Page 4 of 5

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:20 pm UTC
by Jahoclave
Spoiler:
Veracious Sole wrote:Here is a list of some of the latest items to be cut from the stimulus package. It is worth noting that this was put forward by Democrats as well as Republicans. The article even suggests (though it does not state outright) that the Democrats were in the majority.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/stimulus.cuts/index.html wrote:Partially cut:
$3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)

• $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)

• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)

• $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)

• $100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million)

• $300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million)

• $100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)

Fully eliminated:

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $122 million for Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters

• $100 million for Farm Service Agency modernization

• $50 million for Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service

• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation

• $100 million for distance learning

• $98 million for school nutrition

• $50 million for aquaculture

• $2 billion for broadband

• $100 million for National Institute of Standards and Technology

• $50 million for detention trustee

• $25 million for Marshalls Construction

• $300 million for federal prisons

• $300 million for BYRNE Formula grant program

• $140 million for BYRNE Competitive grant program

• $10 million state and local law enforcement

• $50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $50 million for exploration

• $50 million for Cross Agency Support

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

• $1 billion for Energy Loan Guarantees

• $4.5 billion for General Services Administration

• $89 million General Services Administration operations

• $50 million from Department of Homeland Security

• $200 million Transportation Security Administration

• $122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use

• $25 million for Fish and Wildlife

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $20 million for working capital fund

• $165 million for Forest Service capital improvement

• $90 million for State and Private Wildlife Fire Management

• $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start

• $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity

• $2 billion for Health Information Technology Grants

• $600 million for Title I (No Child Left Behind)

• $16 billion for school construction

• $3.5 billion for higher education construction

• $1.25 billion for project based rental

• $2.25 billion for Neighborhood Stabilization

• $1.2 billion for retrofitting Project 8 housing

• $40 billion for state fiscal stabilization (includes $7.5 billion of state incentive grants)

Image

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:39 pm UTC
by SummerGlauFan
i wrote:
frezik wrote:Methinks this is exactly the situation where Keynes would say "In the long run, we're all dead". In other words, there is a high probability that long term growth forcasts will be thrown off by some random event, and are therefore not worth talking about when there are more immediate problems to solve.


Personally, I don't think we should worry about global warming. Who knows what will happen in fifty years.


Wait, what? That's like saying we should not worry about Iran's nuclear ambitions, or that we shouldn't worry about getting vaccinated during flu season. Global warming is a proven threat; ignoring it is only going to make it worse.

I need to go lay down. I have a headache now.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:10 pm UTC
by Bakemaster
i wrote:Personally, I don't think we should worry about global warming. Who knows what will happen in fifty years.

Hugely different issues. Natural science is not the same as economic science and should be treated as such.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:30 pm UTC
by i
frezik wrote:
i wrote:
frezik wrote:Methinks this is exactly the situation where Keynes would say "In the long run, we're all dead". In other words, there is a high probability that long term growth forcasts will be thrown off by some random event, and are therefore not worth talking about when there are more immediate problems to solve.


Personally, I don't think we should worry about global warming. Who knows what will happen in fifty years.


That's not comparable. Climate change is already a problem and getting worse. Without some sort of stimulus plan, it's likely the recession will go on a lot longer, and possibly deepen into a depression. In that case, your 10 year economic projections will be off by 10% or more, instead of 0.1%.

During times of crisis, solving immediate problems must be the priority, or you'll never survive to see the long term.


I know it's already a problem, and that's why we need a solution that will work this year---not fifty years from now. If it doesn't effect the climate tomorrow, then it will take resources away from short-run solutions and make this year worse.

I prefer to hide in uncertainty and pretend that the future cannot be predicted. Sure, there's a 99.99% that liquidating my pension and relying on the lottery for retirement is a bad idea, but it's not 100% and therefore it's a downside not worth considering. It could be thrown off by any random event.

Actually, now that I think about it, that's a really bad idea :?

When it comes to the this economy, there are plenty of models that say we could end up in a worse position with the stimulus than without it. The CNN article you cited doesn't list these---it actually gives a downside we'd endure in a best case scenario.

One model relies on an unchanged propensity to consume. Take a look at the stimulus bill and see if there is anything that requires the private rate of consumption to increase. If the propensity to consume (or invest, I guess) does not increase as gov't spending falls off, the US will go back in a recession with a huge national debt. Then you slap CNN's forecast on top of that (edit: actually more, because a larger percentage of a deflated gdp would have to go to paying off the debt).

That is a long-run situation worth considering, and in my opinion, trumps all short term advantages. In that case, it would be better to endure the recession than try to avoid it.

Just don't say the long-run doesn't matter.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:50 pm UTC
by d33p
Wait wait wait.
Our beloved Congress cut $50M for NASA, and kept $75M for smoking cessation programs?
I... That does it. I'm moving to New Zealand.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:08 am UTC
by mosc
It's not like smoking costs taxpayers billions in healthcare costs. No, couldn't be that. Makes no sense to me why anybody would try to encourage folks to quit smoking.[/sarcasm]

"A male smoker in the United States that smokes more than one pack a day can expect an average increase of $19,000 just in medical expenses over the course of his lifetime. A U.S. female smoker that also smokes more than a pack a day can expect an average of $25,800 additional healthcare costs over her lifetime."Citation. Now 20.8% of adults in the US still smoke. citation and if you take our adult population at something like 250 million people and 50/50 male/female, that works out to 5.6 Trillion dollars. Hmm, maybe getting people to quit smoking could save us all a lot of money?

Knowledge: get some.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:38 pm UTC
by 22/7
mosc wrote:It's not like smoking costs taxpayers billions in healthcare costs. No, couldn't be that. Makes no sense to me why anybody would try to encourage folks to quit smoking.[/sarcasm]

"A male smoker in the United States that smokes more than one pack a day can expect an average increase of $19,000 just in medical expenses over the course of his lifetime. A U.S. female smoker that also smokes more than a pack a day can expect an average of $25,800 additional healthcare costs over her lifetime."Citation. Now 20.8% of adults in the US still smoke. citation and if you take our adult population at something like 250 million people and 50/50 male/female, that works out to 5.6 Trillion dollars. Hmm, maybe getting people to quit smoking could save us all a lot of money?

Knowledge: get some.
And in the US we still have the right to smoke if we like. And if we wish to operate a bar or restaurant and allow people to smoke there, why should a bunch of people who don't own or operate my restaurant or bar get to tell me whether or not to allow someone to do something that is perfectly legal in my establishment? I'm a pretty avid anti-smoker, but I don't consider my opinion on the matter to be important enough to trump other people's rights. If nonsmokers wanted a place to stop allowing smoking, they'd contact the management/owner and inform them that they wouldn't be going there until it was a nonsmoking establishment and then, and here's the rub and the real reason that these laws get passed, they'd actually have to stop going there. Of course, this won't happen because we in the US get bored waiting for the microwave, but it's ok, because we're so fucking entitled to whatever we want whenever we want it that we'll push a law through to circumvent business owners' rights to manage their establishment. Anyway, when 80% of their business dried up, the management/owner would suddenly realize that their business should become a nonsmoking establishment and, upon changing over, would get their business back. Pushing through laws to force such a policy on a business owner, while slightly more convenient for me, the nonsmoker, it's also using the government to bully the business owner in a way that I'm not comfortable with. If it's suddenly allowable to determine whether or not a bar can allow smoking, what other policies are we going to force on them?

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:06 pm UTC
by Malice
22/7 wrote:
mosc wrote:It's not like smoking costs taxpayers billions in healthcare costs. No, couldn't be that. Makes no sense to me why anybody would try to encourage folks to quit smoking.[/sarcasm]

"A male smoker in the United States that smokes more than one pack a day can expect an average increase of $19,000 just in medical expenses over the course of his lifetime. A U.S. female smoker that also smokes more than a pack a day can expect an average of $25,800 additional healthcare costs over her lifetime."Citation. Now 20.8% of adults in the US still smoke. citation and if you take our adult population at something like 250 million people and 50/50 male/female, that works out to 5.6 Trillion dollars. Hmm, maybe getting people to quit smoking could save us all a lot of money?

Knowledge: get some.
And in the US we still have the right to smoke if we like. And if we wish to operate a bar or restaurant and allow people to smoke there, why should a bunch of people who don't own or operate my restaurant or bar get to tell me whether or not to allow someone to do something that is perfectly legal in my establishment? I'm a pretty avid anti-smoker, but I don't consider my opinion on the matter to be important enough to trump other people's rights. If nonsmokers wanted a place to stop allowing smoking, they'd contact the management/owner and inform them that they wouldn't be going there until it was a nonsmoking establishment and then, and here's the rub and the real reason that these laws get passed, they'd actually have to stop going there. Of course, this won't happen because we in the US get bored waiting for the microwave, but it's ok, because we're so fucking entitled to whatever we want whenever we want it that we'll push a law through to circumvent business owners' rights to manage their establishment. Anyway, when 80% of their business dried up, the management/owner would suddenly realize that their business should become a nonsmoking establishment and, upon changing over, would get their business back. Pushing through laws to force such a policy on a business owner, while slightly more convenient for me, the nonsmoker, it's also using the government to bully the business owner in a way that I'm not comfortable with. If it's suddenly allowable to determine whether or not a bar can allow smoking, what other policies are we going to force on them?


22/7, how the flying fuck is any of that related to this stimulus plan? Did the government set aside money to pay somebody to oppress bar owners? Because that seems pretty illogical to me.

Yes, you have the right to smoke. But it's still smart on our part to dissuade you from doing so, because your smoking has negative externalities.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:11 pm UTC
by 22/7
Maybe I misinterpreted the "smoking cessation programs". I'm assuming that they're somehow related to things like anti-smoking campaigns which, in a number of cities/counties/whatever recently, have included removing smoking from public places like bars and restaurants.

Of course, even if it's just a "get people to quit smoking" fund it's still not very stimulusy.

It's also possible that I got a little perturbed by the unnecessarily flippant tone of the previous post.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:32 pm UTC
by mosc
If you could pay somebody $10k and they'd never smoke again, it would be worth it in most cases. The math is clear. Many people who don't even have incomes let alone healthcare except through the government smoke and the added cost goes straight to the taxpayer when they need medical attention. This is a no brainer financial boon for the government IF it can be shown that the programs are even remotely effective. That's very stimulus to me.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:34 pm UTC
by 22/7
I don't doubt that it'd be an eventual financial boon, but I don't see how it's stimulus.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:44 pm UTC
by Malice
22/7 wrote:I don't doubt that it'd be an eventual financial boon, but I don't see how it's stimulus.


Stimulus = government spending. Even if it's for digging and filling in ditches over and over again.

Better stimulus = government spending with long-term pay-offs. Like getting people to stop smoking.

You seem to be a pretty smart person, 22. What aren't you getting about this?

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:51 pm UTC
by Jebobek
I'm guessing mosc is talking about people getting a tax break. But yea, when I hear "stimulus" these days I think an immediate payoff to people. I'm not surprised others think the same way.

Maybe I misinterpreted the "smoking cessation programs". I'm assuming that they're somehow related to things like anti-smoking campaigns which, in a number of cities/counties/whatever recently, have included removing smoking from public places like bars and restaurants.
I'm not sure if you're right or wrong; they might be plugging a bit of that money in allowing/forcing private companies go smoke free. The non-profit hospital I work at here in PA went smoke free last year; we used our own funding to put up the warning signs. We pay security to go around and make sure there aren't people on campus smoking. Perhaps this funding would have given us money to help us announce/enforce it?

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:13 pm UTC
by 22/7
Jebobek wrote:I'm not sure if you're right or wrong; they might be plugging a bit of that money in allowing/forcing private companies go smoke free. The non-profit hospital I work at here in PA went smoke free last year; we used our own funding to put up the warning signs. We pay security to go around and make sure there aren't people on campus smoking. Perhaps this funding would have given us money to help us announce/enforce it?
I was envisioning the money being used to support pushing through whatever needs to be pushed through to make a city/county smoke free.
Malice wrote:Stimulus = government spending. Even if it's for digging and filling in ditches over and over again.

Better stimulus = government spending with long-term pay-offs. Like getting people to stop smoking.

You seem to be a pretty smart person, 22. What aren't you getting about this?
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I'm not sure I understand how funding advertising campaigns create jobs in the short run. I get the long term benefits (assuming for the sake of argument that these campaigns are actually effective), but I don't see money going to anyone but large media conglomerates. I guess some of these will also go on privately owned billboards? There could be some actors and script-writers getting paid, I guess.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:35 pm UTC
by Malice
22/7 wrote:
Jebobek wrote:I'm not sure if you're right or wrong; they might be plugging a bit of that money in allowing/forcing private companies go smoke free. The non-profit hospital I work at here in PA went smoke free last year; we used our own funding to put up the warning signs. We pay security to go around and make sure there aren't people on campus smoking. Perhaps this funding would have given us money to help us announce/enforce it?
I was envisioning the money being used to support pushing through whatever needs to be pushed through to make a city/county smoke free.


I was not aware that the federal government could assign funding to a political campaign like that.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I'm not sure I understand how funding advertising campaigns create jobs in the short run. I get the long term benefits (assuming for the sake of argument that these campaigns are actually effective), but I don't see money going to anyone but large media conglomerates. I guess some of these will also go on privately owned billboards? There could be some actors and script-writers getting paid, I guess.


Advertising costs money to make, and provides jobs that way. They also cost money to run, which provides support to all sorts of media--TV, magazines, newspapers, all of which take that increased income and use it hire new people and expand. And then those new hires take their new income and spend it, increasing the economy again... and so on and so forth.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:08 pm UTC
by mosc
22/7, it's pretty fundamental to the nature of stimulus in general. Perhaps it's not that you're misunderstanding smoking cessation efforts but instead are misunderstanding the purpose of stimulus? It's spending money on credit (national debt) to put money into the economy. In general, this increases DEMAND. The increased DEMAND gets balanced by increased SUPPLY from the economy which means, in general, the economy grows. Jobs, infrastructure, and GDP. The goal is not just to put money in though, it's to specifically target areas that the government's money will be leveraged into long term growth opportunities.

Smoking cessation is probably a lot of advertising, educational programs, counseling, and discounts on quitting aids. That means new jobs. The long term benefit is reduced healthcare spending which could mean the money could be spent in other more effective places or simply not taxed.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:47 pm UTC
by Telchar
Malice wrote:Better stimulus = government spending with long-term pay-offs. Like getting people to stop smoking.



No. Stimulus should be government spending with short-term pay-offs. There was a report by Moodys Investor Service linked elsewhere that indicated that spending money on infrastructure, in general, is the best form of stimulus, baring some programs like food stamps, where the return is 175% vs infrastructure which is ~150%. You want a high rate of return on stimulus because this isn't on the budget. This is all going into debt, so you have to make certain your return on the stimulus is more than your interest. Things like digital converter boxes and smoking cessation, while they may save money in the long run and are probably good programs, are not stimulus.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:53 pm UTC
by 22/7
I understand the purpose of stimulus and the most basic of basics of economics on the national level, thank you. Is the DoD budget on here?

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:03 pm UTC
by Telchar
What? Department of Defense budget? This isn't in any budget.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:07 pm UTC
by 22/7
Surely if they're simply looking for ways to spend money since stimulus = government spending money they could just tack on some massive DoD projects?

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:13 pm UTC
by Telchar
I don't know what the short term return would be on R&D. Manufacturing more planes, tanks, etc...would surely have some impact, especially if you could get the auto makers to do it, but I don't know 1. if they would, 2. if they could and 3. if it would be worth it for them to spend the money to retool enough plants.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:04 am UTC
by Malice
Telchar wrote:
Malice wrote:Better stimulus = government spending with long-term pay-offs. Like getting people to stop smoking.



No. Stimulus should be government spending with short-term pay-offs.


There was a report by Moodys Investor Service linked elsewhere that indicated that spending money on infrastructure, in general, is the best form of stimulus,


You want a high rate of return on stimulus


Can we all agree that this statement is true:

Things like digital converter boxes and smoking cessation, while they may save money in the long run and are probably good programs, are not the best stimulus.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:42 am UTC
by frezik
Malice wrote:Can we all agree that this statement is true:

Things like digital converter boxes and smoking cessation, while they may save money in the long run and are probably good programs, are not the best stimulus.


Seconded. All in favor?

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:52 am UTC
by The Reaper
Wouldn't not supporting digital converter boxes force people to buy new TVs? Wouldn't that stimulate the economy? -_-

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:56 am UTC
by mosc
It'll force them to buy digital converter boxes. Wow, I don't know how I came up with that one!

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:55 am UTC
by frezik
The Reaper wrote:Wouldn't not supporting digital converter boxes force people to buy new TVs? Wouldn't that stimulate the economy? -_-


Neither option does a lot for stimulating things. Both devices are going to be built by Asian manufactuerers, and both are sold with minimal markup at retail. Retailers get their money from cables and other accessories.

Keep in mind that part of the plan for these converter boxes is so that TV signals take up less spectrum space, which can then be used for wireless broadband. That's potentially very big in the next few years, but isn't likely to help create jobs immediately.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:02 pm UTC
by Jahoclave
22/7 wrote:Surely if they're simply looking for ways to spend money since stimulus = government spending money they could just tack on some massive DoD projects?

Well, Brownback wanted all the projects that we were going to fund anyways (the ones that would be massive projects mainly constructed in his state) pushed up. Though, the defense industry isn't hurting. And though it's rather anecdotal, my brother just got a raise simply because a new guy got hired with a salary close to his. And that's before he got another raise. Granted Northrup's had trouble keeping people in that division, but still, when you can just throw money at people like that you're not pinching pennies.

That and I think it'd be hard to get as much public support on defense spending after all the crap with Iraq and the like. That and personally people would be more apt to get behind improvements to the homeland over increased bombing capacity of people who we can utterly obliterate with our current technology and forces.


As for smoking, will nobody think of the children? How do you think we're paying for their health care? Support children, smoke a pack.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm UTC
by lesliesage
Jon Stewart brings out the Big Stimulus Guns: Emergency Christmas.

We're going to have Emergency Christmas every month until we buy ourselves out of this catastrofuck. What, you have a problem with that? Are you saying you didn't get me anything for Emergency Christmas? This is the worst Emergency Christmas EVER!

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:32 pm UTC
by Jahoclave
lesliesage wrote:Jon Stewart brings out the Big Stimulus Guns: Emergency Christmas.

We're going to have Emergency Christmas every month until we buy ourselves out of this catastrofuck. What, you have a problem with that? Are you saying you didn't get me anything for Emergency Christmas? This is the worst Emergency Christmas EVER!

Does this mean the War on Christmas is over and Bill and Bill and Hannity and Limbaugh and FOX and the Christian Right can shut the bloody fucking hell up?

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:35 pm UTC
by william
Jahoclave wrote:
lesliesage wrote:Jon Stewart brings out the Big Stimulus Guns: Emergency Christmas.

We're going to have Emergency Christmas every month until we buy ourselves out of this catastrofuck. What, you have a problem with that? Are you saying you didn't get me anything for Emergency Christmas? This is the worst Emergency Christmas EVER!

Does this mean the War on Christmas is over and Bill and Bill and Hannity and Limbaugh and FOX and the Christian Right can shut the bloody fucking hell up?

Haha, those guys aren't going to shut up until some alien comes to Earth and eats their asses(you know, what they talk out of?)

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:36 pm UTC
by Jahoclave
william wrote:
Jahoclave wrote:
lesliesage wrote:Jon Stewart brings out the Big Stimulus Guns: Emergency Christmas.

We're going to have Emergency Christmas every month until we buy ourselves out of this catastrofuck. What, you have a problem with that? Are you saying you didn't get me anything for Emergency Christmas? This is the worst Emergency Christmas EVER!

Does this mean the War on Christmas is over and Bill and Bill and Hannity and Limbaugh and FOX and the Christian Right can shut the bloody fucking hell up?

Haha, those guys aren't going to shut up until some alien comes to Earth and eats their asses(you know, what they talk out of?)

Suddenly the SETI project makes so much more sense.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:23 pm UTC
by Otis
This isn't a completely foreign situation for America. Remember an event back in the 30's called THE GREAT DEPRESSION? Roosevelt tried the exact same thing we're doing now and called it The New Deal. It did the exact opposite of what it was designed to do and actually lengthened and worsened the depression. It is estimated that unemployment would have only increased by 6.7% but after the New Deal was implemented it rocketed to 17.2% and the depression was actually prolonged by 7 years.

We need this stimulus bill like we need a hole in the head. The free market system works, we just need to let it. The same thing happened with the TARP bill. Some major banks started failing and people started panicking but the system started immediately fixing itself when the banks that weren't failing bought up the ones that were along with all their assets. Then along comes the government with their big fancy checks to hand out to the banks that deserved it least and any hope of a quick recovery were soon destroyed.

I agree that we need some tax cuts (for everyone, not just businesses) but to compound that with reckless spending is only going to cause severe inflation down the line.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:29 pm UTC
by mosc
I dispute everything Otis just said. The new deal was a positive thing and did not lengthen the depression.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:55 pm UTC
by lesliesage
mosc wrote:I dispute everything Otis just said. The new deal was a positive thing and did not lengthen the depression.
Actually, the New Deal began the depression. People who like inequality got really depressed and never really recovered, not even after Reagan's best efforts. And the free market actually works fantastically... at maintaining class immobility. I guess it's just a question of values.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:20 pm UTC
by Jahoclave
lesliesage wrote:
mosc wrote:I dispute everything Otis just said. The new deal was a positive thing and did not lengthen the depression.
Actually, the New Deal began the depression. People who like inequality got really depressed and never really recovered, not even after Reagan's best efforts. And the free market actually works fantastically... at maintaining class immobility. I guess it's just a question of values.

Wow, it's like the inverse of Marx.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:29 pm UTC
by mosc
lesliesage wrote:
mosc wrote:I dispute everything Otis just said. The new deal was a positive thing and did not lengthen the depression.
Actually, the New Deal began the depression. People who like inequality got really depressed and never really recovered, not even after Reagan's best efforts. And the free market actually works fantastically... at maintaining class immobility. I guess it's just a question of values.

I guess we've slipped into libertarian world again. Sorry, I live on planet earth. Marx was right. The free market will lead to an endless spiral of class separation. The solution was Keynesian economics and the new deal.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:35 pm UTC
by slow2learn
...a wee bit of a thread jack...

This is PORK.

I think it a horrid idea to get government involved in personal morgages. The capibility for abuse is huge. It takes away part of personal responsiblity for loans. It lets the indebted adquire bigger debts. (The govt will pay that extra 10 grand!). And instead it's sold as "Lets help the people!"

I'm of the opinion that we should let failing economies fail. If something is wrong, it shouldn't be resurrected. If businesses continually make bad decisions, we shouldn't be there to help them help them stand back up. even if this hurts the people. It hurts more to have bad businesses still in business.

I know that hurts the american people. I know that that puts thousands out of jobs. It would create a very hard time on america the entire world.

Tough times make tough people. Tough times can cultivate self responsibility and an understanding of the value of hard work.

I'm not advocating that we purposely make anyones life hard. But that when tradgedy strikes, we should not push new govt programms to 'save', which only further place the people under more problems.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:42 pm UTC
by lesliesage
mosc wrote:
lesliesage wrote:
mosc wrote:I dispute everything Otis just said. The new deal was a positive thing and did not lengthen the depression.
Actually, the New Deal began the depression. People who like inequality got really depressed and never really recovered, not even after Reagan's best efforts. And the free market actually works fantastically... at maintaining class immobility. I guess it's just a question of values.
I guess we've slipped into libertarian world again. Sorry, I live on planet earth. Marx was right. The free market will lead to an endless spiral of class separation. The solution was Keynesian economics and the new deal.
Wait wait wait. Are you saying that you're against class separation? Then how am I supposed to know whom I'm better than? Someone didn't think this through.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:47 pm UTC
by Jahoclave
lesliesage wrote:
mosc wrote:
lesliesage wrote:
mosc wrote:I dispute everything Otis just said. The new deal was a positive thing and did not lengthen the depression.
Actually, the New Deal began the depression. People who like inequality got really depressed and never really recovered, not even after Reagan's best efforts. And the free market actually works fantastically... at maintaining class immobility. I guess it's just a question of values.
I guess we've slipped into libertarian world again. Sorry, I live on planet earth. Marx was right. The free market will lead to an endless spiral of class separation. The solution was Keynesian economics and the new deal.
Wait wait wait. Are you saying that you're against class separation? Then how am I supposed to know whom I'm better than? Someone didn't think this through.

I think you missed a sarcasm tag in your post and so everything went to shit. So I will clear this up.

MOSC YOU AGREE WITH LESLIESAGE.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:17 pm UTC
by Lumpy
Kyohei Morita, chief economist at Barclays Capital in Tokyo, said Japanese policymakers tend to introduce measures to boost approval ratings rather than GDP, especially with mandated elections later this year.


from an article on Japan's economy diving about 13% in Q4 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/02 ... artner=rss

The New York Times and the BBC, I notice, can objectively summarize aspects of Italian, Japanese, and Iranian politics with such statements. I only wish they would be as frank with American politics, where the media must always treat both sides equally to excess, when one can be proven wrong using something as simple as a statute of U.S. Code, or the CIA World Fact Book. When a reporter has the audacity to do this during an interview, his or her guest refuses to make an appearance, and they lose the ratings of the guest's supporters.

So, if this can be agreed upon, what are international sources saying about the bailouts and stimulus packages here? I'd like foreign language sources best, lest the ratings of Americans reading English international news sites affect anything.