$819B stimulus bill passed. Your thoughts?

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: CPA
Also, let's be honest here people, most of this money is going to the states to move their budget deficits to the Feds. This is nothing more than a transition of debt. How anyone sees this as a good thing is beyond belief.

This is very true. In NY state the government is grossly oversized anyway, a bloated fat lazy oaf. I'm disheartened to see that this recession will not force it to shrink as much as it otherwise should because it's being propped by the fed, which ultimately will cost me tax dollars anyway.

xavier You are speaking as if the positives of this stimulus are a given, giving no attention it seems to what it means to national debt and, dare I say, the culture of the country itself, which appears to be one with a decreasing reliance on "manning up", taking one's lumps, and getting sh*t done instead of whining and bitching.

Well for any of this to work all Americans are going to have to man up yet all I hear is a bunch or whining and bitching, especially from the Right.

First, the Right is irrelevant right now. They control nothing, so who cares what they say? It's nice of Obama to consult with the Congressional GOP and all, but he clearly has the power to completely ignore them and still get his way, as he did on the stimulus bill.

Secondly, passing on debt to future generations, few of whom can vote right now, isn't "manning up" in the least. It's shameful and selfish.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: CPA
Also, let's be honest here people, most of this money is going to the states to move their budget deficits to the Feds. This is nothing more than a transition of debt. How anyone sees this as a good thing is beyond belief.

This is very true. In NY state the government is grossly oversized anyway, a bloated fat lazy oaf. I'm disheartened to see that this recession will not force it to shrink as much as it otherwise should because it's being propped by the fed, which ultimately will cost me tax dollars anyway.

xavier You are speaking as if the positives of this stimulus are a given, giving no attention it seems to what it means to national debt and, dare I say, the culture of the country itself, which appears to be one with a decreasing reliance on "manning up", taking one's lumps, and getting sh*t done instead of whining and bitching.

Well for any of this to work all Americans are going to have to man up yet all I hear is a bunch or whining and bitching, especially from the Right.

Wow, just wow.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that building schools, roads, computer networks (for the health records), and new power technologies will create jobs. Crazy I know, but just because they are spending money on it doesn't mean this stuff magically pops out of thin air. If this really a debate about the "name" of the bill, then Republicans are a lot more petty than I thought.

The Republican and Democrat idea of what constitutes a "stimulus" bill are obviously different, they have different economic philosophies.

Have you ever been part of any of these sorts of projects? (besides swinging a hammer, working a shovel/other end labor) These sorts of things take a very long amount of time to plan and design before a single ounce of soil is disturbed. First you have initial engineering to provide budget estimates, then you have budget approvals, design approvals, gov't agencies pre-approvals, THEN you have bid spec writing and letting. You wait a while for the bids to come in, then have to approve/pick one. Once those things are done - there is more engineering work, submittals, design reviews, etc. I can guarantee the above takes atleast 1 year if it's anything to do with or from the gov't. So I guess if by "stimulus" you mean atleast 1 year out for any "real" work or workers start moving then I don't know what to say because it's absurd to suggest it's "stimulus".

Engineers aren't real workers? :-( Everything you just mentioned requires people working. I'm not saying this bill will create 4 million jobs overnight, but if you fail to see how it can improve the economy long term, then you need to spend more time thinking about it.

I also think tax cuts are the complete wrong way to go about fixing the problems we have right now. People are terrified. If you give them back money, they aren't going to go spend it, they are going to horde it.

I r n engerneeer and yes we are real workers - HOWEVER it is a skilled position that you just can't create overnight - nor would there be a huge number of jobs created doing those things. Just keeping existing workers working isn't "stimulus" - it's a normal spending bill. And it still takes time for any of the money to materialize in the economy. So again, it's absurd to consider it "stimulus" as you won't see the money materialize for atleast a year.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Genx87
Gee is that supposed to be a real question? We employed 16 million men in the armed services and leveled Europe and the Pacific. It wasnt keynesian, it was a command and control war economy, with a massive military. Keynesian economics in the 1930's did not get us out of the depression. It may have helped in some areas and definately hurt in others. But we as a nation were still hurting in 1940-41.

Then we being the only economy that wasnt completely gutted allowed us to be the worlds construction company and loan officer post war.

I am not really sure what you are trying to argue with your example about the tanks, planes, and trucks. That we should spend 3 trillion on expanding our military(cost of the WWII in todays dollars)?

One of my points was that government spending (on war) helped get us out.

My other point was that cutting a tax that no one is paying because everyone is losing money isn't going to solve crap.

Fair enough but realize the costs involved and it wasnt a long term solution. Remember our economy went into a recession in 46 as those 16 million men were discharged from the military.

I can agree cutting a tax one people without a job doesnt do anything. However as bad as it is. There is still about 93% of eligible workers out there still working, collecting a paycheck, and paying taxes.

 

[BassBomb]

by no means am I a economic genius.. I took an Intro to Macroeconomics course last term..

Isn't a increase in funds going to cause a short term benefit but be bad in the long run as the currecny was devalued and prices either stay the same or go up...?

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well for any of this to work all Americans are going to have to man up yet all I hear is a bunch or whining and bitching, especially from the Right.

Cause you can have us buy your cake and eat it too? It is our duty to oppose trillion dollar pork barrels.

On the bright side, at least we know where this money is going. Paulson basically gave everyone the middle finger when asked where the financial bailout money was going. I don't remember hearing nearly as much whining from the right about that.

And this is still better than the republican plan that included no infrastructure spending and do-nothing tax cuts on corporate profits. So out of two stinky plans, I'll take the dems at this point.

 

[Rustler]

Items in the House bill that have a Republican bull's-eye on them include:

$335 million for education related to sexually transmitted diseases

"We have yet to hear any reasonable rationale for how this creates any jobs in the private sector," Paige tod "GMA."


$650 million for coupons to help people make the switch to digital TV

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts

$150 million for the Smithsonian Institution

$50 million for the National Cemetery Administration's monument and memorial repairs

$800 million for Amtrak, the country's railroad system

$2 billion for child-care subsidies

$400 million for global warming research

$100 million for reducing the danger of lead paint in homes

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects

$50 million for NASA facilities that may have been harmed by natural disaster

$200 million for the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor earthquakes and volcanoes

$650 million for the U.S. Forest Service to remove fish passage barriers, forest improvement and watershed enhancement projects

$1.5 million for a National Institute of Health/Institute of Medicine report to Congress

$50.6 million for services for older blind individuals

$400 million for the Social Security Administration's new National Computer Center

$325 million for Academic Achievement Awards

In the Senate version, there are additional servings of what conservatives term pork that won't generate new jobs, including:


$70 million for programs to help people quit smoking

$75 million for a super-computer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The Senate version of the bill is also expected to boost the cost of the stimulus package to $900 billion and includes a measure that is sure to irk conservative House members. The Senate is poised to attach to the bill a measure that would alter the Alternative Minimum Tax to reduce the tax bills of middle class families.

The change would add $70 billion to the budget deficit. Fiscally conservative House members blocked the measure in the past because the Senate would not specify cuts to make up the difference.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: iFX

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
Now I want to see Obama get his scalpel out and cut funding to all the government programs that don't work, as he said he would.

Will never happen.

It is one campaign promise that I really want to see happen.

I've tried all those burger place in your sig except Five Guys and I passed one of those the other day.. I may go check it out for lunch

As far as the stimulus bill.. it is a pig with lipstick, pork masked as "stimulus"

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: BassBomb
by no means am I a economic genius.. I took an Intro to Macroeconomics course last term..

Isn't a increase in funds going to cause a short term benefit but be bad in the long run as the currecny was devalued and prices either stay the same or go up...?

Almost certainly, and as you can tell this simple logic comes from an intro course, which makes me wonder what the government's background is that they miss this point

 

[Rustler]

PORK SQUAL PIGGY PIGGY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OBAMA THE CHANGE WE NEED...............LMAFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Rustler
Items in the House bill that have a Republican bull's-eye on them include:


$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects


$400 million for the Social Security Administration's new National Computer Center


$75 million for a super-computer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

i guess super computers and carbon capture facilities just build themselves?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
xavier You are speaking as if the positives of this stimulus are a given, giving no attention it seems to what it means to national debt and, dare I say, the culture of the country itself, which appears to be one with a decreasing reliance on "manning up", taking one's lumps, and getting sh*t done instead of whining and bitching.

The bill is not going to help much unless America uses it properly and that involves plenty of action, "manning up", "getting sh*t done", or whatever you want to call it. The bottom line here is that the American people need to start spending and we do not have an infinite amount of time to do it. The government is trying to get us to spend more and spend faster in addition to creating jobs that help stir up the economy at the same time.

I know you and other conservatives really hate spending and you are very much worried about the national debt. I don't blame you, but you need to start thinking about why you both hate and worry about things like that. I believe that those reasons are at risk of being realized even faster and will last longer if we do not invest quickly and heavily into creating more jobs like this plan suggests as well as quickly getting the American people to start spending.

Now, without going into detail, I will also say that there are a number of list items in this bill which I think should be removed. Education spending is not one of them though.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Now, without going into detail, I will also say that there are a number of list items in this bill which I think should be removed.

My thoughts too. I would like to hear an explanation on why some of those things are needed to stimulate the economy before I'm convinced.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: BassBomb
by no means am I a economic genius.. I took an Intro to Macroeconomics course last term..

Isn't a increase in funds going to cause a short term benefit but be bad in the long run as the currecny was devalued and prices either stay the same or go up...?

Almost certainly, and as you can tell this simple logic comes from an intro course, which makes me wonder what the government's background is that they miss this point

You should probably ask all those legions of economists with Ph.D's and decades of experience why they think it's a good idea too.

I know they're no match for the internet economists on here, but maybe they can have some useful input to the ATPN "Man-up/RON PAUL RULZ" stimulus package.

 

[NeoV]

a few thoughts

While I completely agree that there are some questionable items in this - to dismiss it in it's entirety is a bit simplistic and overly partisan - don't you think?

As for money being proposed for things like - STD prevention, helping people quitting smoking - you have to remember that job creation isn't the only goal here - reducing future spending? In either case, those aren't big-money items.

650 Million for Digital TV coupons? A joke - any money spent on this already is too much. If you don't have cable TV, and/or you don't have a TV capable of receiving a digital signal - buy a new TV or get an adapter so your TV will still work - it's not like we snuck this transition in without warning.

Amtrak spending - I realize that Amtrak isn't exactly a profitable company, but I do think there are major rail projects on the table that would be widely used and create plenty of jobs if they were to be implemented - I need more details on this one, but I'm not writing it off just yet.

50 M for national endowment of the arts - not sure this is worth much right now

400M for Global Warming research really doesn't sound like a lot of money given the amounts of money we spend on various research in dozens of fields.

2.4 billion for carbon capture? While I'm not sold on this tech - we aren't going to come up with better 'green' technologies without spending money. I'd like to see this money transferred to R&D on getting a new infrastructure in place for hybrid/electric/some future tech of cars.

More spending on services for blind individuals - along with money for a SS computer center - given the aging of our population - these don't seem like bad things.


I'll agree that I'd rather not see all of this lumped into a 'stimulus bill', but that's not how things are being done right now, I'll live.

Note that before this passes it will likely see many more changes, so chill a bit.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CPA
I prosper because I work my ass off, not because I count on government to give me a tax credit for buying a house (WTF?) or pell grants to go to college. In fact, because I've worked my ass off, I don't get the luxury of those entitlements. I also don't get the luxury of reduced mortgage obligation or rate because my mortgage payments are current. I also don't get the luxury in getting grants, hope credit or Lifetime Learning credit for my wife, who's going back to school, because I apparently make too much.

If this sounds like sour grapes, well, yeah, you're right.

Your prosperity is also based on the stability of the economy in addition to your hard work just like everyone else. Don't kid yourself. You need the rest of the country to be prospering too at least to a degree so that the econ doesn't collapse.

When it comes to the house credit, unless you and your wife's combined gross income is over $170k and you have not purchased a home in the last 3 years, then you qualify for it too if you choose to buy a home as your primary residence between now and July 1st. That is up to you just like it is up to me. We are not "counting" on that tax credit to buy a home, but it does help us buy it sooner and sooner is better for the econ right now. The sooner the econ gets better, the sooner your hard work starts to pay off more like it should.

When it comes to the Pell Grants, my SO gets them because we are not married and she qualifies. She works her ass off both in school and at work. Nothing wrong with her getting grants to go even further with her career which helps the econ once again and she will be paying the grants back in the form of future tax dollars that she pays as a result of a higher wage position.

Lastly, we both work our asses off just like you. We always have and we always will. This stuff is not welfare for those choosing not to work. This is a stimulus to help those who do work be able to spend more money and continue prospering in life. It helps you and it helps me.

As I said, I don't qualify for any of those programs. Basically, if you're "rich" by Dems standards you get squat.

No qualm that you work your ass off just as much as the next person, including me. BUT, it is welfare, plain and simple. And it's not the government's role to make sure you prosper in life.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
Now I want to see Obama get his scalpel out and cut funding to all the government programs that don't work, as he said he would.

LMAO, did you not see ProfJohn's post. He's funding programs that were already designated as non-beneficial.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: CPA

As I said, I don't qualify for any of those programs. Basically, if you're "rich" by Dems standards you get squat.

No qualm that you work your ass off just as much as the next person, including me. BUT, it is welfare, plain and simple. And it's not the government's role to make sure you prosper in life.

Sorry to bring this up but wouldn't you be out of work if the IRS and the Internal Revenue Code didn't exist?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: CPA

As I said, I don't qualify for any of those programs. Basically, if you're "rich" by Dems standards you get squat.

No qualm that you work your ass off just as much as the next person, including me. BUT, it is welfare, plain and simple. And it's not the government's role to make sure you prosper in life.

Sorry to bring this up but wouldn't you be out of work if the IRS and the Internal Revenue Code didn't exist?

Nope. My job, like the vast majority of CPA's, has nothing to do with taxes, per se. I have posted several times that I am an advocate of scrapping the entire progressive tax system we have. I prefer a simpler sales tax based structure.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: CPA

As I said, I don't qualify for any of those programs. Basically, if you're "rich" by Dems standards you get squat.

No qualm that you work your ass off just as much as the next person, including me. BUT, it is welfare, plain and simple. And it's not the government's role to make sure you prosper in life.

Sorry to bring this up but wouldn't you be out of work if the IRS and the Internal Revenue Code didn't exist?

Well he could always get honest work in the Oil Fields.
edit: Not to say what he does now is not honest.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: NeoV~~~~

650 Million for Digital TV coupons? A joke - any money spent on this already is too much. If you don't have cable TV, and/or you don't have a TV capable of receiving a digital signal - buy a new TV or get an adapter so your TV will still work - it's not like we snuck this transition in without warning.
~~~~

My understanding is the initial coupon program ran out money a month or so ago.

Why people are complaining, I don't know. The Feds stand to gain tens of billions from selling off the old analog bandwidth.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: CPA
Nope. My job, like the vast majority of CPA's, has nothing to do with taxes, per se. I have posted several times that I am an advocate of scrapping the entire progressive tax system we have. I prefer a simpler sales tax based structure.

I could have sworn you had a thread on taxes in the OT forum.

 

[Rustler]

The $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday.
The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.

Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CPA

Nope. My job, like the vast majority of CPA's, has nothing to do with taxes, per se. I have posted several times that I am an advocate of scrapping the entire progressive tax system we have. I prefer a simpler sales tax based structure.

having sat through sales tax audits, i know that there is nothing simple about it.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CPA
As I said, I don't qualify for any of those programs. Basically, if you're "rich" by Dems standards you get squat.

No qualm that you work your ass off just as much as the next person, including me. BUT, it is welfare, plain and simple. And it's not the government's role to make sure you prosper in life.

Pursuit of happiness and the protection of common welfare of the people.

Yes, that is their job. Look, you can hate this sort of thing as much as you want. It is here to stay. You are in the wrong country if you disagree with it.