Comments on: What Republican Leaders Deem Wasteful in the Proposed Stimulus Plan – Do You Agree?

By: deepali

deepali — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:35:03 +0000

I don’t understand the “this is a spending bill, not stimulus” statements. How else do you stimulate the economy but by putting money into it?

I am biased, being a liberal libertarian, but I am frustrated by Republicans and conservative Democrats who are just railing at nothing and have not offered anything better. We know that spending provides more stimulus than tax cuts (multiplier effect), but the Senate takes out the things we KNOW will work (based on good evidence). So what is the point of this bill then?

I notice there is a lot of stuff on this list that’s federal spending for federal infrastructure. That’s arguably stimulus for DC, which doesn’t get to make its own budget and has to rely on stuff like this.

By: Chris at textadmarket

Chris at textadmarket — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 20:39:59 +0000

It still says a lot to me that they would give the auto makers such a runaround just a while back then have no problem handing over much, much more to people that don’t have as many jobs hanging in the balance.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:08:56 +0000

From this site:
http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/02/05/objections-to-dhs-funding-in-stimulus-bill-are-a-red-herring/

This line is misleadingly written:
$248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

Here is what the legislation actually says the DHS investment is for:

“ for the ‘‘Office of the Under Secretary for Management’’, $248,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011, solely for planning, design, and construction costs, including site security, information technology infrastructure, furniture, fixtures, and related costs to consolidate the Department of Homeland Security headquarters: Provided, That no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Administrator of General Services, shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives a plan for the expenditure of these funds.”

So clearly that $248M is meant for a lot more than just furniture. If they say its for furniture alone then it makes it sound like they’re spending a 1/4 billion on fancy chairs or something which isn’t the case.

By: don

don — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:02:04 +0000

“The list adds up to about $19 billion, or around 2% of the total proposed spending…………………But we’re still talking about $19 billion dollars. That’s more than the GDP of some small countries and U.S. states”

Just thinking out lout…….how much of this $19 billion do you suppose we might be able to fund this with the absurd and obscene bonuses that were recently paid out by the financial institutions? how much was that $18-20 billion? and how many people did that $18-20 billion benefit? and how much of this will be realized in taxes that the US government can us to mitigate the crisis?

By: Asa

Asa — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:16:40 +0000

How to put this…yes an NO
No to raises NO MORE TAX BREAKS, YES to new jobs. But also remember that this needs to create many Jobs, and not a fat payday for consultants and engineering advisors. No to a Homeland security HQ, and its furniture. But a emphatic YES to flood prevention improvements to the Mississippi river flood plain. This will stimulate the economy the way the Big Dig stimulated and sustained the economy in Massachusetts through some rough patches. But when it ends, like the Big Dig did, you need to have stimulated businesses to the point of a critical mass where some things become self sustaining and not dependent on government spending…because then we get no where fast without Uncle Sam spending…that’s not independence its more like addiction. As long as the money goes to innovation and invention in some way it will create industry and services that will create more jobs and definitively stimulate the broader economy. The by product of the Bush doctirine is that it enriched the few…and so the many suffer..

By: anon

anon — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:49:42 +0000

A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

Now this one is hard to defend. Those poor underfunded producers? This is hardly a public good.

Unfortunately, it’s going to be even harder defending the bonuses on Wall St after taking TARP money.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:43:36 +0000

Keynes would have preferred that the money be used for the public good though, I think the digging allegory was to make his (and your) point clear.

$850 million for Amtrak.

Darn. I wish they would have cut this, but also cut highway funding, and used both the monies for health care. As a side benefit, we’d get to see more rail lines get built (by private companies).

By: BreakRoomLive

BreakRoomLive — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:42:58 +0000

GOP talking point of the day from the Red Dawn Oracle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKir8lvtRdI

By: thomas

thomas — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 05:48:32 +0000

Man I really hate this bill. It is clearly a spending bill and not a stimulus. Most of this bill is just years and years of past rejected proposals that are getting lumped together and sold as stimulus.

Creating work isn’t stimulus, and thst’s what a lot of the so called job creation is. A bunch of busy work to put up the illusion of a job.

I do find it sad that people stopped caring after November and just say “oh, this is politics.” When more than half the country voted for change, was this what they were expecting? How do all these things help YOU and YOUR family?

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:42:25 +0000

What I would like to see is a list of where all the House Republicans are from beside a list of all the areas that would benefit from this spending. Then, we’ll see if they truly think this is wasteful.