Obama" "no pork". Really? List the pork: (interview, health care)

[Rggr]

Give businesses $50,000 to hire a person and keep them a year. For $150 billion, 3 million people would get jobs that pay $50,000 and they would get them quickly.

[saganista]

And since you're obviously not accustomed to using THOMAS, search queries expire rather quickly...your link will soon be no good if it isn't already...

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by camping!

How do I think 300 million dollars going to grants to cut violence against women will be spent? See, this is the point.....I don't know. I would think it would behoove Obama to let us know how this is going to play out. Hire more social workers? Make domestic violence classes mandatory for ER physicians and nurses? What is the plan? Or will the money be pizzed away?

Well, you accepted you don't know, yet you jumped to conclusions. You got it partially right, however, that it will involve funding agencies that will hire law enforcement officers, social workers, counselors... unless you're opposed to the idea of job growth, I don't see why you see this as pork.

#2,3, and 4 are all about redecorating beurocrats offices. That is not infrastructure -- well, perhaps only in the very loosest of terms. Pork, pork and yes- pork. If we wanted to spend a total of a little more then $2 billion dollars on infrastructure, I imagine the interstate system could use an overhaul, or the many public schools that are falling apart, hell -- lets look at the overcrowding in jails and prisons. These things come to mind when 'infrastructure' is mentioned, not poor beurocrats of the public health dept working in 'outdated' cubicles. Let them live with the orange shag carpet for another few years....lets spend that almost 2 billion dollars on real infrastructure, like nuclear power plants, dams, sewers and such....

And we're. I'm inclined to believe that if we weren't given the details, the democratic proposal would have encountered lesser opposition. It is often the details that can overwhelm people especially if they get their talking points from the media and politicians.

You're getting bogged down by your animosity towards anything government. Seeing "national" is all that takes you to get antsy. You're not alone, there are plenty around, but it is important that we see projects as what they are supposed to accomplish, and you can't deny it is infrastructure related and will benefit with new jobs, and provide businesses with opportunities. Even if it were about replacing a window pane at a bureacrats office, who do you think benefits? Pork it is not. The problem is understanding what infrastructure project entails.

We need to switch out the government fleet in order to promote hybrids? Look, if the program is to switch out vehicles as needed, this I would understand and accept (and maybe that is the plan) but if it is just a wholesale swap, then no....this is not the time.

So you drew a conclusion and stood with it without knowing the details. Buying vehicles is business as usual. This time, it is with emphasis to invest in more fuel efficient vehicles, which is likely to help their further development (will help businesses while create green collar jobs) and help the government's operating expense as a side effect. Pork, this is not.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Rggr

Give businesses $50,000 to hire a person and keep them a year. For $150 billion, 3 million people would get jobs that pay $50,000 and they would get them quickly.

What would stop this business from...
- Using the money elsewhere
- Using the money to acquire smaller businesses
- Write big bonuses and incentives to top executives
- Resume layoffs a year later
:

Been there, done that with TARP-1, haven't we?

[jimboburnsy]

I gather that both of you feel that taking treatment decisions out of the hands of doctors and placing it firmly in the grasp of the federal government is a good idea?

About the legislative language, it seems fairly self-explanatory. The language contained within proposed legislation.

You're right about THOMAS, I'm obviously not accustomed to using it and the link is no good. Excellent point. Read the article.

[Roaddog]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Infrastructural projects can take a few years (maintenance keeps going). But as a stimulus creating job is a better idea than distributing wealth/money is. Did you think tax rebate check was a bad idea as a stimulus? I hope you do, because I did and still do and largely because it didn't promise money be placed where it was expected to, much less provide a ripple effect to get the economy going. New jobs created will help businesses grow. When businesses grow, new jobs are created and the cycle continues.


Why do you think large private sector would be willing to create long term jobs in America even with lower demand for their goods and services? Explain.

The thing with maintenaance is your not building anything new with a few exceptions, it doesn't take anymore maintenance worker to keep it up than you had.
Buisnesses wont grow unless theres a need for them, people who are only going to be employeed for a few years are going to survive and thats all.

Rebate checks are worthless and so is cutting taxes, it just puts the government in deeper debt.

There is no choice but to build on the private sector, a country with as many as us need the jobs and we will not do that by importing everything we buy, look at whats happened with the steel workers, out of a job, hersheys put a town out of a job, we need jobs here and products manufactured and sold here, there is no reason except greed that keeps us from doing it and if the stimulas rewarded grass root companies to build, employ and sell their products here it would employ a bunch of people and stimulate the economy.

Temp jobs are fine to make it look like you've done something but the fix is long term employment that can support a family, this package will do little to bring in new jobs, stop home repo's and boost car sales or anything else.

I could be wrong and I hope I am but I doubt many of those unemployed people are thinking a shovel ready job is going to save them.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

What would stop this business from...
- Using the money elsewhere
- Using the money to acquire smaller businesses
- Write big bonuses and incentives to top executives
- Resume layoffs a year later
:

Been there, done that with TARP-1, haven't we?

All that oversight he's promising....
What will stop waste with any of the spending? It would be easy to confirm when a person was hired and what they were being paid. Telling states to prepare a wish list is a black hole.

If 3 million people get jobs, you will see a stimulus. If the economy starts doing well, businesses will have a need for more employees. A stimulus is supposed to be a jolt to spark the economy and jobs. This would do it more than many of the expenses that go toward some cause. This is for jobs only.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

This is one of the many unplesant aspects of government funded health care that needs to be discussed. The money supply to fund HC isn't infinite, some limits will have to be in place. The degree and quality of care vs cost the taxpaying public can afford to pay will need to be addressed, much as those that support universal health care want to ignore the fact.

[Aylalou]

Originally Posted by seamusnh

According to Obama, this is a crisis that could lead to a catastrophe. "the house is burning"! More money for the NEA is not needed to stimulate the economy. It is the equivalent of hanging a painting on the wall of the burning house...

Read my/his lips: more jobs. Let's not be not narrow-minded. He's coming up with as many ways as he can so that people can work. Come on, you must get it but then again, you don't.

The arts definitely stimulates the economy - people spend and donate quite a bit in that area.

[sanrene]

Look where it started at; This is just plain wrong - nothing more than obama and the dems inserting into a supposed stimulus bill all their pet projects that will grow the Fed to a gigantic monster - just what they have wanted for decades.

Gateway Pundit: Stimulus Package Started Out at $56 Billion... Now It's a Trillion (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/stimulus-package-started-out-at-56.html - broken link)

$56 BILLION
POLITICO: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) today announced a $56.2 billion stimulus package." ("Second stimulus announced," Politico, 09/25/08)

$61 BILLION
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY: "The House Friday passed a $60.8 billion economic stimulus package designed to pump money into infrastructure projects, unemployment insurance and Medicaid, but a similar measure failed to advance in the Senate." ("House Passes Stimulus Measure; Senate Proposal Fails," CQ, 09/26/08)

$100 BILLION
MCCLATCHY: "Washington is poised during the next 90 days to approve spending perhaps $100 billion to jolt the ailing economy." ("Can a $100 billion stimulus save a $14 trillion economy?," McClatchy, 11/09/08)

$150 BILLION
DENVER POST: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for a new $150 billion economic-stimulus package today and suggested Congress may need to act this year." ("Pelosi: New stimulus package needed," Denver Post, 10/08/08)

$200 BILLION
WASHINGTON TIMES: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed Wednesday to hold a lame-duck session to pass a $200 billion economic-stimulus package likely to include rebates to middle-class taxpayers, despite recent failure to enact less ambitious plans and Republican charges it is a 'spending hike to exploit the nation's economic troubles.'" (" Lame-duck session eyed to OK stimulus," Washington Times, 10/16/08)

$300 BILLION
WASHINGTON POST: "With fears rising that the nation stands on the precipice of a prolonged recession, House Democrats are contemplating a huge infusion of public cash — as much as $300 billion — to stoke economic growth by creating public jobs and padding the wallets of struggling consumers." ("House Democrats Consider Large, New Economic Stimulus Package," Washington Post, 10/14/08)

$400 BILLION
THE NEW YORK TIMES: "The programs will be a part of a larger economic stimulus package whose outlines are faint but which is expected to cost $400 billion to $500 billion." ("Proposal Ties Economic Stimulus to Energy Plan," The New York Times, 12/04/08)

$500 BILLION
MCCLATCHY: "President-elect Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to a $500 billion economic-stimulus package that they want to move next month even before Obama takes office." ("Obama, Democrats Agree to $500 Billion Stimulus Package," McClatchy, 12/13/08)

$600 BILLION
POLITICO: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has increased the size of the economic stimulus package she will support when Congress reconvenes next month, saying it will need to be $500 billion to $600 billion." ("Pelosi sees bigger, greener stimulus," Politico, 12/12/08)

$700 BILLION
WASHINGTON POST: "Facing an increasingly ominous economic outlook, President-elect Barack Obama and other Democrats are rapidly ratcheting up plans for a massive fiscal stimulus program that could total as much as $700 billion over the next two years." ("Democrats' Stimulus Plan May Reach $700 Billion," Washington Post, 11/24/08)

$775 BILLION
WALL STREET JOURNAL: "President-elect Barack Obama's economic team is crafting a stimulus package to send to Congress worth between $675 billion and $775 billion over two years, according to officials familiar with the package..." ("Stimulus Package Heads Toward $850 Billion," The Wall Street Journal, 12/19/09)

$800 BILLION
THE NEW YORK TIMES: "Ask just about anyone in Washington involved in the $800-billion-plus economic stimulus legislation churning its way through Congress and they will tell you it is a milestone — but without question the less expensive, and politically and technically less chancy, part of the Great National Bailout of 2009." ("Spending More Than $800 Billion Is the Easy Part," The New York Times, 02/08/09)
Hat Tip Larwyn