(the following is from various sources at the Heritage Foundation)
- Over $142 Billion in Federal education funds to appease the teacher's union.
- $87 Billion Medicaid bailout: Medicaid is funded in part by states. If we keep bailing states out, they will have every incentive to continue irresponsible spending. Fiscally responsible taxpayers in Indiana are now paying for fiscally irresponsible bureaucrats in Illinois.
- Expanded Medicaid coverage and SCHIP: Reid-Pelosi-Obama are enacting a nationalized health care policy with no debate. The government will soon be responsible for more health care spending than the private sector.
- Green Jobs: The myth of 'green jobs' merely means replacing one job lost, with a new job that fits the left's agenda.
- Redistribution: Refundable Tax Credits for people who don't pay taxes.
- Pork Spending: Digital TV Coupons ($650 Million), Gov't Cars ($600 Million), Nat'l Endowment for the Arts ($50 Million), Repairs to National Mall ($200 Million, including $21m for sod).
But this is going up for a vote today, I guess. So if anybody can explain to me how this will stimulate the economy, I'll buy you a shiny, new, tinfoil hat.
20 comments:
This reminds me of the "emergency stimulus" package early in the Clinton administration. It was also full of irrelevant wasteful pork, such as spending on midnight basketball and fish atlases.
I think the difference then was that Clinton, apparently eager to rack up national debt, actually encouraged this waste. I'm not sure how much Obama is encouraging this.
If President Obama is serious about "change", he will veto this bill until Congress sends him one without such flagrant and massive waste. Otherwise, Obama will be adhering to bad and wasteful policies of the past.
While I have somewhat given up trying to follow all the money being handed out to everyone but me, I'm not too happy with this either but it sure beats the shit out of the Banking bailout which did nothing for nobody except a few rich guys. Some say no one could have ever gotten a loan without it but trust me, if someone wanted a loan to buy a foreclosed house, they would have gotten anyway, assuming they were qualified which I can only assume that you actually have to be qualified for a loan now in order to get it which was not the case for the first 8 years of this decade.
Heres my thoughts:
A. 142 billion in education funds is not to appease a teachers union but to help strenghten our schools which we can all agree our schools aren't the best in the western world. Does merely throwing money at it fix the problem? No, but if that money is used to either hire more teachers, reducing class size, or paying teachers more, then those are jobs or can help the people on the lower end of the economic ladder to get ahead. And really, if we want anyone to be happy and secure financially it should be the people your kids spend 7 hours a day with.
Medicaid: just another reason why the health care system, along with its costs, should be controlled by the government. The Federal Government is already the largest provider of health coverage; why not just stop pretending that we aren't going to nationalize it and do away with medicare and medicaid all together and put it under one system. A single system would eliminate 30% of overhead costs over night.
And cry me a river for Indiana having to pay Illinois' medicaid bills. Illinois, NJ, CA, NY etc, has been paying for all red states Corn, Tobbaco, sugar farming and mining and extraction operations for years. Its the states like IL, CA (which has a higher GDP than all the former confederate states combined), NY, NJ, MA, with their high tax rates which allows Indiana and Mississipi keep their taxes low whilst giving handouts to farmers for growing crops no one needs and that are killing us and driving up the costs of medical care in the first place.
Green Jobs are not a myth any more than going to the moon was a myth in 1961. They can and need to be created because you have decided to shop at Walmart who allows Chinamen to keep their jobs as we lose ours.
I never support child tax credits. That is where we can agree. They took welfare away and put it back into the tax system. The more kids you have, the more money they give you. It should be the opposite, the more kids you have the more you should have to pay in taxes. But in return, you shoudl get free child care so you have no excuse not to work. I am not currently using the public school system yet I am paying for it an you are not. For all the bitching you do about people not working and shit not being fair, look at your situation for a change and you will realize you are just as guilty as the people you preach against.
Pork Spending: I get the digital TV coupons to a degree. I mean, they are just pulling the plug on people (now it will happen this summer as opposed to Feb).
If the government truely needs new cars and they are going to buy American and buy fuel effecient cars (is that an oxymoron?) then they need new cars and that isn't really pork and it will be good news for Detroit as no one else is buying their cars.
Now, isn't there a bunch of infrastructure stuff in there too? You can ask the people who got squashed by the bridge in MN, or the people without power today if we need to upgrade our infrastructure.
And what about all the stuff the Heritage Foundation didn't talk about?
And let's not forget that the Heritage Foundation left out the cost of the war which is approaching 600 Billion. I love how conservatives don't mind spending money to needlessly blow up Arabs but can't stomach the fact that some teachers might actually be able to do a better job with your kids if there were more teachers and more classrooms.
Dmarks:
Actually, the midnight basketball thing was pretty successful. Remember the crime rates in the late 90s?? The continued to go down all the way until you know who got elected and he screwed everything up and let the assault rifle ban expire, etc.
And Clinton balanced the budget, it was Bush who liked racking up debt. What books have you been reading?
You're not happy with it, but then you try to justify all the crap in this dickhole of a bill. So rather than line by line it, I'm just going to call BS on every single point and leave it at that with a caustic laugh.
And the cost of military operations isn't even in this bill. And has accrued over 7 years. And is still less than this wad of rancid pork.
So strap on the tinfoil hat I'm going to get in the mail to you. You earned it.
WHAT? We haven't spent a trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan yet? Damn Bush!
That little patsy couldn't get anything right! The plan was a trillion for war and a trillion for Wall Street and the hell with the country!
Send the tin foil hat to Bush
Toad: "They can and need to be created because you have decided to shop at Walmart who allows Chinamen to keep their jobs as we lose ours."
Walmart increases employment. Last time I knew, they are not like GM, shedding jobs all the time. While I am sure they do employ "Chinamen" at Walmarts in China, they still hire more and more Americans at the ones here.
"Actually, the midnight basketball thing was pretty successful. Remember the crime rates in the late 90s??"
Show a causal relationship here? Besides, even if so, it had nothing to do with emergency
economic stimulus, did it?
That's the case with all the pork in the current bill. A lot of it might have merit, but it is false to label it as emergency economic stimulus.
If Obama signs this, it shows he is another "waste as usual" President, and it will be likely that he will top Bush's 8 year national debt increase within 4 years. All his own fault. No one else to blame.
"And Clinton balanced the budget"
Clinton added debt every single year. The national debt increased $1.6 trillion on his watch. Rather irresponsible. He never balanced the budget, and even opposed the balanced budget amendment.
"and let the assault rifle ban expire, etc."
So tell me, what is the definition of an assault rifle?
dmarks:
Was GWB 'irresponsible' for allowing the national debt to nearly double on his watch? Or are only Democrats 'irresponsible'?
Arthur: Of course he was. I said this elsewhere, in fact. I just disagree with the idea that Clinton was good in this area, when he in fact ran a deficit every year and racked up $1.6 trillion in additional federal debt.
They've all been bad at this, and if President Obama doesn't start vetoing things like this, he will increase the debt faster than Bush did.
Toad: ".... paying teachers more...."
By the way, if it is an "emergency" to give government employees wage hikes, then anything can be defined as an emergency.
Elsewhere is right.
Regardless. I don't have a problem with budget deficits. I am amused however when conservative Republicans in congress get all a twitter when deficits don't go to favored public works projects like toppling out of favor Middle East regimes or saving giant corporations.
Since 2003 there's been nary a peep regarding the spending on our excellent adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spending which will continue for years to come.
Meanwhile the Chinese are spending enormous sums on trains, airports, highways, and a myriad of other infrastructure upgrades putting people to work and ensuring their competitive edge in the global marketplace.
And we end up with long term and very expensive obligations in dusty, godforsaken Middle Eastern lands far far away. And on the homefront lousy transportation systems. Crumbling infrastructure and crummy schools. Etc. Etc.
Oh well as Iraq seems to be winding down (until it heats up again) we might as well prime the pump by invading...Venezuela.
Elsewhere is right, indeed. Glad you found it.
"conservative Republicans...
saving giant corporations."
Obama, along with most Democrats, voted for that no-strings-attached bailout. Last time I knew, Obama wasn't a conservative Republican, and the total count of conservative Republicans among these Democrats who approved the bailout is zero.
Excellent though it may be, dealing with the root of terrorist aggression does not meet the definition of "adventure".
On the home front, repeal the prevailing wage law (which requires overspending on contracts), and it results in 10% - 30% increase in money available for government contracts.
"Meanwhile the Chinese are spending enormous sums on trains, airports, highways"
The US is also. Well, airports and highways anyway.
Spineless Democrats acting in a bipartisan manner giving the former president what he wanted. A bailout of the very wealthy. And now that we need to spend on stimulus the Republicans have decided we can't afford it. Typical
No problem with military adventurism in the Middle East (no one dares suggest this is national defense) costing trillions. Typical
It is national defense, not not adventurism.
And actually the "spineless Democrats" urged the last bailout.
Tao: WHAT? We haven't spent a trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan yet? Damn Bush!
No, we haven't. And military operations are a proper role of government, whether you agree or disagree on the specific reason. Unlike chucking trillions for pork and bullshit.
Dmarks: So tell me, what is the definition of an assault rifle?
I can answer that. Whatever the Democrats say are assault rifles. It's a bullshit term.
Arthur: Meanwhile the Chinese are spending enormous sums on trains, airports, highways, and a myriad of other infrastructure upgrades putting people to work and ensuring their competitive edge in the global marketplace.
First, the stupidass stimulus does have millions in it for... Amtrak.
And let me be blunt. It is not, nor should it ever be, government's responsibility to "put people to work." And that make work bullshit didn't work to stimulate the economy in the 1930's. Why are we going down that road again?
Oh, and to echo Dmarks: It is (or was at least supposed to be) national defense. Questions aside, we wouldn't have gone had we not been attacked.
I read George Will this morning. It turns out that this stimulus package is a real killer, opening the door to the "Comparative Effectiveness Research" program to limit and deny people health care, even in the private sector.
This deadly provision is reason enough to veto the bill.
Patrick-
Tearful John Boehner pronounces his name Bay-ner.
Arthur: I know. The asshat is my sister's US Rep. I told her to vote against him. But he's an example of the problem with the GOP. Thus I mock him.
Your masthead says ""The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.
-Cicero. 106-43 B.C."
The 2009 Nancy Pelosi version is "The budget should be unbalanced; the treasury defiled; public debt should be maximized, and the arrogance of public officials should be manifest in my conduct".
DMarks: We had a surplus under Clinton, Bush squandered it plain and simple. In 2000 the United States had a 236 Billion dollar surplus and by 2002 we were in debt again. guess how he did a lot of this? Cutting the military budget from the Reagan years. Guess how much Iraq has cost us to date? 600 billion.
Walmart does not create net jobs. They hire some of the people who used to work at the TV factories, shoe factories, etc who used to earn twice as much until Walmart put them out of business when they decided to no longer buy American and buy from countries using slave labor.
Midnight basket ball certainly reduced crime just as jobs reduce crime. If you are busy doing something else, such as working or playing basketball, it's hard to sell drugs, shoot people and rob banks at the same time.
What that has to do with economic stimulation is beyond me other than the fact that there are jobs available for people who want to run a midnight basketball campaign. Did building dams in the Tennessee valley stimulate the economy? The dam itself didn't but it provided jobs and income for the people who built them and those people were able to then spend their money on goods that were manufactured and sold by other Americans, thus stimulating the economy.
An Ak-47 is an example of an assault rifle. Anything which can fire several hundred rounds per minute and is used my modern militaries is an assault rifle.
Toad,
The AK-47 is an assault rifle. But I'd like to see you try to fire several hundred rounds out of it in one minute (I want to be well behind you when you do).
For one thing, you'd need to convert it to handle belt ammunition, because there are no 600-round clips. Two reasons: the clip would weigh quite a bit more than the rifle, and it would curve so far as to protrude in front of the barrel.
For another thing, you would melt the barrel. It may be able to fire at a 600-round per minute rate, but that's for short bursts, not sustained fire.
The US Army uses several machine guns (M60, M240, M249). All can be fired from the shoulder, but they're really designed to be fired off a bipod or tripod, because you won't hit anything you want to hit otherwise. They're all considered to be crew-served, meaning one guy fires while another supplies the ammunition. Thus, they aren't really assault weapons.
I understand that the clip doesn't fire 600 RPM, who would shoot a gun for an entire minute other than the guys in the battle of Midway. What I am saying is that it isn't used for hunting, skeet shooting, can't be used for personal protection in public and is a bit of an overkill for home defense unless you live in Baghdad. The fact that it can fire at such a rapid rate leaves open the possiblity for massive casualties in a matter of seconds and also increases the chances of stray bullets hitting unintended targets. In close quarters for home defense a Shot gun is a far superior choice. In fact, just a recording of a shotgun pumping would probably suffice.
The M60 for instance uses belt ammunition and could fire for longer periods of time than an AK-47 yet this is a gun that gun nuts still think they should be able to sell to 12 year olds at gunshows.
These are the types of guns I am talking about. I don't agree with banning guns or even banning handguns although I don't believe it is unconstitutional. What I believe is that these guns should have never been available to the public in the first place, they shouldn't be so easy to obtain and they should be controlled from the point of manufacture. I also do not believe the flawed notion that more guns make you safer because Detroit, New Orleans and Baghdad would be the safest places on earth if that were true.
Post a Comment