While all the crying about the big bad Republicans? The big bad Republicans can really not do much of anything to stop anything the Dems want to do. So quit your crying and just shove this pork down everyone's throats since you have the votes to do it. If you really believe it is a good idea, then ignore then little speed bump known as the Republicans. Bottom line is that the Dems know it is a horrible idea, so they want the Reps on for the ride. Don't drink the koolaide R's!
That is what will happen, most likely. The R's can fall on their eight year-old swords, honoring the memory of Herbert Hoover.
SML - the statement you linked from the CBO's director's blog is revealed as unadulterated bs here and here: The Link The Link .
Trip? Yo? Prodigal asked the money question "If the pork is such a small percentage, why hasn't Congress said "you know what, this is too important to hold up over 2 percent, we're going to drop the objected-upon items." is this not a simple way to make the Pubs look evil? take out the 2% you say is pork and then let the Pubs be revealed as obstructionists who care nothing for the peeeeeople.
6721 - Claims of pork are really only what is being suggested here. The stonewall isn't about pork. .
Trip YOu make the case for doing exactly what Prodigal suggested. Drop the Pork and call the Pubs on it since they are , as you say, Not stonewalling about the pork
Pork, schmork. Far more sinister than pork is the permanent expansion of government in the name of short-term stimulus.
triple, you can post all the numbers you want, but none of those translate in any way into the idea that this stimulus bill is going to do anything. There is just this assumption that if we spend enough money, then the economy will be fixed. I go back to my post - if you can show me where this spending is going to loosen up the lending markets and increase confidence in the businesses who are currently laying people off, then I would at least be willing to listen - albeit I wouldn't believe for a second that it would require $900 billion to accomplish. As it is, all it's going to do is give government agencies more money to spend. They may add some jobs, they likely will hire more construction workers on a short term basis until the funding runs out. So what then? Spend another 900 billion to start the whole thing over? Unemployment is not the root cause of this. Simply putting people back to work (and btw, I still haven't seen how the anticipated created jobs line up with the people who are actually losing their jobs, and would love to see it) is not going to fix the economy. The size of the pork is irrelevant - and btw it's still huge, it's just that the bailout is so massive that ANY additional spending can be made to look insignificant. The fact is that if this bill does what you say it will do, then the dems are holding America hostage by cramming additional spending that apparently couldn't pass on its own merits and then crying to all the world that if we don't pass THIS bill, then the economy will be destroyed, AND WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RECOVER! (Obama's words.) And yet everything that the dems do suggests to me that their pet spending projects are much more important than the good of this nation. Oh and btw, my favorite comment was that he starts off talking about how the American people don't want politics as usual, the same old stuff. Everyone applauds... good stuff... Then later on he addresses the earmarks by saying "when was the last time a bill this big went through without any earmarks? Never!" Soooooo Americans don't like it, it's business as usual, you were supposed to "change" things, and now you're saying that this is how we've always done things so the American people need to get over it and accept it?
Being a Keynsian definitely has its benefits for a politician, namely that I can do ANYTHING and claim it's good for the economy. His explaining why the money won't hit this year really doesn't change the fact that it won't hit this year. What I also think is funny is that if this is true, then why exactly have the last 8 years that you've decried as being out of control GOP spending not kept the economy rolling? By your arguments, overspending should have been the thing keeping us afloat that whole time, and yet it's demonized. So which is it? Is it only good when dems do the spending? Are GOP spending bills magically disregarded by the economy as being beneficial? Yes, I understand the money will be spent. But it will spent in a wildly inefficient manner by government bodies who have proven conclusively that they can't manage funds. I don't believe for one minute that the spending program needs to be this big to do what it is alleged to do, stimulate the economy. It is this big because it needs to cover the things that Congress wants to cover. Let's review: deficit spending by Republicans = mortgaging our children's future. Deficit spending by Democrats = stimulating the economy and improving everyone's life. And btw, when this bill has hit and all the money has been spent, are all the programs we're funding then going to go back to previous funding levels? Will all the projects then get shelved? All the additional non-revenue-producing jobs be cut again? We will be back here in two years if not less asking for even more money. And all to fix an economy that is going through a down cycle and will correct itself, just like it always does. BTW are you ever going to answer the question about your own party's obstructionism? It's been asked several times and you don't seem interested in addressing it.
I read an earlier criticism that many of the jobs would be created in government and education -- two sectors that have some of the lowest unemployment. My concern about that is those sectors don't produce goods for sale. So there is not the ripple effect that results from companies doing business together.
Perhaps the speeches helped. CNN reports that the Senate has a reached tentative deal for a $780 billion stimulus package. .
It's not about lending your way out of a recession. It's about the fact that I talk to developers every week who simply can't get money to move projects along anymore because of the tight lending markets. We're not talking about the housing market here so much as the banks' willingness to provide financing for projects that can provide jobs, stimulate demand, etc... The whole point of the bailout was to loosen the credit market, which didn't happen, at least not at a meaningful level.
