Bring on the pork ...

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Why doesn't the govt. buy a million cars from GM / Chrysler / Ford and have Oprah give them away, one at a time?

Why not? Some of the presidents key supporters will be helped greatly - Oprah, unions and the Midwest.

If we really want to increase the velocity of money, why not give every taxpayer a debit card with $10K on it and tell them it must be spent by the 4th of July (when the card expires). It would be cheaper in the long run.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

How cute. There's still a few people left who think the New Deal ended the Great Depression. That little War in the 40's ... all part of FDR's grand economic plan.

Pretty sure you didn't read my post at all. If you did, pretty sure you need to read it again.

[MikeWaters]

How about a free breakfast from Denny's, EVERY SINGLE DAY?

Btw, I was getting gas this morning next to a Denny's, and there was a long line of people waiting outside for their free breakfast.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Pretty sure you didn't read my post at all. If you did, pretty sure you need to read it again.

Wrong on both counts.

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

If the WH wants to underwrite a generation of social programs it should be done in a different bill.

This is the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

John Maynard Keynes



I think legitimate arguments for fiscal stimulus can be made. It seems we need both fiscal and monitory policy right now. But once spending on new bureaucracy begins, it can never be deflated. Two years out, any newly created bureaucracy or inflated agencies will need another funding source.

If the WH wants to underwrite a generation of social programs it should be done in a different bill.

First, this isn't a "trade cycle" we are going through. Second, from what I have gleaned (I certainly haven't gone through this thing line by line), most of the spending is targeted for rapid release. A construction project has a fixed beginning and a fixed end, for example, and while it is going on, thousands of people remain employed, receiving regular paychecks.

At least based on Tex's post (where he cited "egregious" examples), this isn't a "social program" bill. Construction of the Department of Homeland Security. Purchase of furniture. Sewage treatment improvements. Funding for fire stations. Funding for canal inspection. These are exactly the types of projects Keynes would have approved of.

Once again, it is debatable if these expenses are the BEST way to stimulate the economy, but I don't see much of a debate that they WILL stimulate the economy (which is what Tex disputes).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Wrong on both counts.



This is the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned.

That really only leaves option 3: incapable of understanding a simple sentence.

Tex- the examples you cited aren't "social programs" as conservatives would typically define the term (welfare, social security, etc., i.e., entitlement programs).

[MikeWaters]

How about giving poor people who don't have bank accounts or credits cards $10,000 a piece.

None of it will be saved. All of it will be spent.

If the govt. wants a piece of that, probably will have to legalize crack.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

First, this isn't a "trade cycle" we are going through. Second, from what I have gleaned (I certainly haven't gone through this thing line by line), most of the spending is targeted for rapid release. A construction project has a fixed beginning and a fixed end, for example, and while it is going on, thousands of people remain employed, receiving regular paychecks.

At least based on Tex's post (where he cited "egregious" examples), this isn't a "social program" bill. Construction of the Department of Homeland Security. Purchase of furniture. Sewage treatment improvements. Funding for fire stations. Funding for canal inspection. These are exactly the types of projects Keynes would have approved of.

Once again, it is debatable if these expenses are the BEST way to stimulate the economy, but I don't see much of a debate that they WILL stimulate the economy (which is what Tex disputes).

Don't forget birth control. Oh wait, they removed that one after everyone except Pelosi realized it was baloney.

In the end, you're probably right that some of this would have met with Keynes' approval. Maybe what you're not understanding is I don't agree with Keynesian economics.

[SoCalCoug]

That's fine, Tex, but this started out being a discussion of the pork-barrel spending which is part of the bill. But if there is a legitimate economic theory to support that sort of spending as an economic stimulus, then can you really call it pork?

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Second, from what I have gleaned (I certainly haven't gone through this thing line by line), most of the spending is targeted for rapid release. A construction project has a fixed beginning and a fixed end, for example, and while it is going on, thousands of people remain employed, receiving regular paychecks.

If it had much more infrastructure spending, it would be easier to support.

There is $30B in infrastructure spending the bill – less than 10% of the $350B in outlays.

Only 40% of the outlays will be spent in the next two years. The other 60% is spent in the years 2011-2017.

Of course large construction projects may take over two years to complete, but as noted most of the spending is not in infrastructure.

I wish more of President Obama's supporters would get to know the details of the bill – it's likely the most important piece of legislation of his first term.