The Back Alley Archives

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/62082.html

WASHINGTON — The compromise economic stimulus plan agreed to by negotiators from the House of Representatives and the Senate is short on incentives to get consumers spending again and long on social goals that won't stimulate economic activity, according to a range of respected economists.

"I think (doing) nothing would have been better," said Ed Yardeni, an investment analyst who's usually an optimist, in an interview with McClatchy. He argued that the plan fails to provide the right incentives to spur spending.

"It's unfocused. That is my problem. It is a lot of money for a lot of nickel-and- dime programs. I would have rather had a lot of money for (promoting purchase of) housing and autos . . . . Most of this plan is really, I think, aimed at stabilizing the situation and helping people get through the recession, rather than getting us out of the recession. They are actually providing less short-term stimulus by cutting back, from what I understand, some of the tax credits."

I would agree as long as they put back on the regulation of the banking industry that led us down this road.

it's really not BHOs 'stimulus' plan...it's actually pelosi's 'spending' plan.

from the stats i've read, we can say this much about bi-partisanship...there was an overwhelming disapproval bi-partisanship against pelosi's 'spending' plan...she was quoted as saying "hey - we DID win the election correct?"

unbelievable.

As Bush himself said, elections have consequences. Given the drubbings that the Republicans have suffered in 2006 and 2008, America has rejected their brand of "leadership".

And also given the fact that when Bush and the Republicans were running the whole thing, they didn't give two shits about bipartisanship or working with Democrats. So you will forgive me if I don't feel sympathy for the crocodile tears Republicans in Congress are shedding. I would not matter if this plan consisted of 100% tax cuts - there would still be little to no support from the Republicans on anything in that bill as well.

you're still missing the point. If you're going to spend, spend it on the right shit. Spending it on social goals to shove shit down people's throats that they don't want isn't going to help. That's the point most people are trying to make and it was the point of that article.

Spend to stimulate...not to drive a social/political agenda.

Where was the political affiliation of the economists listed? Hmmm?

you're still missing the point. If you're going to spend, spend it on the right shit. Spending it on social goals to shove shit down people's throats that they don't want isn't going to help. That's the point most people are trying to make and it was the point of that article.

Spend to stimulate...not to drive a social/political agenda.

And you are missing the point by holding onto the failed philosophy that all government spending is bad. For example, Obama said in his press conference Monday that improving the energy efficiency of Federal buildings will create jobs here, and will have the added bonus of saving the taxpayers money in energy bills and make us less dependent on foreign energy sources. What is bad about those thing? Please tell me. But accoring to the Republicans, that idea is wasteful pork.

It never ceases to amaze me that Republicans consider spending any money in America is socialism. However, it is completely OK to rebuild Iraq and build that country, which was destroyed by Bush's war of convenience that they all rubber stamped, but spending in this country is bad. Republican "logic" at its best.

I'm sorry, slide...did I ever say anything about rebuilding Iraq? Or are you just pulling more shit out of your ass?

Also note in my previous post where I said spend money on the right shit - not no spending money at all. How is improving energy efficiency in Federal buildings providing any kind of jobs? other than one shot jobs? Spending money on "green" projects is nothing more than social/political driven agenda that will not stimulate anything. If you want to do that, you have a democrat congress...nothing can stop it, really, but don't put it in this crap and pass it off as "stimulus".

So by your logic, providing jobs will not stimulate the economy. I guess you agree with Steele that government jobs are not real jobs but work. Too funny.

Oh and by the way, here is a recent Gallop poll talking about voter approval of the stimulus.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114577/Stimulus-Support-Edges-Higher.aspx

So by your logic, providing jobs will not stimulate the economy. I guess you agree with Steele that government jobs are not real jobs but work. Too funny.

The issue is that the government jobs end as soon as the spending bill's spending is done. It doesn't create lasting jobs, thus the distinction made with the word "work" because it is only going to exist on a very limited time horizon, rather than a job, which generally exists on a much longer time horizon.

OK. So these types of jobs will be done in a year or two, right?

I think the clearest way to say it is: The jobs will end when the work ends.

Nevermind the fact that 80% of the spending doesn't take place until 2010-2012....

Wow - way regurgitate the untrue talking point. Get that from Fox "News"or Rush did you?

Wow - way regurgitate the untrue talking point. Get that from Fox "News"or Rush did you?

No. Forbes.com. Who is quoting the CBO. You know...the Congressional Budget Office....??


http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/28/economy-stimulus-unemployment-congress-business-washington_0128_stimulus.html

why are we calling it the BHO 'stimulus' plan still? it's the pelosi 'spending' plan....let's get it right.

why are we calling it the BHO 'stimulus' plan still? it's the pelosi 'spending' plan....let's get it right.

Because, Rad, BHO is a 'stand up' kinda guy...the buck stops with him. He supports this bill. He's its 'lobbyist in chief'...its just as much HIS bill and anyones.

OK. So these types of jobs will be done in a year or two, right?

Listen...to stimulate the economy people need money coming in that they can feel free to spend on their own. Long term income gives people the security to spend money. If people know their "job" is up in a year they stash the money away for a rainy day...how has that stimulated anything?

Hey, Slider, I was wondering if the CBO is biased as well because they have the temerity to countermand your marching orders?

The thing that really digs at me is the Gov giving us back money. I know that Obama criticized Bush on his last stimulus package, specifically giving the taxpayers back money so they could go out and spend. Here we are with CHANGE and they are doing the same freaking thing again. You've already got my money. Spend it towards something that will do some good (if you know how). If you don't need that money, then lower my taxes.

dammit, Todd...you can't lower taxes. Just ask slider.

I'm not rich, they can lower my taxes. You on the other hand Mr Lawyer, have to stay in the 40% bracket.

^^^fuck that. I'm an Assistant State Attorney...you probably make more than I do.

i just laughed and put "rock band2" on when i heard obama say at his presser, regarding the signing of this monumental bill, that he was soooooo happppy that americans from all different ideologies were able to agree on such a HUGE and necessary bill.