Breakdown of the Stimulus Package, for those who haven't been following along at home

Tax cuts

*
Payroll-tax holiday: $99 billion
*
Expanded earned-income tax credit: $25 billion
*
Tuition tax credit: $10 billion
*
Business expensing tax breaks: $90 billion
*
Renewable-energy tax credit: $20 billion


Relief

*
Expanded unemployment insurance: $42 billion
*
Health insurance for unemployed: $40 billion
*
Expanded food stamps: $20 billion
*
Housing assistance: $11 billion
*
Supplemental Security Income payments: $4 billion
*
Welfare: $3 billion

Infrastructure

*
Highways: $30 billion
*
School renovation: $20 billion
*
Health information technology: $17 billion
*
Transportation projects: $16 billion
*
Water projects: $8.4 billion
*
Military and V.A. construction: $7 billion
*
Accelerated deployment of broadband: $5.6 billion

Help for state and local governments

*
Medicaid cost sharing: $87 billion
*
State grants: $79 billion
*
State and local bond tax credit: $42 billion
*
Community development: $5 billion
*
Rural development: $4 billion

Energy efficiency

*
Federal energy-efficiency projects: $22 billion
*
Energy-efficiency grants: $18.5 billion
*
Smart electric grid: $11 billion
*
Renewable-energy loan guarantees: $8 billion

Human capital

*
Education programs: $29 billion
*
Pell grants: $18 billion
*
Job training: $4.6 billion
*
Scientific research: $3 billion

shrinkage

dajafi wrote:

FTN wrote:I don't really think the stimulus is going to work.

I'm most interested in how Obama handles the failure over the next year, and what he plans to do next.

How are you defining "work"?

If you mean "turn the economy around within 12 months," you're probably right. But given that, and the fact that he got zero votes from their House caucus, he probably just should have loaded that sucker up with more spending; if you're going to own it, you might as well make someone happy. The real left folks don't love this package either.

He'll have to rely on a counterfactual argument: "if we hadn't passed the stimulus, unemployment wouldn't be 9 percent--it would be 11 percent." That's a tough sell. OTOH, he might be playing for the trajectory of Reagan's first term: things initially got much worse, then it turned around just in time for him to win landslide re-election.

The thing is, Obama's big-ticket items that he campaigned on--health care, sustainability--also will require enormous spending. And if he shoots his bolt with stimulus only, it'll be that much harder to do the things he wanted to do before the economy melted down. If you believe, as I do, that those things are important, he has to try and at least take some steps in those directions while also addressing the crisis.

Here is the big, core issue for me. Right now, the big problem is consumer confidence. Consumer spending is what drives the world. When people don't spend, it hurts every single industry, even the most defensive industries out there. And everything is connected. When people don't buy, companies are forced to cut back, and that means not only layoffs, but cuts in spending, spending which impacts other businesses. Right now, no one is spending money. Those who are spending money have greatly scaled back what they are spending money on.

So you give someone a 500 dollar credit. What are they going to do with it? They're going to just put it in the bank. Because if they have a job, they are probably worried they are going to lose their job, and that $500 might be needed to pay bills. Its the same as the stimulus checks that were sent out last year. People took that $500 and used it to pay their cell phone bill, or put it towards their mortgage, or the cable bill. You need people to spend. The only way they are going to spend is if they truly feel safe. That means they feel their money is safe, their retirement is safe, and their job is safe. While some of the provisions in his package make some sense, I don't see how this is going to ease the fears most middle class people have right now. The biggest, most successful companies in the US are laying off people by the thousands. Unless this plan is going to legitimately address the unemployment rate, and allow employers to put current employees at ease, I don't see it helping.

Its all about consumer confidence and spending. Re-paving roads isn't the answer, and I don't even think its one of the answers.

FTN wrote:So you give someone a 500 dollar credit. What are they going to do with it? They're going to just put it in the bank. Because if they have a job, they are probably worried they are going to lose their job, and that $500 might be needed to pay bills. Its the same as the stimulus checks that were sent out last year. People took that $500 and used it to pay their cell phone bill, or put it towards their mortgage, or the cable bill. You need people to spend. The only way they are going to spend is if they truly feel safe. That means they feel their money is safe, their retirement is safe, and their job is safe. While some of the provisions in his package make some sense, I don't see how this is going to ease the fears most middle class people have right now. The biggest, most successful companies in the US are laying off people by the thousands. Unless this plan is going to legitimately address the unemployment rate, and allow employers to put current employees at ease, I don't see it helping.

I hear what you're saying, but pacino got at the logic in his last post: you give money to people who are making choices like "would I prefer heat, medication or food this month?" and they're going to spend it. As for the more fortunate rest of us, James Surowiecki made what seemed to me like a logical point about the utility of how the payroll tax cut is structured:

If you want people to spend the money, you don’t want to give them one big check, because that makes it more likely that they’ll think of it as an increase in their wealth and save it. Instead, you want to give them small amounts over time. And you want the rebate to show up as an increase in people’s take-home pay, because an increase in steady income is more likely to translate into an increase in spending. What can accomplish both of these goals? Reducing people’s withholding payments.

It may seem odd that framing the same policy in different ways will change the way people respond to that policy. But it’s well established that the way choices are framed often has a huge impact on the decisions people make. In a recent experiment, Valrie Chambers and Marilyn Spencer found that, just as Obama’s proposal suggests, people were more likely to spend a tax refund when it was handed out in monthly installments than in one lump payment.

So that should help a bit.

FTN wrote:Its all about consumer confidence and spending. Re-paving roads isn't the answer, and I don't even think its one of the answers.

I think this is basic Keynes: at least the guy paving the road has a job now, and will spend the money on necessities. And if you're going to be putting him to work anyway, it may as well to do something we deem worthwhile anyway. Infrastructure is a mess, and it does hamper trade.

Again, I think the structural forces are such that we're doing damage mitigation here rather than full turnaround; at best, the stimulus probably will mean a shorter, somewhat less severe recession. But that's worth something.

pacino wrote:which republican party is going to win in those counties, jh? demographics are not in your corner. montco and delco are never going back, and bucks probably isn't either.

Never is a very long time. I expect/hope that the Republican party that emerges in the next 10 years is MUCH different from the one of the last 10 years.

kruker wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:So no House Republicans voted for the stimulus. Good.

In that vein, from the Cato Institute:

Mr. President, We Disagree

I doubt that many House Republicans voted down the stimulus for Austrian Economics reasons, but I like thinking it may be true.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a controversial "Buy America" steel provision as part of an $825 billion package to help pull the U.S. economy out of recession.

The provision requires public works projects funded by the bill to use only U.S.-made iron and steel.

"We've got manufacturing in America in a total and complete freefall. ... It's about time we had some economic patriots," said Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers union.

House members also approved an amendment requiring the Transportation Security Administration to purchase only U.S.-made uniforms, similar to a current requirement on the Department of Defense.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usPolitic ... 2Z20090129

Did we learn nothing from Smoot-Hawley?!?

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:which republican party is going to win in those counties, jh? demographics are not in your corner. montco and delco are never going back, and bucks probably isn't either.

Never is a very long time. I expect/hope that the Republican party that emerges in the next 10 years is MUCH different from the one of the last 10 years.

There's the rub. Forever is a long time. But you're right to believe that the Republican party will have to change for those areas to become competitive again. And at least in the short term, the momentum among the loudest Republicans is to go with people like Sarah Palin, which I suspect will further marginalize the party.

I do think conservatives are right that simply nominating moderates won't work. But nominating ever more extreme conservatives won't work either. Someone needs to recognize that there's a difference between tax cuts solve all problems and calling for fiscal discipline and responsibility. Someone needs to recognize that blaming the media for everything isn't a sound strategy. Someone needs to recognize that pretending abstinence only education works, that global warming isn't real, and intelligent design is scientific doesn't make it so.

Sadly, by the way, it looks like the Jindal honeymoon is over, as the reality of Louisiana politics has reasserted itself.

dajafi wrote:Seeing as the Republicans did pretty much nothing but play politics when they were in charge--how many days in the 109th Congress were spent on flag burning? Terri Schiavo? the anti-gay marriage amendment?--it seems like too much to expect them to do anything else now that they have no power. It's annoying, but not unexpected or, given who they are in 2009, illogical.

They've been all tactics, no strategy for about 12 years now. Maybe they can return to power on a wave of Democratic corruption or failure; that still wouldn't do much to address the problems of the country.

And actually, given how bad things probably would have to get under the Democrats to push the public past Bush's failures while his party spouts the same ideas he failed with, certainly at least the Republicans who own property, or aspire one day to do so, should be praying that Obama does okay.

Dajafi, this response essentially seems to amount to "The Republicans did it, now we get to". No arguments they did it, but that doesn't make you doing it any better. Never mind the fact that I think the GOP has about the same amount of decent ideas on the economy as the Dems and it stands to reason it might have been nice to use their input.

That's the fear I've always had with Obama even as I supported him - he may pay lip service to bipartisanship, but sure seems to vote Dem all the time.

jeff2sf wrote:

dajafi wrote:Seeing as the Republicans did pretty much nothing but play politics when they were in charge--how many days in the 109th Congress were spent on flag burning? Terri Schiavo? the anti-gay marriage amendment?--it seems like too much to expect them to do anything else now that they have no power. It's annoying, but not unexpected or, given who they are in 2009, illogical.

They've been all tactics, no strategy for about 12 years now. Maybe they can return to power on a wave of Democratic corruption or failure; that still wouldn't do much to address the problems of the country.

And actually, given how bad things probably would have to get under the Democrats to push the public past Bush's failures while his party spouts the same ideas he failed with, certainly at least the Republicans who own property, or aspire one day to do so, should be praying that Obama does okay.

Dajafi, this response essentially seems to amount to "The Republicans did it, now we get to". No arguments they did it, but that doesn't make you doing it any better. Never mind the fact that I think the GOP has about the same amount of decent ideas on the economy as the Dems and it stands to reason it might have been nice to use their input.

That's the fear I've always had with Obama even as I supported him - he may pay lip service to bipartisanship, but sure seems to vote Dem all the time.

That's not what Dajafi is saying--he's saying the Republicans did nothing but play politics for the last 12 (I'd say 14) years, and they're still doing it.

I believe it's because having abandoned just about every principle they had except Tax Cuts! And Jesus! that's all they're really capable of doing.

I wasn't sure if this was discussion-worthy, but in the face of a $2.8B dollar loss in 2008 and a possible $6B loss in 2009, the US postal service is going to try and cut costs by eliminating a delivery day.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28897426/?GT1=43001

This means that, maybe, mail wouldn't be delivered on Tuesdays or something, a low volume day.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c[/youtube]

Werthless wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c[/youtube]

huh?

The Red Tornado wrote:huh?

It's an anti-abortion ad that's been getting some play. It uses Obama.

Werthless wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:huh?

It's an anti-abortion ad that's been getting some play. It uses Obama.

but the argument makes no sense. You could say the same thing about Hitler- if only he was aborted.

jeff2sf wrote:

dajafi wrote:Seeing as the Republicans did pretty much nothing but play politics when they were in charge--how many days in the 109th Congress were spent on flag burning? Terri Schiavo? the anti-gay marriage amendment?--it seems like too much to expect them to do anything else now that they have no power. It's annoying, but not unexpected or, given who they are in 2009, illogical.

They've been all tactics, no strategy for about 12 years now. Maybe they can return to power on a wave of Democratic corruption or failure; that still wouldn't do much to address the problems of the country.

And actually, given how bad things probably would have to get under the Democrats to push the public past Bush's failures while his party spouts the same ideas he failed with, certainly at least the Republicans who own property, or aspire one day to do so, should be praying that Obama does okay.

Dajafi, this response essentially seems to amount to "The Republicans did it, now we get to". No arguments they did it, but that doesn't make you doing it any better. Never mind the fact that I think the GOP has about the same amount of decent ideas on the economy as the Dems and it stands to reason it might have been nice to use their input.

That's the fear I've always had with Obama even as I supported him - he may pay lip service to bipartisanship, but sure seems to vote Dem all the time.

No, the "now we get to" is just your reflexive pox-on-both-houses cynicism.* I made no point like that. Not sure why you're often so quick to jump on me as the knee-jerk liberal water-carrier, but I'm pretty sure there are better choices for this.

*which is not to say you might not be proven correct, but we'll see.

I'm watching Blagojevich "defending himself." He's offering some entertainment value, talking about Elizabeth Taylor and (I think) "Senator John Lennon," but on the scale of absolute fucking crazy that I was hoping for--showing up in a toga or in blackface, wearing a crown of thorns, that sort of thing--he's very disappointing thus far.

The Red Tornado wrote:

Werthless wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:huh?

It's an anti-abortion ad that's been getting some play. It uses Obama.

but the argument makes no sense. You could say the same thing about Hitler- if only he was aborted.

If Hitler were aborted, I bet that mustache would be known as a "Chaplin mustache" and it'd still be somewhat fashionable.

I think you can argue that a Hitler-type figure would have risen in post-WWI Germany, inevitability, etc., but you can also argue that we wound up with a worst-case scenario in the non-aborted Hitler universe.

oh yeah, this thread =

The Red Tornado wrote:

Werthless wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:huh?

It's an anti-abortion ad that's been getting some play. It uses Obama.

but the argument makes no sense. You could say the same thing about Hitler- if only he was aborted.

It's not an argument. It's an appeal to emotion, probably targeting the swing Obama voter who was happy to see him win.

Obama Signs First Piece of Legislation Into Law - Lilly Ledbetter Act Makes It Easier for Workers to Sue for Pay Discrimination

Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire & Rubber in Gadsden, Ala., for 19 years. Several months before she retired in 1998 as an area manager, Ledbetter found an anonymous note in her mailbox at work, tipping her off that she was being paid less than the men who held the same job. That year, she filed an EEOC complaint and received a letter from the commission saying that she had grounds to sue.

She won a jury verdict in U.S. district court in 2003, but Goodyear appealed. Two years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in a ruling that departed from those of nine other federal appellate courts, sided with Goodyear, saying Ledbetter's lawsuit was filed years too late.

She took the case to the Supreme Court, which upheld the appellate court's view in a 5 to 4 opinion written by its newest member, Justice Samuel A. Alito, a Bush appointee. At the time, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Clinton, gave a rare oral dissent, saying she hoped Congress would reverse what the court had done.

What a dick

Warszawa wrote:Obama Signs First Piece of Legislation Into Law - Lilly Ledbetter Act Makes It Easier for Workers to Sue for Pay Discrimination

Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire & Rubber in Gadsden, Ala., for 19 years. Several months before she retired in 1998 as an area manager, Ledbetter found an anonymous note in her mailbox at work, tipping her off that she was being paid less than the men who held the same job. That year, she filed an EEOC complaint and received a letter from the commission saying that she had grounds to sue.

She won a jury verdict in U.S. district court in 2003, but Goodyear appealed. Two years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in a ruling that departed from those of nine other federal appellate courts, sided with Goodyear, saying Ledbetter's lawsuit was filed years too late.

She took the case to the Supreme Court, which upheld the appellate court's view in a 5 to 4 opinion written by its newest member, Justice Samuel A. Alito, a Bush appointee. At the time, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Clinton, gave a rare oral dissent, saying she hoped Congress would reverse what the court had done.

What a dick

and a phillies fan.