Republican leaders put together a list of over 30 items in the $900 billion stimulus bill that the Senate just passed which they consider wasteful.
Some of which:
$448 million to build Homeland Security headquarters and $248 million to furnish it, $125 million for DC sewers, $75 million for FBI payroll, $850 million for Amtrak, and $160 million for "paid volunteers."
$88 million for renovating Public Health Service headquarters, a $246 million break in taxes for Hollywood producers, $650 million for the digital TV coupon program, and $88 million for a new Coast Guard ship.
you mean people receiving a digital television signal isn't a necessary government expense??? UGH
someone who hasn't already read "It's Not Mine To Give" please go read it so I can feel a little better, here i'll even put up a link: http://www.juntosociety.com/
That's $19 billion, 22 if you include projected census overruns. Out of $900 billion, that's a tad over 2%. That means Republicans deemed nearly 98% of the stimulus money *not* wasteful, yet all 177 still voted against it.
A trillion dollar war in Iraq? Or is that not worth talking about?
If we want to go smaller, what about the $12 B in US taxpayer cash that just evaporated in the sands of Iraq? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/) The Republicans sent that over. Why wasn't that thought of as waste? At least the stuff they're criticizing is being spent on things that wil benefit US citizens. Or maybe that's exactly why they're pissed.
Or what about the 1+ billion they spent on their fortress-embassy in Iraq that will likely never really be used for its intended purpose of bring the A-rabs to heel? What about that?
I think that they should make it better known for what is in the stimulus bill. They should also give a reasoning per line item on why money is going to it, and why it would help the economy. Obama said before that he is going to share with the American people the "financial statement" of the US - I think it would be good of him to give us more information on this. I think if that happened, all these earmarks would not be there.
Does anyone have a link to the passed Senate bill?
"That means Republicans deemed nearly 98% of the stimulus money *not* wasteful..."
Actually, the Republicans only deem about 25% of the stimulus plan as "not wasteful". Jono only supplied a minute handful of the instances. The source provides a much larger and extensive list.
"Does anyone have a link to the passed Senate bill?"
The package hasn't passed the Senate. It was voted on in the House last week and will be presented to the Senate this week.
There's been a huge public outcry against this package. Republicans are against the wasteful package, and many Democrats are beginning to reconsider. Obama said in a press statement, today, that some fat would have to be cut out. Finally, a statement that we can all agree on.
Seriously though, one of the biggest gripes that Republicans have is that only 25% of the funds are clearly for promoting or stimulating economical growth. The remaining amount are Christmas gifts to special interests or the legislator's constituents.
The Republican's alternative is certainly more appealing:
"House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has put forth a plan for economic growth, jobs, and rapid recovery that relies on tax relief for working families and small businesses instead of higher taxes and increased spending on government programs."
The Republicans have offered an alternative to what the Dems are proposing.
Take a look. It appears to be more comprehensive, more fair, more directed at the economy, and it will cost LESS THAN HALF of what the Dems are proposing.
"(Reuters) - Following are details of an alternative proposal to boost the struggling U.S. economy that Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to offer during debate on Wednesday. The cost of their proposal is approximately $478 billion (336 billion pounds).
* Cut the lowest two income tax rates for 2009 and 2010, from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 5 percent.
* Extend through 2010 a patch to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally designed to ensure that wealthy people pay taxes, but instead would hit millions of middle-income families with higher taxes.
* Expand the $7,500 first-time homebuyers tax credit for a principal residence to all homebuyers while limiting it to purchasers who can make a down payment of at least 5 percent of the purchase price.
* Provide a tax deduction for small businesses with less than 500 employees equal to 20 percent of their income.
* Offer new tax deduction for those who do not receive tax-preferred, employer-sponsored health care coverage. And provide assistance to the unemployed who do not qualify for a COBRA premium subsidy.
* Give tax exemption on unemployment benefits and extend temporary federal unemployment benefits through 2009, phasing it out through mid-2010.
* Allow companies to write off current losses against previous tax years for up to five years. Companies now can only "carry back" losses for two years. The tax break would not be available to banks and other companies receiving help from the $700 billion bailout package.
* Extend through 2009 a break for small businesses that allows them to immediately write off up certain capital expenditures." http://uk.reuters.com/
You see that is the limit of your imagination. Digital TV will increase bandwidth efficiency allowing the remaining spectrum sold at auction to be utilised.
Basically, you have $20B assets sitting idle because of the requirement for a couple of million in Set Top boxes. I think some of your smarter republican friends can inform you of the importance of this concept.
Bush made the mistake of never using the veto stick against his own party, and the GOP got pretty fat and porky from the public coffers, +5 trillion to the deficit (doubling it).
I hope the dems don't make the same sloppy mistakes. But seems inevitable over time without checks from an opposition party.
Oooh, the days of Clinton in the oval office and honky's in the house. Libs and old fashioned conservatives, a balanced yin & yang to politics.
Does it not bother anyone else that all of this bailout and stimulus money directly goes against one of the fundamentals of capitalism, having the means of wealth free of government intervention? If institutions, groups, organizations or whatever, fail because they are weak, or made bad decisions to get themselves in the the mess they're in the first place, let them fail. Other organizations will become stronger eventually, but the industry(i.e. the auto industry) as a whole won't fail. Sure, it would contract, but it wouldn't fall flat on its face. All this is doing is creating more debt that we will eventually have to pay off. Ridiculous.
it was the Republicans who ran this country in the ground, heh?
Well, that's is why Obama got elected, for one reason, to get rid of pork barrel spending habits....but we all know what those pre-election/campaign promises are, don't we?
Frankly it's ridiculous to see the details of some of these "packages" and shocking to say the least.
first of im not a republican. thats the same as me calling you a jack-off so please knock it off.
secondly you didn't read the link i posted. if it's a good thing to have and it will benifit the television industry LET THE G-DAMN TELEVISION INDUSTRY PAY FOR IT.
when in the H_E_L_L did it become a government expense to pay for your tv. do they need to buy your tp too and wipe your little poo poo hole? honestly this is sickening on so many levels. if you continue to respect these politicians it only further drives our cause of liberty and freedom into the ground, while you defend these idiot policies because SOMEONE stands to profit. sweet i'll profit if you just get rid of taxes DO IT.
"if it's a good thing to have and it will benifit the television industry LET THE G-DAMN TELEVISION INDUSTRY PAY FOR IT."
The problem here is that this is a national switch which would simply put a greater strain on an already failing economy.
If the television industry was told to pay for it themselves they'd pass it down the line just like most businesses do and suddenly the consumers are paying more money for something they didn't have a say in. Thus the industry pays for nothing in the end no matter how you look at it.
I'm all up for companies eating their own losses but no one is happy when they simply pass it down the line.
honestly... i simply don't care, and i don't want to hear about their problems.
if it will save them money, let them all get together and have a fund raiser. otherwise, their cost or profit loss IS NONE OF MY CONCERN. hell even if it is, they should come forward and say, "hey we need help please send money to 18005551212 or www.weneedhelp.tv. And America would laugh at them because we know they don't need the help. 40 bucks to watch tv too much? well then stop watching tv. if you can't afford to spend 40 bucks than you need to go out and find a better job. no better jobs out there? well blame big oil but again not my problem. im not paying for your ability to watch the view in hd you degenerates! i pay over 200 dollars a month for my cable bill have a child and i do just fine. maybe its because i stopped eating at jack in the box every night and going out everytime i got paid... weird! I also bought a coffee maker instead of going to the Stardevil everyday.
People/companies/industries start taking accountability for yourselves. I will no longer pay for your bailouts, handouts, stimulous, whatever word you would like to use for "robbery of American citizens." The sooner you sheep wake up to how HORRIBLE this is the sooner we can begin to heal as a nation. PLEASE GO READ THE STORY I BEG YOU! If if doesn't convince you than you're A LOST CAUSE and i honestly don't know what to think other than i wished someone would have better educated you on reality.
Did you read what you wrote? lol Either the government uses OUR tax money for the TV industry, or the TV passes on the increase to the people that use it their services.
At least with the last option it is FAIR.
This is the nonsense big government spread the wealth ideas that I am scared of.
rather than give people the choice of paying for this crap you're saying you HAVE to pay for this crap. pretty obvious if you ask me. how are people missing this. it's like there is a total disconnect when it comes to the word "government." People for some reason forget that means "me." "My" money.
Apparently, though, some people think stuff like this is fine, acceptable, as long as the government doesn't get in the way of millionaires becoming billionaires.
Nonsense. The reason we're at this point today is because of government intervention in the capitalist market place.
Bill Clinton with his revised Community Reinvestment Act pressured banks to make risky loans to people that couldn't afford them. He thought everyone had the right to own a home --- whether or not they could afford them. The result? A collapse in the mortgage and lending industry.
I don't think a bailout is in order for every failing company out there, but here's one thing for all of you to consider: If the fat-fingers of government was the catalyst of this recession, don't you think they should make amends to fix it?
Bad call by Bill. While his intentions were noble, they didn't make a lick of business sense. That's why we need to build a wall between government and the capitalist free-market. The wall should be low enough to allow government oversight to prevent and deter illegal activity, but it should be high enough so they can get into the middle of it all and muck it up like they did this last time.
A lack of oversight resulted in corruption leading, in part, to both the Great Depression and the current recession, no? If not, please educate me, and I'd rather get facts than what Rush Limbaugh or some other pundit or politician has to say on the subject, please.
The new administration has only been in office for three weeks. It's not like this is the only chance for a stimulus bill. What would happen if we just start with the minimum -- the parts that both sides agree on. Then whoever wants to can suggest extra spending or tax cuts in a followup bill.
Its like you have canned answers. FOR THE LAST TIME - I dont listen to Rush, Hannity. I am not a Republican, I am an Independants. Got it? Insulting those fools will not prove a point, and will not hurt my feelings.
“A lack of oversight resulted in corruption leading, in part, to both the Great Depression and the current recession, no?”
Not really. In my previous post, I acknowledge the need for oversight. When I say “oversight”, I’m talking about rules and regulations to ensure that business practices are fair and legitimate. When that oversight steps beyond those boundaries and begin to tell business how they should conduct their daily operations and begin to interfere with their business model, you start running into trouble. For example, one of the biggest fears that the auto-industry and their consumers have about the Big 3 bailout is the role government will attempt to play. Will the government bind the hands of the auto-industry further by mandating what kind of cars they can or can’t produce? If so, this may very well conflict with the open market. If GM was told by the US gov’t that they could only produce 4-cylinder sub-compacts, this mandate could very well spell the demise of the company. Especially if 4-cylinder sub-compacts aren’t selling well.
The Great Depression was precipitated by people buying stocks on margin --- basically, the stock market was unregulated at the time and people were allowed to buy stock on credit. This overvalued quite a few stocks and when the market began to teeter up and down, people got nervous and dumped their stock in hopes of cashing out before their stocks began to fall. The problem is that *everyone* rushed to sell their stocks. If everyone is selling and nobody is buying… what happens? Over 16-million shares were dumped on October 24, 1929 (aka Black Thursday). With no buyers for these shares, the stock market crashed.
The SEC was formed and rules and regulations were put into place for trading stock. Key words here: rules and regulations. Not mandates or pressure on companies to change the way they do business. It was mandates and pressure on loaning institutions by the Clinton administration that allowed unqualified people to buy homes with no money down. Many of these individuals were allowed an 80/20 split mortgage with no down-payments. 80% of the amount was rolled into one mortgage, and 20% of the amount was rolled into a 2nd mortgage. No down-payments meant they didn’t have any equity in their homes and their payments were larger because they were financing 100% of the home’s sale price. Additionally, many were soooo overcome with excitement about moving into their first home that they didn’t think about (or care) that their mortgages were ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages). Many were spread thin to make their initial monthly payments and when that amount was raised (as ARMs inevitably do) a few years later, they found it increasingly difficult to make their house payments and many went into foreclosure, as a result. Some even took out mortgages with balloon payment attached to them that they were responsible for at a set term (usually 5-12 years after the mortgage is assumed). These balloon mortgages seemed appealing to some because of the low monthly payments associated with them. However, the reason the monthly payments were so low was because of the balloon payment at the end of it. For instance, if you financed $100,000, a balloon mortgage will cost you around $500 p/mo (these figures are hypothetical). At the end of the term, however, you have to make a lump-sum payment of $12,000. Hence the term “balloon”.
Reasonable laws, rules, and regulations are expected from the government. That’s why we *have* a government. But government needs to keep from meddling in the private industries’ daily operations.
good link (except all the tickers).. debt has been killing the economy for years, and simply because most people live above their means (anyone with any kinds of a loan or creditline), though this is a direct result of the rich and poor divide where the top 5%have more than 95% of the wealth, while the rest have to make due with whats left, usually causing them to go into bet.. then they're are social factors to consider, like do you really want to live in the slum?, do you want to have your own property rather than renting for the rest of your life? (as about 10-20 years of rent costs about the same as a 20-25 mortgage), is public transit sufficent? (hence do you need a cehicle), safety of the area (will your house/apartment or vehicle be safe, will you and your family be safe in the area you live in?), all kinds of things push people into taking credit, including medical bills (especially if you can't afford insurance)... of course many credit problems are just frivelous spending several hundred dollar cell phone bills, daily resurant visits, etc...
although he, like many doesn't mention that in the great depression the country's real wealth (gold) was taken from the people so the fiat currency could be used, and the fact that in the process many people lost everything as they were basically issued monoply money that they promised would eventually have value equal to their actual weatlh that they they were FORCED to give up... you can't even properly talk about the great depression without mentioning this and yet almost everyone forgets it or omits it.
Democratic socialism is the way of the future. It makes countries more competitive, and gives you a shock absorber when there are bumps in the road. I won't be puled into a debate on it, but all I will say is; look at the countries that are social democracies (i.e. most of the rest of the industrialized world). They're going down, but not as hard or as viciously as the good ol' U. S. of A is.
That when people dont have anything to say against common sense, they do the following:
1) Lump you in a group that has a bad conotation (i.e righties, Limbaugh, etc) 2) They state that they dont have the time, or energy, or some other exciting story on why they can not back up their thoughts.
For the last time, probably not - but dont label me. Not a righty, not a lefty. Just understand a little common sense.
When you emotionaly attach yourself to either the right or the left, you will defend them to your death. And that is what your doing.
Do me a favor. Listen to this, and the let me know what dosnt make sense to you. Now, prepare yourself....repeat after me.."I have an open mind, I have an open mind"
Here is a news clip that goes over what I've been saying.
Bush raised red-flags about a faltering economy and the housing market in 2001. In 2003, he suggested creating an oversight commitee to regulate Fannie and Freddie.
The Dems fought tooth and nail against him the whole way. Political expediency took precedence over sound judgment and the people's best interest.
Listen to Barney Frank defending Fannie and Freddie and blowing smoke about how well they were doing and didn't require additional oversight.
Grrrrrr!! Just watching this clip made me fuming mad!
"Will the government bind the hands of the auto-industry further by mandating what kind of cars they can or can’t produce?"
Was it a bad thing when the government decided to mandate protecting public safety by requiring seat belts? Because when we're talking about what the government may or may not mandate this time, we're talking about air pollution, which has a proven detrimental effect on the public health, an arena that is appropriate for the government to safeguard even in the libertarian model of society.
"The SEC was formed and rules and regulations were put into place for trading stock. Key words here: rules and regulations."
Many of which became voluntary under Republicans. They set the foxes to watch the hens, then act surprised at the result.
Alan Greenspan himself acknowledged that the free(est) market theory does not account for individuals who act in ways that benefit themselves but harm their companies. It is naive to think that people interested only in their own wealth would not exploit a large company or financial institution to that end.
And you can't assign the entirety of the blame for the subprime meltdown on Clinton, any more than you can on Phil Gramm, Chinese investors or ...
"Bush raised red-flags about a faltering economy and the housing market in 2001. In 2003, he suggested creating an oversight commitee to regulate Fannie and Freddie.
The Dems fought tooth and nail against him the whole way. Political expediency took precedence over sound judgment and the people's best interest."
Actually, "the Dems," while opposing the bill, never got a chance to vote on it, because "the Repubs," who controlled the Senate when Bush's committee bill came out of committee, never put the thing up for a vote -- which may have been filibustered, but could have passed the majority-Republican Senate.
"first of im not a republican. thats the same as me calling you a jack-off so please knock it off."
I didn't call you a republican, I said your smarter republican friends can explain. Somehow, reading your response, I doubt that is true.
"secondly you didn't read the link i posted. if it's a good thing to have and it will benifit the television industry LET THE G-DAMN TELEVISION INDUSTRY PAY FOR IT. "
Get with the program mate. The TV spectrum was sold off for $20Billion! So what if the government has to pay a measly 3% of that to allow the switch?
Oh, wait up... penny dropping yet? Nope? well you are dumber than you sound.
"1) Lump you in a group that has a bad conotation (i.e righties, Limbaugh, etc) 2) They state that they dont have the time, or energy, or some other exciting story on why they can not back up their thoughts.
For the last time, probably not - but dont label me. Not a righty, not a lefty. Just understand a little common sense. "
Sorry mate, but you are an extreme right-wing ideologist. It is easy to determine from your stance. You may not support the Democrats or the Republicans, but both of these parties are right-wing parties.
What is that you think that the Democrats are left-wing? hahahahhahahahahaha.... You should get out a little more.
"You may not support the Democrats or the Republicans, but both of these parties are right-wing parties."
*Both* are right wing? You've read enough of these posts and know their authors political proclivities to know better.
Not all Dems lean left, but the vast majority of them do. Collectively, the Dem party as a whole is a left-of-center party. Just as the Repubs, as a whole, are a right-leaning party.
If you honestly believe the Dems are a right-leaning party, I'd love to hear how you came to that conclusion.
I would approve of about 10% of the stimulus package and it all has to do with small businesses, roads, rail and education. Cancel everything else. I am not going to benefit one bit from the billions spent in DC renovating buildings. I’m not going to benefit from hardly anything listed on this pork fest and neither is America. This is insane. I would approve of the Homeland Security building on one condition, call it Gestapo Headquarters. I believe in an honest, transparent government. I now understand why Ron Paul is going bald.
If they wanted to spend $500 billion on fusion research and building the first working fusion power plant I would approve. If we don't do something to get off oil we are all doomed to repeat the stone age.
It seems that when Uncle Sam pulled out his wallet for Wall Street the vultures pounced and are now picking his bones clean.
You'll have to forgive jendres, he's not American. To non-Americans, the Democratic Party's platform looks like that of one of their conservative parties. Only American conservatives think of the Democratic Party as being "far-left," "socialist," etc.
“Was it a bad thing when the government decided to mandate protecting public safety by requiring seat belts?” Of course not. Nor was it bad for them to make driving under the influence illegal. Enforcing public safety is a role of government.
“…we're talking about air pollution…” Which is why many states require you to pass MARTA and have your vehicle inspected before renewing your registration.
Neither of these present an imposition on free-market. The cost of seat-belts and catalytic converters are punted to the consumer, who eventually pays for these items.
“Many of which became voluntary under Republicans. They set the foxes to watch the hens, then act surprised at the result.” What “result” are you speaking of? Enron? WorldCom? These would be bad examples. The laws were already in place. Ken Lay and his exec broke the law and are doing time in prison for their transgressions --- except Lay, who died. If someone were to go out and kill somebody, you can’t say it’s the government’s fault that the crime was committed. At some point we all need to take accountability and responsibility for our own actions. Government cannot control all our actions, in a free society.
“And you can't assign the entirety of the blame for the subprime meltdown on Clinton…” True. The Democratic Party, as a whole, shares the blame for turning a blind eye to the red-flags and requests for more regulation brought up by the Repubs. Instead of regarding these recommendations with an objective eye and open mind, they viewed them as an attack on their party and their party’s policies. They politicized a real issue at a critical juncture in the economy’s health… and now look at where we’re at.
“Alan Greenspan himself acknowledged that…” Watch that video in my last link. Greenspan also warned what would happen if Fannie and Freddie weren’t put into check. Barney Frank called the predictions exaggerated and insisted that Fannie and Freddie were sound. (Frank is an idiot!!) Charles Schumer (Democrat Senator for NY) also came to the aid of the failing mortgage giants.
“…the Repubs… never put the thing up for a vote…" Look at the two YouTube links I posted on this site. Not a single Dem wanted to acknowledge, much less accept, that a foreboding crisis was around the corner. They fought against the Repubs every inch of the way and were blinded by their own ignorance. The Repubs didn’t have the votes necessary to pass the bill.
your argument is kind of like no argument at all... actually. im not sure what point you're even trying to make. you want us to be socialist is what i just read. and socialist countries are better off is what im hearing. except for what do you consider "better off." what does that mean? does that mean they have more freedom to do what they want? Say what they want? Have what they want? How are you judging how "well" a country is doing. It certainly must not be by those standards I just listed.
"Here's what happens when we have the pure unadulterated capitalism you want so bad"
I wasn't born yesterday. There were several factors that contributed to the perfect storm that caused the Great Depression. Just one example, there was no FDIC(no, its not part of the government) so people's money just vanished into thin air if a bank failed. That $5000 you had saved up for a rainy day suddenly isn't there anymore. That happened to countless people; no money, can't spend. Interesting pictures, in fact I've seen them before, but they don't prove your point.
I don't have the time to split hairs with you people -- I have a job and a life to take care of, and I can't spend all my time pointing out, for example, the difference between having a law on the books and having a structure in place to enforce those laws (the Republican way to have your cake and eat it, too).
Go jack off to pictures of Ron Paul for all I care; you're boring, pedantic and monolithic, and you've made an incorrect assumption that I'm such a masochist that I want to talk to you all day long.
What Ben_Reilly just wrote? Look well above his comment at my comment it said:
That when people dont have anything to say against common sense, they do the following:
1) Lump you in a group that has a bad conotation (i.e righties, Limbaugh, etc) 2) They state that they dont have the time, or energy, or some other exciting story on why they can not back up their thoughts.
I guess Benny Boy just proved me right. I will go masturbate to RP now.
The Great Depression had many influences, First would be bank credit expansion. (Much like we've seen with Freddie and Fannie).
In Britain it was caused by a rigid wage structure caused by unions and unemployment insurance, as well as a return the gold standard at too high a par. In the United States generated by the currency inflation in order to help Britain as well as "price stabilization"
Also the U.S. inflation of 1927 and 28 when it as losing gold was a very large reason it all started.
After it was a full blown depression nations took measures to counteract it which only made the problem worse. Propping up unsound business's, inflating credit, expanding public projects, keeping wage rates high. Tariffs and exchange controls, quotas.
Oh, and in case that doesn't work. Here are a couple of pictures of citizens of a Socialist country to pull at heart strings and avoid any thought or intellectual debate.
The party that does not have the majority in both houses now are yeliing at potential wasteful spending!! What has the political process done to you people? They have convinced you to fight against each other while they take our money and our rights. As for the "alternative" stimulus package, why didn't the Republicans do this when times were good or when they had more voting power? Do you see what I am saying here? Example: Dems/Repubs put up a bill/stimulus package/nomination. The other party demonizes it or says it would be better with this "alternate" or find faults and flaws with the new legistlation. It is a game to them, and I dont mean to be cynical but look at the approval rating of the entire legistlative branch.....do they do anything about it? They want you to be divided and hostile towards one another to distract you from being true citizens of the United States.
