PDA

View Full Version : GOP Leaders list what they deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill


Cleverboy
Feb 3, 2009, 09:28 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
On Monday, House Republican leaders put out a list of what they call wasteful provisions in the Senate version of the nearly $900 billion stimulus bill that is being debated:
• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

This is obviously a counter to:
Obama To Go On Media Offensive
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/stimulus-spin-war-obama-t_n_163305.html
Barack Obama is slated to sit down with the five major television news networks tomorrow, a media play that is almost certain to be part of a broader effort to sell his stimulus package to the American public.

The president will conduct interviews in the Oval Office with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX News on Tuesday afternoon, according to the official White House schedule. The sitdowns come at a delicate time for the president, with concern mounting in Democratic circles that much of the debate over the stimulus has been dominated by the GOP. Personally... my digital coupon expired before converters were available, and I'm not alone. How can I get a converter discount, if it expires before I can use it? I don't care WHAT Engadget says, the program needed more funding, and it needed to be postponed one last time (because Bush was botching it again).

~ CB

Desertrat
Feb 3, 2009, 09:44 AM
Whether or not one thinks there is some moral good in certain expenditures is beside the point. Irrelevant.

We are told that the money is to help save jobs in threatened sectors, and to create new jobs. If the proposed expenditure does not do that, it should not be a part of the bill.

And remember that the focus of the public push for passage has strongly emphasized "infrastructure". When you look at the allocations, however, spending on infrastructure construction is a small percentage of the total. I see no real difference between this and Bush's "WMD" stuff, pre-Iraq.

The usual political BS: Spend, spend, spend. Buy that bling on credit.

'Rat

leekohler
Feb 3, 2009, 09:53 AM
There are a few things I don't like on that list, like furniture for the homeland security offices. Most of it I think is great though, such as computers for community colleges and money for Amtrak. And the GOP thinks these things are wasteful? REALLY?

obeygiant
Feb 3, 2009, 09:57 AM
Actually the amtrak one was the one that I was worried about.
"$850 million for Amtrak." Thats it? What's the money for specifically?

Peace
Feb 3, 2009, 10:01 AM
Remember this is part of the Senate version and I see nothing wrong with most of it.

The republicans are merely being obstructionist. Plain and simple.

leekohler
Feb 3, 2009, 10:25 AM
Actually the amtrak one was the one that I was worried about.
"$850 million for Amtrak." Thats it? What's the money for specifically?

Amtrak has been doing much better lately. I can only assume the money would be for train cars, maintenance and infrastructure. And if you've never ridden Amtrak, you should. It's fantastic, fun and a great way to travel.

iGary
Feb 3, 2009, 10:30 AM
Amtrak has been doing much better lately. I can only assume the money would be for train cars, maintenance and infrastructure. And if you've never ridden Amtrak, you should. It's fantastic, fun and a great way to travel.

And without government money, it'd be out of business.

Isn't this bill supposed to be a stimulus?

leekohler
Feb 3, 2009, 10:32 AM
And without government money, it'd be out of business.

And apparently, so would our entire financial system.

iGary
Feb 3, 2009, 10:37 AM
And apparently, so would our entire financial system.

What does that have to do with a "private" (government owned corporation) train system that we prop up to the tune of about 1.2 to 1.4 billion a year?

There are some good earmarks in this bill, but I guess I'm concerned when we start doling out money nearly a trillion dollars at a time.

leekohler
Feb 3, 2009, 10:47 AM
What does that have to do with a "private" train system that we prop up to the tune of about 1.2 to 1.4 billion a year?

There are some good earmarks in this bill, but I guess I'm concerned when we start doling out money nearly a trillion dollars at a time.

I'd say that's fairly obvious, iGary. We just propped up Wall Street. Isn't that supposed to be "private" too?

iGary
Feb 3, 2009, 10:53 AM
I'd say that's fairly obvious, iGary. We just propped up Wall Street. Isn't that supposed to be "private" too?

The country isn't going to collapse if Amtrak goes away.

Why isn't anyone screaming for a balanced budget? When are we going to pay back all of this money and how?

Any a quarter of a billion dollars for "furniture?"

leekohler
Feb 3, 2009, 11:00 AM
The country isn't going to collapse if Amtrak goes away.

Why isn't anyone screaming for a balanced budget? When are we going to pay back all of this money and how?

Any a quarter of a billion dollars for "furniture?"

Some of these things do need to go indeed as I mentioned earlier. I agree. I find it funny that the GOP is now screaming about a balanced budget. :rolleyes: Never seemed to be a concern of theirs before, if ever.

iGary
Feb 3, 2009, 11:03 AM
Some of these things do need to go indeed as I mentioned earlier. I agree. I find it funny that the GOP is now screaming about a balanced budget. :rolleyes:

And they should be, but yes, it's political at this point.

How about we spend a few billion dollars to figure out how to cut waste?

iAthena
Feb 3, 2009, 11:10 AM
The country isn't going to collapse if Amtrak goes away.

Why isn't anyone screaming for a balanced budget? When are we going to pay back all of this money and how?

Any a quarter of a billion dollars for "furniture?"

Amtrak could disappear tomorrow and 95% of Americans wouldn't even know it.

$650 million for people to watch TV? Hybrids for government employees? (I wonder how many of those are for US produced hybrids) Smoking cessation?

Ridiculous. This is the best our elected officials can come up with for economic incentives? No wonder they went into politics; they sure can't come up with any good business ideas.

Theophany
Feb 3, 2009, 11:11 AM
Anybody willing to put a little perspective on this? Seems to me the Republicans are unwilling to accept funding for a lot of that because it has little or no relevance to what the stimulus package is being sold as - a recession recovery device.

People in a recession don't need tax breaks to buy new cars, nor do they need to see Hollywood film makers receive tax breaks. People need to learn the art of frugality again, accept that times are hard and make do.

This entire bail-out mentality has gone too far now. Nobody is making any money out of this and it's only going to prolong the problems, which will come back to haunt at a later date. If I remember correctly, Obama said he didn't expect to get voted in again if he didn't fix the economic problems of the USA within the next four years. This entire bail out is sleight of hand that will downplay or mask the effects of the recession until it's too late.

I thought somebody would have learned something from the Great Depression...

leekohler
Feb 3, 2009, 11:14 AM
Anybody willing to put a little perspective on this? Seems to me the Republicans are unwilling to accept funding for a lot of that because it has little or no relevance to what the stimulus package is being sold as - a recession recovery device.

People in a recession don't need tax breaks to buy new cars, nor do they need to see Hollywood film makers receive tax breaks. People need to learn the art of frugality again, accept that times are hard and make do.

This entire bail-out mentality has gone too far now. Nobody is making any money out of this and it's only going to prolong the problems, which will come back to haunt at a later date. If I remember correctly, Obama said he didn't expect to get voted in again if he didn't fix the economic problems of the USA within the next four years. This entire bail out is sleight of hand that will downplay or mask the effects of the recession until it's too late.

I thought somebody would have learned something from the Great Depression...

Again- there are things on that list that definitely need to go. But there are things on that list that are quite relevant to recovery, such as the development of green initiatives, youth job programs and computers for community colleges. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The Republicans are clearly wrong to reject a lot of this list.

skunk
Feb 3, 2009, 11:41 AM
What energy efficiencies can you make in a cemetery? :confused:

Peace
Feb 3, 2009, 12:14 PM
What energy efficiencies can you make in a cemetery? :confused:

Solar panels on head stones.

Being a veteran I find those comments completely insulting.

"$5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration."


You do realize there's buildings don't you?

PcBgone
Feb 3, 2009, 01:11 PM
And didnt Obama Lie to Mccain during the Debates stating that he would get rid of earmarks in bills? Or at least cut down on them?

Do we really need to fork out 246 million dollars for hollywood movie producers?

How about 88 million dollars to DESIGN a new arctic ship? Is that Necessary? How about refitting our existing ships for less?

248 Million dollars for furniture at the Homeland Security Headquarters? Does the director really need that expensive of a desk?

600 million dollars to by hybrid vehicles for federal employees? Why? Whats wrong with the vehicles they have now? Maybe less fuel efficient, but at this cost which ultimately I am paying for, why do they need it?

And what is 75 Million dollars for smoking cessation Activites? This sounds ridiculous.

I can go on...but these are the first few that caught my eye. Its ridiculous spending. You cant throw money at this contracting economy and expect it to be fixed. The economy has been inflated for awhile, its natural for it to contract and get back into "normal" .

I disagree with this bill. And yes Im a Republican.

Thomas Veil
Feb 3, 2009, 01:43 PM
Amtrak could disappear tomorrow and 95% of Americans wouldn't even know it.That would seem to indicate more of a problem on Americans' part than on Amtrak's.

I agree that there are items that could be cut out of the bill. I don't know what the hell Hollywood producers have to do with it. And paying FBI salaries out of this? Really? You mean we couldn't pass a standalone bill to do that?

But if the Publicans published this list as an example of "pork", it fails in most respects.

As I see it, there are two types of things that can validly be inserted into a recovery bill like this:
Anything that creates or preserves jobs. Preferably that would be things like bridge-building and other infrastructure projects, but it can also be the government buying needed items.
Anything that deals with the effects of job losses: unemployment benefits, medical care, counseling, job retraining programs, etc.
Some things, like flood reduction projects, should result in jobs. Others, like smoking cessation, won't. But by and large, without knowing any more details than those that are supplied in that list, it's hard to say for an absolute fact that most of them won't keep people employed.

So this list is less than impressive.

danny_w
Feb 3, 2009, 01:56 PM
Amtrak has been doing much better lately. I can only assume the money would be for train cars, maintenance and infrastructure. And if you've never ridden Amtrak, you should. It's fantastic, fun and a great way to travel.
I'd love to do that if they had schedules that made any sense. I suppose up north it's different, but down here in Texas the trains are few and far between, and always at inconvenient times. I wanted to use Amtrak for a trip from Austin to San Antonio (a very short, direct route) recently but the trains only ran late at night going and early morning coming back; they just were not feasible for me.

Bobdude161
Feb 3, 2009, 02:01 PM
Being a veteran I find those comments completely insulting.

"$5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration."


You do realize there's buildings don't you?

my apologies. Wasn't thinking when I posted that.

leekohler
Feb 3, 2009, 02:05 PM
I'd love to do that if they had schedules that made any sense. I suppose up north it's different, but down here in Texas the trains are few and far between, and always at inconvenient times. I wanted to use Amtrak for a trip from Austin to San Antonio (a very short, direct route) recently but the trains only ran late at night going and early morning coming back; they just were not feasible for me.

I'd say it is different here and in the East. The schedules are pretty good most of the time.

Macaddicttt
Feb 3, 2009, 03:08 PM
Why isn't anyone screaming for a balanced budget? When are we going to pay back all of this money and how?

A balanced budget? Are you kidding me? A balanced budget would be the absolute worst thing the government could do right now. There's nothing worse than one of the biggest movers of money (i.e. the government) pulling money out of the economy during a recession.

The government's budget is not like a personal budget; it's not necessarily good to have a balanced government budget and a deficit is definitely not a bad thing.

freeny
Feb 3, 2009, 04:03 PM
There are long term and not so obvious reasons for some of these items. The Dems need to explain why some of the items are here because some look silly on paper. Some are even selectively deceiving...

Things like the the Tax Break for movie producers. These are tax breaks for producers who promote things like volunteering, civil service, recycling, charity etc in their films.

Some of these things arent obvious. If you are going to set the rule of "does this create jobs" then yes, a lot of these things are going to be nixed. If this is a more forward thinking approach, most are feasible.

And yes, some shouldn't be on the list at all.

blackfox
Feb 3, 2009, 04:36 PM
While I am not convinced that the items listed belong in a stimulus bill, I must concede that most of them will provide job opportunities (at least in the short-term) - even if that is not their primary reason for inclusion.

Many of them also may prove to be cost-effective over the long run, by improving efficiency in the area they are targeted (eg rural waste, Amtrak)

Whatever happens, it comes as little surprise that the Democrats are making the most of the opportunity to get things done that are priorities to them.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 3, 2009, 04:43 PM
Some of these things are good and will create jobs, others are pure pork.

Desertrat
Feb 3, 2009, 05:03 PM
It's the Democrat's bill. So, it's up to them to explain HOW each and every part of it will either save existing jobs or create new jobs. So far, they've done sorry on explaining, and most of it looks like pork.

Cleverboy
Feb 3, 2009, 05:12 PM
Seems the general consensus on this is that its probably a GOOD thing that the Democrats DID NOT GAIN a filibuster-proof majority.

If there is no reason to compromise, then there will BE no compromise. Ideally some good will come of the ongoing debate, and we all win. Otherwise, it'll drag on, and we all lose. We should never have been this close to the precipice in the first place.

~ CB

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 3, 2009, 05:21 PM
A split power govt seems to work best for the U.S. taxpayer. Anytime one party controls everthing off they go spending our grandkids $$$. Bush & the Republicans proved this. Now all of a sudden they are conservatives again?:D

Cleverboy
Feb 3, 2009, 06:07 PM
A split power govt seems to work best for the U.S. taxpayer. Anytime one party controls everthing off they go spending our grandkids $$$. Bush & the Republicans proved this. Now all of a sudden they are conservatives again?:D Past is prologue I guess. If only the stakes weren't so high. Whenever someone in whose car I'm driving, exhibits behavior that suggests they'd like to play "chicken" with another driver, I get out of the car at the next opportunity. Too bad we don't have that option right now.

~ CB

NT1440
Feb 3, 2009, 07:04 PM
It's the Democrat's bill. So, it's up to them to explain HOW each and every part of it will either save existing jobs or create new jobs. So far, they've done sorry on explaining, and most of it looks like pork.

Really? Its 100% the Dems bill? What about all those tax cuts the GOP threw in to get their way, and then still refused to vote for it? Or did the Dems throw those in because they also believe tax cuts can fix everything from a broken economy to a broken leg.

mgguy
Feb 3, 2009, 09:45 PM
A balanced budget would be the absolute worst thing the government could do right now. There's nothing worse than one of the biggest movers of money (i.e. the government) pulling money out of the economy during a recession.

I don't entirely disagree. However, it makes sense to spend less on pork barrel projects and redirect that money toward things that actually stimulate growth. Increasing the deficit in itself isn't guaranteed to help the economy. What matters more is what we spend the money on. If we spend less but get more payback per dollar spent, then shrinking the deficit could still produce growth and create jobs.

Theophany
Feb 3, 2009, 10:57 PM
Again- there are things on that list that definitely need to go. But there are things on that list that are quite relevant to recovery, such as the development of green initiatives, youth job programs and computers for community colleges. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The Republicans are clearly wrong to reject a lot of this list.

True, but it's not a situation of rejecting certain things from the Bill. It's either accept it all or reject it all and in turn, the Democrats will re-work it into a more realisitically workable sheet of policy (hopefully, though this amount of faith placed in government is rather hard for me ;)).

mactastic
Feb 3, 2009, 11:08 PM
Infrastructure, technology, and green collar jobs. Get people working right now. Cut out all the crap that isn't immediately focused on creating jobs. Let's create a new generation of iconic national park construction. Let's get people installing cheap broadband to all the rural areas of the US. Let's get another group of people working to upgrade the existing broadband and wireless access to levels comparable with the most modern nations. Let's give schools the money to modernize their existing structures, and build new ones. Let's put tradesmen (and women) to work making prevailing wage, and let's have them install lots of (dare I hope - local!) products that require manufacturing and stocking and reselling and shipping.

This stimulus is far to timid, and far to un-focused. We've got enough rotting infrastructure alone in this country to keep us busy for years. Let's get the shovel-ready stuff going immediately, and a bunch more projects in the pipeline so that as the first round of projects die down, others become ready. And have someone responsible for vetting programs to encourage successful ones and to eliminate ones that aren't working.

It's a shame to see a lot of this stuff being passed off as a stimulus.

Why isn't anyone screaming for a balanced budget? When are we going to pay back all of this money and how?
Now is not the time for balanced budgets. The time for that was while Dubya's awesome economy was humming along. Didn't happen.

The only thing that's gonna get this economy moving anytime soon is deficit spending. If we don't, you could see unemployment shoot through 15% and head for the big two-oh before recovery occurs.

It's been awfully dry out here this year. Conditions are favorable for another dust bowl...

Thomas Veil
Feb 4, 2009, 06:08 AM
It's the Democrat's bill. So, it's up to them to explain HOW each and every part of it will either save existing jobs or create new jobs. So far, they've done sorry on explainin....I'll buy that. They need to put it all up on a web site and explain how this item will stimulate the economy in this way.

Obama may have good PR people, but the same isn't true for Harry and Nancy.

Desertrat
Feb 4, 2009, 08:39 AM
It's a +1 for Obama, this AM. A headline in Google News says that he thinks there's too much pork in the bill. Of course, we might differ on percentages, but at least he's amenable to logic.

One commentator pointed out that there's not enough immediacy in the bill as regards jobs. The whole idea of stimulus is to improve the situation NOW, not late this year or in 2010. People are losing jobs NOW, and people need jobs NOW. If there is not an immediate or nearly-immediate impact, the allocation is not "stimulus".

mactastic
Feb 4, 2009, 10:38 AM
It's a +1 for Obama, this AM. A headline in Google News says that he thinks there's too much pork in the bill. Of course, we might differ on percentages, but at least he's amenable to logic.

One commentator pointed out that there's not enough immediacy in the bill as regards jobs. The whole idea of stimulus is to improve the situation NOW, not late this year or in 2010. People are losing jobs NOW, and people need jobs NOW. If there is not an immediate or nearly-immediate impact, the allocation is not "stimulus".
There really needs to be two parts to this. The first needs to be focused on "immediate, or nearly immediate"; and needs to fund as many of the projects ready to hit the street as possible.

The second phase needs to hit the planning stages immediately or near immediately, with the goal of hitting the street for bidding and construction about a year from now. Just doing one or the other won't cut it.

AP_piano295
Feb 4, 2009, 10:45 AM
$2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

*Was the product really inefficient? If not this seems like a job maker and a technology booster exactly what we need right now.

A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

Porky...

$650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

needed for obvious reasons, were still doing the conversions...

$88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

idk about this it'll create some jobs but it does seem a bit suspect.

atszyman
Feb 4, 2009, 10:49 AM
Seems the general consensus on this is that its probably a GOOD thing that the Democrats DID NOT GAIN a filibuster-proof majority.

The Dems are terrible at building consensus in their own caucus... you could have all the Senators being Dem and it still wouldn't be a Fillibuster proof majority...:D

$88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

idk about this it'll create some jobs but it does seem a bit suspect.

Why do we need an ice breaker? Aren't the ice caps melting away? Seems like global warming should take care of that issue for us...:D

joepunk
Feb 4, 2009, 06:57 PM
No to $25 billion for transit (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdDrWnoMueqVFI-Uo1ClxVZur22AD964AS4O0), yes to $11.5 billion in tax breaks for car purchases (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123367074086743407.html).

The Senate voted Tuesday to provide tax breaks to spur new auto purchases, but turned back a proposal that would have broadened President Barack Obama's economic-stimulus package to confer a one-time tax break on U.S. multinational corporations.

The $11.5 billion auto amendment, adopted 71-26, would give an income-tax deduction to car buyers for both sales taxes and interest payments on auto loans. The action applies to purchases of foreign and domestic autos, but reflects a broad desire on Capitol Hill to shore up the shaky U.S. industry.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD.): "Everyone wants to save auto manufacturers, but no matter how much government aid we give to the Big Three auto makers, they can't survive if consumers don't start buying cars.

Buy a new car?

What part of "we don't have any fraking money" do some people not understand?

How does a tax break on a new car help people who don't have any income and help someone unemployed get a job?

mgguy
Feb 4, 2009, 08:07 PM
They need to throw in another $2B or so to enforce our immigration laws and check legal status before hiring so illegal immigrants don't take the jobs created by the stimulus.

Desertrat
Feb 4, 2009, 09:04 PM
mac, I imagine that some small percentage allocation toward long-term planning would be a good thing. However, there must be reams and reams of existing plans which could be reviewed by congressional staffers. After all, "planning" has been a major category for municipalities and states for eons.

I find it hard to believe that we here are the only ones who have suggested alternatives to all manner of past and present problems, nor that we have any monopoly on the quality of our ideas.

And when this particular bunch of money does not have the desired effect, what next?

'Rat

Rodimus Prime
Feb 4, 2009, 10:36 PM
No to $25 billion for transit (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdDrWnoMueqVFI-Uo1ClxVZur22AD964AS4O0), yes to $11.5 billion in tax breaks for car purchases (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123367074086743407.html).



Buy a new car?

What part of "we don't have any fraking money" do some people not understand?

How does a tax break on a new car help people who don't have any income and help someone unemployed get a job?

It would help people like me who are on the fence of buying a new car. I been debating about buy a new car this year. This might give me enough push to just go buy one.

My current car is 5 years old and I am thinking how much longer can I push it.

Heck in this economy people would say my saving habits are bad for the economy. I mean between retirement and savings I putting away near 25% of my gross income.

AP_piano295
Feb 4, 2009, 11:28 PM
It would help people like me who are on the fence of buying a new car. I been debating about buy a new car this year. This might give me enough push to just go buy one.

My current car is 5 years old and I am thinking how much longer can I push it.

Heck in this economy people would say my saving habits are bad for the economy. I mean between retirement and savings I putting away near 25% of my gross income.

alot longer...my car is ten years old and has 160 thousand miles, cars hold up for a long time.

Still might be a good time to buy some killer deals out there right now.

Rodimus Prime
Feb 5, 2009, 12:53 AM
alot longer...my car is ten years old and has 160 thousand miles, cars hold up for a long time.

Still might be a good time to buy some killer deals out there right now.

that is my thought. I want to take advatage of the deals out there now. Plus I kind of want to move to a larger car. My little sentra just is not big enough for me but I still might push it another year or so.

Thomas Veil
Feb 5, 2009, 06:05 AM
My son and I were just talking about this. He does a ton of highway traveling in his job (which seems pretty secure), and his car is piling up the miles. He's been thinking about a new one, but a government-sponsored deal could push him from "thinking" to "buying".

atszyman
Feb 5, 2009, 06:41 AM
No to $25 billion for transit (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdDrWnoMueqVFI-Uo1ClxVZur22AD964AS4O0), yes to $11.5 billion in tax breaks for car purchases (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123367074086743407.html).



Buy a new car?

What part of "we don't have any fraking money" do some people not understand?

How does a tax break on a new car help people who don't have any income and help someone unemployed get a job?

If I buy a car, the auto company gets whatever small profit their managing to eek out of the sale, meaning they need that much less in bailouts. Face it we're going to be paying for the cars one way or the other, at least this way I get something to drive.

Even the "foreign" cars have production facilities here in the U.S. so buying the cars contributes to the companies bottom line which might allow them to keep their facilities here open for a bit longer, keeping more people employed and paid who can in turn go out and buy more goods. Not all consumption is bad, although it does help if you have your finances in order to begin with and don't keep digging yourself into a hole.

blackfox
Feb 5, 2009, 07:34 AM
They need to throw in another $2B or so to enforce our immigration laws and check legal status before hiring so illegal immigrants don't take the jobs created by the stimulus.

Give me a break. I don't want to derail the thread, but illegal immigrants are not the problem. Many I've known have a great work ethic and know how to stretch a dollar - skills we might all take to heart.

Cleverboy
Feb 5, 2009, 07:53 AM
Give me a break. I don't want to derail the thread, but illegal immigrants are not the problem. Many I've known have a great work ethic and know how to stretch a dollar - skills we might all take to heart. Americans have gotten lazy. We need another Clintonian strike at welfare bloat. We need to innovate our way back to a country in good standing. We can't simply point at unskilled laborers and say that they're stealing American jobs.
They need to throw in another $2B or so to enforce our immigration laws and check legal status before hiring so illegal immigrants don't take the jobs created by the stimulus. That said... you can't even throw MORE MONEY at dealing with illegal immigrants who might benefit from the stimulus. Unfortunately, that's going to need proper legislation combined with an active watchdog group and a platoon of lawyers.

~ CB

mactastic
Feb 5, 2009, 01:09 PM
And when this particular bunch of money does not have the desired effect, what next?
Blame Obama and Nancy Pelosi, right?

mgguy
Feb 5, 2009, 08:11 PM
Blame Obama and Nancy Pelosi, right?

That would be a good start. Reid too.

Desertrat
Feb 5, 2009, 08:49 PM
mac, why would I blame Pelosi and Reid? They're merely part of a group-think that believes in Keynesian economics--insofar as they may be aware of who he was, an absence of knowledge of history being so rampant--as has every administration and Congress from FDR onward. Volcker seems to be the notable exception, and he's pretty much been shunted aside in the president's economic advisory council.

mgguy
Feb 5, 2009, 11:01 PM
A
That said... you can't even throw MORE MONEY at dealing with illegal immigrants who might benefit from the stimulus. Unfortunately, that's going to need proper legislation combined with an active watchdog group and a platoon of lawyers.~ CB

Some of the money can certainly be allocated to hire more ICE officers and border patrol agents, create a more efficient and effective system for checking SSNs and screening for legal residency status upon employment, and fund other processes and personnel needed to better enforce our immigration laws. The systems and laws are already in place, they just need more funding so they can be executed properly.

freeny
Feb 6, 2009, 08:01 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/obama.stimulus/index.html

^^^
While I'm all for both sides working this out and some of the items are pork but, don't you think Obama is right?
I mean, aren't the Republicans trying to inject the same policies from the past 8 years that got us here?

Didnt we (or most of us) vote for change?

rdowns
Feb 6, 2009, 08:44 AM
Is anyone else disturbed that the Democratic caucus is at a weekend retreat at some fancy spa, which is being partially paid for with our tax dollars?

freeny
Feb 6, 2009, 08:46 AM
Is anyone else disturbed that the Democratic caucus is at a weekend retreat at some fancy spa, which is being partially paid for with our tax dollars?

Yes, i saw an article about this. Nothing different then the Republicans have done, but perhaps bad timing ;)

iGary
Feb 6, 2009, 08:52 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/obama.stimulus/index.html

^^^
While I'm all for both sides working this out and some of the items are pork but, don't you think Obama is right?
I mean, aren't the Republicans trying to inject the same policies from the past 8 years that got us here?

Didnt we (or most of us) vote for change?

Yes, but Obama (the change we voted for) made the mistake of thinking he can run Washington by himself. It doesn't work that way and he's finding that out.

rdowns
Feb 6, 2009, 08:59 AM
Yes, i saw an article about this. Nothing different then the Republicans have done, but perhaps bad timing ;)

Bad timing? They are effing hypocrites. Dems use tax payer money for this crap and Reps use lobbyist money. How do they reconcile this with their position of companies receiving bailout money doing the same?

A friggin' retreat? This Congress has been in session for a month. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

freeny
Feb 6, 2009, 09:07 AM
Bad timing? They are effing hypocrites. Dems use tax payer money for this crap and Reps use lobbyist money. How do they reconcile this with their position of companies receiving bailout money doing the same?

A friggin' retreat? This Congress has been in session for a month. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I believe for per diem, the Republicans use "some" lobyist $$$ and the Dems use "some" taxpayer $$$ and visa versa.
And while the numbers are still out, there is no evidence yet that taxpayer money was used and if so how much...
Its also odd that all the Reps are in a huff that the Dems are at a retreat when last week they were doing the same thing. Personally I think the Dems earned it this year and its the Reps that should have stayed home and studied.

I agree this is not a good precident but lets not get out of hand...

here is the commentary i read-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/campbell.brown.congress/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

mgguy
Feb 6, 2009, 10:27 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/obama.stimulus/index.html

^^^
While I'm all for both sides working this out and some of the items are pork but, don't you think Obama is right?
I mean, aren't the Republicans trying to inject the same policies from the past 8 years that got us here?

Didnt we (or most of us) vote for change?

Unfortunately, that's the problem. There is no change. They are continuing to spend huge amounts of taxpayer money and ballooning the deficit. The policies in the last 8 years clearly hasn't worked. We need a change, to reduce pork-barrel government spending.