Stimulus Package

[69dejavue]

The day of the great shove it down your throat approach. I hope that the 4 Sen who are on the line that might vote for it got enough emails today to say NO to this STIM-U-LIE PACKAGE. Sen Olympia, Sen Collins, Sen Specter,Sen George from Ohio Vote NO on this PORK filled package.

 

Those 4 are RINOs. Republicans in Name Only.

[JeffIsHereToo]

Those 4 are RINOs. Republicans in Name Only.

 

 

Seem they may care more about the nation than party!

 

Go figure!

[kahmann]

Specter came out strongly for this bill today and said it's the best that they can do.

He urged everyone else to vote for it.

 

Ken

[JeffIsHereToo]

Specter came out strongly for this bill today and said it's the best that they can do.

He urged everyone else to vote for it.

 

Ken

 

Sen. Specter is a good man always has been much to the consternation of the Republican leadership....he's by no means a RINO but he does often put nation first and over party. I disagree with him on many issues but I respect his opinion.

[David Hawkins]

Specter came out strongly for this bill today and said it's the best that they can do.

He urged everyone else to vote for it.

 

Ken

 

 

 

"The best that they can do"? Boy are we in a lot of trouble or what?

[JeffIsHereToo]

"The best that they can do"? Boy are we in a lot of trouble or what?

 

 

Based upon the last election that's all they need to do! And yes, the Republican party is in trouble following Rush off the cliff!

[rhood]

BTW! Sorry one more point to put the REAL dollar value in perspective. If we passed the bill AS IS (not that I like it) and it prevented 600,000 more people from losing their jobs the that would be $330 per job saved. If in addition we got 600,000 more back to work that would be $170 per person. We're approaching 10% unemployment. I don't like these BS projects anymore than you do but we are running out of time!

 

 

Could I see your calculation?

[henrycp]

The ole 80-20 rule. 80% of the package I believe is the right thing to do. The other 20% is questionable at best. So hold up 80% of what Democrats and Republicans agree on for 20% they don't? When in the grand scheme of things that 20% (though a lot of our tax payers money, I know) won't amount to much? Never going to get 100% agreement. Doesn't make sense to argue about the last 20% in the current situation. Git-r-done!

[Stalwart]

Could I see your calculation?

 

He must have forgotten a whole bunch of zeros. See #25

[kahmann]

Name any budget or bill involving large sums of money that Congress or any state assembly has ever passed that was flawless. There's always pork. There will always be pork. The best we can do will have to do. One can debate a tiny fraction here and another tiny fraction there for years and years (and I'm sure some will), but IMO the time for action is here. The economy is in a spiral in nearly all aspects.

The job loss rate for the past year was the worst since 1939. I look forward to actually keeping my job, keeping my house, and keeping my lifestyle. I'm glad they finally got something, anything passed. Just my .02.

 

Ken

[2007GT]

The problem is that it is 80% pork and utter nonsense and only 20% could even remotely be considered stimulative. If your kid went to the store and bought a bag of groceries and 20% was vegetables and 80% was Skittles would you buy the whole bag or would you take out the Skittles? Same principle. To say that the Republican Senators voting for this abomination are putting the nation first is silly since this will not help the nation one bit and they know it. Jobs will continue to be lost in record numbers and it will actually get much worse. They are saying this needs to get done RIGHT NOW with the implication being that this will immediately remedy the job situation. It will not. Next they are going to tackle the mortgage and banking crisis. How much do you want to bet that it will contain next to nothing for homeowners but will be full of great stuff for the banks? They will say there isn't enough money to help the homeowners due to the size of the "stimulus" bill. Just wait and see. You can always count on the government to do just the opposite of what makes sense.

[BLOWN]

Cmon everybody settle down. The great and wonderful Obama Is going to fix everything. Obamas got a dream also just like Martin did. I am so excited I can not wait to see what he wants to do next and next and next. Obama Is doing the best he can to try to get things going again. If you do not like the change TO BAD Obama won Get over IT. So what if Obama wants to take away some of your God givin rights THATS OK he is just trying to fix everything In the name of CHANGE. The stimulus package dont worry about who will be paying it ALL back later on It has to be done and it has to be NOW. At first I was scared by the tone of Obama that I was not going to spend any money. But by listening to him over and over again I begin to hear the cry of Obamas heart for the people and now I know that I am safe and the world Is in a much better place because of Obama. Thank God for Obama he Is the light on a hill.

[69dejavue]

Based upon the last election that's all they need to do! And yes, the Republican party is in trouble following Rush off the cliff!

 

Sure would be interesting if a state or states decided to seceede. I am sure we would not have another civil war so what would happen.

[JeffIsHereToo]

For those really following this and not just using it to play "Obama Bashing" 11 days into his Presidency, here is info on what was cut or eliminated from the bill under the tentative agreement:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/sti...cuts/index.html

[ilmor]

For those really following this and not just using it to play "Obama Bashing" 11 days into his Presidency, here is info on what was cut or eliminated from the bill under the tentative agreement:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/sti...cuts/index.html

 

Ok, i've saved the link to the CNN-spun report for reference. Now I want to see what REMAINS in the bill.

[69dejavue]

For those really following this and not just using it to play "Obama Bashing" 11 days into his Presidency, here is info on what was cut or eliminated from the bill under the tentative agreement:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/sti...cuts/index.html

 

I am glad it has been cut. But more importantly, why was it ever there? Who put it there and why. You claim that it is a small percentage of the overall bill. But any corruption is too much.

[svttim]

For those really following this and not just using it to play "Obama Bashing" 11 days into his Presidency, here is info on what was cut or eliminated from the bill under the tentative agreement:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/sti...cuts/index.html

 

 

Ok, you know I love ya man but, why were those pulled? Certainly not by tthe Democrats or Obama. Here's the problem Jeff, Obama was elected, promising to take the country in a different direction. Well, I guess its different that the last eight years, but the same old crap from Dems, Spend spend spend. Take from the middle class and give to the poor. And please, dont tell me the rich should be paying thier fair share because we both know, there are not enough of them to pay this bill. So you and I will. Im all for a stimulous package and yes, I see that some of that has to be spending. But, anything that is not a stimulous, has no buisness being passed

[2007GT]

Sure would be interesting if a state or states decided to seceede. I am sure we would not have another civil war so what would happen.

 

People would rush to those states in droves that's what would happen.

[ilmor]

Ok, you know I love ya man but, why were those pulled? Certainly not by tthe Democrats or Obama. Here's the problem Jeff, Obama was elected, promising to take the country in a different direction. Well, I guess its different that the last eight years, but the same old crap from Dems, Spend spend spend. Take from the middle class and give to the poor. And please, dont tell me the rich should be paying thier fair share because we both know, there are not enough of them to pay this bill. So you and I will. Im all for a stimulous package and yes, I see that some of that has to be spending. But, anything that is not a stimulous, has no buisness being passed

 

Precisely.

[STLShelby]

WHY STIMULUS PACKAGE WILL MEAN INFLATION

 

By GEORGE MELLOAN

 

As Congress blithely ushers its trillion dollar "stimulus" package toward law and the U.S. Treasury prepares to begin writing checks on this vast new appropriation, it might be wise to ask a simple question: Who's going to finance it?

 

That might seem like a no-brainer, which perhaps explains why no one has bothered to ask. Treasury securities are selling at high prices and finding buyers even though yields are low, hovering below 3% for 10-year notes. Congress is able to assure itself that it will finance the stimulus with cheap credit. But how long will credit be cheap? Will it still be when the Treasury is scrounging around in the international credit markets six months or a year from now? That seems highly unlikely.

 

Let's have a look at the credit market. Treasurys have been strong because the stock market collapse and the mortgage-backed securities fiasco sent the whole world running for safety. The best looking port in the storm, as usual, was U.S. Treasury paper. That is what gave the dollar and Treasury securities the lift they now enjoy.

 

But that surge was a one-time event and doesn't necessarily mean that a big new batch of Treasury securities will find an equally strong market. Most likely it won't as the global economy spirals downward.

 

For one thing, a very important cycle has been interrupted by the crash. For years, the U.S. has run large trade deficits with China and Japan and those two countries have invested their surpluses mostly in U.S. Treasury securities. Their holdings are enormous: As of Nov. 30 last year, China held $682 billion in Treasurys, a sharp rise from $459 billion a year earlier. Japan had reduced its holdings, to $577 billion from $590 billion a year earlier, but remains a huge creditor. The two account for almost 65% of total Treasury securities held by foreign owners, 19% of the total U.S. national debt, and over 30% of Treasurys held by the public.

 

In the lush years of the U.S. credit boom, it was rationalized that this circular arrangement was good for all concerned. Exports fueled China's rapid economic growth and created jobs for its huge work force, American workers could raise their living standards by buying cheap Chinese goods. China's dollar surplus gave the U.S. Treasury a captive pool of investment to finance congressional deficits. It was argued, persuasively, that China and Japan had no choice but to buy U.S. bonds if they wanted to keep their exports to the U.S. flowing. They also would hurt their own interests if they tried to unload Treasurys because that would send the value of their remaining holdings down.

 

But what if they stopped buying bonds not out of choice but because they were out of money? The virtuous circle so much praised would be broken. Something like that seems to be happening now. As the recession deepens, U.S. consumers are spending less, even on cheap Chinese goods and certainly on Japanese cars and electronic products. Japan, already a smaller market for U.S. debt last November, is now suffering what some have described as "free fall" in industrial production. Its two champions, Toyota and Sony, are faltering badly. China's growth also is slowing, and it is plagued by rising unemployment.

 

American officials seem not to have noticed this abrupt and dangerous change in global patterns of trade and finance. The new Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, at his Senate confirmation hearing harped on that old Treasury mantra about China "manipulating" its currency to gain trade advantage. Vice President Joe Biden followed up with a further lecture to the Chinese but said the U.S. will not move "unilaterally" to keep out Chinese exports. One would hope not "unilaterally" or any other way if the U.S. hopes to keep flogging its Treasurys to the Chinese.

 

The Congressional Budget Office is predicting the federal deficit will reach $1.2 trillion this fiscal year. That's more than double the $455 billion deficit posted for fiscal 2008, and some private estimates put the likely outcome even higher. That will drive up interest costs in the federal budget even if Treasury yields stay low. But if a drop in world market demand for Treasurys sends borrowing costs upward, there could be a ballooning of the interest cost line in the budget that will worsen an already frightening outlook. Credit for the rest of the economy will become more dear as well, worsening the recession. Treasury's Wednesday announcement that it will sell a record $67 billion in notes and bonds next week and $493 billion in this quarter weakened Treasury prices, revealing market sensitivity to heavy financing.

 

So what is the outlook? The stimulus package is rolling through Congress like an express train packed with goodies, so an enormous deficit seems to be a given. Entitlements will go up instead of being brought under better control, auguring big future deficits. Where will the Treasury find all those trillions in a depressed world economy?

 

There is only one answer. The Obama administration and Congress will call on Ben Bernanke at the Fed to demand that he create more dollars -- lots and lots of them. The Fed already is talking of buying longer-term Treasurys to support the market, so it will be more of the same -- much more.

 

And what will be the result? Well, the product of this sort of thing is called inflation. The Fed's outpouring of dollar liquidity after the September crash replaced the liquidity lost by the financial sector and has so far caused no significant uptick in consumer prices. But the worry lies in what will happen next.

 

Even when the economy and the securities markets are sluggish, the Fed's financing of big federal deficits can be inflationary. We learned that in the late 1970s, when the Fed's deficit financing sent the CPI up to an annual rate of almost 15%. That confounded the Keynesian theorists who believed then, as now, that federal spending "stimulus" would restore economic health.

 

Inflation is the product of the demand for money as well as of the supply. And if the Fed finances federal deficits in a moribund economy, it can create more money than the economy can use. The result is "stagflation," a term coined to describe the 1970s experience. As the global economy slows and Congress relies more on the Fed to finance a huge deficit, there is a very real danger of a return of stagflation. I wonder why no one in Congress or the Obama administration has thought of that as a potential consequence of their stimulus package.

 

Mr. Melloan is a former deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

[JeffIsHereToo]

Ok, i've saved the link to the CNN-spun report for reference. Now I want to see what REMAINS in the bill.

 

You have something against spin? This from the person posting Heritage Foundation Studies!

 

[kahmann]

You have something against spin? This from the person posting Heritage Foundation Studies!

 

What do you mean? The Heritage Foundation ISN'T completely unbiased?!

[JeffIsHereToo]

Ok, you know I love ya man but, why were those pulled? Certainly not by tthe Democrats or Obama. Here's the problem Jeff, Obama was elected, promising to take the country in a different direction. Well, I guess its different that the last eight years, but the same old crap from Dems, Spend spend spend. Take from the middle class and give to the poor. And please, dont tell me the rich should be paying thier fair share because we both know, there are not enough of them to pay this bill. So you and I will. Im all for a stimulous package and yes, I see that some of that has to be spending. But, anything that is not a stimulous, has no buisness being passed

 

I don't happen to like the the package as written. I think there is far too little for the average homeowner that has seen their property values fall and yet property taxes rise.

 

My issue is people love to just place blame. I think Ron Paul said it well tonight when he called the Republicans "Born again budget conservatives". He said ""Where were we in the past eight years, when we could have done something? And you see our last eight years that has set this situation up. So we can't blame the Democrats for the conditions we have. We have to blame both parties and presidents of the last several decades to have generated this huge government."

 

People love to posture and beat their chests often not really having the slightest clue about what they're talking about simply sucking in and throwing up what ever the last pundit on FoxNews said the evening before. It's tiresome.

 

So yes, I agree with you...on the wacky provisions, I'm also a realist and figure this is the best we're going to get for now....I fear things are going to get MUCH worse.

[svttim]

I don't happen to like the the package as written. I think there is far too little for the average homeowner that has seen their property values fall and yet property taxes rise.

 

My issue is people love to just place blame. I think Ron Paul said it well tonight when he called the Republicans "Born again budget conservatives". He said ""Where were we in the past eight years, when we could have done something? And you see our last eight years that has set this situation up. So we can't blame the Democrats for the conditions we have. We have to blame both parties and presidents of the last several decades to have generated this huge government."

 

People love to posture and beat their chests often not really having the slightest clue about what they're talking about simply sucking in and throwing up what ever the last pundit on FoxNews said the evening before. It's tiresome.

 

So yes, I agree with you...on the wacky provisions, I'm also a realist and figure this is the best we're going to get for now....I fear things are going to get MUCH worse.

 

 

Bingo Jeff! Been trying to say that for a long time. Now add CNN, ABC the New York Times to the list to be fair. And the rest also. Fox is the fair and ballanced, that came from Hilary. Maybe theuy lean right but, they actually make an effort to bring opposing views in. Since thier rating are way up, the rest have decided maybe they should follow.

 

As for being a realist, why should we allow them any wiggle room.They work for US!

[ilmor]

You have something against spin? This from the person posting Heritage Foundation Studies!

 

 

I don't just read CNN and the Huffington Post; I read from several sources. You should really read that article I posted.

[JeffIsHereToo]

I wonder why no one in Congress or the Obama administration has thought of that as a potential consequence of their stimulus package.

 

Of course they have. Economists differ on what to do about the current situation. The same sort who advised McCain that the fundamentals of our economy were sound and nothing needed be done back in August/September.

 

Anyway, he is right in that this can cause what he's saying, there of course things that can be done once things get going again to reduce the chances this prediction will come true, or minimize it. There are other economists that believe this must be done to right the ship as the forces that have brought us here are not grounded in classical economics so the solution can't be found using classical economics. When a ship is listing to far to port or starboard you switch the rudder hard in the other direction. This means the ship will roll too far the other way too but soon settle to a proper trim. If you don't turn the rudder hard because you're afraid to roll to far in the opposite direction you may find our decks awash and too late to anything.

[STLShelby]

Of course they have. Economists differ on what to do about the current situation. The same sort who advised McCain that the fundamentals of our economy were sound and nothing needed be done back in August/September.

 

Anyway, he is right in that this can cause what he's saying, there of course things that can be done once things get going again to reduce the chances this prediction will come true, or minimize it. There are other economists that believe this must be done to right the ship as the forces that have brought us here are not grounded in classical economics so the solution can't be found using classical economics. When a ship is listing to far to port or starboard you switch the rudder hard in the other direction. This means the ship will roll too far the other way too but soon settle to a proper trim. If you don't turn the rudder hard because you're afraid to roll to far in the opposite direction you may find our decks awash and too late to anything.

 

Look out!

[69dejavue]

Here is the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan oversight group.

 

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

Stephen Dinan (Contact)

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Comment

Print

Font Size Share

Got a Question?

You Report

Click-2-Listen

Buzz up!

President Barack Obama speaks to the House Democratic Issues Conference on Thursday in Williamsburg. Associated Press

 

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

 

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

 

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

 

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

 

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

 

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

 

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

 

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

 

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

 

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

[Guest markham51]

This whole stimulus spending bill is nothing more than a stab in the dark. Pure guess work at best. The problem is that recessions are relatively rare and there is no handbook on how to fix it. Its like arguing about global warming....everybody thinks they know it all when its really just a matter of opinion.

 

If the Republicans were such experts, we wouldn't be in the greatest financial mess since the great depression. George and Ronny are primarily responsible for running up the deficit up to more than 10 TRILLION DOLLARS and now its time for Republicans to give everyone lessons on fiscal responsibility?

 

This is nothing more than political posturing so they can say"see I told you so" if it doesn't work out.

 

If you really think you know what we should be doing....I mean really know instead of just spouting rhetoric, then you are smarter than anyone in Washington... and maybe the world. Democrats and Republicans included!

[ilmor]

If the Republicans were such experts, we wouldn't be in the greatest financial mess since the great depression. George and Ronny are primarily responsible for running up the deficit up to more than 10 TRILLION DOLLARS and now its time for Republicans to give everyone lessons on fiscal responsibility?

 

What did you say about spouting rhetoric again?