$2 Billion For Broadband Cut From Stimulus Bill 658
pdabbadabba points out a CNN report on changes to the planned economic stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [PDF]) that will remove the $2 billion allocated to broadband development. The changes also eliminated smaller amounts allocated to NASA, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the National Science Foundation. $16 billion in school construction funding was removed, as well as another $3.5 billion for higher education construction. A variety of environmental projects were also cut or reduced (half of the $7 billion set aside for energy-efficient federal buildings, half of the $600 million for hybrid federal vehicles), and over $8 billion in health-related provisions are gone. The bill will likely go to vote in the Senate on Tuesday.
Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:2, Insightful)
"Bipartisanship" isn't useful in this context, because one party is working from macroeconomic theory and reason, and the other party is working from the ideological mantra of "Spending Bad. Tax Cuts Good." To the Congressional Republicans, things like school construction won't result in jobs for construction workers: apparently magic pixies will simply drop the new schools out of the sky in exchange for our money.
President Obama needs to realize that it's the U.S. Congress, not the Snuggle-Senate, and beat some heads together to get good policy through. The $800b he proposed was too small to begin with, and all of these cuts make it more likely that we're not going to have enough stimulus to do anything useful.
Re:Do democrats even realize that they do in fact (Score:2, Insightful)
They need to be able to blame somebody when this supposed "stimulus" fails miserably. And I'm hesitant to call it a stimulus because more than 80% of the cash will be sitting in bank accounts untouched for at least a year, obviously not doing much stimulating.
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, the telco's were given million of dollars to expand broadband years ago and essentially pissed the money away.
Not millions, billions, some two hundred of them (albeit in tax breaks, not cash) and I'm still waiting to see the results from that before I want any more tax money going to those bloodsuckers.
Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of these guys squandered their money the last time they received a serving of pork, so why in the world would we do it again? At least half of this plan's spending doesn't do a thing to "stimulate" (even Obama said as much) and just represent political payoffs rather than "change".
These guys had a chance to really do something, and they've blown it.
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republicans are just as clueless as the Democrats in the current situation. The reason is because, just like the Great Depression, there really are no answers to deal with the current economic downturn. Only time and debt destruction can fix it...
In short.. They can spend $2T if they like, and it will do little to nothing to stop the current problems from advancing. When you are a nation that is 70% consumption and have a 400% GDP debt ratio, there is little you can do to 'simulate" the underlying fundamentals. Meaning, the problem was overstimulation to begin with..
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't bother with a bill in the first place--I don't see stimulating the economy listed as a federal government responsibility in the Constitution--but if you're going to do this at least be honest about it.
With something like 60% of spending happening in 2010 and 2011 they are "stimulative", they're pork-barrel spending. The boy President thinks that any spending counts as stimulus--the only thing this bill will stimulate is more government and more debt.
Some version of this mess will eventually pass, but hopefully we'll strip some of the pork out of it. One thing's for sure--this is not "change we can believe in".
Re:Do democrats even realize that they do in fact (Score:4, Insightful)
I am sure they would love to ignore the Republicans... Unlike the House rules, however, the senate requires 60 votes to get anything substantial done. Meaning, they have something called filibuster rules that allow individual senators to slow/stop bills in its tracks...
Meaning, the democrats are not trying to be nice and work with the republicans... They are forced to deal with at least 3 Republicans to get the stimulus bill moving forward and they know this... Hence, the reason for the compromise..
Seems like effective bipartisanship (Score:4, Insightful)
Cutting higher ed and broadband gives the Republicans what they want: Keep the sheep stupid and uncommunicative.
So, will Monday night's speech ditch the theme of "bipartisanship"? Isn't getting him any votes anyway.
Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:3, Insightful)
holy shit. You actually believe that, don't you?
Yes, he does believe it and so do I. We've had 8 years of "tax cuts are how you stimulate the economy" and look where we are. But the Republicans continue to oppose the opposite tack as if it's not worth trying. Our schools are foundering. Our internet is slower than any other developed nation. Yet Republicans forced spending on both of those VERY NEEDY PROGRAMS to be cut from this bill. Both would be the epitome of economic stimulus but Republicans are obstructionists yet again. It's simply true. So yes, we believe it. Funny how that works.
Re:Great (Score:1, Insightful)
I think one of the worst things that republicans have done to this country is to make people feel educated on a subject after ingesting a few sound bites.
Shame that the internet stuff was cut (Score:1, Insightful)
The perhaps most effective thing in the packet in long term would have been building faster and better broadband connections. It enables people to search for work more effectively, communicate and network better, work remotely, and self study.
Not that I care, I live outside US and have still some 2 terabytes of bandwidth to use this month :)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
With less than 20% of any of it slated to go into effect in the first year the Obama "pass it or else" mantra is exposed as rhetoric.
Strange though it may sound, it is actually quite a difficult thing to spend $800b. When a stimulus package like this goes into effect, while the budget may be quickly allocated to specific projects, the actual draw down can only occur through vouched expenditure, and this can only occur as work is done. With this in mind, actually spending $160b (20%) is still quite an achievement.
However, the fact that the projects are started and have a guaranteed completion should provide more stimulus than the actual cash spend.
I don't know whether the spending is going to the right places, or that it will have the desired stimulus effect, but it's not correct to suggest that this is some kind of ruse just because it appears that the funding is not front-loaded.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:1, Insightful)
The real problem is those "tax cuts for the rich"! We need to "make the rich pay their fair share"! What we need is "Change you can believe in". Admit it, soundbites are the currency of all politicians, not just Republicans. When you blame one party for things both parties do you cheapen your point. You are right though, it is a serious problem in America that political discourse, and hence the population's consumption of same, is dominated by these catchy and superficial soundbites.
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
"Many universities sit on huge sums of money and still get government help so I'm not losing sleep over that one either. "
Where did you get this idea? This is a complete utter B.S. Most large state research universities are struggling financially right now. Many have a hiring freeze already. Some had been seeing their state funded budgets erode forever. As for private schools with large endowments, most of those too are having serious financing issues right now. WUSTL, Harvard, etc. Many have instituted faculty and staff hiring freeze as well. What large sums of money are you talking about? Their endowments? They already lost 30 to 50% of value in just one year, and schools generally use the earnings generated by those endowments to beef up their budgets. It is plain stupid to spend the endowment itself because this will seriously compromise the future financial positions of many universities. Based on experiences of many people I know, the freshly minted PhDs in any field are facing the worst job market of the decade.
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:5, Insightful)
Our schools are foundering. Our internet is slower than any other developed nation. Yet Republicans forced spending on both of those VERY NEEDY PROGRAMS to be cut from this bill.
Our schools are not foundering due to a lack of funding. They are foundering because a powerful public education cartel has driven school spending skyward, making the United States among the world's biggest education spenders, even as student achievement lags.
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:5, Insightful)
"Bipartisanship" isn't useful in this context, because one party is working from macroeconomic theory and reason, and the other party is working from the ideological mantra of "Spending Bad. Tax Cuts Good." To the Congressional Republicans, things like school construction won't result in jobs for construction workers: apparently magic pixies will simply drop the new schools out of the sky in exchange for our money.
President Obama needs to realize that it's the U.S. Congress, not the Snuggle-Senate, and beat some heads together to get good policy through. The $800b he proposed was too small to begin with, and all of these cuts make it more likely that we're not going to have enough stimulus to do anything useful.
Oh my God you are so full of crap. No one is saying that building schools won't employ people. What is being said is, "what happens to those jobs when the schools built?" These are not permanent jobs.
Also, building schools is not what Republicans object to. It's the millions to birth control programs. How does giving out condoms provide jobs? How is money to Amtrak going to produce jobs? Sure, it helps out the people working for Amtrak, but every passenger on Amtrak is NON-passenger on Greyhound or Delta. How does extending unemployment benefits create jobs? How does allocating money so groups like ACORN can purchase houses and rent them out create jobs?
Now these may be great ideas, but they do NOT belong in the "stimulus" package if they do not stimulate. Seriously, how big of a moron do you have to be to NOT understand that?
In other words, don't let the facts cloud your preconceived judgment of "Republicans bad, Democrats good".
Do you know who is paying for this? (Score:1, Insightful)
- there are 138 million taxpayers in the US
- the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes
- the income cutoff for the top 10% is $109K
So, doing some simple math I compute that those top 10% (roughly 14 million taxpayers) are responsible for $800,000,000,000 times 0.71, or about $40,000 each. Think about that. Someone who makes $109,000 per year is going to have to come up with another $40,000 in taxes. Also remember that many people file jointly, so that $109,000 is really more like a married couple, both of whom work, each making $54,000. Now how many slashdot posters are we talking about here? I would wager there are quite a large number of posters on this board in that top 10%. How many of you have $40,000 laying around that you are willing to give to the government to build schools in another state, or to give broadband to people in the boonies, or the myriad other "critical programs" that need your hard-earned money?
The numbers in this post are for the 2006 tax year and were obtained from http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 [ntu.org]
Re:no soup! (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
This is about creating jobs. Quickly. While it would be great if you could take unemployed factory workers and have them run fiber to everyone's house, it isn't very realistic. To 'break ground' quickly on this project would require the money going to people who already know how to and have the skills necessary to build this. Realistically, that is only the cableco/telco/and really big ispco that isn't a cableco or telco.
My congressman was not going to stand up in front of the world and ask for money that was going to be handed over to those companies.
It doesn;t mean there won't be a separate bill, it just means it won't be in the stimulus porkfest.
Oh, Democrats want children to be ignorant. (Score:3, Insightful)
How come Cleveland has more spending on its public schools than most other G8 nations, but they are all shitholes. Maybe the students are stupid and unwilling to learn? Maybe they come from a culture that denegrates education before it even starts? I mean, how come Democrats always talk about more money for schools and for public institution but at the same time, continue to spend billions on an arts and media that does nothing but continually denegrate culture, learning, and refinement? I mean, people are only doing what you tell them, and you are telling them to do stupid stuff.
Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
And while we are at it, lets dump Brown vs. Board of Education [brownvboard.org] too while we are at it, eh? After all, if a state wants to start segregating schools you can just move to another state, right? Or if the state wants all their public schools to teach intelligent design, you should either hold your nose or move--under no circumstance should you appeal to those pesky activist judges in the the federal courts, right?
Want to improve education? Operate at the neighborhood level. The community can figure out the best way to educate their kids. But the devil is in the details and here in America, we value providing a fair chance to anybody regardless of socio-economic status. That means the federal government has an obligation to make sure a child in one state has as good of an education as in another. That means that regardless of what crazy sounding idea the neighborhood comes up with, a student there should graduate with the same knowledge as from some other place. One of the easiest roles the federal government can play in ensuring equity is leveling the playing field so all school districts get the same funding.
PS: good luck with killing the teachers union--you wouldn't win an election on that platform.
And corporal punishment? Seriously? I've been trolled, haven't I :-)
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone screams "LESS TAXATION" and other hoopla to waive their economist e-peen around like it's some giant stick of holy fruition to wake up people you disagree with.
But you know what? I don't think that will help either. For smaller business, maybe, just maybe. Larger businesses already pay next to nothing through creative accounting and the government really doesn't give a shit. Less taxes just makes it easier on them to line their pockets that they are already lining.
Yeah, some business will be responsible and use less taxes to help grow their business, but I have my doubts as to it being a large majority.
Who is the bloodsucker? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you give someone a tax break, you become less of a bloodsucker, than you were before, when you were taxing them higher... Or did you call telcos "bloodsuckers" over something else?
Bingo (Score:5, Insightful)
Only time and debt destruction can fix it...
Exactly. That's why when I read the headline my first thought was GOOD.
Fixing this problem by taking on more debt is like helping a trauma victim by stabbing him.
As nice as it would be to have the IT sector get a big slice of pork, it's just not in the national interest. And that's how we have to think for the next few years. "What's good for me" will have to take a back seat sometimes to "what's good for the country."
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Taxation can serve one of two purposes.
#1, it can fund actual necessary services that the majority of the populace agrees upon. Things like road infrastructure construction, police/fire/emergency medical services, public parks and recreation facilities, schools, and so on.
#2, it can be a form of "wealth redistribution", which is why the socialists are always playing class-warfare games and insisting on jacking up taxes on "the rich", which they define in ways that make no sense.
Now, taxation can also be done at different levels. Not everything needs to go through the federal government; in fact, the less that goes through the federal government the better, because the more layers you put between the money and its destination, the more you waste in bureaucracy.
And while you're whining about "very needy programs" being cut from the bill, remember the millions of $ that Obama slipped into the bill for his ACORN vote-fraud friends? Yeah, "somehow" the democrats don't want to give that one up either.
Now, tax cuts - in a normal economic environment - do stimulate the economy. Economics, on a micro and short-term level, work fundamentally on how much money there is in the system. If you jack the tax rate up to 50%, you will watch commerce plummet. If you reduce the tax rate, you will see that money reenter the economy - either by investment (banks or business investment, which retranslate into spending through loans) or by spending. The trick is to get the tax rate to where it needs to be to support necessary services and, yes, cut the programs that are either (a) not working or (b) unnecessary.
The problem in this economy is not tax cuts. The problem is that there is a massive amount of bad and unsustainable debt, due to incredibly poor education (most kids in the last 20 years having been given NO classes on basic economics and responsible financial planning in school), "give it to me now" attitudes, and a system of shoddy loans backed by the "securitization" model which grew out of the blackmail/fraud division (of which Obama as a so-called "community organizer" was one of the attack dogs) of ACORN and similar groups.
Over the last 15 years, an incredible number of bad loans were issued. Most of these ought to be in foreclosure right now. This ought to be an incredible time to buy a home for those who have been financially responsible over the last 15 years.
Instead, the government is trying to shore up the housing industry, wasted money "bailing out" banks without any oversight to make sure that the money went into new, properly vetted loans, and this new Spendulus package is based on what works in ordinary times, not on fixing the root problem.
The real answer to the current economic problem, alas, is time. Housing prices ought to be 50-60% what they currently are, and the market has to sort that out. An incredible number of people who previously had mortgages should never have been issued them under normal Three C's criteria (Capital, Capacity, Consistency aka Credit History), and this inflated the price of houses and not only screwed up the banks, but ripped off those who were being financially responsible.
If you're in a foreclosure situation on your house and you could reasonably get out of it with a 25% reduction in the base home value and a loan recalculation, I can see that. But you shouldn't be offered that just because you are in foreclosure.
You want to know why people are pissed about this barrel of pork crap Obama is calling a "stimulus" package? It's because the responsible people once again get fucked. I have over an 800 credit score, I'm building up money for a down payment on a house and doing things the responsible way, living within my means, and my tax rate is going to be jacked up to pay for an "economic stimulus" that consists of handouts to Obama's worthless friends and to "bail out" the mortgage of people who somehow got a
Re:Do you know who is paying for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, doing some simple math I compute that those top 10% (roughly 14 million taxpayers) are responsible for $800,000,000,000 times 0.71, or about $40,000 each.
Let's ignore for the moment that this is deficit spending, so no one's taxes will be raised. You still fail at simple math. A couple making 109K would only owe 40K in taxes if EVERYONE in the top 10% earned EXACTLY 40K, which is patently false. Many people earn more, and would thus shoulder more of the cost. Let me use your own numbers to prove you wrong.
- there are 138 million taxpayers in the US
- 5% of the population earns between 109K and 154K.
- This 5% pays 11% of the taxes.
So AT MOST, your couple would owe 13K, and to get a number that high, I'm still making the false assumption that everyone in that bracket earns the base of 109K (not because it's plausible, but because your link doesn't give a better breakdown). That's a far cry from your 40K.
No, easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
According to this page [indiana.edu], The top public university system in terms of endowment is (surprisingly) the University of Texas system (that's all the UofT campuses) with $10 billion. I imagine post-crash it's closer to half that. My own system (University of Wisconsin) had as of 2004 just under a billion. Sounds like we ought to be sitting pretty, uncorking the champagne, eating caviar, and lighting our cigars with $100 dollar bills, eh? Not so. That's the value of the endowment--the principle of which can't ever be touched. You have a global recession so any university that had plans for income from the endowment has to put those plans on hold. Plans like deferred maintenance, a critical problem at every university in the country. Or replacing obsolete buildings. After World War 2, there was a huge surge in construction, that picked up again in the 60's and 70's. There's now a glut of cheap and hastily constructed buildings from the 50's to the 70's that are in dire need of replacing. Or simply running the university: state governments have been slashing funding of their university systems for years. Chronic underfunding of universities also has the inevitable result of skyrocketing tuition which means that a university education is becoming unaffordable even to the middle class. This at a time when American businesses complain about lack of qualified job applicants. All this makes it sound like funding of education and the universities ought to be a high priority in any stimulus package. Unfortunately, it got cut by a handful of short-sighted Senators.
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, spending ("throwing") money is stimulus when the economy has a demand shortage. If nobody is buying anything, then nobody will have a job. So the government steps up and buys stuff. It almost doesn't matter WHAT they spend it on, as long as it gets spent. It's impossible for spent money to not stimulate the economy, because the economy is the sum of spending.
Now, let's quibble about how much to spend and how best to spend it.
Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be obtuse. The problem is not that people listen to sound bites but that they believe the sound bites are all there is to know. They use terms like "small-town common sense" and "intellectual elite" to make it clear that in-depth education is not only unnecessary but harmful. I would be lying if I said that both parties promote this equally. One party seems to advocate most of the anti-education issues, from creationism to voodoo economics.
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:5, Insightful)
A debt crisis is just a generic way to saying that a nations (or world) wealthy class needs to realize their losses... Protecting a nations wealthy, which is what we are currently doing, is not smart and will not work long term because it will ultimately create social unrest. Personally, I would prefer option 3.
3. Realize that an economic collapse is inevitable, be a real leader, and prepare the public for it. Next, seize all major insolvent banks and wipe out bond and shareholders. Also, provide "fast track' legislation for corporate and personal bankruptcies. Next, expand social welfare services during the crisis to make sure that no one starves or is made unnecessarily homeless. Next, provide government sponsored services for newly formed businesses, and individuals fresh out of bankruptcy to help them get back on their feet. Meaning, once the mal-investment debt is destroyed, provide stimulus at a point where it actually has the chance of being used as a real investment.
And finally... Eliminate the fractional reserve banking model forever. It ultimate is the reason for boom and bust cycles, and in the global marketplace its time has come and gone...
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:3, Insightful)
It's awfully appealing to say "There is no answer" when one's preferred answer isn't working, and the solution that will work is anathema to one's ideology. Not liking the answer doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
See also: Keynes.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is all too often we mistakely expect (and often demand) equal results regardless of "socio-economic status". Sadly, that's just not possible. Here's an example -- Kids do better in two parent households. Statistically, they end up making more money (read bringing in tax dollars) than those from single parent homes. Want to get equal results? Stop rewarding bad behavior with money. Single parent unemployeed or on welfare? Have another kid and you get no extra money. Offer tax incentives to married/domestic partners. Offer tax rebates for volenteer hours spent at your own child's public school.
Two parent households and involved parents. That will buy you more per dollar spent than tossing money at the "problem". Lets focus on that, why don't we?
Re:no soup! (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason for these cuts is that the Republicans have an ideological predisposition to cut taxes, period. These cuts serve primarily to increase the proportion of tax custs in the bill, despite the fact that tax custs do not stimulate the economy as well as direct spending would, because tax cuts mostly benefit people who are in a position to save money.
Why is the stimulus necessary? Because the Congressional Budget Office says that supply of goods and services is going to contract by $2 tn, or 14% of GDP. What the "less government through less taxes" movement is doing is making the already undersized stimulus less effective, significantly increasing the risk of a downward economic spiral. That's my job and your job they're going to take.
Re:Lots of pork still to cut (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you even know what stimulus is?
650 Million for converter boxes?
Which will go to companies who make them and their workers, and hopefully get spent and enter the economy.
350 Million to buy back watershed lands?
Which will go into the pockets of people who have watershed land, and hopefully get spent and enter the economy.
1 Billion to the census dept for ???
Which will go to census workers, and hopefully get spent and enter the economy.
All those things are exactly the entire damn point of the bill. There are things in there that are not, and won't help stimulate anything, but you're apparently so ignorant you don't know the point of the stimulus bill, which is to spend money on crap so that the money enters the economy.
Republicans, OTOH, want to put it in the economy via 'tax cuts', which, ignoring the fact those are skewed towards those making more money, shows they at least get the concept of 'stimulus' somewhat better than you.
Agree (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you 100%. Which is why pretty much the only thing the feds can legislate is bills that level the financial playing field. The *can* however, say words that have no legal impact. Words like "read to your children instead of park them in front of the TV".
This sounds good on the surface, but I'm not sure it is "correct" and you'd have to tack on things that would make some uncomfortable. I'm thinking things like sex-ed, contraceptives, abortion, adoption... that kind of thing. People are gonna do the nasty no matter what it does to their tax status--you best provide people options to both prevent pregnancy and help them out in case they do get pregnant. There is probably a reason nobody proposes what you say, even if it might a workable solution. It would be a mess politically--but I think if somebody was bold enough we could pull something off--it wouldn't be exactly what you want though.
Better yet, make hours spend doing volunteer work with non-profits (and schools) something you can deduct the same way as other charitable donations. As always though... how do you value the hourly wage? I can see a million ways to exploit either of our plans if not careful.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Strange though it may sound, it is actually quite a difficult thing to spend $800b.
Then why try to spend it all at once? The senate was right to cut down the bill (largely at the insistance of the Republicans although even some "blue dog" democrats grumbled about Pelosi's bill). Trying to rush anything throught Congress virtually guarantees that it will become a christmass tree so overloaded with pork and favored special interest spending that it could easily cost several times more than to pass the measures separately. This is especially true with non immediate spending. They should pass the critical spending first and then work on the other things as time permits and circumstances become more amenable. IMHO, the democrats made too big a deal of their "first 100 days" pledges as if rushing things, regardless of circumstances, was obviously the best way to go about completing the job.
With this in mind, actually spending $160b (20%) is still quite an achievement.
In a macabre sort of way I suppose that is true. However, as a Libertarian I am still horrified at the massive government spending that is currently taking place to make good the ill effects of previous government interventions, which notably include flooding the market with liquidity and allowing the money supply to increase massively in the years following 9/11 in an ill fated attempt to "smooth out" some bumps in the economic road and look where that got us. Now the government wants to cure what is essentially a spending problem, with...wait for it...even more government and consumer spending? Do we cure an alcoholic by offering him even more of his favorite beverage? Certainly not, so how can we cure a spending problem with more spending and making even MORE money available to spend?
However, the fact that the projects are started and have a guaranteed completion should provide more stimulus than the actual cash spend.
I don't know how it is in your state, but here in California it takes CalTrans and state contractors forever to finish highway projects. In some cases it has taken as long as two (2) DECADES after the first load of dirt was scooped to complete what should have been two (2) year or less construction projects. I remain skeptical that more of these types of projects will provide a lot of stimulus to the economy. After all, trucks cannot use new on-ramps and overpasses to move goods until they are actually completed.
I don't know whether the spending is going to the right places, or that it will have the desired stimulus effect
Don't worry, its NOT going to the right places AND it will NOT have the desired stimulus effect.
but it's not correct to suggest that this is some kind of ruse just because it appears that the funding is not front-loaded.
At best, it is an unwelcome distraction to the real problem which is the bad mortgage backed debts that are like sand in the proverbial economic engine, corrupting everything they touch and poisoning by proxy the balance sheets of everyone even remotely connected. The really important question, IMHO, that isn't being asked is this:
How can Amercians, whose real wages have stagnated since the end of the 1970s compared to economic growth and inflation, continue to pay inflated prices for the nation's housing stock? Most americans and particularly young Americans can really only afford a home that costs less than about $150,000 dollars or so and yet in many parts of the nation the price stubbornly refuses to fall below that level. There are too many dollars in the system relative to what average Americans actually produce and earn and until that problem is addressed I think that this economic malaise will continue, even after the "recovery", until this nation addresses its debt and spending problems.
Housing is at the root of this crises, but beyond even that is
Re:Who is the bloodsucker? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not someone but something. Corporations are not persons and should never be thought as anything except economical machines.
Apart from that... With the world's financial system in the brink of collapse from deregulation, isn't it about time to dump the bullshit right-wing ideology behind that deregulation ? Taxes aren't "bloodsucking", especially not taxes on corporation; they are the price of living in a society. In a better world people would participate willingly; unfortunately, this is not that world, so here they need to be forced to do their duty.
"Atlas Shrugged" was superhero fiction. People really need to get over it already.
Re:Who is the bloodsucker? (Score:5, Insightful)
With the world's financial system in the brink of collapse from deregulation, isn't it about time to dump the bullshit right-wing ideology behind that deregulation ?
"the past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth."
...
Sorry, it didn't quote work that way. [nytimes.com]
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Not that I blame the right any less, but this whole idea that not regulating is a "right-wing" ideology is ridiculous. Both sides want to look the other way when they are getting their short-term gains. Both sides then want to blame the other when the shit hits the fan. I agree there was a regulation failure. I do not agree it was a right-wing ideology that caused it.
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens when it was the government's meddling that caused the economic downturn in the first place?
Don't forget the Focus (Score:1, Insightful)
Something people, and especially the politicians, seem to be forgetting is that this is a stimulus bill to get the economy going again.
Anything that doesn't support the goal of fixing the economy doesn't belong in this bill, no matter how much we think that particular chunk of funding is needed.
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:5, Insightful)
Businesses never pay taxes. YOU DO.
Businesses necessarily must make up for less profit by sticking it to their customers (in the form of higher prices or less choice), their employees (less wages, fewer benefits, and fewer jobs), their shareholders (less earnings per share, less dividends).
When you tax businesses, you're just indirectly taxing everyone else related to that business, including YOU. Business taxes appeal to the ignorant, because it makes it seem like someone else is paying, when in reality, it's YOU.
Re:no soup! (Score:4, Insightful)
You missed a crucially important point: Tax cuts have an immediate impact on the economy. Stimulus takes months or years to propagate into an economy.
Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score:4, Insightful)
Promote != Provide.
Re:no soup! (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the problem. Most of this stuff is pork that should be spent and debated on their own merits. In the Stimulus package, it was originally passed off as an emergency bill with no debate. When the Republicans grew a pair, it forces the debate but the so called necessity of spending doesn't offer a proper debate.
Think of this like the bailout bill, there was such a rush to put it out that key politicians including Obama said it doesn't need to be perfect, we can change things later, then we find out that the bail out paid for parties at large resorts and so on. All of the stuff cut from this bill are things that will need more of a debate then what is currently availible to the politicians. So while they are cut from this bill which was basically a spending and appropriations bill before, they aren't off the table, it's just an affirmation to push them to the proper time, place, and environment to consider them. There are no short term job creation or direct financial benefit with them to the public in the near term so they don't need to be included into a stimulus bill by necessity which would bypass the traditional debate surrounding them.
In short, when they drafted the original bill, they went past stimulus and started piling in wish list items, some of which have been rejected for quite some time, some of which might be good for the country but has no direct effect on the goals of the stimulus goal, but most of all deserve to be properly considered in normal debate. Sneaking them into this bill was only an attempt to remove the debate on them, cutting them out doesn't mean they are gone, it just means they will have to go throught normal channels.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Can that private school kick out the non-performing kids or the ones with poor discipline? I know a lot of teachers and after talking to them I've concluded that the single biggest problem in public education today is discipline (more like the lack of), and their options to deal with it.
My aunt works as a teacher in a private school making less money than a public school but she loves it. Every parent comes to parent-teacher meetings. She has next to zero classroom discipline issues because if the kid continues to be a problem he'll get booted out. The parents know this so they make sure it's not a problem.
The problem in public school is what do you do with the kids who just don't care and have parents who don't care. You can't really kick them out of school, but you don't want them in the classroom slowing down the other students. What do you do?
Re:Lots of pork still to cut (Score:3, Insightful)
650 Million for converter boxes?
Which will go to companies who make them and their workers, and hopefully get spent and enter the economy.
You do know that no converter box is made by a US company? This will do wonders for all those Chinese folks, except they are probably made in a mostly-automated factory with 20 employees. It might do some good for Walmart and Best Buy selling them, but not all that much.
We gave up on consumer electronics a long, long time ago. I think the last TV plant in the US closed in the 1980s sometime. And I believe it was in Chicago. All the familiar brands (RCA, Zenith, etc.) are now owned by companies in China and Korea.
Re:no soup! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:no soup! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that it makes the plan a good idea. In order for any "stimulus" to work, it must generate more jobs or economic activity than it costs. There is very, very little in this package that does this.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
How can Amercians, whose real wages have stagnated since the end of the 1970s compared to economic growth and inflation, continue to pay inflated prices for the nation's housing stock?
Thanks for bringing that up; I've been trying to understand that for a long time (long before the current crisis)
I'm no economics or financial expert, but I've always found it strange that our society looks at houses like some kind of magic money machines--as if they can repeatedly be bought and sold with the prices growing far faster than the salaries of the people purchasing them. How could that possibly NOT lead to a situation where no one can afford houses anymore (or, more likely, everyone buys houses with loans they can't afford to pay back)?
And yet our politicians talk about it as if we just need to fix up the economy with some stimulus and once it's all over we can go back to things the way they were. WTF?! I just want to hear Obama or one prominent senator stand up and say, "Look, houses can no longer be, and can never again be, treated as magic money machines."
Re:no soup! (Score:3, Insightful)
I know of two schools locally where imminent construction has been put on hold due to loss of state funding. I'd say these qualify as 'shovel ready' and certainly would provide stimulus and necessary infrastructure.
After 8 years of "no time to discuss" in order to pass anti-american legislation, I find your argument that we must stop and discuss anything which might be 'debatable" laughable. Everything is debatable to someone, especially those with a self-serving agenda.
Re:No, easy. (Score:3, Insightful)
By giving money to the people directly you are not creating jobs, with the exception of a few more sales positions at Best Buy. In the meantime the money is being used to either 1) pay down debt or 2) -the most likely scenario- someone buying products...which would be "OK" if we could gaurantee the money goes to US based products - which it won't (how many US made TVs are there?). On top of that, we don't have new jobs like construction jobs, and we don't have buildings which are more green.
Obama made a lot of promises, and he has a lot of swing with his bat - but he can only veto the bill - the actual contents of the bill are not his to directly decide.
For anyone out there who is screaming bloody murder to democrats, and god-save-the-republicans...remember how we got into this mess, and remember - while the republicans may not support this billl they still have their fat fingers in it.