The Congressional Budget Office on the Obama Porculus Plan.

[BrendaQG]

This is the reason Barrack sounded nervous because he knew the real news about his plan would come out and he needed to be sure he could "control the message" as they say in DC speak.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf This is a link to a letter from The Congressional Budget Office to Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. Who was appointed to US Secretary of Commerce by President Obama.

This is at the bottom of page 4.


In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals. The principal channel for this effect is that the legislation would result in an increase in government debt. To the extent that people hold their wealth as government bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt would tend to reduce the stock of productive capital. In economic parlance, the debt would “crowd out” private investment.

In plain language government debt would be a lager part of the US economy than any private investment. The letter goes on to forecast shrinking GDP for the next 10 years after 2011.

The letter does note that GDP is not the best measure of the well being of the average person, but consumption is. As well as the fact that neither of these macroeconomic pieces of data reflect other aspects of happiness and well being (IMO $$$$$$$$$$ go a long motherfuckin way to both of those things.)

The CBO is a non partisan organ of congress.

*Darn I intended for this to go to Politics an Religion. :-/

[MrF]

Some other possible outcomes I've read about: 1) Fewer and fewer people (e.g. Chinese govt) will want to buy US debt, so the shortfall can only be made up by printing money, leading to huge inflation; and 2) People may buy the debt and then realize it's too much, causing them to sell their dollars in a panic (perhaps buying Euros or some other currency), leading to a massive devaluation of the dollar.

To some extent these scenarios are already starting to happen. How did we get to this grim state ?

I'm not a big fan of all these bailouts and stimuli, but I'm not sure what else to do except let it all implode and let some competent, responsible companies and banks rise from the dust. We seem to need massive restructuring and changes in culture, e.g. learning to live within our means and tying managerial compensation properly to performance of the company - not just its stock value but how it benefits workers and customers.

[trish]

Here's the solution. We stage a world wide power surge and blackout, frying all the computers at every bank and financial institution on Earth. All data is lost. Nobody knows who owes what to whom. Everyone's savings, stocks, debt and credit (which are just so many bits and bytes anyway) simply vanishes; i.e. we hit the worldwide economic reset button.

[El Nino]

Trish, that same scenario has crossed my mind, as well. LOL Just imagine...

[hippifried]

Call Jessica Alba.

[thx1138]

China is getting nervous: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601009&sid=a_dsDz145J_A

[trish]

Pork refers to spending that’s intended to benefit constituents in return for their political support. The implication in the term “pork” is that political support was the only reason for giving the money; i.e. the constituents demonstrated no real need for the money. So if you’re saying the stimulus bill is pork, then you’re also saying there is no demonstrated need for infrastructure maintenance, school improvement and no real demonstrated need for job growth. Give me a break.

It seems to me most people just label anything pork if they’re not the direct beneficiaries. For them the bad thing about pork is when it’s going to someone else. Federal money going to your state means jobs, infrastructure improvements, support for schools, etc. Federal money going to another state is pork.

[hippifried]

"Porkulous" is a Rushism. A buzz word for dittoheads.

[BrendaQG]

Pork refers to spending that’s intended to benefit constituents in return for their political support. The implication in the term “pork” is that political support was the only reason for giving the money; i.e. the constituents demonstrated no real need for the money. So if you’re saying the stimulus bill is pork, then you’re also saying there is no demonstrated need for infrastructure maintenance, school improvement and no real demonstrated need for job growth. Give me a break.

It seems to me most people just label anything pork if they’re not the direct beneficiaries. For them the bad thing about pork is when it’s going to someone else. Federal money going to your state means jobs, infrastructure improvements, support for schools, etc. Federal money going to another state is pork.

What would you call money for the refurbishment of ATV trails? That's just one example.

If the money was all dedicated just to public works I would be all for it. But the rest of this crap we could really do without for now.

That and it's a report by the Congressional Budget office. All these people do is compute what various policies will do to the economy. Let's just face facts, this bill may not be so great for the economy in the long run. what It will do is give the economy a boost for two years, after this year when it really comes into effect. So the economy will be sorta OK when it's time for the 2012 election. Then the shit hits the fan. But why should Obama give a damm at that point?

[trish]

Personally I'm opposed to allowing ATV's in public parks, but that's another issue. Jobs are jobs. If it puts someone to work to refurbish ATV trails that need maintenance, then put them to work. FDR's three C's was a great success in giving people work during the depression, but not only did it put them to work when the program was over we had a system of parks, camps and trails many of which still survive and are enjoyed today. You know that parks in Illinois have suffered greatly during the past several years. The main road through the State Park in my county is untraversible. I'm all for sending some of the stimulus money to the State and Federal parks, provided its used to generate jobs, and there's something usable for the public good that comes of it.

[BrendaQG]

Personally I'm opposed to allowing ATV's in public parks, but that's another issue. Jobs are jobs. If it puts someone to work to refurbish ATV trails that need maintenance, then put them to work. FDR's three C's was a great success in giving people work during the depression, but not only did it put them to work when the program was over we had a system of parks, camps and trails many of which still survive and are enjoyed today. You know that parks in Illinois have suffered greatly during the past several years. The main road through the State Park in my county is untraversible. I'm all for sending some of the stimulus money to the State and Federal parks, provided its used to generate jobs, and there's something usable for the public good that comes of it.

Repairing and refurbishing our roads is one thing.

Government make work progarms are something else. Those aren't real career jobs. We need to stimulate the economy in a way that will last for more than a couple of years.

Building better roads and bridges is a long term investment. ATV trails, and money for protecting endangered species of mouse are waste of tax payer dollars. Pure and simple.

Let me tell you about this. As part of a homework assingment, just a couple weeks ago, I had to figure out if we could take that money we gave the banks, and place a solar array on the roof of each home in america. We could. IF we did that we would realize immediate economic benefit. We would have to build up a local solar power industry, and the result would be solar cells made inexpensive by mass production through gov't contracting the work to private industry. Not to mention that it would give essentially free energy to each home in the USA for decades to come.

But such a deal will never be done. Because the environmentalist left is anti business when it comes down to it. They really don't like the fact that big business will control whatever green energy future we have in some way.

So what do we get instead? Giving money to failed businesses which should be allowed to fail. The workers are not innocent. They demanded more and more and finally it was really truly too much. Giving money to banks to lend out which they don't. In fact I hear of people who have responsibly made their payments having their accounts closed with no warning. Then the pias de resistance, this plan which is filled with more pork than a beer hall at Octoberfest! A bill that a neutral govnerment organ says will be bad for the economy in the long run.

I give up.

[trish]

We need to put all kinds of people to work, and if there's work to be done, let's do. Let's say we put almost all the stimulus into construction and maintenance of roads and bridges. There will be a few years of boom in road construction jobs. But certainly, those are not all career jobs. When the roads and bridges are updated, some people will have to find jobs in another sector. Same thing for the park jobs. Some people may make of career in parks and recreation, most won't. In either case, the public gets roads, bridges and parks. BTW, just because a particular part of the package doesn't create "career jobs", doesn't make it pork. Remember, pork implies there's no demonstrated need for the money given. Believe me, parks are in need. They should[n't] be as high a priority as bridges, roads and energy. But that's a different issue.

Solar power units for individual homes is a great idea. It would provide[] jobs (for people to make them, people to sell them, people to install them, people to keep them in repair) as well as having the benefit of providing energy to the home owner. (I'm curious, do you know how much energy is required to make a solar cell and how much a cell is expected to produce over its lifetime?).

What's not a good idea is making the Bush tax breaks permanent, or giving tax breaks to the those in the upper middle class and higher. That money is usually spent paying off debt and stashed away. It provides very little immediate stimulus to the economy.

[Edits in square brackets]

[chefmike]

What's not a good idea is making the Bush tax breaks permanent, or giving tax breaks to the those in the upper middle class and higher. That money is usually spent paying off debt and stashed away. It provides very little immediate stimulus to the economy.

You forgot your chart, trish!

[BrendaQG]

What's not a good idea is making the Bush tax breaks permanent, or giving tax breaks to the those in the upper middle class and higher. That money is usually spent paying off debt and stashed away. It provides very little immediate stimulus to the economy.

[Edits in square brackets]

You mean like those formerly upper middle class people who bought $500,000 homes then lost their jobs. Now are facing foreclosure. So you want to tax them on last years income (before they were fired, laid off, or went out of business) at a higher rate. So that they can get foreclosed on because they don't pay their debt.

According to your chart it's better to put them on food stamps. :roll:

Why don't you address the CBO numbers which say this plan will be bad in the long run? Is it too hard for you all to see that even Barrack's poop can stink? His one flaw that I saw and did not think much of is that he likes being liked too much and can never say NO!

A stimulus plan was needed but the one we got just ain't enough of the right kind of spending. Mark my words.

[trish]

We can always make exceptions (and I endorse the exceptions) for those who've been foreclosed upon; though you understand, it will be out of kindness and not in the interest of stimulus.

Notice according to Moody, the corporate tax cuts have a negative return on the dollar. My concern is that some of the tax cuts in the stimulus package will affect the economy negatively, canceling out the positive returns of the public works programs. I fear that only about 20% of the package will have a net positive effect and that may or may not be enough.

Because the bill is a hodgepodge of both liberal and conservative philosophies it's not useful for hypothesis testing. The scientist in me would've have like to see a bill of more consistent philosophy. But Obama is bent on bipartisan participation. So far the liberals have conceded far too many items just to get three republicans on board.

[chefmike]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-pettifor/the-fiscal-stimulus-will_b_167119.html

[hippifried]

An economic stimulous is just about getting money into the consumer base, so business will have someone to sell to. It doesn't really matter how you do it. If you get something long lasting out of it, that's a plus. A stimulous bill is a spending bill. They're synonymous. This stupid republican bullshit arguing over terminology & minutiae is just a waste of air. It wouldn't matter how big the bill was or what was in it. Republicans were going to vote against it no matter what, because apparently, they calculated that proving their own irrelevance is somehow beneficial.

[BrendaQG]

Yes it does matter how you do it. Because if it is done wrong it can screw the economy for years and years long after the short term bump in the economy has worn off.

We are going to try to finance this 800 Billion through debt. By the end of the year the interest alone will have made the real cost of this more like 2 Trillion. $2,000,000,000,000.00. Do you really think the federal government can take on that much short and medium term debt without any consequences for the nation at large?

At best I forsee what the CBO says comming to pass.

[hippifried]

Bullshit! 70% or more of the GDP is consumer spending. That's what drives everything. All the money baloons are stuck on the ceiling & somebody needs to grab the little strings & pull them back down where the kids can play with them again.

The tax cuts are worthless & just subtract from the stimulous. I can consume my weekly $13 savings in one sitting at Jack in the Box. It was a bribe to the republicans that didn't work because they were too busy proving their irrelevance.

The infrastructure spending is just things that needed doing anyway, but went undone because the money changers kept taking the baloons from the kids & letting them float to the ceiling. $2 trillion? So what? We just ran up a $5 trillion debt & what did we get for it? Apparently, there's a lot of folks who haven't figured out that war is government spending.

[chefmike]

Bullshit! 70% or more of the GDP is consumer spending. That's what drives everything. All the money baloons are stuck on the ceiling & somebody needs to grab the little strings & pull them back down where the kids can play with them again.

The tax cuts are worthless & just subtract from the stimulous. I can consume my weekly $13 savings in one sitting at Jack in the Box. It was a bribe to the republicans that didn't work because they were too busy proving their irrelevance.

The infrastructure spending is just things that needed doing anyway, but went undone because the money changers kept taking the baloons from the kids & letting them float to the ceiling. $2 trillion? So what? We just ran up a $5 trillion debt & what did we get for it? Apparently, there's a lot of folks who haven't figured out that war is government spending.


:claps :claps :claps

[thx1138]

Governors split on Obama's stimulous plan: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090222/pl_nm/us_usa_stimulus_republicans