The Stimulus Package Unleashed

[we vs us]

From an article on Real Clear Politics:

quote: The direct purchase of goods and services by the federal government produces as much as $2.50 in growth over several quarters, the CBO says. A dollar transferred to state and local governments for infrastructure spending also is estimated to produce $2.50 in growth. Getting money directly to people through programs such as expanded unemployment benefits and food assistance is estimated to produce $2.20 in growth. And general aid to states to alleviate the problems in balancing their budgets in the face of rapidly deteriorating revenues and rapidly increasing demand for basic public services would produce $1.90.

The CBO is estimating that the money will produce anywhere between a 90% to 150% return when pumped into the economy through gov't channels.  

The fate of the TARP bailout is an excellent argument against direct aid to individuals and businesses.  In this climate, it's fair to assume that recipients of stimulus checks will just hoard the money or pay off debt -- just like the banks did with the TARP funding -- instead of actually spending the money and stimulating the economy.   At least if it's in the gov's coffers the money WILL get spent.

And I have to say that I haven't heard anything substantive from the GOP other than "nononononotaxbreakstaxbreaktaxbreakssocialismsocialismsocialismgaaaaaaaaaah . . . why Mr. Obama, how pleasant of you to stop by and attempt bipartisanship."
There's a whole lot of blather, but nary a solution to be found.

[Gaspar]

I just got them 588,000 new claims last week, and an 130,000 announced layoffs expected.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

CF,
Don't even read it.  It will make you angry.  I've gone through a whole bottle of Pepsid, and my stomach is still in a knot.

P. 41: $572 million to The Coast Guard  for "Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements" creating 1,235 new jobs (each job costs $460,000).

P. 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.  Page 32: $1.5 billion (with a "B") for a "carbon-capturing contest"

P. 45: "$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration."

P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.

$600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars.

$252 billion is for income-transfer payments.





Good lord, even if you do the math directly from Obama's speech on Wednesday.  We've lost 2.8 million jobs.  Obama claims this will create 3million jobs.  That means the cost is 400,000 per job.  I would estimate that this will not create a single job because it offers little or no relief, so as it creates short term labor agreements, private companies will continue to lay off at a faster rate than the public/government sector can employ.

At least we know exactly who owns this bill.

I wished him well and said I would give Obama a chance, but it didn't take long for for him to prove his mettle.

Ohhhhhhhhh surrrrre you did!  Fist-pump!  I just love it! Ha ha ha!!  YOU down with the struggle!

I cannot decide what you asking, G-dawg, but I certainly agree that partisan bickering is going to shipwreck these well-crafted plans.

English translation?

[RecycleMichael]

Let's see...$825 billion for money spent on jobs in America or $700 billion spent to fight a war in Iraq...

Gee, which is the smarter spending?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us


The CBO is estimating that the money will produce anywhere between a 90% to 150% return when pumped into the economy through gov't channels.  

No offense Wevus, but that is ridiculous.

If government spending brought 150% returns than government spending would be a spiral to prosperity.  The more you spend, the better off you are.  Under Bush we spent more than ever, that didn't help.

If we are getting 90-150% return we are expecting more than a 100% return.  So lets spent $10,000,000,000,000 instead of $1.  That's free money!  Hell, lets spend and spend and spend. Spending money makes money!  (sorry for the sarcasm, but surely you see the problem with such an assessment)

And the $1 tril number comes from the Senate's additions.

Timmay:

I'm not going "just" with the flow.  I cited to CNN because they are considered a more liberal source.  Lou Dobbs is not associate with the Right at all.  Hence, his concerns probably have more merit than Rush Limbuaghs.  

Have you read the bill?  I readily admitted where I am coming from, you are hiding being snide remarks and an apparent obsession with my ability to read.  Basically, you've descended back to your normal state of being after a couple months of making fairly innocuous posts.

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger


Ohhhhhhhhh surrrrre you did!  Fist-pump!  I just love it! Ha ha ha!!  YOU down with the struggle!

I cannot decide what you asking, G-dawg, but I certainly agree that partisan bickering is going to shipwreck these well-crafted plans.

Wow.

and it's "bump" cracker

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

You decide.  Will this do anything to help the nearly 2 trillion in corporate deficit we will have by the end of February?

YOU need a translator?? What are you even asking? LMAO! Bickering and posturing in a time of national crisis ought to be a crime!!

'You decide.  Are poorly-propositioned fractional concepts worthy of any response at the time specified?'

National crisis? What are you talking about? I'm not in any "crisis" and I certainly do not believe using a "crisis" to fund family planning (I know, it has since been removed), STD testing, and buying "green" autos et. al. is any solution.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by we vs us


The CBO is estimating that the money will produce anywhere between a 90% to 150% return when pumped into the economy through gov't channels.  

No offense Wevus, but that is ridiculous.

If government spending brought 150% returns than government spending would be a spiral to prosperity.  The more you spend, the better off you are.  Under Bush we spent more than ever, that didn't help.

If we are getting 90-150% return we are expecting more than a 100% return.  So lets spent $10,000,000,000,000 instead of $1.  That's free money!  Hell, lets spend and spend and spend. Spending money makes money!  (sorry for the sarcasm, but surely you see the problem with such an assessment)

Guess I don't see the problem with this.  Isn't this what investing is?  Spending money to make money? Especially if, in this case, it's an investment that will pay off in the near term (jobs) and over time (infrastructure).

[we vs us]

quote:

National crisis? What are you talking about?

Read the papers much, bub?

[guido911]

Here's Pelosi defending the STD money in the stimulus package (you figure out what she's saying):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vO0lqnyk20

Yep, this genius is second in presidential succession.  [}:)]

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Let's see...$825 billion for money spent on jobs in America or $700 billion spent to fight a war in Iraq...

Gee, which is the smarter spending?

That's a great argument RM. Come on, stay on  point and don't change the subject.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Let's see...$825 billion for money spent on jobs in America or $700 billion spent to fight a war in Iraq...

Gee, which is the smarter spending?

Shooting yourself in the stomach, or drinking from a lead cup.  Which is smarter?

Not only are the options amazingly diverse and the scenario ignores the underlying causes that precipitate the decisions - but they ignore any other options.  Frankly, the argument that this package is a better financial decision than the Iraq war just doesn't have much weight.  It could easily be argued that burning dollars instead of coal would have a better economic impact than the Iraq war.

None of that indicates that the current Bill before Congress is a good idea.  Better financial investment than the Iraq war?  That's a low threshold.

[Wrinkle]

4 Million jobs....comes to just short of $300,000 per.


...so much for economics.

[RecycleMichael]

It is the point. One President spends billions starting a war on a different continent and you guys say nothing about the cost. Another President wants to invest in America with billions of dollars and you guys want to pick it apart because of cost.

I choose the second President's version of wasting my money.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

It is the point. One President spends billions starting a war on a different continent and you guys say nothing about the cost. Another President wants to invest in America with billions of dollars and you guys want to pick it apart because of cost.

I choose the second President's version of wasting my money.

I tend to prefer neither one did it.

Just a thought.