As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Stimulus packages
MKR
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Economic stimulus. Sickos.
AP:
From http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/01/the_stimulus_projects.php:
What would you like to see in a short term or long term plan? What have far off and mysterious lands done that you think has worked or will work?
I'm a big fan of the "x for some, and tiny American flags for others" plan.
AP:
Projected deficits put Obama stimulus in new light
By JIM KUHNHENN – 3 days ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday he'll have to juggle the competing interests of economic stimulus and deficit control, but that restoring general business health must come first.
Obama indeed offered a promise of long-term fiscal discipline at a news conference that he held just a short time after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office came up with a new — and unprecedented — estimate of the deficit expected for the 2009 budget year: roughly $1.19 trillion.
Such a red-ink mark on the federal ledger would dwarf last year's record of $455 billion deficit and represent more than 8 percent of the size of the economy, which is higher than the deficits of the 1980s.
Obama said that concerns about rising deficits prompted him to turn down advice from some economists who called for spending $1 trillion or more to jump-start the economy. Obama's proposal is expected to cost nearly $800 billion over two years.
"We have an economic situation that is dire, and we're going to have to jump start this economy with my economic recovery plan, creating 3 million jobs," he said. "That's going to cost some money. And in the short term, we will actually see, potentially, additions to the deficit."
He also said that by February he expects to have a plan on how to deal with big ticket spending such as Social Security and Medicare, waste in government and other factors, as well as some "specific outlines" on how to control the deficit.
"We're going to be inheriting a $1 trillion-plus deficit. And if we do nothing, then we will continue to see red ink as far as the eye can see," Obama said after introducing Nancy Killefer as his chief performance officer, a White House official who will work with federal agencies to set performance standards and hold agency managers accountable for progress.
But at Obama's transition office and in Congress, the urgent focus continued to be the economic stimulus.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pressed top congressional Democrats on Wednesday to pass a recovery bill by mid-February, and offered her own reassurance that the legislation would be fiscally responsible.
"Many will focus on the cost of it," Pelosi told the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. "While we are not discussing small sums, the bill is fiscally responsible because it will provide a fiscal dividend by returning 40 percent of the cost to the Treasury — at least that much in increased revenue."
Noting that the stimulus proposal will include spending on roads and bridges, clean energy technologies, expanded Internet access, and modernizing schools, Pelosi declared: "This is not your grandfather's public works bill."
The congressional panel heard from a handful of economists, including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, Harvard's Martin Feldstein and Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com and a former informal adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain. They all endorsed the need for a big, short-term spending package to jolt the economy out of its downward spiral.
Acknowledging the risk of deficits, however, Feldstein noted: "There should be an exit strategy. The spending should not create a political dynamic that makes it hard to stop."
Pelosi's call for passage by mid-February represents a slight adjustment in the Democrats' anticipated schedule for the legislation. Just on Monday, Obama had said he hoped for passage at the end of January or the first week in February.
Budget-conscious lawmakers have been pressing Obama to embrace deficit-reduction goals, even before the budget office's grim assessment Wednesday.
"Part of the discussion that needs to happen right now is not what we do just right now, but what we look to in the future — about how we get back to a balanced budget and then start to deal with this horrible, horrible national debt that we have," said Rep. Dennis Moore of Kansas, a member of the congressional Blue Dogs, a coalition of conservative and moderate Democrats.
With Democrats in control of both chambers in Congress, Obama's reassurances to budget hawks from both parties already appear to be making a stimulus package more palatable. Republican leaders sounded a cautionary note, however.
"We cannot borrow and spend our way back to prosperity when were already running an annual deficit of more than one trillion dollars," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said in a statement. "I was pleased to hear the President-elect say yesterday that we need to stop just talking about our national debt and actively confront it."
Obama has not detailed solutions for vexing problems such as growing demands on Social Security and Medicare. His prescriptions to make government accountable could easily run aground, much like those of predecessors who vowed to tackle government waste, fraud and abuse.
But lawmakers are not short on ideas. Conrad and the Budget Committee's top Republican, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, have proposed a bipartisan fiscal task force of lawmakers and administration officials that would create a plan to reduce budget deficits and lower the national debt.
Blue Dog Democrats would like to see legislation that would force Congress to pay for spending proposals with equal spending cuts or with new revenue. House Democrats this week plan to consider legislation that would require all federal agencies to undergo new audits and would call for congressional hearings when agency inspectors general find evidence of waste or fraud.
From http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/01/the_stimulus_projects.php:
What would you like to see in a short term or long term plan? What have far off and mysterious lands done that you think has worked or will work?
I'm a big fan of the "x for some, and tiny American flags for others" plan.
MKR on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Thats change all right.
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
Gotta do what we gotta do to keep things...moving
As opposed to doing nothing and 10% unemployment?
That figure peaks at nine percent.
If I'm looking at that chart, and I know that that would be the way the economy would shake out, then I don't spend 800 billion because that's 800 billion that is never going to be paid back and is just going to be thrown on top of the rest of the world, who are already pissed off at our profligacy regarding the currency that is owned throughout the world.
Depends on your estimates, that one yes peaks at 9%. A lot of that 800 billion is going into infrastructure investment, which is paid back eventually.
I agree, infrastructure spending is wonderful, so why can't we work with the budget we have and try to not throw 800 billion on the deficit sheet.
Of course, that would mean wrangling with the entitlement programs by raising the retirement age or cutting benifits or trying to tell the Pentagon to not piss money out the window in torrents. Neither is going to happen.
The Bush Stimulus packages were just a way of fishing for more money, you give the people a little in hopes they spend a lot and the excess cream can settle with the people on top of the pile again.
Until a stimulus package involves making something significant that everyone in this country can see and use, I'll consider it more of the same. Reagan convincing people who couldn't afford to lose any money at all to invest in the Stock Market back in the 80's got us here, and until people start treating houses like homes instead of easy money investments, we'll stay here.
Basically you've got to move fast so reforming the Pentagon isn't going to happen to get this money, and for obvious electoral reasons you're not fucking with the retirement age or cutting benefits.
Generally speaking when the economy sucks the government should be spending a ton of money and borrowing it if needed. When times are good, we should be paying down the deficit. Nice job, President Bush and Congress for much of the last 8 years.
Wildly dissapointed! :x
Greenspan gets a big chunk of it too. He was worried that the surplus would eat through the national debt and the government would start buying shit and begin to be socialist.
Well that sure isn't happening now, fuckwad.
Subsidized strippers - it won't necessarily help the economic situation, but it would distract us all from the current problems.
This is a better plan than anything that has been suggested the past two years.
How did you not make a stimulus joke there?
Yes, it is.
I am all aboard.
Give a man a fish / Teach a man to fish
Long term, major focus on intra-city and inter-city transit. The CTA has been crumbling for decades and Metra could use a boost for its new projects as well as start up a couple others to connect to Rockford &c. High Speed Rail lines connecting the Northeast (not the bullshit Acela), Chicago as a hub, Atlanta as a hub, helping the CalTrans project and expanding it up to Vancouver, and Texas could probably connect Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Houston together. Brand new transmission grid, preferably buried so that ice storms and trees are no longer a threat to the entire Eastern Seaboard. Expand our nuclear capacity and wind to break reliance on coal and petroleum based power sources. Also a big boost in basic research since that never hurts.
TL;DR: Infrastructure is sexy.
Lewis Black knows how to stimulate the economy
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
The Pentagon doesn't spend a shitload of money because it has so much shit to do. The Pentagon spends so much money because it's wasteful. Nobody can call the Pentagon out on its spending without being "unsupportive of the troops"
I mean, I don't know how much stuff like the millions of dollars going out on pallets and being lost happens, but considering that it seems the last time somebody tried to lower military spending was during WWII it's probable that there are pet projects and wasted money flying left and right.
I could be wrong, but it isn't like anyone is going to check because nobody wants to try anyway for fear of their job in congress. Oh well.
You know that's a joke, right?
Flynt is saying if you're going to bail out one suffering industry (cars), why not another?
Obama's plan is reportedly $500 billion in additional spending and $300 billion in tax cuts. But by his own numbers, tax cuts will have a far weaker stimulating effect. As all of this spending will be deficit creating a burden that will have to be paid off with interest in the future, it doesn't seem logical to me to commit 40% of the package to this less efficient method.
Senate Democrats have voiced criticism (privately mostly) about these portions of the plan - specifically the business tax plan
From the stimulus analysis released by Obama's team:
Other economists such as Paul Krugman agree
Krugman annoys me at times but I agree with both his and Nate Silver from 538's analysis
Obama seems to almost certainly be proposing a middle of the road package to appease Congressional (Senatorial really) Republicans to try to make this a "bipartisan plan." In what way does this differ from Clinton's triangulating?
Committing 40% of the plan for tax cuts largely to provide political cover seems irresponsible to me. While your package can't simply be "build stuff" or "invest in infrastructure/energy", the business tax cuts seem ill advised and the size and timing of the "Make America Work" seem questionable.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
What else can he commit spending on that would actually be spent within 2 years? Committing to a $100b High Speed Rail project would be awesome, but it wouldn't even begin to impact the economy with large scale new jobs focused at the construction sector for 3-5 years at the earliest.
The lack of existing projects is the purpose of the stimulus package in the first place. There's lot to do, the fact that people aren't doing it yet is the problem. For instance, school maintenance (in terms of repairs, modernization and new construction) alone needs $225 billion. Bridges need 150 billion. That's before you get to a power grid, broadband, healthcare, or alternative energy.
And the Obama team analysis disagrees with your assessment. Their report indicates investment in infrastructure, energy and other non-direct aid would have a large impact even in 2009.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
With "shovel ready projects." There aren't that many shovel ready projects to double the spending aspect of the stimulus plan and get it out the door. School maintenance, new school construction, new bridge construction, new highway expenditures &c. from whole cloth take years to develop and navigate the red tape before getting to the point where it needs funds for implementation. Short term stimulus can't wait that long.
The four Metra (local commuter rail) rail expansion projects that are currently underway started 2 years ago and won't be finished with the initial leg of environmental impact studies and alternative analysis crap until the end of this year. They are projecting construction to begin in 2013 and finish by 2019. How does 'starting' a fifth project stimulate the economy by Tuesday?
Apparently if Obama doesn't solve a problem through sheer will, he disappoints.
"RAWR we won't support anything that doesn't have some entirely useless measure that fattens the wallets of us and our friends, RAWR!"
Because not all infrastructure projects are that large. Investing money into upgrading school IT infrastructure can be sent out to bid fairly quickly. So could security infrastructure projects. In terms of comparative cost they would be a fairly small part of the package. But all could be done before the end of 2009. I'm sure there are lots of other types of projects that fit that kind of mold as well.
You are advocating spending our way out of this economy, right? How is this any different that what Japan tried?