Stimulus Lessons

Hi Folks,

I'm all for improving the economy and the signing of the stimulus package. However, with the economy the way it is at present, did anyone notice that the bill was signed into law with several very expensive Mont Blanc pens!!! Plain government pens would have done the job and symbolized how the economy is at present.

Congrats anyway, Mr. President. You have my "vote" all the way for the next 8 years!
SBelsley

Specter, Snow and Collins helped there re-election effort by voting for this legislation. They come from liberal states, and if they had voted no then those would be three easy pick ups for the Democrats in the next election. Also the Iraq occupation costs up over 500,000,000 dollars a day. We need to cut our funding to that before anyone starts complaining about the stimulus.

We say, too little, too late, PB0.

It's not time to give money away now. As two years earlier, get the freeking house price up and land mortgage loans at 3.5% for 30 years now.

Lydia:puts big incentives in place to develop renewables and limits CEO's pay like Japan does.
======

Japan does not limit CEO's pay.

The Republicans that didn't vote for this bill have to be hoping it doesn't work or their chance for re-election is gone.
My best hopes for this stimulus bill is that it prevents things from getting worse. The damage done by the Bush Administration with a senseless, expensive war, by de-regulating the banking industry thanks to Sen. Gramm and friends, including B. Clinton for signing it, the out-sourcing of too many well-paying jobs while Washington looked the other way, has finally broken our economy. This stimulus bill can stablize us while Washington hopefully passes some good legislation to regulate the banking industry again, puts big incentives in place to develop renewables and limits CEO's pay like Japan does. All this greed has to be limited again or it will take our economy down further.

As a resident of the Blue State of North Carolina, home of the best basketball, barbeque, and beaches in the United States of America, I propose use of Federal stimulus funds for a bridge over South Carolina!

The disrespect you showed extends to millions of Americans, in addition to those who have fought in the war.
**********************************************
Correction: The disrespect you showed extends to millions of Americans, INCLUDING those who have fought.

" Fun ammunition for the anti-war movement."

Get with the times, Moderate. What anti-war movement? The majority of Americans have made their views known on the war by their voting; it's not something on the fringe working its way into the majority as you implied. And there's been nothing fun about the war, especially for those who have fought in it. The disrespect you showed extends to millions of Americans, in addition to those who have fought in the war.

Moderate- I don't call the inclusion of care for wounded soldiers as a form of "wild speculation" for war costs, either in dollar or moral costs. That's fine, you can stick to your OMB and CBO data, which don't include the obvious costs cited by Stiglitz.

BTW, I daresay Stiglitz's book, which was released in 2008, stirred up much in the way of any further opposition the Iraq War. Americans had already made their disillusion with the war clear before then. But, If it had been released a few years earlier, your claims of controversy would have some ground. And I close with my observation that you display a low tolerance for diversity in viewpoints.

Kathy,
Yeah, Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize winning economist but then again, so is Paul Krugman. *G* And this Columbia University professor and former World Bank official was and remains a vocal critic of the Iraq War. He is hardly objective in his analysis, in which he claims the "true cost" of the war to be 1.3 trillion. This is a wild speculation intended to stir opposition and to sell books (The big number was the title of his book). He factors in "indirect costs"-- which includes manufacturing numbers than are, to put it mildly, subject to interpretation. That is a "what if" number that makes for fun ammunition for the antiwar movement, but is not a realistic, 'real' number. If you want to play by those rules, you could balloon out the cost of the stimulus to totally ridiculous levels. I'm not playing that game. I'll stick with OMB and CBO numbers, thanks.

"...the war in Iraq which you despise so much has not cost nearly so much over the past years as this bill will cost us over the next 18 months."

Somebody needs to check their figures. This statement is just flat-out not true.

Re2: The dumbing down of America truly is incredible at this point. Obama was only selected by the majority he was due to the fact that there really wasn't much choice on either side - both were candidates that do not acknowledge our Constitution in any manner. Obama a Constitutional lawyer? I think the founder's would disagree. Insofar as reading bills, the oath of office of every elected official on down to the county sheriff is to the U.S. Constitution - not even to those that placed them in office actually. Seems even Justice Roberts is pretty unfamiliar with it also at this point - and Obama - who had to take the oath twice, although that is the document that gave him the OFFICE of the presidency. The president is accountable to Congress, and to the American people - not a dictator.

Are you a former citizen of the Soviet Union?

Members of congress represent the people that live in there district or state. Therefore if not voting for the stimulus means they get reelected that implies that they did what their constituents wanted.

Get it.

Most in this country don't anymore.

but I am compelled to point out that the war in Iraq which you despise so much has not cost nearly so much over the past years as this bill will cost us over the next 18 months.
******************************************************
According to the calculations made a year ago by Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, the actual cost was 1.3 trillion dollars. This included the costs and care for wounded soldiers, replacing destroyed equipment, the impact of disrupted oil markets, and other expenses. I don't know what his calculations are to date.

But if you're one of the wounded with a blown off face and/or missing limbs, or if you've lost a loved one to the war, then the monetary argument isn't that relevant.

Question,

just curious-- how did Sen. Specter save your job? I just wonder how directly you feel your job security is tied to some aspect of the stimulus bill (or were you referring to something else?). Or is it just a general feeling you have that the economy will improve now, which will improve the stability of your company, which will preserve your job?

Bdog, no crickets here.
I should not dignify your anti-Bush rant with a response, but I am compelled to point out that the war in Iraq which you despise so much has not cost nearly so much over the past years as this bill will cost us over the next 18 months.

Additionally, I would like to point out that President Bush did indeed often present his ideas for legislation out for the public to see, using traditional methods like State of the Union addresses and his weekend radio addresses. He often traveled to drum up support for his proposals, just as President Obama has been doing for the stimulus bill. I was not a big fan of the perpetual campaign mode when it was Bush doing the traveling, and I'm not a fan now.

I am still unhappy with this bill and disturbed that President Obama outsourced the writing of this crucial piece of legislation to the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives. In my more cynical moments, I wonder if he didn't do that in order to have fall guys to blame should the bill prove to be the unmitigated disaster some of us fear it will be.

Concerning the quotes Mr. Tapper included in this piece, I have to wonder what they are smoking in Massachusetts that they would continue to reelect this odious, clueless man. President Obama was correct in his view that it would be better for the nation if the bill had bipartisan support. Too bad he did not focus more of his energy on strong arming House Democrats into including moderate Republican in the process so that the odds of garnering at least some Republican support would be increased. If Republicans are locked out of the markup of the bill and of the reconciliation conference, what is their incentive to vote for the resulting document? I agree with MayBee's warning that Pelosi could cause problems for Obama like Delay did for Bush.

When did Shrub EVER set a bill out for discussion? especially the funding for IRAQ? oh, that was on a "supplemental" so it wasn't real money. Trillions...as did we have a say in it?

*crickets*

I rest my case.

Apparently Obama just had to lie that this was a national emergency because the more time Congress took actually debating the bill, the more anti-spending bill sentiment built up.

Even Congressional Democrats said the volume of anti calls compared to those they received when considering the amnesty bill.

Obama couldn't let any more public sentiment build up against the bribery, oops, I mean spending bill. He had to get that payoff money to his union and ACORN buddies.

I don't understand these stupid legislators! What right do they have to want to read or understand the details in the Stimulus bill, or indeed any bill endorsed by Obama. They should shutup and do whatever Obama tells them. He has a mandate from heaven and the American people. And from people worldwide. Stop reading and just vote, idiots!