10 Reasons To Oppose Stimulus Package

Green P1 · February 10, 2009

It's time for the elimination of these threads. They are too dangerous. How many examples do we have to see? I read the internet all day and I've seen it over and over again. It won't get better until we complete eradicate the site of these dangerous threads.

Agreed. My calls for this thread to be LOCKED have, up until now, fallen on deaf ears.

oldguystudent · February 10, 2009

here is another non-stimulating portion of the spending package.
Link

Even government spending on golf carts increases GDP. I'm really trying to come to grips with how just writing checks to people and letting them spend it overseas is helpful.

February 10, 2009

Even government spending on golf carts increases GDP. I'm really trying to come to grips with how just writing checks to people and letting them spend it overseas is helpful.

Because in the awesome free market world, exporting jobs to India and China frees up resources here for innovation and creation. However, if we don't have jobs to fund these ventures, what is the point? As long as the board of directors and investors are happy with the profit, keep all manufacturing and labor in foreign countries... it makes investors rich. But damn, you need the money to invest to make money on that... if you don't have that, where can you get the money if your job is exported? Corporate ethics is awesome. It is my favorite topic.

Censored by Laurie · February 10, 2009

It's time for the elimination of these threads. They are too dangerous. How many examples do we have to see? I read the internet all day and I've seen it over and over again. It won't get better until we complete eradicate the site of these dangerous threads.

You need to find some disgusting pictures of what these kinds of threads can do to cute children.

That would really hammer the point home while also giving you an aire of heroism.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Censored by Laurie

Quoner · February 10, 2009

You need to find some disgusting pictures of what these kinds of threads can do to cute children.
That would really hammer the point home while also giving you an aire of heroism.

Eagle1855 · February 10, 2009

How long must this go on? How many more children will be affected?

yyz28 · February 10, 2009

How many more children will be affected?

Eleven. Hardly a National Crisis.

UNTflyer · February 11, 2009

How long must this go on? How many more children will be affected?

meangreendork · February 11, 2009

Back to the topic at hand, I've got a question for the tax cut people who favor the trickle down theory. You state that the wealthy do not sit on their money, but rather invest it therefore creating jobs and growing the economy. My question is with whom they invest and whose economy they grow. Examples abound of outsourcing by large companies, generally the target of wealthy investors. The companies send their cash to overseas production plants, thus increasing GNP, but doing nothing for GDP. How does this help those people in our own country waiting for those trickle down jobs and dollars? Not everybody can be a significant shareholder.
This is admittedly a result of my wandering mind while sitting in Macro 1110 this morning, so it is not meant to snark or challenge. I most assuredly do not have the answers.

Ideally, that would cause people in that country to trade more with the US. However, that's not always the case. Actually, that same problem with money being taken by out-of-state and out-of-country contractors was one of the reasons I was strongly against the TTC project. Hopefully, we'll see the money saved in tax cuts spent in the US on American jobs. I'd really like to see some way of ensuring this.

On the other hand, the economic crunch is also something that's international, and we also know that international markets have a lot to do with our own.

UNTflyer · February 11, 2009

Back to the topic at hand, I've got a question for the tax cut people who favor the trickle down theory. You state that the wealthy do not sit on their money, but rather invest it therefore creating jobs and growing the economy. My question is with whom they invest and whose economy they grow. Examples abound of outsourcing by large companies, generally the target of wealthy investors. The companies send their cash to overseas production plants, thus increasing GNP, but doing nothing for GDP. How does this help those people in our own country waiting for those trickle down jobs and dollars? Not everybody can be a significant shareholder.
This is admittedly a result of my wandering mind while sitting in Macro 1110 this morning, so it is not meant to snark or challenge. I most assuredly do not have the answers.

Outsourcing benefits all of us.

By creating larger profit as a result of outsourcing menial or repetitive labor, companies are free to re-invest those profits by either expanding skilled production or expanding their product lines. Either way, it increases shareholder value. Yeah, jobs are lost but we also help create better jobs. In America, we no longer make tennis shoes or Christmas lights or cheap t-shirts. We make jumbo jets, cargo ships, communications systems, and financial services.

As for the trickle down theory, yes I do believe in trickle down economics (Reaganomics). However, it must be considered in context. At the time of Reagan's economic proposals, interest rates were at 20% (imagine that!), inflation was 13%, and unemployment was 10%.

I will just copy and paste the highlights of the Reagan-Bush years:

"...across-the-board tax rate reduction and deregulation brought on an economic boom that created 19 million jobs in the ’80s and 20 million more in the ’90s. There were 92 months of uninterrupted economic growth, interest rates dropped to single digits, inflation dropped to 3 percent and then lower, family median income rose 11.3 percent and Treasury revenues nearly doubled from $550 billion in ’81 to $991 billion in ’89."

Now, would Reaganomics work today? I don't know. History does show that tax rate cuts do have a positive effect on GDP and Treasury revenue, however it is very difficult to hit the sweet spot on the Laffer Curve where the perfect tax rate encourages economic growth and therefore generates the highest tax revenue.

eulesseagle · February 11, 2009

Facts

Say No to Senate “Compromise”

The so-called “compromise” negotiated by Sens. Ben Nelson and Susan Collins is almost as bad as earlier versions of the stimulus.

The bill is touted as costing “only” $780 billion, with every penny borrowed, which would still be the largest debt bill in history.

The actual cost of the bill, however, is even higher! Other amendments already passed by the Senate will raise the cost of the Nelson-Collins plan to $827 billion, which is $8 billion more than Nancy Pelosi's version that passed the House!

The changes made are not decreases in spending, just slightly smaller increases. Sen. Harry Reid himself pointed out that all of the spending in this bill is new spending.

Even the modest changes are likely to be reversed in conference committee. Sen. Carl Levin was already on the record calling for adding back more spending in conference minutes after the “compromise” was announced.

President Obama promised the federal government would be more open and transparent, and that all legislation would be available for 5 days of public review. Can't we slow down and properly evaluate a measure that will (including interest) cost taxpayers over a trillion dollars?

What's Wrong with the Stimulus Bill?

The so-called “Stimulus Package” is being sold to taxpayers as an investment in useful infrastructure like roads and bridges. But the facts prove otherwise.

Only 3.6% of the scheme’s $825 billion price tag would actually go to real, practical infrastructure projects--roads and bridges.

Most of the other 96.4% would go to special interest pet projects, and to cramming years’ worth of radical policy changes into the single largest spending and debt scheme in history.

Even the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper of the economic impact of legislation, has said that it would, on balance, hurt the economy.

Why are our nation’s leaders doing this? Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel was strikingly honest when he said "Never let a serious crisis go to waste...it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." Exactly what fringe policies are big-government politicians attempting to ram through with this colossal bill?

Under the auspices of a “Comparative Effectiveness Review,” the package heavily funds the first steps towards the socialization and government-mandated rationing of health care. And this is just one of many government power grabs being shoehorned into the so-called “Stimulus Package.”

In fact, even by the most charitable estimates, the bill would force taxpayers to foot the bill for at least 600,000 new government bureaucrats. That’s six tenths of a million more people on the government payroll -- adding little or no value to our economy and being paid with billions upon billions of your hard-earned tax dollars.

And just what sort of special interest giveaways and wasteful government spending are included in the so-called “Stimulus Package”? To name just a few...

- $4.19 billion in slush funds for ACORN, the left-wing advocacy group best known for allegations of voter fraud during the 2008 presidential campaign

- $600 million to buy brand new cars for government bureaucrats

- $335 million for adult sex workshops (one of the few line items which could conceivably deliver "stimulus" )

- $150 million for honeybee insurance

- $2.8 billion for the US Department of Agriculture in a misdirected program more likely be spent to build unnecessary broadband internet services in urban areas than in the rural areas that lack service.

These are just a few examples of the shameless feeding frenzy taking place in halls of Congress today with this so-called “Stimulus Package.”

This trillion-dollar debt and spending scheme will provide little or no stimulus, but will put each and every American household in at least $6,700 of new debt, to be paid by our children and grandchildren.

Spending Stimulus Can't Work

1. Every dollar the government spends comes from the private sector.

Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman famously said: "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Government spending is either financed through higher taxes, higher federal borrowing, or by printing money. Those are the only possibilities. They all create greater economic damage than any stimulus effect of new spending.

● Tax increases lower the incentive to work, save, and invest. There is a strong association between tax increases and reduced economic growth. In an economic crisis, tax hikes should be unthinkable. The Revenue Act of 1932 was one of the major reasons an economic crisis deepened into the Great Depression.

● Government borrowing also takes money out of the private economy—the money that bond purchasers hand over to the government in exchange for the bonds. That money could otherwise be used for business investment that would expand the economy’s productive capacity. If the funds are borrowed from abroad, our exports are lowered because U.S. dollars are being used to buy bonds instead of goods. Borrowed funds also have to be paid back, placing a burden on future taxpayers. Excessive borrowing also may increase interest rates, deepening the credit crisis.

● Inflation may be most damaging financing mechanism of all. If government spends money that it hasn’t taxed or borrowed, then it is literally creating money out of thin air. More dollars being created means that the dollars in our pockets and bank accounts are worth less than they were before. Inflation is a stealth tax that erodes the value of everything and destroys real economic growth.

2. History shows spending stimulus fails.

America experimented with large-scale expansions of government spending in the 1930s with the New Deal and again in the 1960s and 70s with the Great Society. These dramatic expansions of government spending coincided with economic failure. The long-boom that started under Reagan and continued until now with only a couple of brief, mild recessions coincided with a significant decline in federal spending as a percentage of the economy.

3. Infrastructure projects should be judged on their merits, but not as stimulus.

There is a role for government in providing certain public goods that the market cannot efficiently provide. If financing is available at favorable rates it may make sense to take a long-term view and begin projects that are legitimately justified on their merits. We should be under no misconception, however, that public works spending is stimulative, because borrowed dollars are taken out of the private sector.

Take Action!

Make an Impact

Join the more than 338,000 Americans who have already signed this petition! Socialized Health!

What does the so-called “stimulus package” mean for your health care? Hidden in the dark recesses of this monstrous spending bill are the first steps towards full-on health care socialism: Read More

Say What?

This plan is a significant down payment.

— President Barack Obama

Expert Analysis

The evidence that fiscal stimulus works is weak. Why risk such large amounts on a program with uncertain benefits, especially if the mechanisms to transmit those benefits to the economy are a bunch of pork barrel, second rate projects.

— Charles Reback, Assistant Professor, University of South Carolina Upstate

yyz28 · February 11, 2009

A healthy mix of well placed tax cuts including, but not limited to -

Suspension of or temp. MINIMUM 50% reduction of taxes on business.

Suspension of Capital Gains Tax

Elimination of the Death Tax

reduction in Sin Taxes

Meaningful tax cut for ALL tax payers

Combined with some regulatory chagnes -

Mark to Market needs to be wiped out

Raise the interest rates so banks can actually make some money on a loan

Spend the remaining TARP funds on the bad loans and assets the banks hold as he first half was supposed to be spent on

Mixed in with some good infrastructure spending -

Renew the Interstate system

Individual projects with Merit

Buy the 60,000 Hybrids to help GM

...and then let the free market shake itself out.

This is NOT the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. 78-81 was far worse, and we got through that without putting $10 Trillion in debt on our children's and grandchildren's sholders. This stimulus is a pork package, plain and simple. You may support what is in it because of your politics, and that's cool - but the social programs in this thing should be debated one at a time, not stuffed in a stimulus package.

oldguystudent · February 11, 2009

You may support what is in it because of your politics, and that's cool - but the social programs in this thing should be debated one at a time, not stuffed in a stimulus package.

That's what I'm looking for right there. I don't mind government spending that's actually going to send dollars into the economy a la improving the Interstate system. The entitlements, on the other hand, are an entirely different ball of wax. Food stamps do not create commerce. Those programs have their place, but not in a stimulus plan.

hickoryhouse · February 11, 2009

My question is why is there such a emphasis on getting this through so quickly if this is supposed to be an open and transparent government now. There are too many projects that are not stimulus related in this bill. They should all be debated on their own merits one at a time. Why in a transparent government is this not happening?

LongJim · February 11, 2009

How about this one?

"One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners...

...Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make."

LINK

hickoryhouse · February 11, 2009

How about this one?
"One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners...
...Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make."
LINK

The scary thing about that is that in the same book Tom Daschel says that a time of economic insecurity would be the perfect pace to put these measures into effect. In his estimation you could bury those health care measures into a spending or large budget bill and get it passed, He says that , and I am paraphrasing, that by burying it in a larger bill we can bypass the congressional system! That is exactly what is going on here, Especially the health care part of this bill should be for open public debate but because they buried deep in the back of a much larger bill it iwll never happen.. That is what i call transparency <sarcasm>

yyz28 · February 11, 2009

The scary thing about that is that in the same book Tom Daschel says that a time of economic insecurity would be the perfect pace to put these measures into effect. In his estimation you could bury those health care measures into a spending or large budget bill and get it passed, He says that , and I am paraphrasing, that by burying it in a larger bill we can bypass the congressional system! That is exactly what is going on here, Especially the health care part of this bill should be for open public debate but because they buried deep in the back of a much larger bill it iwll never happen.. That is what i call transparency <sarcasm>

In the same book, he also suggested it get pushed through quickly in a new Democrat administration while the new President is very poplular and has a lot of political capital. In addition, he suggests the bills be "vague" as to not work all the buerucratic detials in the legislation because that is what "doomed the attempt during the Clinton years."

I love it when socialists come right out and tell you what they are going to try and do... ...I just never figured we had an electorate that is so asleep they'll let it happen.

Quoner · February 11, 2009

In the same book, he also suggested it get pushed through quickly in a new Democrat administration while the new President is very poplular and has a lot of political capital. In addition, he suggests the bills be "vague" as to not work all the buerucratic detials in the legislation because that is what "doomed the attempt during the Clinton years."
I love it when socialists come right out and tell you what they are going to try and do... ...I just never figured we had an electorate that is so asleep they'll let it happen.

Despite positions that have been taking for comedic effect with varying results and resonance, I blame a lot of this crap going through squarely on Bush. He created the perfect storm for the last election to be a referendum on him and his failures rather than what is best for the country. Accountability for many of the folks who just voted is removing the old regime and assuming that nothing else could be much worse. We are reaping the failures of both sides right now - and spinning it any other way is just trying to save face for wherever you happen to fall.

Censored by Laurie · February 11, 2009

Despite positions that have been taking for comedic effect with varying results and resonance, I blame a lot of this crap going through squarely on Bush. He created the perfect storm for the last election to be a referendum on him and his failures rather than what is best for the country. Accountability for many of the folks who just voted is removing the old regime and assuming that nothing else could be much worse. We are reaping the failures of both sides right now - and spinning it any other way is just trying to save face for wherever you happen to fall.

4 straight bowl ga...whoa...what?

Quoner · February 11, 2009

4 straight bowl ga...whoa...what?

I never said I'd make it that easy.

hickoryhouse · February 11, 2009

Despite positions that have been taking for comedic effect with varying results and resonance, I blame a lot of this crap going through squarely on Bush. He created the perfect storm for the last election to be a referendum on him and his failures rather than what is best for the country. Accountability for many of the folks who just voted is removing the old regime and assuming that nothing else could be much worse. We are reaping the failures of both sides right now - and spinning it any other way is just trying to save face for wherever you happen to fall.

You have a great point. We did not vote as a country for anyone as much as we did against Bush. We will see what is going to come of this but the way it is shaping up right now it is going to get much much worse. Then i fear that in four years when we are still mired in this crap hole of an economy the cry coming up from the campaigns is going to be "look what Bush left us we haven't had a chance to get out of it" and because the electorate as a collective is ignorant and believes what ever comes out of the best campaigns spin doctors, I think that no matter what gets screwed up worse in the next several years that the only one held accountable in the court of public opinion is going to be Bush.

I don't however put all of the crap that we are in squarely on Bush's shoulders, though he does carry the blame for a large part of it. The economic policies that were started in the 70's with Carter and the Community Reinvestment act given more teeth by Clinton during his administration, that helped guide banks into making risky loans also carry a lot of this blame. To ignore those facts is in my opinion carrying the media inspired hatred of Bush to a point that it is blinding people to what is actually happening, and has already happened.

UNT90 · February 11, 2009

We always say things can't get worse. Well, they are about to. If 3 trillion in "stimulus" goes through, be prepared for a Dow at 5000, unemployment at 12%, interest rates at least in the teens, and inflation on the rise, ala 78-83. The difference will be that the federal govt will have their hand into every major financial business in the country and there will be no hope for recovery. We will then here "the only way is for the government to save you" yet again from these people, leading further down the path of socialism.

Let whatever Banks that did bad business fail. Remove any and all federal requirements mandating loans to the underpriveledge and allow the banks to make a profit-based decision on these types of loans. And for Pete's sake, stop with the gloom and doom "worse than the depression" talk. It's like they have never heard of consumer confidence. There is an index, you know!

The scary thing is they actually believe this is the right thing to do!