Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Gewehr98 on February 03, 2009, 02:35:03 PM
-
From CNN today, a list of things that are in the package that made GOP lawmakers go "WTF?"
I'd have to agree, unless they can specifically spell out how these riders create jobs for more than just a few people, I'd not sign it, either.
(CNN) -- On Monday, House Republican leaders put out a list of what they call wasteful provisions in the Senate version of the nearly $900 billion stimulus bill that is being debated:
• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
• $850 million for Amtrak.
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.
-
Is there any reason other than partisan politics?
Why did Bush get support for his plan from most of them, but Obama did not?
-
Is there any reason other than partisan politics?
Why did Bush get support for his plan from most of them, but Obama did not?
Oh, no. They opposed it until it was stuffed with their personal pet projects. Then they went along, too.
-
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
I thought the icecaps are all going to melt in a few years? :rolleyes:
-
Can you hook me up with the link so I can spread the word?
-
I thought the icecaps are all going to melt in a few years? :rolleyes:
No no, that was when we were facing Globular Worming. Now we are facing Global Climate Change. After all, climate change is more convenient, right? Whatever the weather does, the ones who want to rob us can point and say "look, we were right, climate is CHANGING!!!!111oneone!!!, now give us your money!"
-
Good call, and you're not the only one to notice it. I've just written it off as more evidence of the farce of our "two party" system.
-
Some of those may be valid and needed expenses but are definitely not part of stimulating the economy. I have always thought if a budget item cannot stand up to scrutiny on its own it is not worthwhile. That is why I can almost talk myself into thinking a line item veto ability is a good idea.
-
Good call, and you're not the only one to notice it. I've just written it off as more evidence of the farce of our "two party" system.
Kinda like a black horse and a brown horse. They might look different, but only on the outside, and they're both owned by the same farmer (the special interests). :O
-
The short answer is that the President is the leader of his party, and congresscritters are supposed to follow his lead. Not doing so undermines the President and the Concgressritters and the party as a whole. That's a big reason why it's crucial that the party select proper candidates during the primary elections.
-
The short answer is that the President is the leader of his party, and congresscritters are supposed to follow his lead. Not doing so undermines the President and the Concgressritters and the party as a whole.
Yeah, supporting that bailout did so great for the party as a whole.
I hope they enjoy their next forty years in the wilderness.
-
The short answer is that the President is the leader of his party, and congresscritters are supposed to follow his lead. Not doing so undermines the President and the Concgressritters and the party as a whole. That's a big reason why it's crucial that the party select proper candidates during the primary elections.
This undermines the intent of the Constitution.
Congress was supposed to never act as a rubber stamp for the President.
Sigh. If only the FF could have foreseen the damage of political parties, in particular when only 2 control the field.
-
Yes, because five billion dollars in earmarks are the problem with a bailout several hundred billion dollars in size.
Earmarks are actually one of the better things in American politics, IMO.
-
I can't figure out why they party has to take such monumental losses before the critters wake up and say "Hey wait, we're losing! Maybe we should start acting like Republicans, yeah, THAT's the ticket!"
It's great that they all found religion at once, but it's still too little, too late as far as I'm concerned.
-
MB... there's at least 10 billion listed in the quote here, maybe more. I'm too lazy to add it all, but I can get 5 billion with only half a dozen of the larger items.
You'd also be hard pressed to find anything larger than a couple billion for any particular 1 program in the main bill. Exclusions to that might be large corporate bailouts or loans, but aside from that.... bridges, stadium construction and infrastructure projects get itemized and result in 100 million here, 900 million there.
If anyone has a link to the source bill, I would like to peruse it a bit though.
-
Yes, because five billion dollars in earmarks are the problem with a bailout several hundred billion dollars in size.
Earmarks are actually one of the better things in American politics, IMO.
Its actually 19 billion more or less, I think I missed a line or two in calc, which IS real money considering it is all debt. Earmarks could be a great thing but are badly abused as we see here. It enables folks to get pork through the system that otherwise would never be approved. Again, if something is that good of an idea that it is worth millions or billions of dollars it should be able to withstand scrutiny. Besides, its easy for you to say.. its not your future earnings making the interest payments on it.
-
There are two major ways to control government money in a democratic society. Either you have the legislature control it - which results in pork and earmarks - or you have the legislature apportion the money to have individual programs controlled by appointed bureaucrats in the various "Ministries" or "Departments", as they do in Europe. While earmarks are not nice, at least you can vote the bastards out. The alternative is worse, IMO.
MB... there's at least 10 billion listed in the quote here, maybe more. I'm too lazy to add it all, but I can get 5 billion with only half a dozen of the larger items.
The point is, nitpicking at stuff like this when you have unconstitutional programs ranging into dozens and hundreds of billions is essentially posturing.
-
There are two major ways to control government money in a democratic society. Either you have the legislature control it - which results in pork and earmarks - or you have the legislature apportion the money to have individual programs controlled by appointed bureaucrats in the various "Ministries" or "Departments", as they do in Europe. While earmarks are not nice, at least you can vote the bastards out. The alternative is worse, IMO.
The point is, nitpicking at stuff like this when you have unconstitutional programs ranging into dozens and hundreds of billions is essentially posturing.
We have to start somewhere, going after the low hanging fruit first is not nitpicking.
-
We have to start somewhere, going after the low hanging fruit first is not nitpicking.
I agree. GOP leadership decided these are models of egregious spending in the bill, and went ahead with these as attack talking points. Fine. There's 800 Billion more in there just like these ones. They showed us a representative 1-2% of that.
The point is, nitpicking at stuff like this when you have unconstitutional programs ranging into dozens and hundreds of billions is essentially posturing.
If they were only upset about the 10 billion or so above... yes it would be posturing. Now they've suddenly grown a conscience supposedly, so they oppose the entire bill.
I tell you one thing.... 2008/2009 has taught me to never vote D/R again. Obama is Bush II as far as I can tell, so far. I will not endorse this FedGov getting 1 penny heavier.
-
All of the above may very well be true, but I will add a few possibilities that are less nefarious and more practical.
1. The Bush bailout was, IIRC, supported by a majority of Americans
2. The current bailout is opposed by a majority of Americans
3. Perhaps both the Republicans in Congress and the electorate have learned something from the failure of the first bailout to have an effect on their views of jumbo-sized bailouts.
-
Isnt it funny how the Republicans were OK with the Bush bailout, but not with Obama's. Its all about partisanship. Nobody gives a crap about the country
-
1. The Bush bailout was, IIRC, supported by a majority of Americans
No. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,428921,00.html) It wasn't (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/boo-bailout.html).
-
Isnt it funny how the Republicans were OK with the Bush bailout, but not with Obama's. Its all about partisanship. Nobody gives a crap about the country
2008/2009 has taught me to never vote D/R again.
You and me both. R/D are very clearly two sides of the same coin. :|
Republicans =/= conservatives. Not by a long shot.
-
Because it doesn't mean a damn thing now. They can oppose it all they like in public, get more conservative/small gov't street cred, and the bailout they want still goes through.
It's a circus for the benefit of the base.
-
No. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,428921,00.html) It wasn't (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/boo-bailout.html).
Hmm, Americans have more sense than I gave them credit at times. Maybe it is only the Republican congresscritters that have learned?
-
The first bailout was targeted at Wall Street, banks, etc. The second is targeted at socialist causes. The first had a chance (slim but there) of breaking the credit logjam and getting things running. The second has no hope whatsoever of being effective in assisting the economy.
-
Do you really believe the Bush bail out had a chance?
And do you also really believe the money was used appropriately? As I understand it, not all the money given has to even be accounted for. If it is not used appropriately, then how is it any better than money used to advance socialist causes?
-
I thought the icecaps are all going to melt in a few years? :rolleyes:
It actually makes sense. Increasing temps will melt the glaciers - and as they melt, icebergs ought to break off 'em at a faster than normal rate.
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
I got me one of those last summer. Useful programs, as they employ a significant number of knaves people who would otherwise be a drain on the resources of parents. Besides that, my job's pretty much guaranteed for this year. :laugh:
-
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
Can they not use their own funds from the casinos that they all seem to have nowadays?
-
Bush Derangement Syndrome has two manifestations: rabid, drooling hatred of anything Bush and second, rabid, drooling support of anything Bush.
The US is a two party government but the parties aren't democrat and republican.
-
I got me one of those last summer. Useful programs, as they employ a significant number of knaves people who would otherwise be a drain on the resources of parents
Every year, we employ high school students under "Youth Conservation Corps". They don't actually do a damn thing, except break stuff. Expensive stuff. Our boss really likes having them work, though, so he doesn't care. The YCC can do no wrong.
That's government employing youth under programs for you.
-
Is there any reason other than partisan politics?
Why did Bush get support for his plan from most of them, but Obama did not?
You are the one playing partisan politics. Look at the facts. The Republicans initially OPPOSED the Bush bailout. They voted against Bush's first bill. Some of them voted for the second bill. So, what was your question again?
Here's a better question. Why is it OK for Nancy Pelosi to call the Republican Congressmen unpatriotic for opposing the first bail-out bill, when her party has been telling us for eight years that no one's patriotism must ever be questioned?
-
Every year, we employ high school students under "Youth Conservation Corps". They don't actually do a damn thing, except break stuff. Expensive stuff. Our boss really likes having them work, though, so he doesn't care. The YCC can do no wrong.
That's government employing youth under programs for you.
I only broke a shredder. =D
-
I only broke a shredder. =D
You didn't tear up a $7000 fourwheeler.
Or rip the canopy off the golf cart.
Or run into a tree with another golfcart, which promptly caught on fire...
These are just a few things that have happened with our idiot YCC workers.
-
You are the one playing partisan politics. Look at the facts. The Republicans initially OPPOSED the Bush bailout. They voted against Bush's first bill. Some of them voted for the second bill. So, what was your question again?
How is he playing partisan politics? Did Lone_gunman said Democrats were better?
-
If you look at percentages, a much higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Bush bailout than for the Obama bailout. Thats what I am wondering about.
I am not interested in what the Democrats have or have not done. I am not a Democrat, and haven't supported a Democrat at any point. So bringing up anything Nancy Pelosi says is sort of irrelevant. The Democrats suck, but does that mean its ok for the Republicans to suck just a little bit less?
-
You didn't tear up a $7000 fourwheeler.
Or rip the canopy off the golf cart.
Or run into a tree with another golfcart, which promptly caught on fire...
These are just a few things that have happened with our idiot YCC workers.
Now I see why my supervisor(s) thought so highly of me (aside from the whole efficiency bit). I seem to recall that I had access to a .gov truck/SUV when I got courier duty a time or two, never took it though.
Where are you at? Kamikaze golf carts interest me. :laugh:
FWIW, I consider the program useful because the program include(d/s) me. If I am part and parcel of it, it can't be all bad - 99% so, sure. :laugh: The folks where I worked did have a poor opinion of their previous two summer hires. I get the notion that the bad ones get moved around base a lot, to spread the misery along. Also get the notion that you can't fire these summer employees unless they're actively selling secrets to Iran.
-
The first bailout was targeted at Wall Street, banks, etc. The second is targeted at socialist causes.
As I recall, the Bush bail out bill resulted in the government having an ownership interest in private banks. Isn't that pretty socialist?
-
Most Americans are for the idea of a stimulus bill, but most Americans see the current Democratic bill for what it is, a stuffed pig. (Myself included)
I'd have far less problems haveing a trillion of my tax dollars stolen for something that might help the economy as a whole, but I have far more problems with only 600 billion of 1 trillion being stolen for this purpose, with the rest of it being porky.
-
If you look at percentages, a much higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Bush bailout than for the Obama bailout. Thats what I am wondering about.
Why do you seem to presume that the only difference in the two bills is the party of the President who supports it? They're two different bills, so where's this partisanship?
I brought up the Pelosi thing because it is a very tantalizing bit of trivia, which no one talks about. And since your question has been answered, we might as well talk about something more interesting. So, no, I'm not saying that the Republicans are OK because the Dem's are worse. Why would you draw such an unwarranted conclusion?
-
As I recall, the Bush bail out bill resulted in the government having an ownership interest in private banks. Isn't that pretty socialist?
Something pointed out by myriad Republican and/or conservative commentators.
-
Something pointed out by myriad Republican and/or conservative commentators.
Quite, but not listened to by the Party leadership and its key politicians.
-
I think it is ironic for Republicans to say Obama's plan is socialist, only to have voted for a plan a few months earlier that allows for government ownership of banks.
-
Quite, but not listened to by the Party leadership and its key politicians.
Are you sensing a pattern, too? =)
I think it is ironic for Republicans to say Obama's plan is socialist, only to have voted for a plan a few months earlier that allows for government ownership of banks.
I think it's ironic for anyone to say it.
But to restate something that seems to have been ignored, a good many Republican Representatives voted AGAINST the first bail-out that Bush supported, just as they voted against the Obama bail-out.
So can we all acknowledge that this is not a case of out-and-out partisanship?
-
I think it is ironic for Republicans to say Obama's plan is socialist, only to have voted for a plan a few months earlier that allows for government ownership of banks.
So which is more socialist? Government nationalizing finance, or government redistributing wealth? The pot and the kettle are both black. If you're going to throw *expletive deleted*it at the wall, at least pick GOOD *expletive deleted*it.
Here's one for you:
Show me how Bush and those who supported his finance bailout stand to gain politically from its passage.
The people are pissed at the bailout's execution and lack of accountability, and all of the huge financial entities who took receipt of our money are still having bad times. Not a proud vote for a lot of supporters.
Now, show me how Obama and those Democrats who supported this new bill stand to gain politically from its passage.
The people are pissed, but expect MASS contributions from labor organizations, contractors, utility companies, etc. to Democrat politicians who signed on for their little piece of the pig. They'll be OK.
So can we all acknowledge that this is not a case of out-and-out partisanship?
Those of us who can, have. Those of us who can't, will keep complaining.
-
Merged threads, Lone_Gunman didn't need to create a separate one.
Here's the link for JamisJockey:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html
If it looks like pork, and smells like pork... :|
-
Do you really believe the Bush bail out had a chance?
And do you also really believe the money was used appropriately? As I understand it, not all the money given has to even be accounted for. If it is not used appropriately, then how is it any better than money used to advance socialist causes?
A chance? Absolutely. What was killing the economy was the inability of companies to utilize lines of credit for operations. That was a standard business model for a large number of the companies the economy relied upon. When that was blocked due to fear over the "toxic assets" (a stupid term but one that has become a term of art), companies began going under and employees began losing their jobs. That helped aggravate the job loss cycle that did further damage to the economy, that in turn continued the cycle, etc.
What happened after the bill was introduced (nationalization of a significant portion of the banking industry via coercion, abuse of the money, failure to lend the money, etc) didn't affect the underlying principles of the bill. The new bill, however, isn't just possible or likely to be abused, it is abuse.
-
A chance? Absolutely.
I disagree. The Bush bailout was a set up for abuse, and if no one saw that beforehand, it is because no one was looking. The banks don't even have to account for all the money they recieve. If that is not a set up for abuse, nothing is.
Do not misconstrue my opposition to the Bush plan as support for Obama's plan. My point is that socialism and increased federal intervention is bad, no matter if it is a Republican or Democrat doing it. Bush got a free ride from many supposed conservative republicans, including my Republican senator Saxby Chambliss. Anyone who supports either the Bush or Obama bailouts should never complain about socialism or communism, because they have effectively advanced those systems here.
-
Back when the Bush Bailout was passed the Fed was losing control of interests rates and the money supply. Interest rates were spiking because banks were insolvent. The bailout was intended to bring those rates back under control.
It worked.
Obama's plan? That's not a bailout or stimulus or anything remotely similar. It's a spending plan on a massive scale, nothing more.
Is it partisan to give passing support to one bill and then completely oppose an entirely different bill? Of course not.
-
I disagree. The Bush bailout was a set up for abuse, and if no one saw that beforehand, it is because no one was looking. The banks don't even have to account for all the money they recieve. If that is not a set up for abuse, nothing is.
Do not misconstrue my opposition to the Bush plan as support for Obama's plan. My point is that socialism and increased federal intervention is bad, no matter if it is a Republican or Democrat doing it. Bush got a free ride from many supposed conservative republicans, including my Republican senator Saxby Chambliss. Anyone who supports either the Bush or Obama bailouts should never complain about socialism or communism, because they have effectively advanced those systems here.
My understanding is that the Bush bailout money was used primarily to buy preferred stock in the banks. Preferred stock is a loan, not an ownership interest.
-
Is it partisan to vote against one bill, then give passing support to one bill and then, under the next adminstration, completely oppose an entirely different bill? Of course not.
FTFY
-
Merged threads, Lone_Gunman didn't need to create a separate one.
Here's the link for JamisJockey:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html
If it looks like pork, and smells like pork... :|
You rock. going on facebook right now. :angel:
-
I also put the list of pork on my blog, Jamis.
Everybody needs to see that bill for what it is. =|
-
Where can I read the full details of the stimulus proposal? Every time I search for it I only find snippets. =|
-
How many hours do you have?
-
I'm only working 10 hours next week. I've got lots of time to read up. :lol:
I'll probably search pages for money amounts and go on down through, though.
-
Where can I read the full details of the stimulus proposal? Every time I search for it I only find snippets. =|
http://readthestimulus.org/
Have fun, we're not liable if you decide to kill yourself in the process.
Also there should be a copy on the library of Congress page as well.
-
Someone, I forget who, just publicly pointed out that there's more money for the National Endowment for the Arts than for small business in the bill. Yeah, that stimulates...
Democrats. They're like food addicts who can't be let in the kitchen, or they'll just start gorging out of the fridge that someone else paid for all the food in. Can't help themselves.
-
Can we all agree to stop calling this a "stimulus" bill?
-
*Clicks link*
Great, Scott! :O
-
Can we all agree to stop calling this a "stimulus" bill?
We could call it a porkulus bill. Scroll down for mildly amusing image.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_013009/content/01125113.guest.html
-
The bill is slated to give Milwaukee $88 million for the school system, ostensibly for school construction. That makes no sense because enrollment is down, the school system has a surplus of buildings, and is trying to sell school buildings.
My guess is that the money would go to one of Governor Doyle's biggest campaign backers, the teachers' union.
This porkulus bill has to be stopped cold.
-
Obama's arrogance is showing. Is this going to piss people off soon?
Obama bemoans: Everyone's an economist
Feb 6 01:22 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says in Washington these days, everyone's an economist—or thinks they are.
Obama introduced a team of outside economic advisers Friday at a White House ceremony in which he also renewed his demand that Congress act quickly on his economic recovery package.
As the country struggles with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Obama said there has been no shortage of advice on how to solve the nation's woes.
"You've got some economists and some folks who think they're economists. By the way, these days everybody thinks they're economists," he joked.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96675KG0&show_article=1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96675KG0&show_article=1)
-
By the way, these days everybody thinks they're economists," he joked.
Seems to me the worst bunch of faux economists are those in his administration who think that spending money on government will boost the economy, and that repeating FDR is good, while repeating JFK and Reagan is bad.
-
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009’’.
\
Sounds like something I read in an Ayn Rand book.......
-
Obama's arrogance is showing. Is this going to piss people off soon?
Quote
Obama bemoans: Everyone's an economist
Feb 6 01:22 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says in Washington these days, everyone's an economist—or thinks they are.
Obama introduced a team of outside economic advisers Friday at a White House ceremony in which he also renewed his demand that Congress act quickly on his economic recovery package.
As the country struggles with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Obama said there has been no shortage of advice on how to solve the nation's woes.
"You've got some economists and some folks who think they're economists. By the way, these days everybody thinks they're economists," he joked.
Well, Mr Obama should know--if anyone does. He has no interest in economics and less knowledge of it. He yammers about economics, but this bill is a hundred per cent comprised of political agenda, built on a desire to perpetuate Democratic hegemony and advance socialism in America.
Will he piss people off?
Yes, the same minority of the nation that has retained both common sense and a healthy measure of defiance. What we do with those remains to be seen.
I think the sooner we realize we need to shore up what remains of our legacy the better off we will be.
-
One that I can say will generate jobs is the 88 million to design a new polar icebreaker. Carl Levin of Michigan also wants money to build another ice breaker for the Great Lakes and to build a new lock in Sault Ste. Marie, MI. This will keep at least one ship builder busy, allow an increase in shipping between Lake Superior and the other lakes and give a bit of a safety factor. The existing locks are getting old. From what I have seen nearly 7% of our GNP passes through the Sault locks.
-
Not to play devil's advocate, but that $88 million to design a polar icebreaker...
How many jobs does that generate compared to the same $88 million injected into a different employment infrastructure?
-
One that I can say will generate jobs is the 88 million to design a new polar icebreaker. Carl Levin of Michigan also wants money to build another ice breaker for the Great Lakes and to build a new lock in Sault Ste. Marie, MI. This will keep at least one ship builder busy, allow an increase in shipping between Lake Superior and the other lakes and give a bit of a safety factor. The existing locks are getting old. From what I have seen nearly 7% of our GNP passes through the Sault locks.
Stop and ask yourself what it costs to take that $88 million away from the economy and spend it on new locks and ice breakers. I can virtually guarantee you that there'll be more economic activity, and more effective use of the money, if it's left in the hands of its rightful owners instead of being taxed away and wasted on pork projects for the state of Michigan.
-
Gewehr98,
Feel free to play devils advocate on the ice breaker design because it SHOULDN'T cost that much. I just read on CNN that $122 million for Coast Guard cutters/ice breakers was completely cut. I think the 88 mil was for design/construction but I'm not a mind reader. That sucks though because that money would have kept a couple of shipyards busy for years building these ships. And it would help replace some of the World War II cutters that we are still using.
Headless Thompson Gunner,
Money for new locks and ice breakers for the Great Lakes would allow more shipping traffic on the lower 4 lakes and year round traffic for the first time ever on Lake Superior. More shipping of goods like taconite means more money in the economy. The Army Corps has had approval to build a new lock for years but has never been funded for it. This isn't pork, unlike money for the NEA, this would have a real effect on our economy. Even Carl Levin gets it right sometimes. =D
edit: without reading the whole stimulus I couldn't tell you how many cutters the money was for it shouldn't have been for one cutter. Whether it was 88 or 122 million either figure is crazy for just one and except for a new polar breaker design the CG doesn't need any more design work, we need money to start cutting steel for ship. We have several projects going to replace patrol boats, medium and larger cutters.
-
Headless Thompson Gunner,
Money for new locks and ice breakers for the Great Lakes would allow more shipping traffic on the lower 4 lakes and year round traffic for the first time ever on Lake Superior. More shipping of goods like taconite means more money in the economy. The Army Corps has had approval to build a new lock for years but has never been funded for it. This isn't pork, unlike money for the NEA, this would have a real effect on our economy. Even Carl Levin gets it right sometimes. =D
I don't doubt that it will have some economic benefit. I'm questioning whether it will have the maximum economic benefit that can be achieved from the money spent.
There's an old economic fallacy that deals with this sort of question. Resources are finite. When you use them for a pork project like locks and ice breakers, you are necessarily taking those resources away from somewhere else.
It's tempting to look at the results of some government pork program and say "See? This was a good use of resources, look at the shiny new locks and ice breakers we have because of it." But that's fallacious. To truly understand the situation you must also look at what you had to give up to get those locks and ice breakers.
The steel in those ice breakers could have been used to build a new factory, or a whole bunch of cars for people to drive to work, or a new skyscraper for office workers to use.
The concrete and manpower used to build new locks could have been used to build new roads or bridges or schools.
That $88 billion could have been used to recapitalize a bank, allowing them to make investment loans to worthy business all over the country.
Which of these is the best alternative? Hint: the best alternative is rarely the one that had to be forced on people by politicians.
-
I don't doubt that it will have some economic benefit. I'm questioning whether it will have the maximum economic benefit that can be achieved from the money spent.
There's an old economic fallacy that deals with this sort of question. Resources are finite. When you use them for a pork project like locks and ice breakers, you are necessarily taking resources away from somewhere else.
Broken Window Fallacy (http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm)
Edit: Also, if you haven't read the book this is excerpted from, please do, it's excellent.
-
Ooo! I didn't know it had a name.
Cool.
-
To truly understand the situation you must also look at what you had to give up to get those locks and ice breakers.
Got it. But when one of the old and getting older locks breaks down think of all the iron ore that is not being shipped and the ripple effect that has on the rest of the economy. Without functioning locks there is no iron ore being shipped, which means no steel coming from steel mills and heavy industry gets crippled. But we should stop now because we could argue past each other all day long. I felt sick looking at the crap in the original stimulus bill and have no idea how Obama could try to tell us there was no pork in the bill. I think we really need to add a puking emoticon here.
-
Got it. But when one of the old and getting older locks breaks down think of all the iron ore that is not being shipped and the ripple effect that has on the rest of the economy. Without functioning locks there is no iron ore being shipped, which means no steel coming from steel mills and heavy industry gets crippled. But we should stop now because we could argue past each other all day long. I felt sick looking at the crap in the original stimulus bill and have no idea how Obama could try to tell us there was no pork in the bill. I think we really need to add a puking emoticon here.
Ahhhh you missed his clever semantics, then.
As I listened to his press release conference, Obama didn't say there was no pork, he said there were no "earmarks" in the bill. Earmarks refers to money given to states or agencies without a specific purpose in mind.
All of the spending in this bill are for specific projects or programs. Thus, they aren't "earmarks".
-
You're absolutely correct. I have been tuning out the news because I'm sick of the 24/7 gloom and doom. It wouldn't surprise me if the suicide rate is going up just from people watching this on the news all day long.
-
Not to play devil's advocate, but that $88 million to design a polar icebreaker...
How many jobs does that generate compared to the same $88 million injected into a different employment infrastructure?
I guess it depends on if we have American industry build it or buy it from another country--like usual..... ;/
-
Broken Window Fallacy (http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm)
Edit: Also, if you haven't read the book this is excerpted from, please do, it's excellent.
I think this is in the public domain.
As such; Economics in One Lesson (http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf)
I've only read the preface so far; but it seems that it's just as applicable today as it was in 1931.
(ETA: Fixed broken link)
-
I think this is in the public domain.
As such; Economics in One Lesson (http://)
I've only read the preface so far; but it seems that it's just as applicable today as it was in 1931.
Please continue it.
He uses examples from the 40's, but the reasoning is still perfect.
It's the best example of basic economic reasoning: Look beyond what is seen. <read the book for a fuller explanation, Hazlitt is a far better writer than I>
-
The first book I ever read on economics. If I remember right, the One Lesson was essentially, look at the big picture. As in the broken window fallacy above.
Makattak, I wonder if you have any advice for someone teaching himself economics. I read Sowell's Basic Economics. I'm in the middle of a book by some guy named Heilbroner right now. I'll of course read the Hayek and Von Mises stuff, eventually, and I also have an econ textbook. Any recommendations?
-
The first book I ever read on economics. If I remember right, the One Lesson was essentially, look at the big picture. As in the broken window fallacy above.
Makattak, I wonder if you have any advice for someone teaching himself economics. I read Sowell's Basic Economics. I'm in the middle of a book by some guy named Heilbroner right now. I'll of course read the Hayek and Von Mises stuff, eventually, and I also have an econ textbook. Any recommendations?
I'd honestly never heard of Dr. Heilbroner until I read your post. Interesting man, worked in the price control bureaucracy with Galbraith.
Obviously I cannot judge the value of his work, but judging from the titles, he at least should have a wide breadth of knowledge.
Sowell is generally very lucid. Walter Williams writes even better (about economic issues).
Hayek and Von Mises are very good, but Mises is, at times, very dense. Most people think Mises is the deeper thinker as a result.
I tend to think Hayek is the smarter of the two as well as the better communicator. I'd start with Hayek, in any case.
I'd like to suggest that you read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" but that is a tome. There are some very important passages, though: Division of Labor, Gains from Specialization, Effects of Trade, inter alia.
I'll need some time to put together what I would think are the basics- I'll look through my library (ok, a couple of bookshelves) and see what I think are "essential".
-
I'll need some time to put together what I would think are the basics- I'll look through my library (ok, a couple of bookshelves) and see what I think are "essential".
Please do. I, too, would like to add some new items to my reading list.
-
I think you should consider Free to Choose and Capitalism and Freedom. While both Friedman and Hayek are classical-liberal economists, they differ on many key points.
-
I'd like to suggest that you read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" but that is a tome. There are some very important passages, though: Division of Labor, Gains from Specialization, Effects of Trade, inter alia.
[princess_bride]...Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...[/princess_bride]
You fell victim to one of the classic libertarian blunders! The most famous is never donning a wookiee suit outside a comic/sci-fi con, but only slightly less well-known is this: never jump into Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations before reading his Theory of Moral Sentiments.
TMS was written before WON and provides and explanation of the moral underpinnings necessary for WON to be valid.
TMS also gives doctrinaire libertarians & min/whatever-anarchist types the heebie-jeebies.
Unfortunately, when Smith wrote on a topic, "brevity" was not his object, as TMS is yet another tome.
-
I'd honestly never heard of Dr. Heilbroner until I read your post. Interesting man, worked in the price control bureaucracy with Galbraith.
Obviously I cannot judge the value of his work, but judging from the titles, he at least should have a wide breadth of knowledge.
I didn't anything about him, either. I'm reading a book he co-authored called Economics Explained. I got it at a bookstore, when I was just looking for something basic, not intentionally ideological, and not overly-long. Ya know, just so I'm not getting all of my instruction from the same perspective.
-
[princess_bride]...Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...[/princess_bride]
You fell victim to one of the classic libertarian blunders! The most famous is never donning a wookiee suit outside a comic/sci-fi con, but only slightly less well-known is this: never jump into Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations before reading his Theory of Moral Sentiments.
TMS was written before WON and provides and explanation of the moral underpinnings necessary for WON to be valid.
TMS also gives doctrinaire libertarians & min/whatever-anarchist types the heebie-jeebies.
Unfortunately, when Smith wrote on a topic, "brevity" was not his object, as TMS is yet another tome.
Actually, I enjoy that tome as well. That may be because I'm not a "pure" libertarian either.
Probably explains my preference for Hayek as well. (Referring to Micro's post about Friedman and Hayek's differences)
-
*furiously scribbles down authors and book titles*
I've been going through Rothbard's "Man, Economy and State," which seems pretty good so far, but I admit that I'm a neophyte, so my judgement is totally inexperienced. Also, I'm not very far into it. I definitely need to read some Smith, and Sowell, too.
It was on your recommendation, makattak, that I read "The Fatal Conceit," and found it really engaging, if a bit tough to follow at times.
Looks like it's time for another trip to the University library!
-
Don't forget the 'Anti-Capitalist Mentality' and 'Theory and History' while you're there. *smirks*
-
I... uh... actually already borrowed the first one... but I haven't read it yet... *self-deprecating grin*
Are you suggesting I should read more Friedman and less Rothbard?
Edit: Oh, those are Mises. Added.
-
Makattak, I wonder if you have any advice for someone teaching himself economics. I read Sowell's Basic Economics. I'm in the middle of a book by some guy named Heilbroner right now. I'll of course read the Hayek and Von Mises stuff, eventually, and I also have an econ textbook. Any recommendations?
Alright, it took a while because I discovered I have very few modern books in my library and telling you to read this chapter of The Wealth of Nations and that chapter of Principles of Political Economy and Taxation are perhaps not the best way.
However, two really good starting places (AFTER Economics in One Lesson) are:
The Armchair Economist by Steven Landsburg (I don't agree with all he says, but he usually has good economic reasoning).
The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton W. Folsom, Jr. This is very good for illustrating the importance of entrepreneurs.
Lastly, Capitalism, Democracy and Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery by John Mueller is higher level economics: The importance of the rules of the game (called Institutional Economics).
Less important, but you can find all the little formulas for profit, demand, supply, et al. in nearly any Economics textbook. Those are more nuts and bolts and less how people funtction.
There, at least something good came out of being home sick today.