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

[Ravi]

Who knows why they are voting against it. But, you know what Senator Dirksen said, "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon, you're talking real money!"

Let's see less than 1%. In this package, that's 9 Billion dollars. Some people might consider that real money. But, in the vast scheme of things, I hope they are opposing it because they know that we are going to have 20% inflation in 2 years if they spend it.

That isn't what they are saying. They've nit picked out the two items the guy complains about in the linked article and three or four more. And yes, money is money, but it makes no sense to totally oppose something based on less than one-half of one percent.

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE): Spending In Stimulus Bill "Don't Really Seem To Be Truly Stimulus, But They Would Constitute Spending." "But other elements of the bill such as $1.1 billion allotted for medical research are troublesome, said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat. 'They don't really seem to be truly stimulus, but they would constitute spending,' said Nelson, who said he wanted to see more jobs created." (Anna Jo Bratton, "Neb. Senators Not Sure On Support Of Stimulus Plan," The Associated Press, 1/29/09)

I think they are saying this too. This would be from Ben Nelson, but I got it off Eric Cantor's web site (Republican Whip).

And there are a few more. But again, the objected portions of the bill add up to less than one-half of one percent.

 

[Tech_Esq]

That isn't what they are saying. They've nit picked out the two items the guy complains about in the linked article and three or four more. And yes, money is money, but it makes no sense to totally oppose something based on less than one-half of one percent.

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE): Spending In Stimulus Bill "Don't Really Seem To Be Truly Stimulus, But They Would Constitute Spending." "But other elements of the bill such as $1.1 billion allotted for medical research are troublesome, said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat. 'They don't really seem to be truly stimulus, but they would constitute spending,' said Nelson, who said he wanted to see more jobs created." (Anna Jo Bratton, "Neb. Senators Not Sure On Support Of Stimulus Plan," The Associated Press, 1/29/09)

I think they are saying this too. This would be from Ben Nelson, but I got it off Eric Cantor's web site (Republican Whip).

And there are a few more. But again, the objected portions of the bill add up to less than one-half of one percent.

Between just that item and the ACORN payoff, that's at least 1/2 of 1%.

So, I'm thinking you don't have the full story.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Republicans are voting against it because it contains a few spending items that they disagree with. What they disagree with adds up to less than half of 1% of the entire package.

Oh I expect that's right for Snow and Collin's... But "Republicans' is a tad broad... Given that not ONE Republican voted for it in the house... of course that was a BI-PARTISAN DISSENT... with over a DOZEN Democrats also voting against the house bill.

The Stimulus Bill (infrastructure) shouldn't be more than 30 Billion and it should be spent over the next 6 months.

Everything else is theft...

 

[Zoomie1980]

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

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.

Expanded government has NEVER stimulated anything at any time in modern history. Mainly because for government to expand it has to take money OUT OF the MUCH MORE EFFICIENT private sector.

If the line item of the bill is not a DIRECT stimulus item that results in a near IMMEDIATE, and QUANTIFIABLE stimulus, such as a direct check to somebody, or funding of shovel ready infrastructure project that is already fully engineered, contracts in place right now, or a direct tax credit to buy something to start something up, then it has NO BUSINESS being in THIS bill.

All social spending items with no direct impact can go through the normal vetting process of full committee hearings and floor debate as well as all infrastructure projects that will not result in a direct shovel in the ground at the moment of passage. No tax cut that has to wait for filing some time next year needs be in it either, only an immediate direct payment to someone, NOW.

Bottom line, 650 billion plus needs to be striken from this bill before passage. The rest, if viable and needed can wait to go through the full vetting processes of a normal bill.

 

[oreo]

Where is the alternative energy -- that we were promised by "both sides" during the Presidential campaign? It's not in this bill.

Instead of giving us roads & bridges, something we already have, why not give us something we don't have--alternative energy--that they--including Barack Obama--promised to us, over & over again.

If they're going to spend our children & grandchildren's future it might as well benefit them also. Alternative energy would benefit future generations.

 

[oreo]

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

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.

Expanded government has NEVER stimulated anything at any time in modern history. Mainly because for government to expand it has to take money OUT OF the MUCH MORE EFFICIENT private sector.

If the line item of the bill is not a DIRECT stimulus item that results in a near IMMEDIATE, and QUANTIFIABLE stimulus, such as a direct check to somebody, or funding of shovel ready infrastructure project that is already fully engineered, contracts in place right now, or a direct tax credit to buy something to start something up, then it has NO BUSINESS being in THIS bill.

All social spending items with no direct impact can go through the normal vetting process of full committee hearings and floor debate as well as all infrastructure projects that will not result in a direct shovel in the ground at the moment of passage. No tax cut that has to wait for filing some time next year needs be in it either, only an immediate direct payment to someone, NOW.

Bottom line, 650 billion plus needs to be striken from this bill before passage. The rest, if viable and needed can wait to go through the full vetting processes of a normal bill.

100% agreed--Just a smidgen of this money is due to be spent this year--the rest "very gradually" over the next several years. It's nothing more than a 15 year "wish" list of the democrat party--designed for more social programs which will eventually lead us to socialism.

Now ask France, a socialist country what their unemployment rate is? During good economic times it's 12%. If they really wanted to get Americans back to work, they would immediately lower "everyones taxes"--bring down the corporate tax rate, which is obscene at 35%--the highest in the world. Then offer low 30 year fixed mortgage rates to Americans who have maintained a good credit rating & actually have the proven income to re-pay the loans.

These 3 simple moves--would eliminate the need for any stimulus bill. Our government won't do this, because they want "control" over our money--our children & grandchildren's money too.