try to pay down the debt in the long run, and preferably the medium run. But that just isn't the priority right now. Krugman has convinced me, and I'm not interested in what Fox has to say.
People, I wish you could stop the scatological trash-talking. Yes, I mean both Republicans and Democrats. I have strong opinions but don't feel a need to say that people need lube to get their heads out of their asses. But I have to say the number of Republican trash-talkers surprise me, because their party took it on the chin so hard in the recent elections. Elections have consequences.
wv: hatod. I'll let that speak for itself.
I don't normally post links from (or read, or watch) FOX, but take it as you will:
And you shouldn't have done so in this case either. There's nothing there. The most your hit piece can say is that there are $4.19 billion allocated for "neighborhood stabilization activities". So? Nothing's allocated to ACORN, there's technically no reason to specifically expect ACORN gets a penny of that. If ACORN does by some chance get any of it, it's because they get done what the money is allocated to do. What you and the Republicans are arguing here is that we should refrain from giving any money to local community-building organizations whatsoever, simply because one of the community-building organizations somewhere in the United States is a designated enemy of the Republican Party.
Your second article, meanwhile, is simply wrong. The Washington Post article cites its numbers as coming from a CBO report; but the CBO report on the stimulus was not issued for a full week after the article you link. The Post was one of a number of news organizations at that time that in a glorious example of herd behavior grabbed a preliminary table analyzing one part of the stimulus package (from the article itself: "The report does not analyze the entire $825 billion package assembled by House leaders and aides to President Obama.") and reported it such as to present the impression it applied to the stimulus itself. (The more recent Washington Post article "Mike in Maryland" posts above contains the complete numbers.) If you look at the actual CBO information you get:
"On Monday evening, the Congressional Budget Office put out its analysis of the full bill, and it gave a very different picture. It estimated that about 64 percent of the money, or $526 billion, would be spent by next September."
BTW, if you can't comprehend that I oppose deficit spending and am also not a Republican, I don't really know what to say to you.
Disinformation is disinformation. It doesn't really matter if it comes from a Republican or not.
Statler, that was a brilliant post.
Mark, if you oppose deficit spending you oppose any possible stimulus plan. It's as simple as that. I think you're out of your league.
Clay,
Not too surprising that FOX would twist that. I'm glad to hear that was just Murdoch agitprop, although my other complaints remain (and I still feel like that section's language is a bit too much on the vague side to avoid potential exploitation, but to an extent it's impossible to make these things airtight).
I think the biggest problem I have that I've heard from all corners of the media is the sluggishness with which these supposed stimulus funds are being released. Even supposing that pork-barrel spending wasn't dangerous for currency valuation, even supposing that it would stimulate the economy, it's going to come out over the period of the better part of a decade. That is not my definition of a "quick jolt".
In my opinion, a much smaller, less costly stimulus plan focusing on reducing tax burden on working-class households, organizing renewal projects in the mold of the CCC, rebuilding and creating new transportation infrastructure, providing daycare vouchers to single parents seeking gainful employment, and ending expensive ventures like capital punishment, cannabis criminalization, and the like, should have been coupled with a sustainability package focusing on funding R&D for green energy, reclaiming and protecting natural resources, and fixing the education and healthcare systems - possibly those funds to be released conditional upon a certain amount of recovery of the budget deficit inherited from Dubya.
I have no problem with the Democrats following through on some of President Obama's good ideas like computerizing healthcare records and the like, but I don't see how that's stimulus and not just expenditure. It may be useful expenditure, but I think it'd be better to try to buoy the flagging economy now (aided by decreased government spending) and then spend once we're in a more stable position. Borrowing more from the PRC, Japan, and the UAE and printing more Federal Reserve notes right now is just going to inflate the currency bubble, and I wonder how much longer we can keep inflating it before it pops...it's not like the Fed has many rates left to cut.
I just question the integrity of spending on pork (and even useful projects like the computerization of records and whatnot) and calling it "stimulus". Stimulus is boosting the economy, not giving handouts to special interests.
Mark: I suggest you research classical Keynesianism, to help you understand the rationale behind the concept of a stimulus package. Your posts make it clear you don't understand it.
There are those who disagree with the premise, but until you can at least explain what the premise is, I'm going to have to deem you underinformed on the subject.
Mark, this stimulus plan may be too small. A smaller stimulus plan would be even more likely to be too small. Please figure out what the words "stimulus plan" mean before you post again. Your gut feelings are wrong.
Whatever else stimulus may be, it's deficit spending.
Read this: Stimulus plan
mcc,
Thanks for the Leonhardt link. Hopefully it does go more in that direction, and hopefully that helps.
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/whats-missing-in-the-stimulus-plan/?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29assess.html?hp
Some interesting reading from The New York Times on tweaks that could/should be made. I don't agree with all of the conclusions, but I think it highlights the importance of debate. I really hope the Senate takes some time to consider proposals from around the room; I mean, I never thought I'd agree with Mitch McConnell on anything, but I think the point he made about how loans to the states might be preferable to grants is a valid one that should at least receive the courtesy of a fair debate on the Senate floor.
As I said - most of this spending is justifiable. I just question why it's all lumped together under the friendly umbrella of "stimulus" rather than called as it is.
To clarify: the only way spending money in the US could fail to be a stimulus is if it is spent paying people to do things they would otherwise be doing for free, and they don't spend any of it.
One can argue the effectiveness of a stimulus (the likelihood that a specific bit of money will get respent by the recipients, for instance), and the magnitude of the economic benefit (Higher for classic "infrastructure" projects than, say, digging and refilling holes) - but ANY kind of spending is a stimulus. and ANY new government spending right now is deficit spending.
Michael and Emerson,
Don't worry - I understand what Keynesian economics are. Some amount of deficit spending is ultimately necessary. But we need to be careful about what is being spent, especially when the economy is in such a fragile condition and we're in such a hole after eight years of George W. Bush in the Oval Office. Some of this spending is not necessary. Billions for the war on drugs is not necessary. Funds for faith-based charities are not stimuli by any definition.
I do believe a stimulus bill should be passed. But I disagree with some of its provisions. Some of them you guys have addressed; others I retain my dislike of. This bill needs to be debated and other proposals need to be considered, and I have a nasty feeling that partisan politics - you know, the kind that George Washington warned about - are going to interfere with what's best happening for the country.
This plan should be aimed at creating a future where we NEVER have to do this again. I don't see that.
Mark,
I understand your concern about possible sluggishness. I think this needs to happen and want to see it go off without problems.
However, in a short amount of time after money is allocated different branches of government still have to organizations competitively introduce specific projects that fulfill the requirements as stated in the language of the bill. That will take time.
Then if projects can not be completed within one years, but instead takes 3 years they can't just be funded for the first year, so the budgeted money has to attempt to rush funding, but also realistically leave funding so that projects can be completed over time.
Another issue is the projects needs to be spread out across multiple industries. That way we can reach out to more potential "ready to go" projects, but also to spread out the first direct effects of the stimulus wealth. Some types of projects in different industries can be funded and completed quicker than others.
For the most part it appears provisions are in place for a bulk of the spending to be accomplished within the first 18 months. I think that is impressive, even though the news pundits make it seem like it is a snails pace. I have to admit when I watch the news every day I want an instant gratification, but this is going to take time (stimulus or no stimulus).
Anyways, stimulus spending can work.
If anyone or a republican can find a better and quicker way to spend $607 billion and maintain the same multiplier effects on key economic indicators (ie. GDP, unemployment rate, etc..) I am all ears.
I would love to hear it.
However, one thing I will not do is just give up and become a naysayer.
Nothing we do now can ensure we never see this again.
There's always going to be economic downturns in the future, simply because we're not perfect - as a society, we WILL overinvest in things again, and suffer when they come down.
I'd be interested in debate on provisions of the stimulus package ... but right now, the Republican party isn't interested in that. They're opposed to the very concept of government spending, so trying to negotiate with them to find the best forms of government spending is futile; they're not willing to budge on their answer of "none".
And once the economy is recovering, I hope the government DOES cut back on spending, to let private spending take over when the economy is in a state where private spending will actually happen, and pay down the debts being incurred now. But that's going to take some time yet.
I think the point he made about how loans to the states might be preferable to grants is a valid one that should at least receive the courtesy of a fair debate on the Senate floor.
Hmm... well, not to discount the idea out of hand or anything, but I have to say my immediate response to giving the state of California the opportunity to go even further into debt is terror D: At least the federal debt might someday get paid off...
The other important point about stimulus spending is that the multiplier effect is greater on money that is allocated by the private sector than that allocated by government. In other words, money is spent more efficiently by those making an economic decision rather than those tossing money in a shotgun approach.
Moreover, money that's spent on one-time projects or make-work projects will get no follow through in sustained growth, so it's largely wasted.
That's why broad-based tax cuts should always be the cornerstone of stimulus spending rather than pork. But the central planner types don't like that because it reduces their power.
Clay and Michael,
Good posts. The attitude the Democrats have coopted from the Republicans now that they're in power, which is that they're in charge now and the Republicans should suck it because they had it coming, isn't conducive, but neither it's even less conducive when the Republicans won't come to the table. I have a feeling that Senate Republicans are going to be more malleable than House Republicans, but we'll see.
Definitely a prime focus of fixing this recession should be achieving energy independence - from oil in general, not just from the Middle East - and solving our education and healthcare woes, as well as renewing our cities and natural environment. And I would love for that spending to come right out of the defense and war budgets.
Something I get increasingly concerned about as years pass, though, are entitlement programs. I feel like that's too dangerous a debate for the pols in Washington to want to have. But I question why there isn't an opt-out option for those, and what's going to be done to address the ballooning strain on the federal budget as those expenditures skyrocket and the systems start to break down.
mcc,
I'm personally not thrilled with the idea of giving states that have demonstrated fiscal irresponsibility more money, any more than the bailout of irresponsible and corrupt financial and automobile corporations pleased me. Strikes me as both an unwise investment and a pardoning of fiscal wildness.
I think the stimulus package as it is written will address many of the problems in this country that have been left to rot.
Global Warming is real.
The 'debate' over it does not exist in the scientific peer-reviewed journal literature. It was artificially manufactured int he popular press, and despite the best efforts of the Right, nobody has managed to generate any controversy over it in the peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Green energy has been embraced even by skeptics like T Boone Pickens as a national security policy. We don't have enough oil to meet our needs, not on the continental shelf, not in Alaska, nowhere in the US. The Canadian Tar Sands are difficult to extract oil from, and the cheap stuff's gonna come from OPEC. They're pretty fickle about us, as the recent oil shock should remind you.
Our infrastructure is in decay. The highways of America look like shit. Bridges collapse all over the US, not just in Minneapolis. The country needs a functioning infrastructure so we can move the goods and services we depend on and each other where we need to go.
Speaking of which, public transit needs a boost. DC Metro, despite being underfunded since the 80's, still offers better service than you'll find in New Orleans or alot of other cities without solid public transit. Driving damages the environment, trashes the roads, and pollutes the air. It's also expensive and poor people need to be able to get to work. Public transit may not turn a profit, but profit isn't the point. The police department doesn't generate a profit either. Nor the fire department.
Tax cuts for the highest income Americans don't stimulate the economy. If you own six houses (like McCain), you don't pay rent and you're not likely to buy another house. Why buy another car if you already own five? It,s the lower class and middle class Americans that spend money, and spending is the point behind the stimulus.
Why not kill the AMT? That'd certainly provide tax relief for the middle class.
Rudy: The private sector isn't spending, or we wouldn't be in a severe recession.
That is precisely why tax cuts now would accomplish nothing. Basic economics, learn it.
Mark: I very much agree with you on what some goals of the spending should be, and I hope that the Senate Republicans are more willing to negotiate than the House Reps were, as well.
@ Mark
Why not kill the AMT? That'd certainly provide tax relief for the middle class.
Why kill it and make the rich (its original and primary target) very happy? Continue raising the limit,as has been done the last few years,to ensure that the middle class remains protected.
Mark,
You might want to take a look at this. This is the latest (and most complete) CBO report about HR.1
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf
There are breakdown charts near the end of when spending is expected to happen by year. Granted it is a rough estimate seeing as specific problems have not been allocated, but its the best estimate we have for better or worse.
Part of me is wondering (in the back of my mind) if some portions of the stimulus go unspent, because of a lack of ready to go projects that fit the requirements. I know transportation and communication infrastructure early on was examined for the amount of ready to go projects that potentially exist, but I am not sure about every sub-section of the bill. I am assuming someone did the research for each section, so that nothing is over budgeted.
Statler,
speaking of underfunded transit systems.. you should check out MARTA in Atlanta. It is probably the most efficient transit system in the country, but you wouldn't know it locally. The local Republicans just accuse them of mismanaging money, but in reality they get no state funds and the 1% sales tax (which only exists in two counties) that support it are required by state law to spend 50% on expansion. Only problem is they can't expand, because they can't pay for increased operation. State republicans refuse to change that law allowing them to budget more money or operations.
End result.. they can't balance their books, but they have plenty of money to spend millions on self cleaning toilets (which probably lets them save $10,000/years in their operations budget)
It just makes me sick... (sorry everyone I know I am just ranting now)
Michael, YSF, that's the whole point of a s-t-i-m-u-l-u-s, to get the private sector spending again.
Put the money in people's pockets and give everyone a chance to get an uptick from this besides union workers and other Dem political consitiuencies. So what if they decide to save it or pay down debt. That helps reliquify the financial system, which is sorely in need of a LOT more fresh capital.
You're awfully condescending for someone with little grasp of economics beyond the end of your nose.
And you're a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, Rudy.
Can you explain why the most recent tax rebate/stimulus check did almost nothing to stimulate the economy?
I can - it's simple classical Keynesian theory.
What does your "always cut taxes forever" mantra claim is the reason people, when given money, didn't spend it?
Stimulus bill moves us closer to nationalized health care and rationing
The House of Representatives approved an $819 billion economic stimulus package Wednesday. The party line vote was a blow to Barack Obama's alleged desire for bipartisanship. All the Republicans and 11 democrats voted against the bill. One thing in the bill that went mostly unnoticed was a new bureaucracy called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.
Three Cheers for Clay-
Infrastructure is in the eye of the beholder.
Education
Health Care information
Are all longterm informational infrastructure.
First law of thermodynamics
1)Conservation of Energy
i.e. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Freight, commuter transportation,and long-distance travel infrastructure packages cannot be put on the table now be cause we do not have good information on our long-term energy portfolio. They are very high energy processes- they require fuel and we do not know yet what that fuel will be.
Steven Chu is not an idiot!
Healthcare rationing. Isn't that what we have now, only inefficiently based on income, possession or lack of insurance, and bullshit decisions from insurance companies?
I know the comments have been over this, but I just so do not get the logic behind the Republican obstructionism.
Tax cuts. Fab! What if, like me and millions of others, you've lost your job? FAIL.
Ok, how about the masses of underemployed? That piddly extra $20 a month or whatever will get spent on past-due bills and credit card debt. Woo hoo.
And if you're 100% gainfully employed? Congrats! But right now you're crapping your pants about losing that job, so you're hoarding any extra cash like a motherf'er. NOT SPENDING.
Tax cuts to small businesses? Great, but if they can't get credit to operate and fewer people are buying their crap (see above), um, preserving/creating jobs is kind of the last thing on their minds.
JOBS, credit flow, confidence. Nobody likes massive spending, but nobody likes emergency heart surgery either. The Republicans are just gonna have to put away the aspirin and bust out the scalpel. Suck it up, the rest of us already have.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型論壇,整型論壇,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹論壇,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment