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/

First 100 Days: Day 19 - Legal Conference. Without blackjack nor hookers.

14143454647

Posts

  • HarrierHarrier The Star Spangled Man Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I think that anger derives mostly from the intractability of the Republicans in the House and the Senate. Whether he has much enthusiasm for the stimulus bill or not, it has to pass, and he would prefer that what passes is effective.

    More to the point, it must be frustrating to be disabused of the notion that a crisis will force even Republican politicians to be decent human beings willing to see reason. Discovering that they're soulless dogfucking vipers in both the best and the worst of times has gotten me rather angry as well.

    Harrier on
    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Barcardi wrote: »
    i cannot believe they caved so much... r and d for coast guard cutters... school construction... historic preservation... even green jobs. what the hell is left in the bill? probably band-aids

    why not fund this stuff?

    Also with school construction, as someone in the field of architecture working on 3 school projects, i can say that if you are even remodeling a school, you could easily employ up to 300 people directly and immediately, probably 1000+ indirectly within a year and even more through other indirect means in the long run. Also rebuilding schools has untold benefits to a community and its growth. That's not even building up new schools or green schools. Jesus Christ i hope reid dies soon and more republicans retire or some shit. They cut pretty much everything i was directly interested in. Is anything good left that wasnt cut at all?

    Unless I'm mistaken the hospital thing has a very real chance to get me a job in the local hospital. They need an IT person badly but have a hiring freeze due to budget issues, this bill will change that.

    override367 on
  • HarrierHarrier The Star Spangled Man Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    At any rate, I should hope that Pelosi and Obey stand their ground in the conference committee. At the very least, the $40 billion in aid for states must make it into the bill.

    Harrier on
    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Why do you say that? Even if it was true, which I don't think you can justifiably contend, "stimulus" is only partly "make jobs." Food stamps create no jobs, but they are very effective in creating spending. Additionally there's 40% tax cuts in there that are explicitly not about job creation. Some of what you left out (I got lazy so I didn't do every single one)

    You should tell that to your local grocer, register monkey, bag boy, shelf stocker, and all those illegal immigrants picking cabbage.

    Or perhaps you should read better.

    Infrastructure spending directly creates jobs. These jobs create spending which thus creates additional stimulus and thus jobs.
    Increasing food stamp funding creates spending. That spending stimulates the economy as I said above. This stimulation creates jobs.

    They both stimulate but differently. Food stamps don't directly create jobs.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Seriously, every bit of infrastructure that was in there needs to stay, and any and all provisions with the words "unemployment" and "food stamps"
    PantsB wrote:
    They both stimulate but differently. Food stamps don't directly create jobs.

    Food stamps don't so much create jobs as keep grocery stores from having to fire people.

    override367 on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Why do you say that? Even if it was true, which I don't think you can justifiably contend, "stimulus" is only partly "make jobs." Food stamps create no jobs, but they are very effective in creating spending. Additionally there's 40% tax cuts in there that are explicitly not about job creation. Some of what you left out (I got lazy so I didn't do every single one)

    You should tell that to your local grocer, register monkey, bag boy, shelf stocker, and all those illegal immigrants picking cabbage.

    Or perhaps you should read better.

    Infrastructure spending directly creates jobs. These jobs create spending which thus creates additional stimulus and thus jobs.
    Increasing food stamp funding creates spending. That spending stimulates the economy as I said above. This stimulation creates jobs.

    They both stimulate but differently. Food stamps don't directly create jobs.

    Neither do infrastructure projects, then. You don't contract with firms which don't yet exist, you hire on architects and engineers and drafters and carpenters and masons and abloo bloo bloo who are presently employed by various firms but which are just mucking about under a reduced workload at present. The increased demand due to this increased spending that the funding of infrastructure projects provides makes it more likely that the firms will expand so as to not burn their skeleton crew out, but it doesn't directly bring someone out of the unemployment queue anymore than upping the EBT balance does.

    moniker on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Seriously, every bit of infrastructure that was in there needs to stay, and any and all provisions with the words "unemployment" and "food stamps"
    PantsB wrote:
    They both stimulate but differently. Food stamps don't directly create jobs.

    Food stamps don't so much create jobs as keep grocery stores from having to fire people.

    Which is the same for a new highway interchange contract. It'll keep SOM from firing some engineers and, if they have to build enough of 'em, they may just rehire some of the ones that got laid off. Literally creating jobs would be directing money to, say, transit agencies in order to put more busses/trains into service at current fare rates. It's also an idiotic distinction without any real difference between it and 2 degrees away from creating new jobs for Kevin Bacon.

    moniker on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Seriously, every bit of infrastructure that was in there needs to stay, and any and all provisions with the words "unemployment" and "food stamps"
    PantsB wrote:
    They both stimulate but differently. Food stamps don't directly create jobs.

    Food stamps don't so much create jobs as keep grocery stores from having to fire people.

    Which is the same for a new highway interchange contract. It'll keep SOM from firing some engineers and, if they have to build enough of 'em, they may just rehire some of the ones that got laid off. Literally creating jobs would be directing money to, say, transit agencies in order to put more busses/trains into service at current fare rates. It's also an idiotic distinction without any real difference between it and 2 degrees away from creating new jobs for Kevin Bacon.

    Except most of those jobs are done by contract, I believe, so contracting something is literally creating jobs to be done.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Why do you say that? Even if it was true, which I don't think you can justifiably contend, "stimulus" is only partly "make jobs." Food stamps create no jobs, but they are very effective in creating spending. Additionally there's 40% tax cuts in there that are explicitly not about job creation. Some of what you left out (I got lazy so I didn't do every single one)

    You should tell that to your local grocer, register monkey, bag boy, shelf stocker, and all those illegal immigrants picking cabbage.

    Or perhaps you should read better.

    Infrastructure spending directly creates jobs. These jobs create spending which thus creates additional stimulus and thus jobs.
    Increasing food stamp funding creates spending. That spending stimulates the economy as I said above. This stimulation creates jobs.

    They both stimulate but differently. Food stamps don't directly create jobs.

    Neither do infrastructure projects, then. You don't contract with firms which don't yet exist, you hire on architects and engineers and drafters and carpenters and masons and abloo bloo bloo who are presently employed by various firms but which are just mucking about under a reduced workload at present.
    Actually yes you do. I know a number of unemployed construction workers who hope that the stimulus package might get them jobs this summer. Construction jobs by their nature are cyclical and construction workers generally spend a significant among of time unemployed, especially in the winter, even when things are going well.

    Food stamps are good because they provide immediate stimulus because the people on food stamps can't afford to save. This is also why payroll tax relief is a reasonable tax cut to include (which can't be said for all the cuts in this bill)
    Infrastructure provides stimulus by creating jobs. The benefit is somewhat slower but longer term benefits are also realized.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Harrier wrote: »
    I think that anger derives mostly from the intractability of the Republicans in the House and the Senate. Whether he has much enthusiasm for the stimulus bill or not, it has to pass, and he would prefer that what passes is effective.

    More to the point, it must be frustrating to be disabused of the notion that a crisis will force even Republican politicians to be decent human beings willing to see reason. Discovering that they're soulless dogfucking vipers in both the best and the worst of times has gotten me rather angry as well.
    Yeah, I know. It sucks. The GOP leadership at least has come to the conclusion that THEY, personally, have nothing to lose. Their constituents are fucked, they as a party are fucked for however long, but they as individuals aren't going to exactly be joining the ranks of the fucked (think tanks and book deals and speaking fees and whatnot), so they've just decided to ride the pony straight into the ground.

    And as long as the President's from the other party, they'll do whatever the hell they feel like doing if it means they get to shove something down Obama's throat. They're doing this purely out of spite.

    As for how to go forward, we know who can be picked off now. We've had enough roll-call votes in Congress, on issues besides the stimulus, to get at least some idea of who can be courted and who can't. For a little while, I think the plan should be to make a good-faith effort to the possible crossovers, and the rest will come around when they're ready or they won't. If they won't? Screw them. We've got work to do. Bipartisanship only works when both sides are willing to participate.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Seriously, every bit of infrastructure that was in there needs to stay, and any and all provisions with the words "unemployment" and "food stamps"
    PantsB wrote:
    They both stimulate but differently. Food stamps don't directly create jobs.

    Food stamps don't so much create jobs as keep grocery stores from having to fire people.

    Which is the same for a new highway interchange contract. It'll keep SOM from firing some engineers and, if they have to build enough of 'em, they may just rehire some of the ones that got laid off. Literally creating jobs would be directing money to, say, transit agencies in order to put more busses/trains into service at current fare rates. It's also an idiotic distinction without any real difference between it and 2 degrees away from creating new jobs for Kevin Bacon.

    Except most of those jobs are done by contract, I believe, so contracting something is literally creating jobs to be done.

    Creating work to be done, not jobs to be done. Whether that new work means new jobs due to expanding employment needs at a design firm to handle that work load is a secondary effect. The direct effect is having a currently employed draftsman spend less time dicking around on the internets and more time dicking around in CAD. Which is, again, a distinction without a difference as the whole point of the bill is to make sure that the work load for whatever is such that it'll necessitate hiring people back on to deal with it all.

    moniker on
  • HarrierHarrier The Star Spangled Man Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Gosling wrote: »
    Harrier wrote: »
    I think that anger derives mostly from the intractability of the Republicans in the House and the Senate. Whether he has much enthusiasm for the stimulus bill or not, it has to pass, and he would prefer that what passes is effective.

    More to the point, it must be frustrating to be disabused of the notion that a crisis will force even Republican politicians to be decent human beings willing to see reason. Discovering that they're soulless dogfucking vipers in both the best and the worst of times has gotten me rather angry as well.
    Yeah, I know. It sucks. The GOP leadership at least has come to the conclusion that THEY, personally, have nothing to lose. Their constituents are fucked, they as a party are fucked for however long, but they as individuals aren't going to exactly be joining the ranks of the fucked (think tanks and book deals and speaking fees and whatnot), so they've just decided to ride the pony straight into the ground.

    And as long as the President's from the other party, they'll do whatever the hell they feel like doing if it means they get to shove something down Obama's throat. They're doing this purely out of spite.

    As for how to go forward, we know who can be picked off now. We've had enough roll-call votes in Congress, on issues besides the stimulus, to get at least some idea of who can be courted and who can't. For a little while, I think the plan should be to make a good-faith effort to the possible crossovers, and the rest will come around when they're ready or they won't. If they won't? Screw them. We've got work to do. Bipartisanship only works when both sides are willing to participate.
    Oh, I'm done with bipartisanship. My fondest wish is to see the Republican Party cease to exist, and for all its members in Washington to be arrested for actions that in a certain light could be deemed treasonous.

    But in the meantime, people are losing their jobs, and suffering, and they're calling any attempt at relief 'wasteful.' They hate the poor, and that they have the gall to parade about as the 'Christian' political party is nothing short of sinful.

    Harrier on
    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    SNL is doing Obama a favor with its 'cold open.' Pelosi = frustrated as hell that the Senate is so concerned with 'bipartisanship.' Reid = blathering about bipartisanship. That's probably got to be narrative the WH pushes

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Harrier wrote: »
    Gosling wrote: »
    Harrier wrote: »
    I think that anger derives mostly from the intractability of the Republicans in the House and the Senate. Whether he has much enthusiasm for the stimulus bill or not, it has to pass, and he would prefer that what passes is effective.

    More to the point, it must be frustrating to be disabused of the notion that a crisis will force even Republican politicians to be decent human beings willing to see reason. Discovering that they're soulless dogfucking vipers in both the best and the worst of times has gotten me rather angry as well.
    Yeah, I know. It sucks. The GOP leadership at least has come to the conclusion that THEY, personally, have nothing to lose. Their constituents are fucked, they as a party are fucked for however long, but they as individuals aren't going to exactly be joining the ranks of the fucked (think tanks and book deals and speaking fees and whatnot), so they've just decided to ride the pony straight into the ground.

    And as long as the President's from the other party, they'll do whatever the hell they feel like doing if it means they get to shove something down Obama's throat. They're doing this purely out of spite.

    As for how to go forward, we know who can be picked off now. We've had enough roll-call votes in Congress, on issues besides the stimulus, to get at least some idea of who can be courted and who can't. For a little while, I think the plan should be to make a good-faith effort to the possible crossovers, and the rest will come around when they're ready or they won't. If they won't? Screw them. We've got work to do. Bipartisanship only works when both sides are willing to participate.
    Oh, I'm done with bipartisanship. My fondest wish is to see the Republican Party cease to exist, and for all its members in Washington to be arrested for actions that in a certain light could be deemed treasonous.

    But in the meantime, people are losing their jobs, and suffering, and they're calling any attempt at relief 'wasteful.' They hate the poor, and that they have the gall to parade about as the 'Christian' political party is nothing short of sinful.

    Well, they are doing a pretty good job fucking up the lives of nonbelievers.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Harrier wrote: »
    Oh, I'm done with bipartisanship. My fondest wish is to see the Republican Party cease to exist, and for all its members in Washington to be arrested for actions that in a certain light could be deemed treasonous.

    But in the meantime, people are losing their jobs, and suffering, and they're calling any attempt at relief 'wasteful.' They hate the poor, and that they have the gall to parade about as the 'Christian' political party is nothing short of sinful.

    I couldn't agree more.

    I really do value our adversarial system of government, and having a number of voices and views expressed about any given issue is almost uniformly a good thing.

    The caveat, however, is that much like the rest of our system of government, is that there's an unspoken premise. And that is, the whole thing only works well when people are educated enough to voice valid and useful arguments.

    It's easy to look at the democrats and the republicans and say that the democrats should be the progressives and the republicans should be the voice of caution and restraint. But it doesn't work that way. That ship - if it was ever even here - sailed on the republicans long before I was even born. I was born in '81, and in my entire lifetime, the GOP has never been the voice of reason and restraint. They are the party that gets in the way of things getting better; they're the party of intolerance, fear, hate, and above all else, ignorance.

    The republicans have long since ceased providing useful political discourse. They need to go away. Even the libertarians seem comparatively rational and grounded in the face of the modern GOP.

    s3rial one on
  • agoajagoaj Top Tier One FearRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    s3rial one wrote: »
    Harrier wrote: »
    Oh, I'm done with bipartisanship. My fondest wish is to see the Republican Party cease to exist, and for all its members in Washington to be arrested for actions that in a certain light could be deemed treasonous.

    But in the meantime, people are losing their jobs, and suffering, and they're calling any attempt at relief 'wasteful.' They hate the poor, and that they have the gall to parade about as the 'Christian' political party is nothing short of sinful.

    I couldn't agree more.

    I really do value our adversarial system of government, and having a number of voices and views expressed about any given issue is almost uniformly a good thing.

    The caveat, however, is that much like the rest of our system of government, is that there's an unspoken premise. And that is, the whole thing only works well when people are educated enough to voice valid and useful arguments.

    It's easy to look at the democrats and the republicans and say that the democrats should be the progressives and the republicans should be the voice of caution and restraint. But it doesn't work that way. That ship - if it was ever even here - sailed on the republicans long before I was even born. I was born in '81, and in my entire lifetime, the GOP has never been the voice of reason and restraint. They are the party that gets in the way of things getting better; they're the party of intolerance, fear, hate, and above all else, ignorance.

    The republicans have long since ceased providing useful political discourse. They need to go away. Even the libertarians seem comparatively rational and grounded in the face of the modern GOP.

    Building an underwater libertarian city would give us a lot of job stimulus...

    agoaj on
    ujav5b9gwj1s.png
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    agoaj wrote: »
    s3rial one wrote: »
    Harrier wrote: »
    Oh, I'm done with bipartisanship. My fondest wish is to see the Republican Party cease to exist, and for all its members in Washington to be arrested for actions that in a certain light could be deemed treasonous.

    But in the meantime, people are losing their jobs, and suffering, and they're calling any attempt at relief 'wasteful.' They hate the poor, and that they have the gall to parade about as the 'Christian' political party is nothing short of sinful.

    I couldn't agree more.

    I really do value our adversarial system of government, and having a number of voices and views expressed about any given issue is almost uniformly a good thing.

    The caveat, however, is that much like the rest of our system of government, is that there's an unspoken premise. And that is, the whole thing only works well when people are educated enough to voice valid and useful arguments.

    It's easy to look at the democrats and the republicans and say that the democrats should be the progressives and the republicans should be the voice of caution and restraint. But it doesn't work that way. That ship - if it was ever even here - sailed on the republicans long before I was even born. I was born in '81, and in my entire lifetime, the GOP has never been the voice of reason and restraint. They are the party that gets in the way of things getting better; they're the party of intolerance, fear, hate, and above all else, ignorance.

    The republicans have long since ceased providing useful political discourse. They need to go away. Even the libertarians seem comparatively rational and grounded in the face of the modern GOP.

    Building an underwater libertarian city would give us a lot of job stimulus...

    Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    agoaj wrote: »
    s3rial one wrote: »
    Harrier wrote: »
    Oh, I'm done with bipartisanship. My fondest wish is to see the Republican Party cease to exist, and for all its members in Washington to be arrested for actions that in a certain light could be deemed treasonous.

    But in the meantime, people are losing their jobs, and suffering, and they're calling any attempt at relief 'wasteful.' They hate the poor, and that they have the gall to parade about as the 'Christian' political party is nothing short of sinful.

    I couldn't agree more.

    I really do value our adversarial system of government, and having a number of voices and views expressed about any given issue is almost uniformly a good thing.

    The caveat, however, is that much like the rest of our system of government, is that there's an unspoken premise. And that is, the whole thing only works well when people are educated enough to voice valid and useful arguments.

    It's easy to look at the democrats and the republicans and say that the democrats should be the progressives and the republicans should be the voice of caution and restraint. But it doesn't work that way. That ship - if it was ever even here - sailed on the republicans long before I was even born. I was born in '81, and in my entire lifetime, the GOP has never been the voice of reason and restraint. They are the party that gets in the way of things getting better; they're the party of intolerance, fear, hate, and above all else, ignorance.

    The republicans have long since ceased providing useful political discourse. They need to go away. Even the libertarians seem comparatively rational and grounded in the face of the modern GOP.

    Building an underwater libertarian city would give us a lot of job stimulus...

    The Republicans talk like more responsible Libertarians, but they aren't even in favor of the few good things Libertarianism advocates, like freedom being first, or government staying out of your house. They talk about that and then they hand the president the ability to wiretap Americans and set up secret prisons. They talk about fiscal responsibility and then run the treasury into the ground (and then burrow several miles under said ground). That is the antithesis of conservativism. There is nothing conservative about republicans, I move their party be redesignated "The Regressive Party"

    override367 on
  • BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Under A Rock: AfganistanRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    SNL is doing Obama a favor with its 'cold open.' Pelosi = frustrated as hell that the Senate is so concerned with 'bipartisanship.' Reid = blathering about bipartisanship. That's probably got to be narrative the WH pushes

    huh?

    Barcardi on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Barcardi wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    SNL is doing Obama a favor with its 'cold open.' Pelosi = frustrated as hell that the Senate is so concerned with 'bipartisanship.' Reid = blathering about bipartisanship. That's probably got to be narrative the WH pushes

    huh?

    The Senate bill is substantially different than the House bill. It will need to be worked on in conference. Obama will work to convince the conference committee to go more towards the (far superior) House bill. SNL presenting Republican calls for bipartisanship as hypocritical and voicing frustration that Dems aren't actually using their majority helps build a narrative to get that done.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    SNL is doing Obama a favor with its 'cold open.' Pelosi = frustrated as hell that the Senate is so concerned with 'bipartisanship.' Reid = blathering about bipartisanship. That's probably got to be narrative the WH pushes

    huh?

    The Senate bill is substantially different than the House bill. It will need to be worked on in conference. Obama will work to convince the conference committee to go more towards the (far superior) House bill. SNL presenting Republican calls for bipartisanship as hypocritical and voicing frustration that Dems aren't actually using their majority helps build a narrative to get that done.

    Did you already post how the reconciliation of the two bills is carried out Pants?

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • ArgusArgus Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    So I'm still desperately trying to understand all this, the Republicans ultimate desire is people to get money and spend it right? Not to pay debts, since that doesn't have a stimulative effect, but to spend it right?

    Isn't buying lots of crap we didn't need one of the big factors in why our economy is having such a hard time? Most people have debt on crap they bought that they didn't need, how is buying more going to help?

    With things like food stamps the money is almost guaranteed to not only be spent quickly, but all the money stays within the envelope of the US economy. If you spend it on electronics or clothes there's a good chance a portion of it will squeeze its way out overseas.

    This is from 2 pages back, but I felt it should be addressed. There are two reasons you shouldn't worry about that:

    1) As some of our stimulus will wind its way through to other countries, other countries' stimuli will wind their way to us.

    2) Trade wars. If you include a "Buy American" provision, or anything that looks protectionist, it will provoke retaliation, which will go back and forth until each country is just not trading with hardly anyone.

    Why is this a bad thing? Why is not trading a bad thing?

    Ironically enough, just as talk of the "Buy American" provision started up, we learned about why it's a bad thing in intro to economics: comparative advantage.

    Comparative advantage is where one country can produce a good using less resources or using resources more efficiently than another country can to make it. Say, Country X is good at making oranges. This applies to many different things, since countries have different resources, like land and climate, labor force, and capital (industrial plants and assembly lines and the like). So, maybe a different country, Country Y, is good at making apples. Well, each country theoretically could just produce its own apples and oranges and just give to itself, but country X takes up a lot of resources to make apples that could be spent on making a lot more oranges, say, 3 oranges worth of resources have to be given up to produce an apple. And country Y is the same way with apples: it takes 3 apples worth of resources to make one orange. And so, if each has 100 bits of resources to make stuff with, they could make

    Country X 0 apples/ 100 oranges, 10 apples/70 oranges, 20 apples/40 oranges, 23 apples/ 31 oranges, 30 apples/ 10 oranges
    Country Y 0 oranges/ 100 apples, 10 oranges/70 apples, 20 oranges/ 40 apples, 23 oranges/ 31 apples, 30 oranges/ 10 apples

    Now, if both countries produce around the middle range, 23 apples and 31 oranges for country X, and 23 oranges and 31 apples for country Y, they could both have some apples and some oranges. With trade, they could even get up to 27 apples and 27 oranges each. However, if country X produces *all* oranges, and country Y produces *all* apples, they can both have 50 apples and oranges each.

    Producing what your country's resources are best suited for and trading for what it isn't increases global output and increases the standard of living for all countries involved, so trying to restrict to only "buying American" would cause trade to halt and deepen the recession by causing overall production of goods to fall due to inefficiently making stuff for your own country and giving up resources that could be better used making other things. The historical precedent mentioned in Economics textbooks has to do with the major economic downturn that all news are comparing this one to: The Great Depression and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act:
    Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, some economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression.

    An Economist.com article talking about worries of protectionism

    Argus on
    pasigsizedu5.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    The problem is that most of the coutries bitching about this have already passed much more protectionist measures. The EU has France, which apparently has passed a stimulus bill which is much more specific than "buy American materials and hire Americans for this job," China has put into practice a comparable plan with no fanfare (something which definitely killed the EU representative when he argued that they'd be just as pissed if China tried something like this), and I seem to recall something about Canada.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Souless vipers?

    Because they want to lean harder on tax cuts and don't believe in demand side economics?

    Speaker on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Sentry wrote: »

    Did you already post how the reconciliation of the two bills is carried out Pants?
    Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a set method. A bunch of Reps and Senators, possibly the ranking members of appropriate committees in each house, get together and work out a deal. So far, I have no idea if having large majorities in both houses allows Dems to have controlling majorities in the committee or who will be on the conference committee. One plus is that apparently the report (set of Amendments) can't be filibustered in the Senate as I understand it.

    Gosling said Obey would be on it, which is good (he's liberal and definitely on the right side on this bill) and reports seem to support that. That would suggest Jerry Lewis would be on the conference probably as ranking member of Appropriations. In the Senate, Inouye is the chair of Appropriations. Thad Cochrane is ranking member.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »

    Did you already post how the reconciliation of the two bills is carried out Pants?
    Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a set method. A bunch of Reps and Senators, possibly the ranking members of appropriate committees in each house, get together and work out a deal. So far, I have no idea if having large majorities in both houses allows Dems to have controlling majorities in the committee or who will be on the conference committee. One plus is that apparently the report (set of Amendments) can't be filibustered in the Senate as I understand it.

    Gosling said Obey would be on it, which is good (he's liberal and definitely on the right side on this bill) and reports seem to support that. That would suggest Jerry Lewis would be on the conference probably as ranking member of Appropriations. In the Senate, Inouye is the chair of Appropriations. Thad Cochrane is ranking member.

    i'll just keep my fingers crossed then... thanks

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Also, pretty annoying that Meet the Press features two Senators: Anti-stimulus Republican and Pro-Neutered Deal Dem (McCaskill). No representative for the largest faction - those in favor of the bill that much more closely resembled the House deal.

    Edit - At least they have Barney Frank, I'm hoping he opens up. McCaskill is under the understanding that the people want bipartisanship over good bills. Pence says "tax cuts!". Ensign claims this bill snuck up on him.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • BitstreamBitstream Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Also, pretty annoying that Meet the Press features two Senators: Anti-stimulus Republican and Pro-Neutered Deal Dem (McCaskill). No representative for the largest faction - those in favor of the bill that much more closely resembled the House deal.

    Edit - At least they have Barney Frank, I'm hoping he opens up. McCaskill is under the understanding that the people want bipartisanship over good bills. Pence says "tax cuts!". Ensign claims this bill snuck up on him.

    Barney Frank was awesome this morning. At one point I thought Gregory was going to have to break up a fistfight.

    And yeah, Ensign's "I didn't even see this bill until 11 o'clock last night!" was an... interesting tactic.

    Bitstream on
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    This site got greenlit to Fark after they got a big-ass infusion of leaked congressional reports.

    If I'm anybody of importance, I know what I'm doing today. 6,780 reports, 127,000 pages of material. (This thread's my best guess as to where it goes on open-government grounds. If it's determined this needs a new thread, feel free to let me know.)

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • PongePonge Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I only get Fox news over here (which I hate) so I'm getting a pretty biased view on the whole shebang. What is everyones opinion on all these other things that are in the bill such as Digital TV boxes and environmental funding for global warming research etc. They keep harping on about how only 20% of the bill is actually going to stimulate the economy and the other 80% is for building swimming pools and gun ranges in small towns.

    Are they just talking a load of shite?

    Ponge on
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    2/3rds of the bill will stimulate the economy more-or-less right away; within the first two years. 1/3rd is more long term stuff, but the goal there is to time a secondary stimulus just as the early stuff is running out.

    Small parts of the bill here and there are dumb, not stimulus, or not intuitively obvious as stimulus so the republicans can score cheap points whining about them. Some of these items are shit we should be spending money on anyway and will have other benefits, some are just genuinely dumb, but it doesn't add up to much.

    In the name of "fiscal responsibility" the Republicans have somehow forced the Democrats, who control both houses, into lobotomizing massive sections of the bill.

    EDIT: Swimming pools and gun ranges would be direct economic stimulus. It's time for some Keynes; we could do just as well paying people to dig ditches and fill them in again. The trick with a situation like this is just to spend spend spend until the economy gets going. While you're doing that, you might as well spend on shit you need.

    EDIT 2: To keep this on topic, the main strategic motivation the Republicans have is to give Obama a bloody nose right out of the gate. The picture for 2010/2012 is looking grim for the Republicans; they absolutely must ensure the narrative is one of an unsuccessful, Carter-like President. This is the first real test for the Obama administration; how he handles this is either going to be a lesson of what not to do or a sign to the Republicans he's a lot more clever than they seem to be giving him credit for, since their strategy is definitely risky on their part. The stimulus bill is popular with the public and Obama has a louder voice. We'll see.

    Professor Phobos on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Gosling wrote: »
    This site got greenlit to Fark after they got a big-ass infusion of leaked congressional reports.

    If I'm anybody of importance, I know what I'm doing today. 6,780 reports, 127,000 pages of material. (This thread's my best guess as to where it goes on open-government grounds. If it's determined this needs a new thread, feel free to let me know.)

    I think the topic could flourish in its own thread. I would certainly post in it. :rotate:

    MKR on
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Ponge wrote: »
    I only get Fox news over here (which I hate) so I'm getting a pretty biased view on the whole shebang. What is everyones opinion on all these other things that are in the bill such as Digital TV boxes and environmental funding for global warming research etc. They keep harping on about how only 20% of the bill is actually going to stimulate the economy and the other 80% is for building swimming pools and gun ranges in small towns.

    Are they just talking a load of shite?

    Pretty much full of shit, and posturing for the sake of posturing. There was a big huboo about resodding the National Mall, where they failed to consider the people that would be hired to resod the mall, or the companies that would be supplying the necessary materials. And something about upgrading government cars with higher fuel efficiency, and they conveniently ignored the fact that people are paid to build those cars, and better fuel efficiency is going to save the government a ton of money on gas.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    Speaker wrote: »
    Souless vipers?

    Because they want to lean harder on tax cuts and don't believe in demand side economics?

    Some of them are just myopic and/or stupid. Some of them probably don't think tax cuts will do shit, but are scared of their constituents. And some of them are probably just trying to fuck the Dems, country be damned.

    The last group are soulless vipers. The rest are simply cowards or dipshits.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    Gosling wrote: »
    This site got greenlit to Fark after they got a big-ass infusion of leaked congressional reports.

    If I'm anybody of importance, I know what I'm doing today. 6,780 reports, 127,000 pages of material. (This thread's my best guess as to where it goes on open-government grounds. If it's determined this needs a new thread, feel free to let me know.)

    I think the topic could flourish in its own thread. I would certainly post in it. :rotate:
    Done and done. Complete with my own highlights of the morning.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Souless vipers?

    Because they want to lean harder on tax cuts and don't believe in demand side economics?

    Some of them are just myopic and/or stupid. Some of them probably don't think tax cuts will do shit, but are scared of their constituents. And some of them are probably just trying to fuck the Dems, country be damned.

    The last group are soulless vipers. The rest are simply cowards or dipshits.

    I can get behind fucking the Dems after watching Obama mania... I voted for the dude, but I want to see him crash and burn massively after watching the fanatics group behind him.

    I thought the religious right was out of hand.... now I might have found a worse group.

    psychotix on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Souless vipers?

    Because they want to lean harder on tax cuts and don't believe in demand side economics?

    Some of them are just myopic and/or stupid. Some of them probably don't think tax cuts will do shit, but are scared of their constituents. And some of them are probably just trying to fuck the Dems, country be damned.

    The last group are soulless vipers. The rest are simply cowards or dipshits.

    I can get behind fucking the Dems after watching Obama mania... I voted for the dude, but I want to see him crash and burn massively after watching the fanatics group behind him.

    I thought the religious right was out of hand.... now I might have found a worse group.

    Do you try to live up to your name, or does it come naturally to you? You're worse than Rush - at least he has some rational (if outright evil) reasons for why he wants Obama to fail. You just want to see the country go into a tailspin just out of spite.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Argus wrote: »
    So I'm still desperately trying to understand all this, the Republicans ultimate desire is people to get money and spend it right? Not to pay debts, since that doesn't have a stimulative effect, but to spend it right?

    Isn't buying lots of crap we didn't need one of the big factors in why our economy is having such a hard time? Most people have debt on crap they bought that they didn't need, how is buying more going to help?

    With things like food stamps the money is almost guaranteed to not only be spent quickly, but all the money stays within the envelope of the US economy. If you spend it on electronics or clothes there's a good chance a portion of it will squeeze its way out overseas.

    This is from 2 pages back, but I felt it should be addressed. There are two reasons you shouldn't worry about that:

    1) As some of our stimulus will wind its way through to other countries, other countries' stimuli will wind their way to us.

    2) Trade wars. If you include a "Buy American" provision, or anything that looks protectionist, it will provoke retaliation, which will go back and forth until each country is just not trading with hardly anyone.

    Why is this a bad thing? Why is not trading a bad thing?

    Ironically enough, just as talk of the "Buy American" provision started up, we learned about why it's a bad thing in intro to economics: comparative advantage.

    Comparative advantage is where one country can produce a good using less resources or using resources more efficiently than another country can to make it. Say, Country X is good at making oranges. This applies to many different things, since countries have different resources, like land and climate, labor force, and capital (industrial plants and assembly lines and the like). So, maybe a different country, Country Y, is good at making apples. Well, each country theoretically could just produce its own apples and oranges and just give to itself, but country X takes up a lot of resources to make apples that could be spent on making a lot more oranges, say, 3 oranges worth of resources have to be given up to produce an apple. And country Y is the same way with apples: it takes 3 apples worth of resources to make one orange. And so, if each has 100 bits of resources to make stuff with, they could make

    Country X 0 apples/ 100 oranges, 10 apples/70 oranges, 20 apples/40 oranges, 23 apples/ 31 oranges, 30 apples/ 10 oranges
    Country Y 0 oranges/ 100 apples, 10 oranges/70 apples, 20 oranges/ 40 apples, 23 oranges/ 31 apples, 30 oranges/ 10 apples

    Now, if both countries produce around the middle range, 23 apples and 31 oranges for country X, and 23 oranges and 31 apples for country Y, they could both have some apples and some oranges. With trade, they could even get up to 27 apples and 27 oranges each. However, if country X produces *all* oranges, and country Y produces *all* apples, they can both have 50 apples and oranges each.

    Producing what your country's resources are best suited for and trading for what it isn't increases global output and increases the standard of living for all countries involved, so trying to restrict to only "buying American" would cause trade to halt and deepen the recession by causing overall production of goods to fall due to inefficiently making stuff for your own country and giving up resources that could be better used making other things. The historical precedent mentioned in Economics textbooks has to do with the major economic downturn that all news are comparing this one to: The Great Depression and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act:
    Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, some economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression.

    An Economist.com article talking about worries of protectionism

    So you're in favor of massive tax cuts... what? So when China invested in its infrastructure it's a protectionist measure that will lead to countries not trading with them?

    You're not disputing anything I said, you're talking about things I never mention, giving everyone money to buy a foreign made product does very little to help the economy short term, and that's even if they do decide to spend that money. If they use food stamps the money is immediately dispersed within the envelope of our economy.

    I'm not suggesting we stop foreign trade or any of that nonsense, why would you think I was suggesting that? I was suggesting that an economic stimulus designed to stimulate the American economy should be spent in America. Nothing more.

    override367 on
  • ArgusArgus Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    2/3rds of the bill will stimulate the economy more-or-less right away; within the first two years. 1/3rd is more long term stuff, but the goal there is to time a secondary stimulus just as the early stuff is running out.

    Small parts of the bill here and there are dumb, not stimulus, or not intuitively obvious as stimulus so the republicans can score cheap points whining about them. Some of these items are shit we should be spending money on anyway and will have other benefits, some are just genuinely dumb, but it doesn't add up to much.

    In the name of "fiscal responsibility" the Republicans have somehow forced the Democrats, who control both houses, into lobotomizing massive sections of the bill.

    EDIT: Swimming pools and gun ranges would be direct economic stimulus. It's time for some Keynes; we could do just as well paying people to dig ditches and fill them in again. The trick with a situation like this is just to spend spend spend until the economy gets going. While you're doing that, you might as well spend on shit you need.

    EDIT 2: To keep this on topic, the main strategic motivation the Republicans have is to give Obama a bloody nose right out of the gate. The picture for 2010/2012 is looking grim for the Republicans; they absolutely must ensure the narrative is one of an unsuccessful, Carter-like President. This is the first real test for the Obama administration; how he handles this is either going to be a lesson of what not to do or a sign to the Republicans he's a lot more clever than they seem to be giving him credit for, since their strategy is definitely risky on their part. The stimulus bill is popular with the public and Obama has a louder voice. We'll see.

    Also there was a false CBO report which claimed that a lot of the stuff wouldn't be spent for 18+ months, but it was fake, so.
    In the debate over how best to provide economic stimulus, put U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, the Republican whip, in the camp that thinks more tax cuts and less government spending is the way to go.

    Fair enough. But in a Jan. 21, 2009, interview on Fox News, Cantor cited a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office to back up his argument.

    "We have a list of ideas very focused on small businesses, the self-employed, entrepreneurs and families, because we believe very much you provide tax relief to those individuals that we will see an economy that bounces back," Cantor said.

    "Unfortunately, here on the Hill, what we're seeing now is the congressional Democrats proposed massive amounts of spending; that in fact today the Congressional Budget Office came out with a report — said that it's just not stimulus. It won't help the economy grow."

    That seemed odd, given that the CBO is supposed to be an objective, nonpartisan fiscal research arm for Congress. So we decided to check it out.

    What Cantor cited is not so much a CBO report as a data run projecting how much of the proposed $355 billion stimulus money proposed by House Democrats for infrastructure projects like bridge, highway or school construction and other "discretionary" spending would be going out the door in any given year. Because while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi talks about "shovel ready" projects, the reality is many of the proposed projects would take time to get off the ground.

    The CBO analysis found that about $136 billion of the $355 billion total would be spent in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 (remember, we are already 4-1/2 months into the 2009 fiscal year). So that means only about a third would be spent this year and next.

    By the end of the 2011 fiscal year, about 70 percent of the money would be spent.

    When we called Cantor's office, they made the point that the CBO data show that the proposed spending by the Democrats wouldn't be spent fast enough to quickly stimulate the faltering economy. They note that a previous CBO report projected a marked contraction in the U.S. economy in 2009 will be followed by a slow recovery in 2010. Therefore, Cantor and other Republicans have argued, the bulk of the infrastructure spending wouldn't kick in until we are already well out of a recession.

    "If most of the plan won't be spent before 2011, what help is that to the economy now?" said Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring. Therefore, he said, it's fair to extrapolate from the data that the Democrats' plan won't help the economy.

    A few caveats to the CBO spending analysis are in order.

    First, as Cantor acknowledged later in the Fox interview, the CBO analysis referenced by Cantor only looked at so-called discretionary spending, not the entire $825 billion stimulus package proposed by House leaders. Among the spending not analyzed is a proposed $275 billion in tax cuts and nearly $200 billion for jobless benefits — both of which are expected by some to jump-start the economy more quickly than infrastructure projects.

    Second, the CBO data is based on an already outdated version of the proposed stimulus package.

    Last, and perhaps most important, the three-page CBO data sheet makes absolutely no qualitative conclusions about whether infrastructure spending will stimulate the economy, or whether it will or won't help the economy to grow. It projects when the money would be spent, period.


    There is sure to be heated debate between Democrats and Republicans in the coming weeks about spending versus tax cuts in the proposed stimulus package, and which would create more jobs, more quickly.

    If Cantor's point is that Democrats have been too optimistic in how quickly they can create jobs through infrastructure projects, the CBO data give a bit of ammunition to suggest that such projects will likely take several years to unfold. But the way Cantor said it suggests that the nonpartisan and well-regarded CBO had come out with a report that said the opposition party's proposal wouldn't work. That's a serious distortion of three pages of data that simply laid out a likely timeline of spending.

    Yes, coupled with other data, it is possible to make an argument that the proposed infrastructure spending won't provide an urgently needed boost to the ecomony, but that's not an argument the CBO weighs in on one way or another. And Cantor's suggestion that it does is False.

    This simulation thing was quoted by basically every major news source, with all of them calling it an actual CBO report even though it wasn't, and without mentioning that it didn't take into account all of the bill.

    Argus on
    pasigsizedu5.jpg
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Souless vipers?

    Because they want to lean harder on tax cuts and don't believe in demand side economics?

    Some of them are just myopic and/or stupid. Some of them probably don't think tax cuts will do shit, but are scared of their constituents. And some of them are probably just trying to fuck the Dems, country be damned.

    The last group are soulless vipers. The rest are simply cowards or dipshits.

    I can get behind fucking the Dems after watching Obama mania... I voted for the dude, but I want to see him crash and burn massively after watching the fanatics group behind him.

    I thought the religious right was out of hand.... now I might have found a worse group.

    Do you try to live up to your name, or does it come naturally to you? You're worse than Rush - at least he has some rational (if outright evil) reasons for why he wants Obama to fail. You just want to see the country go into a tailspin just out of spite.

    Comes naturally.

    I have to deal with people screaming the praises of Jesus, err Obama, day in and day out. They are worse then the Christian nut jobs I've dealt with, and I'd say, from the ones I have to deal with, bigger fanatics.

    I don't want to see the country go to shit. But I can get behind fucking the dems over to get my jollies at watching those idiots world shattered along with their dreams. Watching first time voters, that don't know jack, get completely fed up and done with our political system would be icing on the cake. I'd grow a big rubbery one watching those idiots moan and bitch when it all comes crashing down on their heads.

    Watching Obamamania reminds of NK propaganda. And I'd love to watch it implode.

    psychotix on
This discussion has been closed.