Stimulus is Too Heavy on Spending, Says Growing Number of Senators

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 007, Feb 1, 2009.

  1. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,604
    Thanks Received:
    7,922
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,237
    Stimulus is Too Heavy on Spending, Says Growing Number of Senators




    Some Senate Democrats are joining the Republican chorus in opposition to the $900 billion economic stimulus package.


    President Obama is stressing bipartisanship when it comes to the $900 billion economic stimulus plan being considered in the Senate, and he may get it -- in unity of opposition.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he "can't believe that the president isn't embarrassed about" the stimulus packages that have passed the House and the Senate appropriations and finance committees.

    The Senate is set to take up debate on the plan Monday afternoon. Republicans insist it won't go through in its current form.

    "It'll need to change if it'll do any good. I mean, things like $150 million honey bee insurance and $650 million to buy government employees cars is not what the American public had in mind," McConnell said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

    Stimulus is Too Heavy on Spending, Says Growing Number of Senators - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    It's about 900 billion to heavy in fact.
     
  3. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    Xen

    Now I cannot say that... any spending dealing with true infrastructure etc, that is not incredibly abnormal, would not be bad... but then again, I don't consider ATV parks 'infrastructure'...

    This is not a 'stimulus' bill.. it is a bill to get thru all of the pork that the DEMs have wanted... and pork is going to get us nowhere except for a place worse than we are today
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    The economy cannot absorb a high enough amount of money in purely infrastructure improvements in the first two (or even 3) years. Infrastructure improvement take time to get off the ground. In order to stimulate, money will have to be spent in other ways, such as support to state and local governments. Buying cars for the US government, for instance, provides a stimulus to the automotive industry and presumably increases the efficiency of the government automotive fleet. Building an ATV park sounds silly, but perhaps that creates a number of jobs. The "what" it is spent on matters less (all things considered) than the bang for the buck that comes out of it in job creation.

    Step 1: Stop the bleeding.
     
  5. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    If they really wanted an 'automotive stimulus' and were not all consumed with the power they could influence, there was a simpler way to do it... use them money to provide back or cut the taxes of the citizen taxpayer, and provide a tax free purchase of an American car... would have benefited the taxpayer and would have directly benefited the auto companies... but no, it was not about 'stimulus', it was and is about power and growing government bureaucracy

    Some basic infrastructure improvements do not take a ton of time.. but things like new bridges etc, do... but this 'stimulus' bill is not concerned about time anyway... as the majority of the funding will not be spent until well later

    The 'what' matters a great deal.. as government has no business being involved with more and more things... government needs to trim spending and trim areas it has an imprint on.. needs to be less wasteful and to focus on the core of government... highway improvement/repair... OK... stimulate with jobs and all on that.. ATV parks and honeybee crap, no fuggin way
     
  6. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    A tax refund on the purchase of a new car would be a stimulus measure. Perhaps it will find its way into the bill. General reductions in taxation appear (from the studies that I have seen referenced) to provide less bang for the buck than spending.

    There are immediate stimulus measures and those that take some time. Some of the infrastructure improvements will take time, but may be necessary regardless - immediate stimulus or no.

    When you say government has no business being involved with more and more things, that is a political perspective that some don't agree with. Stimulus can take place in the context of an expanded government, and if the party in power believes that an expanded government is necessary for the social good, then that is the manner in which stimulus dollars will be spent. What you perceive as the "core" of government will not be consistent with what others believe should be the "core" of government activity. Economic stimulation is not the only thing government is concerned with.

    If $1 of honeybee insurance provide a greater amount of stimulus than $1 of tax cuts, then why not? I don't know that it does, but I doubt few people really do. It very well could.
     
  7. PubliusInfinitum
    Offline

    PubliusInfinitum BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,805
    Thanks Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +726
    This bill is theft, pure and simple...

    .12 cents on the dollar are dedicated to something which will be spent this year and which could be arguably said to represent something 'stimulus' oriented... the rest is little more than a socialist pork orgy, a poorly disguised transfer of wealth.

    As I said many times... all the cacophonous rage spewed by the democrats (the left) referencing 'fiscal discipline' or other such crying regarding 'spending' by the Bush administration was NEVER about 'sending per se... IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT WHERE THE MONEY WAS BEING SPENT.

    They didn't like it that so much money was being spent on national defense... AGAIN! They were NOT pissed that it was being spent, JUST THAT IT WASN'T BEING SPENT ON THE FOOLISHNESS INHERENT IN LEFTIST POLICY FAILURES.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2009
  8. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    If impact is less in one possible area than another, but that area is in the core responsibility of government.. I support that over something with more impact but involving expanded government... there are many MORE things that could theoretically provide even more 'impact' on the economy... but if government was not mean to be in that area, government still should not get it's hands into that area...

    Just because we CAN do something does not mean we SHOULD do it... government has the power to do much more than what it was intended to do... and IMHO, and the opinions of many others in this country, that is a bad thing
     
  9. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Good point----if it had been spent on soemthing like saving the polar bears, all would have been fine.
     
  10. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    What areas the government is mean to be involved in is essentially a political decision (and a legal question at the margins). The politicians in Washington will ultimately make that decision.

    There is little in the stimulus bill that I see that represents an overhaul of the populaces relationship with government in the way that the New Deal was. It seems relatively modest in that respect (no universal healthcare for instance). Beyond that, if the emphasis is on bang for the buck, whether it be honeybee farms or ATV tracks, I think I am okay with that.

    Do I suspect that 100 disinterested economists over three months could come up with a better bill? Yes. Unfortunately, we are stuck with 535 members of Congress. As a result, whether drafted by Republicans or Democrats or both, the bill will be less than it could be.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content