BS: You and the stimulus plan

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 06:19 PM

Yes, we are paying for Ronald Reagan now!

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 04:21 PM

The triple dipper era was the Reagan years

All I know is that he villified welfare for the poor and popularized welfare for corporations, then out deficit spent the USSR into a financial hole.


Now it is our turn to climb out of that hole.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:29 PM

"Please explain what the "triple dipper recession" was."

             The one that lasted from 1981 through 1985.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:24 AM

Stimulus can come in many forms other than money.

Ethical stimulus can come in the form of executing Wall Street CEO's for ruining the world's economy.
Not all bankers should be killed, just two the way China executed the CEOs who put melamine in milk to pass a protein test on thier inferior products.

Hang one banker from the big board at the NYSE and blow another one up at next years super bowl at half time.

They would die in the name of change as heros.

It would be a bargain, and we all love bargains.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 09:51 AM

A Federal beaurocrat's look behind the scenes of getting out the stimulus plan;



A call comes in at 2PM Tue. The agency staff are notified at 4 PM that 80 million dollars is to be disseminated. All proposals are to include an 11 point ten page explanation of the merits of the research and prevention education types of grants.

The proposals are due at 9 AM Wed. so that Obama can mention specific programs of stimulus at the Thursday budget speech.

Due to the dedication of the staff 2 proposals made it in on time.
HSS, CDC, NIH, OSH proposals will be decided upon by noon today.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 12:49 AM

Only the Chery 1.6 and 1.8 l. models are available at this time. Also remember that when emission controls and safety equipment are installed for North American sales, the fuel economy will be cut.
The Chery Cowin, their biggest seller, gets 37mpg with their diesel 2.4l. and manual transmission. The car at the auto show in Shanghai (1.3l. diesel-electric) was for show only. It might make a good golf cart.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 10:00 PM

If the Chery A3 hybrid, the one I linked to, doesn't get 94 mpg as they say it does, then they shouldn't say it does.

Okay, I'm the only one outraged by this kind of bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 09:33 PM

None of this has anything to do with the stimulus plan, except possibly China's, but a few words about Chery.
Chery already is a partner with Daimler-Chrysler in China. They have decided selling the Chery models in the U. S. is not economically feasible at this time.
Chery 'being sold all over the world' is misleading. Chery produced some 100,000 engines for use in Fiat cars, for models sold mostly in China, but some sold elsewhere.
Chery sold 50,000 cars abroad in 2006, but this has dropped with the recession. They will concentrate on their home market and on Brazil, where they have a factory (another factory planned for Argentina if they can get financing). Their other overseas markets are small. They are only the 4th largest auto producer in China.

Chery's new A3 model sedan, PinnFarina designed, is the first to receive 5-star auto safety standard and the first ESP-equipped. It would have been the first planned for North America. Their small SUV will be sold in Australia next year. None of their models gets anywhere near 100 mpg- 40 plus for their smaller ones. They plan an electric model, about 88mpg, a short range vehicle, but it has not been put on the market.

A couple of years ago, Bricklin tried to get financing for a joint project with Chery, but the project got nowhere. He talked of a 100mpg car, but that was just talk.

No sales yet in Europe or North America, but they are reported to be in talks with Ford, possibly about acquiring Saab.

Most of this is available from Automotive websites, Forbes.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 08:24 PM

Cancellation of the deal less than a month before production of the specific business plans to Congress is not new here?

I wish you or someone had told us at the time, so that the "selling" of the bailout could be made on relevant information, instead of bullshit like "We made them drive instead of fly to the hearing."

We give them billions to learn how to make "green" cars while not mentioning that we are depriving oursleves of 4 figure cars that go nearly 100 mpg. Sure maybe we love our autoworkers and all that, and want to make the decision that way, but the show is a sham.

The Chinese cars, now being sold all over the world, but not to us, are not good enough maybe, but they were planning to sell them to us?

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 08:13 PM

The possibility of Chrysler selling the Chery in the U. S. has been booted about in the news since 2007. Nothing new here.
Forbes reports that the deal is now dead. Both Chery and Chrysler are in dire straits. Chrysler and Chery cannot afford to engineer the car for the American market or to set up financing for marketing, quality control, dealerships, polution controls, etc.

Chery has a loan from a Chinese bank and will concentrate on building its home market. At one time, it considered buying a stake in Daimler-Chrysler but can't afford to.
See Forbes report, "Chrysler Squashes Chery Deal," Tim Wang, 12.09.08.

www.forbes.com/2008/12/09/chrysler-chery-ford-markets-equity-cx_twdd_1209markets4.html

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 05:06 PM

Our world class journalists made sure we were all well informed that the automakers have corporate jets goodness gracious what an outrage, but I'll be hornswaggled if any of them told us that Chrysler was going to use bailout money to buy Chinese cars and then sell them to us, and were still contracted to do this until AFTER they were instructed by Congress to submit specific business plans for public perusal.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 04:50 PM

Oh, apparently they called it off in late November, 2008. (By coincidence, Chrysler had to present its bailout business plan to Congress on December 4, 2008.)

Fact of the matter is, though, that those cars are out there, going (almost) all over the world. Except here, I guess. For now.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 04:17 PM

They're coming to America via a contract with Chrysler, which can buy them from the Chinese and sell them to us.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 03:54 PM

Oh you mean the link doesn't work?
Try this:
http://www.channel4.com/4car/gl/gallery/gallery/10379/10

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 03:45 PM

?

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 03:39 PM

Why didn't anyone tell us about the Chery when we were passing out tens of billions to the carmakers, to like, uh, go green or whatever they plan to do?

Does Obama want me to pay five figures for a Ford piece of crap, out of loyalty to the financial sector, or an RV in support of the stimulus, or does he want me to pay to pay four figures to get a cute little car that gets 95 miles per gallon out of loyalty to the planet? Oh what a dilemma. Check it out: Chery

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: pdq
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 09:47 PM

Perhaps he meant "trip the Gipper recession"?

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 09:16 PM

Please explain what the "triple dipper recession" was.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 08:33 PM

Much of what Buchanan says is true.

Harding and Coolidge built on strengths- industry and capital. Much denigrated by the Left, they were true capitalists. Hoover lost perspective, proposing plans implemented unsuccessfully by Roosevelt.

Roosevelt put people to work, but not on jobs that would build the economy, hence stagnation until the war required industrial growth.

Reagan cut taxes, but he also was a big spender. His legacy is mixed.

It would take a few years to return to a reasonable level of prosperity if industry and capital were encouraged in the major countries of the world (The U. S. cannot cure itself by itself), but the current tendency to throw money into a bottomless pit seems to be worldwide.

Unfortunately, the Obama Democrats are headed in the wrong direction.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 07:04 PM

Ronald Reagan caused the triple dipper recession of the 1980's. There was no recovery until that foolish fossil was long out of office!

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: pdq
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 06:31 PM

Obama's Choice: FDR or Reagan

By Patrick Buchanan

Barack Obama, it is said, will inherit the worst times since the Great Depression. Not to minimize the crisis we are in, but we need a little perspective here.

The Great Depression began with the Great Crash of 1929. By 1931, unemployment had reached 16 percent.

By 1933, 89 percent of stock value had been wiped out, the economy had shrunk by one-third, thousands of banks had closed, a third of the money supply had vanished, and unemployment had reached 25 percent -- among heads of households. And in those days, there was no unemployment insurance, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no Social Security, no welfare.


FDR's answer: vast federal spending, tough new regulations on business and higher taxes -- like Herbert Hoover before him, only more so.

The Depression lasted until war orders from the Allies brought U.S. industry back to life. Before 1940, not once did unemployment fall below 14 percent. In May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. ... I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt, to boot."

Politically, the New Deal was a smashing success, with FDR's landslides in 1932, 1934 and 1936 virtually wiping out the GOP.

Yet, economically, the New Deal was a bust, failing utterly to restore prosperity. Despite the indoctrination of generations of schoolchildren in New Deal propaganda, that is the hard truth.

Consider, now, how Ronald Reagan responded to the economic crisis of 1980, the worst since the Depression. In the "stagflation" of that Jimmy Carter era, interest rates had reached 21 percent and inflation 13 percent.

Reagan's answer was the tight money policy of Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and across-the-board tax cuts of 25 percent, while slashing the highest rates from 70 percent to 28 percent.

While unemployment hit 10 percent in 1982 and Reagan lost 26 House seats, in 1983 the tax cuts kicked in.

From there on out, it was boom times until Reagan rode off into the sunset, having created 20 million new jobs. "The Seven Fat Years," author Robert Bartley called them.

Reagan had followed the lead of Warren Harding and Cal Coolidge, who had cut Woodrow Wilson's wartime tax rates of near 70 percent to 25 percent, resulting in "The Roaring '20s," a time of unrivaled prosperity.

The JFK tax cuts of the 1960s, also a Reagan model, were equally successful.

Harding, Coolidge, JFK and Reagan all bet on the private sector as the engine of prosperity. All succeeded. Franklin Roosevelt bet on government. And the New Deal failed. It was World War II that pulled the United States out of the Depression ditch of the 1930s.

Comes now the financial collapse and economic crisis of 2008, inherited by Obama, with 40 percent of all stock values wiped out in a year, foreclosures pandemic, and unemployment near 7 percent and surging.

In crafting his solutions, Obama seems to be brushing aside the Reagan, JFK and Harding-Coolidge models, and channeling FDR and the New Deal Democrats.

Already staring at a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit for the year ending Sept. 30, about 8 percent of the entire U.S. economy, Obama intends to add a stimulus package of $700 billion to $1 trillion, yet another 5 percent to 7 percent of gross domestic product. The resulting deficit would be twice as large as Reagan's largest, 6 percent of GDP, which was the largest since World War II.

And how is this Niagara of money to be spent?

Hundreds of billions will go out in checks of $500 to $1,000 to wage-earners and individuals who do not even pay taxes. This is much like the George McGovern "demogrant" program of 1972, where every man, woman and child, if memory serves, was to get a $1,000 check from the U.S. government.

Other hundreds of billions will go to shore up state and municipal spending. Other hundreds of billions will go for "infrastructure" projects, another name for earmarks, which is a synonym for pork.

Now, as Obama does not intend to raise taxes, at least now, he is going to have to borrow this near $2 trillion from foreigners or U.S. taxpayers, or the Fed will have to create the money. Undeniably, this will have an impact upon the economy. But what will that impact be?

Where in history, other than World War II, is there evidence that such a mass infusion of spending restored prosperity?

Obama and the Democrats are taking a historic gamble, not only with their careers but with the country. If this monstrous stimulus package, plus the trillions in hot money, do not work; if the two ignite rampant inflation, rather than real growth, we are all out of options. The toolbox is empty.

And what will follow may truly resemble the 1930s.

    {Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.}

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 03:42 PM

Good cut-n-paste, PDQ, but quotation marks are also a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 02:08 PM

Forget high-speed rail. The bill will improve some roadbeds and signal operations in areas across the country, but high-speed rail lines in North America (China, Japan, France and Germany have at least one line operational) are many years in the future.

When the money is divided up among the regions (see map in NY Times today), it will lead to improvements on some major corridors but not one 'bullet' train is envisioned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/20rail.html?th&emc=th

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: pdq
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 01:05 PM

"this train is bound for glory, this train...", er, well, maybe not...

Harry Reid's high-speed gambling train

Just two days after President Obama told the American people the economic stimulus bill will have "no earmarks", the Associated Press reports that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is telling his constituents in Nevada that he has personally worked out a deal as part of the House-Senate conference committee to get them money for a high-speed gambling train.

In late-stage talks, Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pressed for $8 billion to construct high-speed rail lines, quadrupling the amount in the bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday. Reid's office issued a statement noting that a proposed Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas rail might get a big chunk of the money.

This of course exposes the little game the President is playing with the public. He tells everyone there are no earmarks in the bill but then turns around and either (a) gives the money to the states, which he knows will fund the earmarks, or (b) instructs his agencies to fund the earmarks directly. It's all very clever, if not deceptive.

Reid's high-speed gambling train not only violates the President's guiding principles for this bill, it also violates American taxpayers.
This so-called MagLev train (magnetic levitation) is estimated to cost $12 billion. Reid earmarked $45 million last year for the public transportation project from California to Las Vegas, which is in direct competition with a private high-speed train company, DesertXpress, which is building a train on a similar route with all private funding. It's not just an earmark, it's a job killing earmark.

Even a train that ran between L.A. and Vegas wouldn't guarantee financial success. Amtrak's Desert Wind between the two cities was canceled in 1997 because of low ridership. "I remain skeptical that there's sufficient demand to make it appear it could be a market success," said Martin Wachs at the Rand Corp. think tank. "And it would depend ultimately on the willingness of taxpayers to subsidize to some extent that service."

If it is not bad enough that this project represent a backdoor earmark as well as a complete boondoggle, it also runs contrary to the President's stated goal of preventing taxpayer money from being used for personal travel. Yesterday, the President blasted Wall Street executives for using TARP money to travel to …. where?  … wait for it … LAS VEGAS!

Obama, who has been mustering public support for economic stimulus legislation, said during a town hall meeting this week in Indiana that companies shouldn't hold such events at taxpayers' expense.

"You can't get corporate jets, you can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime," Obama said.

The President has a point that taxpayer money should not be used to pay for Wall Street fat cats to fly to Las Vegas but why is okay for taxpayer money to be used to help pay for Hollywood elites get there on a fancy gambling train? And why are we subsidizing leisure in a stimulus bill rather than encouraging work and greater productivity?

It is outrageous that the President and Reid have cut this backroom deal. Apparently they believe the motto "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" also applies to House-Senate conference committees.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 12:52 PM

In order to do what Harry Reid wants, it would have to run from LA to Vegas. Does that qualify?

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 12:38 PM

But they almost tripled the allocation for high speed and inter-city rail to around 8 billion, I think. Nevada/Vegas will need to persuade the DOT, competing with other proposals.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 12:26 PM

"There is a mass transit stimulus but no Vegas train."


                  Donuel - Is it true there is no Vegas train. I listened to Sean Hannity a few days ago and it seemed like he mentioned that train every 15 seconds or so.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 11:12 AM

SRS, that's the mayors' wish list and doesn't appear to have much to do with the president's plan.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 10:39 AM

In general I have found that what Republicans are saying is in the stimulus bill and what actually is in the bill are invariably one step beyond ingenuous.

There is a mass transit stimulus but no Vegas train.

When Lady bird Johnson tried to spruce up DC it was called a beauftification project. Today something similar is called a waste of millions on grass seed.

When Republican Committee chairman says " Lets get this straight once and for all, the goverment has never in the history of mankind ever... ever... created jobs!"

Are there really people who overlook his job or the millions of other goverment jobs, or even the invention of the computer by the US dept of Standards   and believe one word of thier empty meaningless lies?


Sometimes I am tempted to help clean up the gene pool myself, but that is exactly how "real Americans" feel everytime a new war is rolled out to bless and salute.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 10:31 AM

It looks like the senators from Maine sold out pretty cheap!

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 10:23 AM

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 09:56 AM

Since it is my wife's job to approve or remove goverment medical research programs, you can imagine the increased work load that the stimulus bill is causing. After 2 attempts to structure the most most rapid and efficient way to get the money into the system the OMB has defied any quick means of getting the money into programs and has ruled that all stimulus money will be structured under standard procurement practices. That means it will take a year or more to fund new and and approved research.
However certain institutions that already have a relationship with goverment funding will get to the trough first. Kinda reminds me of the rationale for Halliburton.

In the general society the stimulus for people to buy a new car will be about $150. The stimulus to insulate your home will be a tax credit come 2010.

We will need new laws to assist home owners with solar tech.

In short the stimulus is years away for everyone except the very well connected.

With only a quarter of the stimulus going toward Main street thus far we can expect another 2 or three attempts to avert a 15 to 20 year slump in all economies.


It looks like there is a run on citi group and Bank of America today.


btw many of our goverment agencies are still working under a cotinuing resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 08:44 AM

Now that the stimulus package has been enacted by Congress, the question remains, who was it designed to help? The House mandated that projects using stimulus money would have to use the E-Verify system for the purpose of ensuring that people employed under the program were legal to live and work in the country. The Senate version took E-Verify out and efforts by the joint conference committee to put it back in were unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has delayed implementation of a rule that would have required federal contractors to use E-Verify, and the president further indicates he will happily sign the stimulus bill as is.
        What this tells those of us who follow such things is, both Congress and the new administration intend for the stimulus money to go to people who are not legally here and who will gleefully send 80% of their earnings out of the country. Now, if we only knew where all of that money will end up, American taxpayers could go there and be stimulated.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 03:23 AM

The closest I've been able to find for a "final" bill is the bill sent back to both houses by the Conference Committee. That should be close to what at least the first round of votes was on. There generally aren't amendments to the committe haggle. It's either accepted or rejected. That it passed probably means very few changes, if any were made.

The Committee version is at Huffington now -- dated 12 FEb, not the same thing linked up above.

To get the full "Committee version" you have to download 4 pdf files, total about 52 MB, so it might be as well to wait until the gpo gets the whole-and-really-final-version online. The Committee version is a markup, with a few "graphics" showing where the red-pencil marks were embedded, so a plain text version could be a little smaller but probably not much.

Reports are that Obama will arrive in Denver on Tuesday, and will sign it "in Denver;" but the reports I've seen don't indicate just how long he'll be in Denver, so it's not necessarily a done deal on Tuesday, but that would be a good place to put your money in the pool at the office.

John

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 01:13 AM

Exactly. A 'feel good' proposal.

A bill composed of many 'feel good' proposals.

I'm waiting for my little bit to buy a few bottles of single malt- and I'll feel even gooder!

(hic..)

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 12:54 AM

July 09, 2008 NBC

PONTIAC, Mich -- In response to a question about the economic stimulus checks administered by the U.S. government earlier this year, Michelle Obama said her husband believes that short-term fixes don't solve economic problems.

"You're getting $600," she told an audience of mostly African-American women here. "What can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month."

"Barack's approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good," she continued. "And it may even feel good that first month when you get that check. And then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings,"

$13 x 52 weeks= $676

Change we can believe in?

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,Susu's Hubby
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 09:05 PM

Let's get it done now.....wait, it's done?.....I'll sign when vacation's over!


You gotta laugh at stuff like this!

Yeah...he's concerned.

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:50 PM

DEBT LIMIT INCREASE
The bill increases the statutory limit on the national debt by $789 billion, to $12.1 trillion.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: pdq
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:06 PM

Recovery Bill Gets Final Approval

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: February 13, 2009

WASHINGTON — Congress on Friday approved a $787 billion economic stimulus measure, meeting the crushing mid-February deadline that Democrats had set for adopting the centerpiece of President Obama's early agenda but without quelling partisan divisions in Washington. Not a single House Republican voted for the bill.

The House vote was 246 to 183, with just 7 Democrats joining all 176 Republicans in opposition. In the Senate, the vote, 60 to 38, was similarly partisan. Only 3 centrist Republicans joined 55 Democrats and 2 independents in favor.

The Senate finally adopted the bill at 10:47 p.m. after what appeared to be the longest Congressional vote in history. The peculiar 5-hour 17-minute process was required because Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, had to return to Washington from his home state after attending a funeral home visitation for his mother, who died Feb. 2.

Under a procedural deal between the parties, the bill needed 60 votes to pass. The vote began at 5:30 p.m., but from 7:07 p.m., when Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, cast his "aye," the tally hung at 59 to 38, until Mr. Brown arrived.

Mr. Obama is expected to sign the bill on Monday.

Among the senators voting against it was Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, who withdrew this week as the president's nominee for commerce secretary.

Despite the bill's promise of increased unemployment benefits and new health care subsidies, as well as more than $100 billion in aid for states, House Republicans did not break rank. Even those from states hit hardest by the recession opposed the bill, in a rebuke of the new president.

During the debate, the Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, angrily dropped the 1,073-page bill text to the floor with a thump, as he accused Democrats of failing to read the legislation.

"The president made clear when we started this process that this was about jobs," Mr. Boehner said after the vote. "Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. And what it's turned into is nothing more than spending, spending and more spending."

The $787 billion plan — a combination of fast-acting tax cuts and longer-term government spending on public works projects, education, health care, energy and technology — was smaller than Democrats first proposed. But, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, more than 74 percent of the money will be spent within the next 18 months, a relatively rapid pace that could determine whether the plan succeeds.

The House voted in the afternoon, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrats cheered on the floor. Ms. Pelosi handed out chocolate bars to her committee chairmen. The label showed a picture of the Capitol and read, "A stimulus package we can all sink our teeth into."

At a news conference, Ms. Pelosi and her top lieutenants praised Mr. Obama for completing the legislation so quickly.

"The president requested swift, bold action," Ms. Pelosi said. "The American people are feeling a great deal of pain. They have uncertainty about their jobs, about health care, about the ability to pay for the education of their children, and sad to say in our great country, even to put food on the table. And today we have passed legislation that does take that swift, bold action on their behalf."

Just four weeks into Mr. Obama's presidency, the Democrats boasted that they had already approved three major bills: a measure to curb pay-discrimination against women in the workplace, a broad expansion of the state children's health insurance program and the stimulus.

"We have yet to pass the 30th day of this administration," said the House majority leader, Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland. "And we have passed historic legislation."

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 01:40 PM

You are right JTS. It does not fit the definiton of tricledown economics.

What I meant to imply, rather abstractly is that this stimulus plan sounds as workable to me as trickledown economics.

If any of this money is ever regained by the government, whatever reduction in the national debt it by cause, it will have cost a lot in interest and eventually it will cause inflation down the road that will more that offset any gains it affords to the poor and middle class.

Only the wealthy will not be harmed by the future inflation it will cause.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 03:10 PM

OK, thanks...very unlikely to get out of committee.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 03:06 PM

The article is in the online Santa Fe New Mexican, Feb. 14. I looked at the headline and didn't read it so I was partly wrong- they are considering increasing the excise tax from 3% to 4% of the value of new cars.
"Two Proposals would tax car owners," Kate Nash, The New Mexican, 2/13/2009.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Two-proposals-would-tax-car-owners

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 02:42 PM

Well, I really can't find anything on line or in the news about an increase in vehicle sales taxes in New Mexico, and I live there.   Of course, the legislature is now in session, and lots of things get proposed that never see the light of day. I'd personally think that a regressive tax based upon weight and horsepower would be a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:18 PM

$14 billion for special ed!

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: pdq
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:14 PM

"New Mexico Legislature is moving to increase taxes on vehicles. Other states will probably follow."

Oh, wonderful. An increase in sales tax supresses car sales. It has been demonstrated many times. After all, a $30,000 vehicle will cost the buyer between $2000 and $3000 in sales tax depending on the state where sold.

States like California extract an annual registration fee that is huge, seeming punative.

In Nevada, I just re-registered my old car for "$33.00 REG FEE and $11.00 BASIC GOV SVCS TAX", unquote. Quite resonable.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:03 PM

Later, Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:01 PM

Oh, crap. I'm about a third of the way through it, this one (there's nothing about a Vegas train in it):

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/hr1_engrossed.pdf

which is 680 pages. (It's not as bad as it sounds - there are only 25 lines per page.)

Can't opine yet of course, but I am liking it a lot more than what is described in newspapers. (The first nations stuff I've seen is all about direct spending on infrastucture, housing, education and health care.)


Guess I had better wait for the one with the 400 pages of extra crap.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 12:58 PM

I could read the text of the entire stimulus bill and attempt to understand it......(and probably fail utterly in that attempt)....and then opinionate forcefully here about it for days and days!

Or I could do something that actually is useful in my real life...like shovel off the front walk, or get the books up to date in my business.

See ya later, I guess. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 12:38 PM

Not the final, Heric- only 647 pages, and the final passed bill is over 1000 pages.

A peculiar clause authorizes payment of state and local taxes on new vehicles (including recreational, SUV and light trucks).
This can be used by the states to fiddle more tax money. New Mexico Legislature is moving to increase taxes on vehicles. Other states will probably follow.
Some measures like this one do not seem to have limits that confine them to the operational time of the bill.

Much will go towards highways and bridges. This will help contractors (who already have crews). Doubtful that any real increase in employment wil result and most of that will be temporary.

The health portion provides some relief, but no universal health care on the horizon.

I was wrong, even the Marx Brothers couldn't have conceived of such wacky legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 12:07 PM

Here you go Q, the entire thing online .

Apparently there is even a line that says "None if this money can go to Blago."