Stimulus Watch website

[audtatious]

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/

This site is tracking requests for the stimulus money. Here are some of the interesting ones aside from the $500,000 request for doorbells

- Dayton, OH wants 1.5 million to help prostitutes get "off the streets"- San Diego, California. 20 million for the “downtown quiet zone”- Requests for money to put in dog parks (I have seen at least 3 requests)- 600 million to create a African American/Ethnic heritage trail in Natchez, MS- 17.5 billion to create a new 100 acre industrial zone in Puerto Rico- 2.1 billion for LA solar project- Numerous requests for millions to build hotels and convention centers

Sheesh, this can go on for days....

Louisville has a bunch with the following being BS- 500k to expand walking trails- 390k for Ohio River Levee trail- 13 mil in sewer line replacement at the zoo- 15 mil to create a methane plant powered by zoo poo- 375k to build 3 "lease to own" houses- 250k renovation of a liquor store that was purchased to remove "blight"

The rest seem to be road/bridge/building repairs although there are also a number of projects to replace windows/weatherstripping and such for low-income residents. In general, not as bad as I see other states/cities requesting.

[S13_love]

[url=http://www.stimuluswatch.org]The rest seem to be road/bridge/building repairs although there are also a number of projects to replace windows/weatherstripping and such for low-income residents. In general, not as bad as I see other states/cities requesting.

Money going towards that is ok by me....

Everything else you listed there...well...it just shows how completely retarded people are in this country.

[smockers83]

With all of that in mind, what are your guys' views on the CCC of the New Deal era? They did essentially the same kind of thing...build stuff for recreation and what not and giving people jobs. They built golf courses and what not then.

[S13_love]

Actually.........

With those projects the op listed there, that would give someone a job to work on.

[audtatious]

With all of that in mind, what are your guys' views on the CCC of the New Deal era? They did essentially the same kind of thing...build stuff for recreation and what not and giving people jobs. They built golf courses and what not then.

They are all short-term jobs in the hope that the economy rebounds enough for permanent work. I have not really read up on the whole "New Deal" (other than the basics) but some economists say it caused the Great Depression to be longer than it should have by a number of years.

[srellim234]

e-con-o-mist, n. an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday did not happen today.

[smockers83]

The New Deal itself did not cause the Depression to be longer. What people confuse it with was the Smoot-Hawley act that significantly reduced international trade through high tariffs and quotas.

An economist does try to figure out what could happen in the future sometimes, but economics is the study of cause and effect, which usually takes place in the past. Speculators and Wall St is in the business of trying to predict the future.

[Armelius]

The New Deal itself did not cause the Depression to be longer. What people confuse it with was the Smoot-Hawley act that significantly reduced international trade through high tariffs and quotas.

An economist does try to figure out what could happen in the future sometimes, but economics is the study of cause and effect, which usually takes place in the past. Speculators and Wall St is in the business of trying to predict the future.

Smoot Hawley Act didn't extend the Depression. You had a bubble burst. The government spent money on agricultural materiel to send to the Soviet Union in the late 20's. They had increase production in whole goods sending Central Banking (floating currencies) into a tailspin downward. Credit was pulled out of the stock market further decreasing production.

[Cold_Zero]

The problem with this edition of the Stimulus Bill is that only 5% of the spending is going towards true "Infrastructure" as we know it. The rest are just pet projects and political paybacks.

It is interesting Bill Bennett thought that the reason why there is no Republican support for the Bill (and the reason why Obama is trying to get Republican support) is that the Republicans know if this bill goes through bloated as it is and fails to stimulate the economy, the Democrats can be blamed for a whole host of failures for it. Since they (Nancy) almost exclusively wrote the bill. If 15 Republicans sign the bill, then Obama can call it bi-partisan.

[Cold_Zero]

With all of that in mind, what are your guys' views on the CCC of the New Deal era? They did essentially the same kind of thing...build stuff for recreation and what not and giving people jobs. They built golf courses and what not then.

I am with my Grandmother (now deceased) on FDR. She did not vote for him and wasn’t a fan of him, nor am I. He consolidated more power under the Executive branch, than was unhealthy, out of aggrandizement for himself. His advisors were collectivists and he was a Socialist. Yes, I said it. And if you look at the United States prior to WWII, there were a lot of prominent Americans that wanted to study, follow and implement socialism in America. Although the term Socialist has very many flavors to describe, what can appear to be an endless degree of differences between all the different ideologies, it is spot on for a man that had a very high view of Centralized Federal Government and did everything in his power to consolidate power, wealth and resources to the Centralized Federal Government. The best barometer of if your country is Socialist, is to look at the amount of GDP that is managed or controlled by the Federal Government. It does not surprise me that he was the President to order the Japanese, German and Italian Americans suspected of sympathizing with the Axis Powers, rounded up and cent to Gulags.. I mean Concentration Camps… I mean Internment Camps. Remember the constantine wire is pointed inwards for YOUR protection. Needless to say, we were not supporters of the CCC nor the New Deal.

[Cold_Zero]

The New Deal itself did not cause the Depression to be longer. What people confuse it with was the Smoot-Hawley act that significantly reduced international trade through high tariffs and quotas.

An economist does try to figure out what could happen in the future sometimes, but economics is the study of cause and effect, which usually takes place in the past. Speculators and Wall St is in the business of trying to predict the future.

Smockers, You brought up protectionism in this thread and others..I found this good article talking about it from the European perspective.

http://www.france24.com/en/200...ntary

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/f...99802

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Remember the constantine wire is pointed inwards for YOUR protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concertina_wire

This post brought to you by the Anoraks of America.

[smockers83]

Smoot Hawley Act didn't extend the Depression. You had a bubble burst. The government spent money on agricultural materiel to send to the Soviet Union in the late 20's. They had increase production in whole goods sending Central Banking (floating currencies) into a tailspin downward. Credit was pulled out of the stock market further decreasing production.

I'm not going to argue with you on this anymore because it's pointless and would destroy another good thread. However, I will give you stuff to read up on along with what CZ posted already. If you want, you can create a thread on this subject and we can state our cases there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1998/no ... g/node/683

A quote from the last link I gave:

Reality is on our side on this issue, and we should know that reality well.

Reality on our side meaning reality being on my side of this. The last one may be the best one for you to read as it is a speech on the subject. The 2nd link is 1028 people against you who warned about it.

[Cold_Zero]

Personally, I can see why Protectionism would look good for the US as it appears to offer a National pride in products and to keep more money here in the US. But it is fundamentally a really bad idea. If we are going to remain a part of the World Economy and rely more on foreign imports than paying more to produce and purchase our own domestic products, we should really dump this idea. The EU is a mess with this stuff, right now. I was watching the BBC last night and they have petroleum workers protesting in England because European oil producers are looking to replace them with cheaper Portuguese and Spanish workforces.

Now the only exception that I would make for protectionism would be in the cases of certain products like wines, cheeses and alcohol. Where in order to use a specific brand name the product has to be produce in the region and in accordance with certain standards. My Emmentaler and Gruyere only comes from Switzerland and it is not pasteurized, I do not want it coming from California and happy cows.

[Logan76]

Not to change subject but, I think they should fun multiple power plants that burn trash to make power, in doing so they are giving alot of people permanent jobs, plant workers, engineers, supervisors, garbage men, etc...We have tons of trash laying in landfills all over, make some use of it.

[smockers83]

Personally, I can see why Protectionism would look good for the US as it appears to offer a National pride in products and to keep more money here in the US. But it is fundamentally a really bad idea. If we are going to remain a part of the World Economy and rely more on foreign imports than paying more to produce and purchase our own domestic products, we should really dump this idea. The EU is a mess with this stuff, right now. I was watching the BBC last night and they have petroleum workers protesting in England because European oil producers are looking to replace them with cheaper Portuguese and Spanish workforces.

Now the only exception that I would make for protectionism would be in the cases of certain products like wines, cheeses and alcohol. Where in order to use a specific brand name the product has to be produce in the region and in accordance with certain standards. My Emmentaler and Gruyere only comes from Switzerland and it is not pasteurized, I do not want it coming from California and happy cows.

Absolutely. Protectionism looks great politically because politicians and the general public don't understand it and a fallacy has been created about it. When a politician calls for protectionism, he/she is going to win votes of a very small minority and the support of a few businesses, which equals money. But all of this occurs at the expense of everyone else.

In the steel industry in the 80s, employment went from 340,000 to 125,000, which led to regulations limiting the importation of steel. This reduction in the supply caused prices to rise for everyone else. It is estimated that that the restrictions put in place in the 80s produced $240 million in profits to the US steel companies and saved 5000 US steel jobs. On the flip side of that, due to artificially higher steel prices, other American companies using that steel have lost an estimated $600 million in profits and 26,000 jobs have been lost. So, as a nation, what did we really gain in closing up our economy slightly from international competition? Absolutely nothing. We lost 21,000 jobs and lost $360 million. This is only one example and it can be said that very exact opposite is true, in that opening up to freer trade creates jobs, including NAFTA.

The exception that I make and that many of those who are for free trade make as well is national defense. The reason being is that as a nation, we don't want to depend on other nations to be our suppliers of technology and munitions. We then are at the mercy of that nation and they can also sell that same technology to already known enemies.
Modified by smockers83 at 2:53 PM 2/3/2009

[Cold_Zero]

The exception that I make and that many of those who are for free trade make as well is national defense. The reason being is that as a nation, we don't want to depend on other nations to be our suppliers of technology and munitions. We then are at the mercy of that nation and they can also sell that same technology to already known enemies.

I agree with you, but this is not necessarily the case with the United States Military. I think of the SAW and the M240 being produced by FN, the M9 being produced by Beretta, the M256 by Rheinmetall and to a lesser extent BAE Systems helping to build the Joint Strike Fighter. We all remember the debacle of the KC-135 replacement RPF with EADS/Northrop Grumman. While none of this gives me any heart burn, since these countries Belgium, Italy, Germany and the UK are all our allies, it does show that the Military has followed the world economy model.Bud

[smockers83]

Precisely. A nation's military is willing to give out contracts to nations it feels comfortable that it won't go to war with. The foreign power that gets most of the US military's contracts is Canada at about $601 million (2004), followed by the UK and Israel.

Another fact about the 80s steel industry. Using census data from 1990, the 125,000 people in the industry that benefited were less than one thousandth of population (.0005%). That means that 99.95% of us lost out because of it in the order of higher steel prices and/or lost jobs. That's a pretty large inefficiency, in terms of benefits and the way resources were used.

[HashiriyaS14]

I think that the solar project is precisely along the vein of what was promised in the campaign and should be left intact. This fits into the domestic "green jobs" initiative and I have no problem with it at all.

Unfortunately, with sustainable energy, because the paradigm has changed from producing energy by incrementally paying for a quantity of an extracted resource to paying lots up-front for infrastructure, the economies will not work in he private sector for a very long time. This is one of the few instances where I think the development needs to be "forced" before it becomes otherwise economically viable, as there are concerns (political, environmental, etc) beyond simple economy.

Otherwise, I will admit that a lot of stuff in that bill is BS and needs to go. I was happy to see that the Dems relented and removed the "family planning" stuff and a few other things already. I think ultimately they'll get this thing done, but more needs to come out and be replaced with tax cuts.

I mean, I *do* agree with that stuff politically, but that doesn't mean that it has any place in a stimulus bill.

[smockers83]

Looking at Michigan, I didn't see a whole lot of fluff. Most of it was necessary infrastructure projects. Good job for MI.

I would agree with Hash on the solar project in LA. It goes with the campaign and creates thousands of jobs. Plus it'll reduce smog in LA. But there's a lot of research yet to be done on improving solar cell technology to make it economically viable on a large scale.

[OriginalWheelman]

I have a question. Why don't we spend nothing of the stimulus money and just make tax amnesty for individuals until we hit the same amount of money?

I think the whole idea of this stimulus is unconstitutional. I paid in tax revenue to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Aside from a broad interpretation of "promote the general Welfare" I can't see this as a good use of tax payer money. The economy will come around without government help, and I think Americans would be stronger for it. I understand how this would be beneficial, I just question whether or not it is even right. If the gov just wants the money spent, give it back to me, I could use it.

[Cold_Zero]

There have been many suggestions and ideas floated around of suspending FICA and Income Taxes for 9 months. This would help all employees in this country and help their employers. Call it a free tax year (suspend taxes until 2010) and I will be happy.

[smockers83]

A government can't survive if it doesn't have income. All this talk about the national debt and here we are proposing the government finances a year solely through debt?

With a government spending lots of money directly into the economy during bad times, it prevents wide variations in all aspects of the economy (GDP, jobs, currency fluctuations, etc). It's necessary to keep economic volatility down in order to prevent these wide fluctuations and keep the economy stable. A stable economy is much better than one that is up and down, up and down as it provides (I'm really drawing a blank for the word I really want to use) ease to the minds of consumers and investors.

The opposite can be said of the government in good times, in that it doesn't need to spend a whole lot in order to keep volatility low.

[OriginalWheelman]

A government can't survive if it doesn't have income. All this talk about the national debt and here we are proposing the government finances a year solely through debt?

Then where is this money coming from? Are they going to pull $800 billion + out of thin air? Either they are using money we paid in, which is bad, or they are making up money, which is bad.

[smockers83]

Well, in reality it's hard to figure out in terms of accounting where exactly it comes from. But $800 billion is a lot better than the trillions needed to run our government.

The government is able to print money as needed. This has some side effects, no doubt, but it can do so. It's also probably able to negotiate payment schedules and doesn't pay it all upfront, which is just like accounts receivable/payable. I really have no idea on that, that's just a guess.

When the government infuses money through fiscal policy, there has to be a monetary policy put in place to control currency fluctuations as well, such as changes in the interest rates because there will be large inflationary pressures due to this spending.

[Cold_Zero]

A government can't survive if it doesn't have income. All this talk about the national debt and here we are proposing the government finances a year solely through debt?

Smockers, I didnt say cut ALL tax revenue in this country, just the payroll taxes. And I am sure, just like the stimulus checks that were sent out during the prior administration, these proposals to cut the income and FICA taxes for 9 months would be targeted. Presumably to benefit small business owners and middle class workers. But who know, there are many proposals being tossed around, so I can speak to all of them.

But it does make me wonder, would NOW be a good time to re-ignite the talk about implementing the Fair Tax?

[OriginalWheelman]

That's my point. Of all this talk, no one is mentioning where it all is coming from. That's what I'd like to know.

If they are using existing tax revenue, I go back to my statement, give it back to me either via rebate or tax amnesty. That seems like a much better way, IMO.

Everyone likes to complain about how much "Bush" spent in Iraq. Here BHO is in office less than a month, and already he wants to spend more money than the entire "use of force" in Iraq.

Bottom line, this is our money, eventual, or current. If we didn't pay it in taxes yet we will. That is, as far as I know, the gov ONLY source of income (interest on bank accounts filled with tax money aside). So either way they are spending our money, in the private sector, as they see fit. I do not agree with that at all.

[smockers83]

Smockers, I didnt say cut ALL tax revenue in this country, just the payroll taxes.

Gotcha I guess I was a little confused between suspending FICA and income taxes and a tax-free year, where I took a tax-free year literally meaning a tax-free year.

So either way they are spending our money, in the private sector, as they see fit. I do not agree with that at all.

Yes, and no. They are not completely determining where to spend the money. Municipalities have to apply for it. There's no way the federal government could know of all these projects without local municipalities applying for federal funds. Do they get to pick and choose of those that have applied, yes, but is it like a communist system, no. In terms of infrastructure though, the government controls a lot of that. One can't just build a road where and when they please, nor can they put up electrical grids or bury water lines without approval from some level of government.

[OriginalWheelman]

I get this, but I still don't agree with it. As far as infrastructure, that's going to happen anyway, we don't need a special stimulus to build roads and fix bridges. If the gov just wants to spend $800 bill, why not build a better mass transit system country wide? Green, Jobs, Stimulus, and a desperately needed upgrade to the US.

[smockers83]

Some people would argue that infrastructure like roads and bridges haven't been kept up as they should have been due to unavailability of the necessary funds. I can definitely say that for Michigan. In effect, that would be a large upgrade to the US as well as it provides for safer and more efficient commerce.

The problem with the US compared to other countries in Europe that have well developed public transportation systems is that the US is so much larger in terms of land mass and roads. There are a lot of roads that need to be maintained as opposed to Britain or Denmark. Therefore, those countries can spend more on mass transit. Plus, cities in the US are much different than those of Europe in that US cities have massive urban sprawl.

Another problem I feel with mass transit in the US is that people say they want it, but are just full of talk. In many cities, there are ample ways to get around by bus, but people don't want to take it because it "inconveniences" them because it doesn't arrive when they want it to or it's too slow. That's what I hear all the time. You know what I say? If you want to use mass transit such as buses, build your schedule around the buses. I've been to Britain and used their buses in various cities. I had to wait for them there, too, and navigate the bus routes and all that jazz, the same as one has to do in the States.