And I'd like to decorate my home with more art. Where's my tax credit on art purchases? Seriously, that would be much more directly stimulative than growing the NEA.
Oh - and who came up with the 2.7% number?
It's from the list put out by congressional Republicans themselves. The total dollar amount of what they listed accounts for about 2.7% of the proposed stimulus bill. They are probably hoping nobody else notices that right now.
They just represented some of the more obvious pork. They should also list out all the transfer of liabilities, increase in government size and liberal pet projects. Then we're probably talking more like 50%, none of which are directly stimulative.
I don't think you know what pork is. You can say it is 'spending you don't agree with', but it's not pork by any definition as it is currently used. I would also love to hear your idea of what is 'directly stimulative'.
Of course, half the crap the GOP listed isn't pork either, but I think we all know they were simply trying to make political hay.
Directly stimulative means it expands the economy directly - through jobs, capital investments, modifying business behaviors. The housing tax credit, the science and electric grid and public infrastructure projects, changing depreciation schedules, those are all direct stimulation.
Funding state education programs isn't direclty stimulative, neither is funding state medicaid (two huge ticket items). That's bailing out irresponsible state governments and transferring liabilities.
Funding government infrastructure just propogates more government and more debt, and is more harmful in the long run.
You are forgetting that the bill is not just a stimulus though. It is being called a recovery package for a reason. That package does include stimulus line items, but it is intended to include other things as well such as education and health care. The reason why a lot of people are getting confused about that fact is because the GOP is against everything in the package except the direct stimulus line items and some of them don't even agree with those. They have been spinning their disapproval so hard using the media that a lot of people are now under the impression that the bill is only intended to include line items that directly result in a stimulus, but that is not true.
Now, whether or not you agree with the remaining points in the package is something entirely different. However, it is not pork. You can thank John McCain and company for spearheading the confusion and lack of transparency.
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 0
If you offer mortgage below the market rate, it will stop the popping from happening and market will not return to equilibrium. Plus it adds the distortion that people won't be willing to sell their house, because they mortgage is such a good deal (think rent control in NYC).
Foreclosures are a necessary pain that we have to go through to pay for the ridiculous appreciation we all benefited from couple years ago.
I would make the argument that the "Housing Bubble" is still a bubble. From my view, it barely deflated any in my neck of the woods.
Put it this way.. take median family income for a given area, and see how many houses are actually *affordable* utilizing traditional mortgage and payments.
For example.. if an average house payment for a single family home is >35%ish of the average income of a single family.. Something is wrong.
People are spending *way* too much on housing still. Until I can pick up a decent house roughly the same size that my parents did, for roughly the same percentage of their income - then housing has absolutely increased as an expense, and in my opinion is still a bubble.
I know people who spend over 70% of their income on housing, and think this is perfectly normal! It's ridiculous.
Here.. My fathers house before the "bubble burst" was ~$170k. Now it's about $160k. Not really a huge "burst" in my opinion, that's what.. $30/mo or so off an average mortgage?
-Phil
Put it this way.. take median family income for a given area, and see how many houses are actually *affordable* utilizing traditional mortgage and payments.
For example.. if an average house payment for a single family home is >35%ish of the average income of a single family.. Something is wrong.
People are spending *way* too much on housing still. Until I can pick up a decent house roughly the same size that my parents did, for roughly the same percentage of their income - then housing has absolutely increased as an expense, and in my opinion is still a bubble.
I know people who spend over 70% of their income on housing, and think this is perfectly normal! It's ridiculous.
Here.. My fathers house before the "bubble burst" was ~$170k. Now it's about $160k. Not really a huge "burst" in my opinion, that's what.. $30/mo or so off an average mortgage?
-Phil
"Is there a need for any government stimulus at all? What should it look like?
I do think a stimulus bill is needed. It has been demonstrated time and again that returning money to taxpayers in the form of a tax reduction has the most bang for the buck. If there's going to be federal spending, it should be devoted exclusively to very high-priority, urgent projects that can be completed on a rapid basis. But the congressional Democrats added a basketful of liberal projects that have little, if anything, to do with stimulating the economy."
what a bunch of bullshit. both parties are quite allright with spending projects, if it's the Pentagon
doing the spending.
when Romney refers to "liberal projects", he is referring to non-Pentagon spending.
so maybe a President Romney would be cutting taxes. it's easy to criticize, as i have just demonstrated.
let's see Romney's Budget.
I do think a stimulus bill is needed. It has been demonstrated time and again that returning money to taxpayers in the form of a tax reduction has the most bang for the buck. If there's going to be federal spending, it should be devoted exclusively to very high-priority, urgent projects that can be completed on a rapid basis. But the congressional Democrats added a basketful of liberal projects that have little, if anything, to do with stimulating the economy."
what a bunch of bullshit. both parties are quite allright with spending projects, if it's the Pentagon
doing the spending.
when Romney refers to "liberal projects", he is referring to non-Pentagon spending.
so maybe a President Romney would be cutting taxes. it's easy to criticize, as i have just demonstrated.
let's see Romney's Budget.
House prices will continue to fall, whatever the plan is, we need a plan to keep people IN THEIR HOMES. Why is that? Foreclosures are very costly to banks and financial institutions, as well as communities that they happen in.
So whatever the method, we need to figure out a way to limit foreclosures. If you think the sub-prime mess was bad, just wait for the alt-a, near prime, interest only loan storm around the corner. The value of losses for that will equal or surpass the sub prime mess.
And to make things even more itneresting. Prime borrowers will be affected as well. All the people who put 20% down on homes that were over valued by 30-40% will be in negative equity situations as well.
The fun is just begining.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter