finknottle

I was impressed with his speech at the convention - probably the only 'filler' I remember.

The spin has shifted. The bailout was sold not as as a bailout, but as a macro-move to unfreeze the markets. Individual institutions would be allowed to fail - it was all about unfreezing lending. For example Lehman Brothers, 28600 employees and one of Americas oldest financial institution, was allowed to go bankrupt. AIG, on the other hand, was proped up not because of its workers or shareholders, but because it was ultimately so intertwined in nearly all underwriting that chaos would result if they couldn't honor their policies. It was that argument that ultimately swayed Republican opposition. Things change, and TARP is now looking like what it's opponents prophesized - a bailout slush fund for favored companies. I don't think it would have passed had we known what we know now.

Lot's of big talk about people living under bridges. Fine. How does $15 billion to increase Pell Grants $500 help them? Or $150 million for the Smithsonian? $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts? $87 million for expanded family planning? Or my favorite, $198 million to the Filipino Veterans of WWII? If you want to say this bill is a handout to get the poor through hard times, ok. Just don't be disingenuous and call it an economic stimulus, not when the actual 'stimulus' spending only comes to about $90 billion and only 20% of that is expected to be spent by 2010. I call it a non-stimulative orgy of spending on every pet project they can think of.

At the end of the day, the health of the US economy is inexorably linked to jobs that export goods and services. If we continue to run trade deficits, the wealth of the country drains away. I see nothing in this bill that encourages companies that export, except the business tax cuts, the construction (which helps Catepiller, an important exporter, and the construction services industry) and *arguably* the climate and alternative energy research. Companies go where the money is - why start a company exporting widgets when you can get a fat contract refurbishing government buildings. Do we really want the next generation of workers in this country, and the output of all those worker retraining programs, to be a bunch of painters and Sherwin Williams reps? I remember Boston's Big Dig. For the first several years, the biggest 'job creation' was companies telling workers how to cash in on all the jobs it would bring!

What happened to $100 billion for Medicaid? You know, 12.5%? I've got a really big beef with that. One of you math wizards claimed that the pork was less than 1%. Well, these things add up. $79 billion in direct aid to states to compensate for lost federal revenue $39 billion to pick up the tab on COBRA for the unemployed $20 billion to increase the food stamps benifit by 13% (I've said it before and I'll say it again - the price of food is not a problem in this country). $2.5 billion for carbon capture demonstrations $6 billion for mass transit (that will really help the Big 3). $6 billion for low-income housing $500 million for Native American Housing block grants $500 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs buildings $150 million for the Smithsonian buildings $15 billion to increase Pell Grants $6 billion for "Higher Education Modernization." $650 million for TV conversion $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts $250 million for State Department Computers $200 million to spruce up the National Mall $670 million to rebuild restrooms and facilities in National Parks (more than their annual budget) $87 million for expanding family planning services $108 million to extend worker retraining and make the first $2,400 of unemployment tax free (like somebody laid off is going to rush out and spend that money, and like worker retraining has ever been shown to prepare workers for tomorrows jobs) $300 checks to social security recipients and disabled veterens (I don't know the total) $198 million to Filipino veterens (most of whom do not live in the US). Ohhh, what great jobs these will all generate! Definately worth the ~40k per tax-payer. Mind you, the bill does not offer $825 billion in spending. It proposes $550 billion, with $275 in tax cuts: $500/$1000 tax credit (that means free money, not a tax cut) for individuals not making a certain amount Greater access to the $1000 tax credit per child Expansion of the earned income tax credit to families with three children A $2500 college tax credit Repealing the requirement that a first-time home buyers $7500 tax credit be paid back

Yes, but how does that help the long-term economic competatitiveness of the US? Are we going to export nurses, insulation, and nannys? Who will pay their salaries in 10 years? Not the government - it will be hard pressed to tread water maintaining the debt. You cannot grow the economy by paying everybody to paint each others houses. This is not a stimulation bill, it is a handout.

Like $100 billion to increase the federal governments contribution to medicaid? Or $6 billion to weatherize modest income houses? How about $2 billion for childcare subsidies? What exactly are the long term jobs that these will lead too, and just how quickly will such spending make itself felt?

If broadband access is so important to the stimulus, shouldn't there be a program where the government gives you money to convert from a dialup modem to a cable modem?

The Democrats have got to figure out a way of dumping her if Obama is to have any kind of chance.

Paid for with US dollars when we are broke. Here's an idea - let's all pay each other to paint each other's houses! We'll all be rich!

The problem is that the basic research - paid for by US - is esstentially given away for free. And the University system at the graduate school level is essentially one giant technology transfer machine. We spent 30 years training their research scientists, and now the edge that American universities had in researchers is gone. I'm not arguing against funding basic research, I'm for it. Just pointing out that the University system does not have the interests of the US economy in mind. And on a side note, for those who think 'green technology' will promise millions of jobs, do you really think that any such technology will stay in the US and not be passed on? Anything we develop that is revolutionary in its efficiency will be manufactured in China within a decade.

And pink slips. The sooner you get rid of baggage to better your odds of surviving a prolonged downturn.

Seeing congress about to saddle us, in one fell swoop and as their opening salvo, with more debt than the entire Iraq War is hardly going to inspire confidence even among healthy companies. Not when economists and the CBO are luke-warm at best on when and if it will have a positive impact on the economy. It's time to batten down the hatches.

That is confusing the purpose of the original 700 billion. It was not intended to stimulate the economy, ala a tax cut or trickle down economics. It was intended specifically to unfreeze the credit markets - banks lost confidence and were paralyzed in their lending. So in your scenario, everybody gets 9k and, for purposes of argument, sets out on a spending binge which hopefully will lift the markets. But what would have happened on payday, when their company couldn't make payroll because they couldn't get a short-term payroll loan? How good is the 9k going to be when everybody is laid off because of accounting glitches? Or how far does that 9k go in buying a house when the banks are afraid to pick up another mortgage? That's the big problem with the discussion of the stimulous package and the auto bailouts. Everybody wants to point to TARP and say 'see, they got their bailout to save their jobs, where is mine?' TARP wasn't about saving jobs (as anybody formally in the financial secter will tell you) nor was it about stimulating the economy. It was supposed to be a targeted response to a particular acute problem in the market. One can argue whether it was the right response, or whether it has been implemented well, but don't use politics to redefine its purpose.

While I agree with you as far as this idiotic thread goes, I point out that the vast majority of businessmen in this country have until recently dismissed 'card-check' legislation as disasterous nonsensical pandering that gets regularly introduced but which no responsible government would ever actually pass and sign. We'll see.

No, actually, it was lobbying by the decoder manufacturers. They saw a one-time opportunity to sell a zillion converter boxes, but only if the government stepped in and made them essentially free to the consumer. So they led the effort in saying that something had to be done so that the poor huddled masses still watching TV over the airwaves wouldn't be left behind. God forbid they should get cable or buy a new TV.

Sorry - they will continue to blame everything on Bush for the next 8 years. Sustained economic collapse? Fallout from Bush and Wall Street greed. Skyrocketing debt? Bushes tax cuts wiped out the cushion we would otherwise have. Europeans don't like us, and dictators won't play nice? Lingering distrust because of Bush's diplomacy. Terrorist attacks? Wouldn't have happened if Bush hadn't radicalized them. It's no different than the last 8 years spent blaming everything on Clinton.

It's in the spirit of that, but you can't get the military to move that quickly. This had to be in the works for at least a year.

The Pentagon shouldn't have been giving them the money in the first place. There was no provision for this when they volunteered. What next? In 30 years are we going to see footage of teary-eyed contractors asking where their benefits are? And NGO volunteers in Iraq? Most of them have served the country bravely.

It goes against everything America stands for. When you are an unpaid volunteer, you *should* expect checks from the government for the rest of your life. It's what volunteerism is all about.

Glad to see that the lessons of the Bosnian conflict have taken such a colorful interpretation. That sad saga stands as a symbol to the impotence of the UN and the EU, the ineffectualness of diplomacy when one party is still willing to fight, and that strength is ultimately the guaranteer of peace.

Are they in Gitmo to be imprisoned, or because somebody thinks there is intelligence to be learned? If the latter, then presumably it does make a difference where and by whom they are detained. If the former, then it seems to me that if we are to treat all terrorists equally then they should all get to stay in a comfy US prison. What about those in Iraqi or Afghan jails? I'm sure we can accomidate everybody around the world who is a member of AQ or other terrorist groups, or guilty of shooting at Americans. Think of it as a stimulus spending plan.

On principle I defended her against the immediate partisan slams when she was first named. But after 6 months I came to the conclusion that she is the most inept leader of any party in my lifetime. It has nothing to do with her positions, and everything to do with on-the-job performance. She was startlingly ineffectual when Bush was president, despite having a majority and popular opinion behind her. I remember commenting at the time that the dilemma facing the democrats would be how to replace her when Obama swept into power - we are stuck with her at least until the mid-term elections.

Interesting choice of words. Fiat is paying essentially nothing for the 30% stake. What's in it for Chrylser is that by agreement they can start selling Fiat's small cars, and get access to Fiat's distributors overseas. Let's recap: Congress gives Chrysler a temporary $4 billion dollar 'loan.' This tides them over long enough to give away a third of the company. AFAIK, Fiat assumes no liability on that debt - they are just shareholders. Chrysler will be in loan default if they cannot get the UAW to renegotiate by some date in a month or so. Suppose the UAW rolls over - a big if. Chrysler stills owes the money, and now needs a new $8 billion bridge loan to keep them afloat until they start making money importing those Alpha Romeo's. Or gives away more of the company. Or gets another bridge loan. Good thing they didn't go into Chapter 11! But heck, this is just a practice run. Let's see what Ford and GM do with our money, and how much more Congress gives them before washing their hands of the mess.

The economy crashed in 1937, with unemployment soaring from ~14% to 19% in a year, despite a five years of government spending at 40% of GDP.