[metaglypto]

In what way was the stimulus bill reckless???

$47 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits.
$20 billion to increase food stamp benefits
$46 billion for transportation projects
$40 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs
$145 billion for tax credits
$55 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cuts in education aid and provide block grants
$25 billion to school districts to fund special education
to name a few, and that is just the Senate.

While it can be argued that some of these programs are good and needed, does this money do anything to generate the income needed to fix the problem. Borrowing money to get out of debt is not a good idea. Borrowing money to make money is another story altogether and can work if handled correctly. Much of the money went towards social programs such as Medicare, Social Security, unemployment, etc. I have been on unemployment, and am currently on unemployment, I could sure use the extra money, and could probably qualify for welfare at the moment. How about looking into investing a large portion of that money into small business. A good chunk of that money went directly back into government in one form or another. I think this country would do well with a lot less government workers, not more.

[Parallax]

$46 billion for transportation projects

One of those transportation projects was a railroad bridge here in South Dakota.
It is on a track that has been abandoned for years and is not expected to be used ever again.

[metaglypto]

One of those transportation projects was a railroad bridge here in South Dakota. It is on a track that has been abandoned for years and is not expected to be used ever again.

Thanks for the support Parallax, I am beginning to feel a bit like chum in a school of sharks. While what you bring up is a great example of wasteful spending in our government, something every administration in my life has likely been very guilty of, it also underscores the need to create ongoing jobs. Infrastructure improvement, even infrastructure that we use, does not create permanent jobs. It creates jobs for people until the project is completed, then we are back to drawing unemployment or whatever.

We need the kinds of jobs that are ongoing. Small business has typically been one of the main suppliers of those kinds of jobs. Manufacturing as well, but there has to be a demand for the product. Government's job is to protect the citizenry mainly, whether that be from terrorists, irresponsible polluting businesses, or the drug dealer down the street. Not to provide for our every want.

That is one thing that scares me about ObamaCare, and I don't pretend to have a firm grasp on that, but I have heard from doctors and people in the health care industry that it would definitely hamper their businesses. Before implementing these broad sweeping reforms we need to try doing a "Business Impact Study". That is a term I just made up. Something like an environmental impact study.

I am no business guru, if I were, I probably wouldn't be unemployed right now. That money could go a long way in financing viable businesses that would get money flowing back into the economy and the unemployed back to work. Why not use that money going into unemployment from the Stimulus package to at least getting some of the unemployed going in their own businesses. Of course there would necessarily be a lot of red tape involved in that sort of deal. Maybe some of those groping TSA agents could be fired and retrained to handle that red tape.

At any rate, this is pure speculation about what we coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.

[kswier]

$47 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits.
$20 billion to increase food stamp benefits
$46 billion for transportation projects
$40 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs
$145 billion for tax credits
$55 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cuts in education aid and provide block grants
$25 billion to school districts to fund special education
to name a few, and that is just the Senate.

I don't claim to know whether the stimulus bill was a good idea, or whether, or claim that all the money was spent in the best way My only problem was that by calling it the stimulus bill "reckless" you imply that there was data out there saying this was a terrible idea (data showed it was a good idea), and that there was a high probability it would sink the economy (there was not, and analysis has shown that it probably helped). If you had said "While it can be argued that some of these programs are good and needed, does this money do anything to generate the income needed to fix the problem," I would have thought that was an interesting, and valid question to ask. So, not trying to gang up on you at all, and I hope it does not seem that way.

Why not use that money going into unemployment from the Stimulus package to at least getting some of the unemployed going in their own businesses. Of course there would necessarily be a lot of red tape involved in that sort of deal. Maybe some of those groping TSA agents could be fired and retrained to handle that red tape.

I 100% agree that we need some way to cycle those who are unemployed back into the workforce, and that funding new businesses is one way that this could be done. However, they would need some way to gauge the probability of success of the businesses.

[Wheatfield]

Apparently, in the USA, over 50% of small businesses fail within the first 5 years, and close to 70% fail within 10. I suspect that free money to start a small business would result in a higher % of failures, and probably move them to a shorter MTBF. How, pray tell, is giving people money to start small business going to do any good with that kind of failure rate?

[metaglypto]

Apparently, in the USA, over 50% of small businesses fail within the first 5 years, and close to 70% fail within 10. I suspect that free money to start a small business would result in a higher % of failures, and probably move them to a shorter MTBF. How, pray tell, is giving people money to start small business going to do any good with that kind of failure rate?

It seems you are very selective about what it is you read, or at least what you choose to understand. Did I not say, "That money could go a long way in financing viable businesses", and did I also say, "at least getting some of the unemployed going in their own businesses", and did I also say, "there would necessarily be a lot of red tape involved in that sort of deal"? Maybe I did not make myself clear enough. If that is the case then let me explain further. The money should not be handed out willy-nilly to anyone without a clue about business. Thus the statement about the "red tape". The prospective new business would have to develop a business plan. That business plan would then be examined to determine if the idea was "viable". Money could then be loaned out after it has been determined the business had a decent chance of surviving.

I won't question your statistics, I have at least heard the first one quoted often enough to believe it to be accurate. Still it is only a statistic and does not mean that the 50% that failed even had the slightest inkling about how to make a business plan, much less how to grow a successful business. The tongue in cheek TSA agents I mentioned would be the ones rehired to do the job of reviewing these business and giving them the pass/fail grade on whether or not the money was even loaned.

Still, even if the statistics held despite our best efforts of our bureaucratic red tape specialists, it would be money cycling through the economy far longer than government handouts that would likely be gone in 30 days or less. Additionally the 30%, by your figures, that did survive beyond ten years would continue to help the economy grow. So say only 20% survived past ten years, that would mean that at the end of a five year cycle you would have 20% each year that tried to succeed that did actually succeed. Now how long is that same money going to be cycling through the economy if it goes to unemployment checks. I have personal experience here. It will last thirty days or less. That is exactly what a large chunk of that money is going to, simple living expense of which most will be spent within thirty days.

Now do you understand?

[jogiba]

Much of the money went towards social programs such as Medicare, Social Security, unemployment, etc.

The rich in this country have you brainwashed to think social programs are evil but the war machine is good.
Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

[metaglypto]

The rich in this country have you brainwashed to think social programs are evil but the war machine is good.

Obviously you have a similar issue going on as Wheatfield. Not only do you selectively read and understand what you want, but you read into what I say, whatever you want to believe. Where have I EVER said social programs are bad? As to the "war machine", it is good at what it does, which is kill people and break things. It is also very necessary. I have stated in another discussion here in the Politics and Religion forum, "U.S. serviceman slaughters 16 Afghan civilians in their homes", a discussion in which you have taken part in, a discussion where you exhibited what is starting to look like a pattern of drive by "cut and paste" without any real thought or analysis on your part. Perhaps that is wrong, but that is what it is beginning to look like.

Here is what I said in that forum about the war machine.......

"I think a lot of the problem has to do with a kind of addiction to war. Since WW2, I think, we have adopted a policy of always being ready for a war so that we do not get caught with our pants down. It makes sense from a national security point of view. The cold war with the Soviet Union turned this readiness mentality into an arms race where each side distrusted the other and competed for military supremacy. While I cannot speak for the Soviet businesses that built arms, take a look here at the list of American defense contractors:
List of United States defense contractors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many of these contractors depend either solely, or to a large degree on the military for their financial success. They don't sit idly by and watch things happen, they are very proactive in their approach to war and how they sell goods. You think they like war? Of course they do. They cannot sell as many tanks or whatever unless the old ones break, and that is one of the things a war is great at, breaking things. I would bet that many in government are heavily invested in some of these companies. I think there was a stink I heard about with both Cheney and Rumsfeld, not to mention the Bush family holding stocks in foreign oil.

I think in a very real sense, war is like a bad drug and highly addictive. The business model is not that much different from the one behind that of a street dealer either. [That being]There is a need, real or imagined, not only am I going to help you meet that need, I am going to work you every day to convince you to buy more and different, more expensive drugs."

The military is great at what it does. In that sense it is good. The military, for the most part, does not make the decisions about where they go to kill people and break things, they just do what they are told. In that regard I support our military. It is the respective government, in this case, the U.S. (read GWB administration) that owns the lion's share of the responsibility.

I suggest you read what has been said by people before criticizing their stand on issues.

[SteveM]

It is sad to see America in the state it is and it is even odder to see how facts are distorted to the point that people are convinced into arguing facts that are opposite of reality (not directly refering to your post above metaglypto, I agree with many of those points). From a financial perspective, It's easy to see where the money is going, but not as easy for Americans to admit where it has gone.

America created a war economy to help structure financial survival through both WW1 and WW2....yet nothing has been done for both the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. WW2 costs adjusted to 1990 dollars were $2,091.3 billion, but this was spread across a large number of countries. The Iraq conflict alone is now at $819 billion and growing, primarily placed onto the US national debt, or more specifically, borrowed from the Chinese, placing US interests indebted to a foreign government.

As far a health care goes, US citizens pay more in taxes than Canadian taxpayers for health care (per capita). The difference is that Canadians have something to point at (and object to from a US ideology perspective) being "socialized care". US health care is equally "socialized", the only difference is that there is no care provided to the public other than a small minority, without of course additional funds for insurance. The true difference between the systems is one is based on a public welfare model while the other is based on a corporate welfare model.

The banking bailout - Bush initiated TARP with 30 billion not repaid yet somehow the US population attributes the bailout to Obama. Another 135 Billion for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. US businesses use the state's power to forcibly extract money from taxpayers, and the biggest supporters are US taxpayers due to the misunderstood "socialist" stigma.

The list goes on.....

[metaglypto]

The Iraq conflict alone is now at $819 billion and growing

I was looking for figures for Iraq and Afghanistan, and couldn't find anything this succint. Thanks for that. It underscores part of the U.S. problem. Though I might add, calling it a problem is like calling the bomb dropped at Hiroshima a firecracker. I do not like doom and gloom scenarios, but the reality of the situation, as I see it, is the economic collapse of the United States. It is not so much a question of if, but when. I truly hope I am wrong.

As you point out it is not entirely an Obama problem either, though he has escalated it.

[redrockcoulee]

I sit in on the project meetings for construction at a military base. Neither headquarters nor the politicians really decide which project is needed and which is not. That is decided on the local level however one must get funding approved. A couple of weeks ago there was a business case meeting on a multimillion dollar project that had approval but not funding. I think the outcome of the meeting was that the project was maybe not needed and could be replaced by a much smaller repair the existing infrastructure one. My point in case I lost everyone is that it is easy to blame the President or the Prime Minister for some project that makes no sense but some one at the local level must of thought it valuable. I think it is less the case in the US due to the way that your funding of projects is tied on as the earmarks whereas as far as I know the department gets a construction budget and must leave within it and allocate funds where they see fit.

On a related topic, it is less expensive to construct facilities during a recession than during good times. During the boom times we were lucky just to get a bid on some projects let alone competitive ones as there was more than enough work to go around otherwise. Now most projects are bidded at less than the estimated value. On top of that government spending on infracture during slow times keeps private companies working and private workers working. Roads and bridges need to be repaired or built and might as well build them when there is a need to put people to work rather than wait until there is a shortage of workers. Of course it goes without saying that there are projects that should not go ahead and might be some one's pet project however if that is a very small percentage of total spending the good over comes the bad in that not only are the construction companies hiring workers they are buying supplies and fuel and the workers are buying cars and paying rent and buying whatever consumers buy.

In Canada we did not suffer this recession to the degree that our southern neighbours did, partly due to the regulations left in place by the previous Liberal government. Our Prime Minister is a social and fiscal conservative who is trained as an economists. His government had or still has a stimulus program with lots of spending in infrastructure. He said that a stimulus program went against all he believed in however desperate times called for desperate measures. I think that if a conservative like Stephen Harper who supposedly knows more about economics than I do , in a country that was much less severely hit by the downturn, feels that government spending was a necessity to prevent the economy from becoming worse than it did, how is it that the US would not have to do the same thing considering their worse situation?

Many economists had predicted at the outset of this recession is that if it did not turn into a depression it would take seven years to get out of. Those who opposed the stimulus as a failed policy are looking for a much shorter time frame to achieve normal economic times. Perhaps a desired but totally unreasonable expectations. In military spending there are also some spending that is better than others. Our country's decision for the new fighter jets may not be the wisest one, I am no expert on that subject I just know the planes are very expensive. In the US I cannot help thinking of your former politician now in a jail that supported every large equipment purchase but opposed wage increases for the troops. Do those very expensive stealth bombers really pay their own way compared to other spending, perhaps even cheaper alternatives with the differences spent on education, health care or diplomacy? Those are big questions that are hard to answer. I doubt our new jets will make us safer from the current type of enemies we are likely to face and may not be safer for the pilots flying over vast areas in the north but the planes are expensive.

[FlashCube]

The expected deflection.


The tea party sprung up as soon as America elected a black president, and it's sole aim is to remove that black president from office.
I expect you think it is a coincidence that there was no tea party while GWB was in office spending borrowed money like a drunken sailor?

It likely sprang up more due to the radical number of czars most of which don't get vetted and approved by the Senate. Plus, I am sure that Allen West and Herman Cain and Jennifer Carol disagree with you on that.

Many of the dicators you have overthrown were set up by your government, your government has also had a hand in overthrowing peaceful democratic governments, and has an ongoing history of attempting to destabilize governments, all to the detriment of the victim countries citizens.

And the U.S.A. government also had to bail out enough FUBAR regimes and messes from the British and French (Iran and Vietnam). Personally, I would like to see us stay our of the fray as much as possible and let them fight it out.

[FlashCube]

really... you are equating Palin with Obama...
the difference my dear friend is when Obama says something he didn't mean we know he didn't mean it... when Plain says these things sometimes she's serious.









What makes us make fun of Palin is, if you try to take the woman the slightest bit seriously, you're going to cry.

We know W, Kerry, Gore and Palin were C students or marginally above in Gore's case. Apparently know one knows regarding Obama except for law school. But he didn't file many briefs that we have seen and didn't go beyond lecturer apparently to avoid having to write any peer reviewed papers. But on the Gaffe scene, all these characters are up there including Biden and Pelosi. At the end of they day, Obama and the line of republicans vying to run against him are 2-bit politicians with multimillion dollar machines behind them.

[ihasa]

Hmm. Wasn't Obama a Magna cum Laude? Doesn't sound especially 2-bit to me.

[GeneV]

Hmm. Wasn't Obama a Magna cum Laude? Doesn't sound especially 2-bit to me.

Not to mention editor and chief of the law review--a huge honor.

Gore was a late bloomer with a high IQ (135) and a high SAT (1355), who never made the grades until his junior and senior year in college. Gore's SAT was about average for Harvard.

There are some highly dubious sites out there with highly dubious documents placing Palin with an SAT score of 841. She hasn't released her transcripts, either. However, the college she attended averaged about 1050.