Obama's all fired upFollow

A new era of fuzzy math begins.

Can anyone explain to me how any of this package addresses the underlying problems that caused the mtg meltdown?

Werd.

Virus, the point of the bill is NOT to address the problem, but to help fix it. Many of the items in the bill would create jobs and some things would help some parts of the problem(the auto industry for example, by buying hybrid cars, although I think that buying them for all government employees is a little farfetched). I may be wrong about what I just said, I don't have any idea of exactly how the auto industry works. But I'll say it anyway, correct me if I'm wrong please. I'd appreciate it.

Everyone knows what caused it, and this bill isn't meant to make sure it happens again, but instead, is to make it possible to fight thru this crisis. The cause will be addressed in a later bill, probably fixing the many many problems that caused this recession.



From the moment Clinton stepped into office, the entire media and Republican party were trying to undermine him. To this day, very many Republicans think that he was a terrible president.

Don't get all pissy when the democrats treat your guy in office the same as you treat theirs.



Will someone please tell me where to get info on these taxes so that I can use math, my experience as the co-owner of a business, my knowledge of how a business works, and common sense to show that they only way these taxes can destroy a business and force people to lose jobs is if the business isn't making a profit in the first place?

Google is @#%^ing useless when you don't know exactly what you're looking for.

Also, this bill looks to be creating a fairly large amount of jobs.



He's not saying that there will be a catastrophe if this isn't signed, he's saying that there already IS a catastrophe and that this bill may help out. Having seen what's in the bill, I can't say that I disagree with much of it.



The pubbies are against this? 1. It creates jobs, 2. it has to do with Homeland Security 3. They don't have an HQ yet? Give them an HQ FFS




I suppose it makes sense for them not to like this, conservatives have never been fans of giving any public institution of education much of anything, at least that's how it's seemed up here and Canuckistan. Education? @#%^ that, lets give money to oil companies or spend it on weapons of mass destruction.



If I use virus' logic here, the Republicans hate kids, jobs and summer.

Seriously, virus, you're an idiot, stop listening to Rush and O'Reilly and form your own opinion. Don't accuse me of just believing what the media tells me, I get all my news from mixed sources, both left and right, both online and offline, once I find out about something liek this, I then look it up, and then if it checks out, I form an opinion. I don't believe anything until I see evidence supporting it that outweighs evidence denying it.

Now, I'm going to stop writing now and wait ever-so-excitedly(no, not really) to see what you can say to that. And if you want to tell me I'm wrong, show me ACTAUL evidence. I am NOT takign your word for anything, I'm begging you, for once in your pathetic worthless existance, show your @#%^ing work, give us some evidence to back your bullsh*t up.

Edited, Feb 9th 2009 8:46am by Driftwood

Ok.

Free market is what sends jobs overseas. It's not about lack of demand - demand hasn't changed, but the supply sure as hell has. If you can't keep costs down then you might as well just get out of business. Oftimes that means getting product from overseas instead of internally, and that has directly caused the problems that we have had over the last few decades.

There's a lot of problems and not many solutions. It's a short term fix, to be sure, but it's better than sitting on our hands and hoping that it just goes away. This is decades of unresolved issues that has now come to a head.

It's not a short term "fix" though. Unless you're using the word "fix" in the context of drug use. See. To be a real fix it would have to actually fix something...

What it is, is taking advantage of the economic crisis to push forward with a massive spending increase that the public would not otherwise allow. Most of the spending in this proposed bill has nothing to do with stimulating the economy, and a whole lot to do with pushing Democrat spending policies. We can debate the goodness or badness of those policies elsewhere, but let's not pretend that they have anything directly to do with "fixing" the current economic situation.


They're doing it right now exactly because people like you will accept it as a necessary "fix" for the economic crisis. Which is all the more reason why we should stop and think about what we're doing before we make things worse in the long run.

If the list above is any indication, I'd disagree with that assessment. Even in the little GOP hitlist quoted above, much of the projects would result in job creation.

I was reading some construction trade magazines today with articles about companies very excited about the stimulus package because they're expecting to be able to create lasting jobs from it. For example, a company who has patented a new type of rebar which isn't currently able to justify building a US factory but projects that demand for its product will greatly increase and plans to build a manufacturing plant in the US and employ 21,000 people. Since most steel rebar comes from overseas, it wouldn't come at a cost to existing manufacturing, either. Even after the initial flush of stimulus construction spending wears off, they figure they'll have enough of a foothold in the market to keep the jobs created.

A similiar story was in there regarding concrete plants and innovations in the concrete which haven't come onto the market yet purely because the construction industry is so depressed.

Why not?

Sure. Of the dig a hole and fill it up again variety though...


While that does help with the immediate problem facing those out of work, it doesn't do anything to "stimulate" the economy.


And you couldn't possibly have missed the 2B dollar clean coal boondoggle you and I have discussed several times in the past. Funny how an Obama pet project that is so clearly a waste of time and money manages to get put back on the table in a "stimulus" package? Are you kidding me?!

Maybe I missed where in the list building roads and bridges was mentioned?

What do you think will happen with the "old" government buildings currently being used? Look. I don't specifically know about the importance of building a brand spanking new building for Homeland Security. Maybe it's of critical importance. But probably not as part of an economic stimulus package.

I do find it interesting that people who'd normally knee-jerk oppose anything related to Homeland Security suddenly support a new building for it when it's attached to creating jobs. Do I get to slipperly slope this into some argument about how you might support the building of ovens and concentration camps if only you knew it would create jobs and stimulate the economy? Dunno. I just find that particular item amusing as hell...




The one that even the people building it agree can't ever be cost effective to implement? How about we stop pretending we're not just paying back political supporters and hand the money over in large briefcases? You know... in the interest of transparency and all that...

Edited, Feb 9th 2009 8:08pm by gbaji

Er? The statement was made to imply that this is "busy work". If you are paying people to do something which doesn't provide some other economic benefit, than it's not much of a stimulus. You'd be better off just putting that money directly into the hands of the people you'd have employed.

The only stimulus from that comes from them spending the money they earn Joph. Unless the building itself generates some kind of increase to GDP. That's why Republicans oppose this being in a stimulus package. The thing being built doesn't stimulate the economy in any way.

That's not to say that building a new building isn't worth doing. It's just not within the context of "economic stimulus". Get it?




Again. If the only thing you're doing is hiring people so you can put money into their hands so they in turn can spend it in the economy, then it's not a legitimate stimulus. You'd be better off just handing out 2 billion dollars in cash to random people on the street.

The thing you are building needs to stimulate the economy Joph. This doesn't. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever. We can debate the value of zero-emission coal plants compared to the increased costs (and have), but you can't argue that the technology stimulates the economy in any way at all. It *costs* the economy, and in return reduces the impact of burning coal on the environment. And that's assuming it works...


When the only economic stimulus from a given project is in the form of the spending done by those employed by the project, it's of the "dig a hole and fill it up" variety. If that's what we're doing, then let's discuss just handing out money to people, or giving them tax rebates, or other such measures which put money directly into the hands of consumers. I'd likely disagree, but it would at least be a relevant discussion.



I'm just suggesting that we should discuss these specific programs on their own merits, and not label them as part of an economic stimulus package purely because they'll result in people getting hired. We could spend this money on anything and make that argument. So why spend it on those specific things? Dems are attempting to end-run around debate on these programs by labeling them as part of a stimulus package, and that's why Republicans are opposing them.