Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - GOP Govs at Odds

[Ben]

[url="http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=218391&title=clusterf#@k-to-the-poor-house"]http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...-the-poor-house[/url]

[Vol_Bengal]

Let's say that 15 governors refuse the money... do you really think that money is going to just come off the total bill?? There are more than a few senators and representatives that would be more than willing to gobble that money up and send it back to their constituents... Pelosi would be numero uno on that list, I'm sure.


Any of this rah-rah, we're not going to take the money would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture. Because, come hell or high water, the money is going to get spent somewhere...

Didn't you get the memo... our economy needs ALL $787 billion.

[Homer_Rice]

Actually, Vol, our economy needs a lot more than 787 billion...were it wisely spent. The problem is that much of it is not. Take [url="http://kevincolby.com/2009/02/25/8570-disclosed-earmarks-in-omnibus-spending-bill/"]a look here for links to PDFs listing earmarks.[/url] This is not stimulus, this is in addition to, if I understand correctly. I haven't dug too deeply on this yet.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='749269' date='Feb 25 2009, 11:32 AM']Actually, Vol, our economy needs a lot more than 787 billion...[b]were it wisely spent[/b]. The problem is that much of it is not. Take [url="http://kevincolby.com/2009/02/25/8570-disclosed-earmarks-in-omnibus-spending-bill/"]a look here for links to PDFs listing earmarks.[/url] This is not stimulus, this is in addition to, if I understand correctly. I haven't dug too deeply on this yet.[/quote]

ahhhh.... there is the rub!!!


I don't doubt that an influx of dollars are needed in the economy to provide confidence / stability. This frees up lending dollars, etc., businesses hire / keep jobs and all.


But, the shear waste from our government is just mind-boggling when you actually look at the projects included bills, not just this stimulus bill.

[jza10304]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='749269' date='Feb 25 2009, 10:32 AM']Actually, Vol, our economy needs a lot more than 787 billion...were it wisely spent. The problem is that much of it is not. Take [url="http://kevincolby.com/2009/02/25/8570-disclosed-earmarks-in-omnibus-spending-bill/"]a look here for links to PDFs listing earmarks.[/url] This is not stimulus, this is in addition to, if I understand correctly. I haven't dug too deeply on this yet.[/quote]
Exactly right Homer...this is what I've been posting about in earlier threads (although maybe didn't come across clearly or with as much weight as you carry on here). Many economic reports are forecasting trillion dollars or more in GDP gap. The spending is needed, however it must be done wisely and in certain sectors that have reciprocal effects and that private industry has no incentive for...public goods.

[CatScratchFever]

If it were wisely spent, I'll bet we wouldn't even need half that much. I still still think it's wiser not to spend any of it at all. It's borrowed money, and way too much of it.

[Ben]

[quote name='CatScratchFever' post='749400' date='Feb 25 2009, 06:03 PM']If it were wisely spent, I'll bet we wouldn't even need half that much. I still still think it's wiser not to spend any of it at all. It's borrowed money, and way too much of it.[/quote]

Its the American Way!

[STRAYCAT]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='749269' date='Feb 25 2009, 10:32 AM']Actually, Vol, our economy needs a lot more than 787 billion...were it wisely spent. The problem is that much of it is not. Take [url="http://kevincolby.com/2009/02/25/8570-disclosed-earmarks-in-omnibus-spending-bill/"]a look here for links to PDFs listing earmarks.[/url] This is not stimulus, this is in addition to, if I understand correctly. I haven't dug too deeply on this yet.[/quote]
Did you watch the speech....he said he just got passed the biggest bill passed with no earmarks . I wish someone would have threw a shoe at that bitch Nancy P.

[Homer_Rice]

I was out of the house so I didn't see the speech. And the bill I cite is not the stimulus, it's an omnibus bill.

A couple of other thoughts:

1) It'll take a lot more than 787 billion to fix this thing. IF, by fixing, one means funding some solid proposals (and there are some in the stimulus) that are socially necessary. Our infrastructure deficit alone is well over a couple trillion, [url="http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2009/"]according to the ASCE.[/url] Further, if we wanted to really fix things, we'll have to put large sections of the financial sector through bankruptcy proceedings and that represents a whole lotta cash. Third, if we wanted to be truly visionary--and I'd argue that now is a pretty good time to be so--it'd be very expensive to implement some of the technologies of the future: for instance, wide-scale Maglev or space colonization.

The trick is to make real investments in the future which have some social payback/profit, and not simply to prime the pump a la Keynesian dogma.

2) Not sure how many folks read the Hudson piece I linked to the other day, but the point is, politically, to marginalize the feudal elements in our society, not to leave them in charge. If you haven't read it, let me recommend it again, as it summarizes quite well the historical attitudes of some very recognizable contemporary schools of thought/approaches to governing. Hudson's leans a little to the pinko-side, so one doesn't have to agree with him in all detail, but that doesn't detract from his ability to succinctly state the issues of our time with some clarity.

3) Money does not have to be borrowed in the most common sense of the term. We've let the Fed corrupt our thinking in modern times. Treasury could issue bonds to fund much of the required expense. True, this is a form of borrowing, but one in which the government sets the terms and not some private agency. Also, it is fully within the power of government to simply issue the money necessary for some of these projects. The trick (and it can be done) is to do so in ways which minimize the dangers of price inflation. In fact, if done wisely, then the other kind of inflation--cost inflation--would not be an issue at all, as the return on investment would tend to have deflationary/cost lowering effect.

Lastly, I've been wondering about Chris Henry's Dealer lately. You out there, CHD? Weathering the storm okay? Hope all is well and that you'll weigh in from time to time as your input is very valuable.

[|Bunghole|]

None of this looks good to me from where I sit. I voted for Obama, because the "other side" didn't offer **anything**.

That being said, this is a mountain we're going to have to scale. It won't be done easily or quickly, but it can be done.

And for the sake of my Dad's retirement investments, and this current generation's future, I certainly hope so.

[BengalBacker]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='749438' date='Feb 25 2009, 07:26 PM']2) Not sure how many folks read the Hudson piece I linked to the other day, but the point is, politically, to marginalize the feudal elements in our society, not to leave them in charge. If you haven't read it, let me recommend it again, as it summarizes quite well the historical attitudes of some very recognizable contemporary schools of thought/approaches to governing. Hudson's leans a little to the pinko-side, so one doesn't have to agree with him in all detail, but that doesn't detract from his ability to succinctly state the issues of our time with some clarity.[/quote]

I started reading it the other day, but had to leave so I bookmarked it. I'll read it all tonight or tomorrow. Here's the link again.

[url="http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson02172009.html"]http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson02172009.html[/url]

[CatScratchFever]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='749438' date='Feb 25 2009, 07:26 PM']3) Money does not have to be borrowed in the most common sense of the term. We've let the Fed corrupt our thinking in modern times. Treasury could issue bonds to fund much of the required expense. True, this is a form of borrowing, but one in which the government sets the terms and not some private agency. Also, it is fully within the power of government to simply issue the money necessary for some of these projects. The trick (and it can be done) is to do so in ways which minimize the dangers of price inflation. In fact, if done wisely, then the other kind of inflation--cost inflation--would not be an issue at all, as the return on investment would tend to have deflationary/cost lowering effect.[/quote]
A rose by any other name...
Sugar coat it all you want, but the bottom line is that it's borrowed money that eventually has to be paid back. Even a treasury bond has to be paid back, with interest. Even on the government's terms, no one will lend the money (buy bonds) if there is no expectation of having the money returned with interest.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='CatScratchFever' post='749769' date='Feb 26 2009, 06:46 PM']A rose by any other name...
Sugar coat it all you want, but the bottom line is that it's borrowed money that eventually has to be paid back. Even a treasury bond has to be paid back, with interest. Even on the government's terms, no one will lend the money (buy bonds) if there is no expectation of having the money returned with interest.[/quote]
I think you mean without interest. And there's nothing wrong with that expectation. That's why it is preferable to bond out funding priorities as it guides money towards productive investment (at least in theory.) And I noticed you completely ignored the latter part of my statement. I must confess, I'm not surprised.

[sigshoota]

Clearly I'm no economical genius, far from it, but the cash has to come from somewhere, and as far as I can tell the gov'ment is simply going to "print" more money, which sounds all fine and dandy until you realize that the money isn't backed by anything. In other words it's only worth the paper it's printed on. This will cause the dollar to drop in value even more so than it already has and leave us screwed for generations. Who cares if you have $1,000 in your pocket if it costs $400 for a loaf of bread (over-exageration but you get the point)

I read an article a couple weeks ago, I wish I could find it now, about the state of California and the US as a whole buying it's own debt through the purchase of bonds and T-bills, to me that is incredibly scary. That's like me having 50 bucks in my wallet and loaning it to myself expecting to 60 back in a week-IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE! I really wish I could find that article.

Basically, we're fucked, the value of the dollar is low and the powers that be are going to push it even lower, the gov'ment should stay the fuck out of the business sector, no more insurance bailouts, no more auto industry bailouts (who are now asking for even more money) no more airline bailouts, no more "soft lending" programs for the banks........this could go on for days. Homer, you have probably forgotten more about this than I have ever learned, am I off base here?