We have all been shooting down various proposals and ideas that Obama and/or Congress have been floating to fix the economy.

 

So, What Would SoxTalk Do? Imagine that we, the Busterites of ST, are the US Senate. What should we do?

 

And no, the thread title is not about sexually transmitted diseases.

 

Vote 'no'. But I would have voted against the bank bailout bill too. The bill is too pork ridden to be fixed IMO. I would, however, vote against a filibuster and if the economy doesn't turn around I would attack the Democrats with their votes for this bill. Then I would hire Joe the Plumber to answer the phones at my office.

 

"Senator Genius' office. This is Joe the Plumber. Can I help you?"

Vote 'no'. But I would have voted against the bank bailout bill too. The bill is too pork ridden to be fixed IMO. I would, however, vote against a filibuster and if the economy doesn't turn around I would attack the Democrats with their votes for this bill. Then I would hire Joe the Plumber to answer the phones at my office.

 

"Senator Genius' office. This is Joe the Plumber. Can I help you?"

So... your solution to the economy is to hire Joe the Plumber, and do nothing else?

 

The bill is too pork ridden to be fixed IMO.

It's a Senator's job to get pork for their state. That's the whole point of representative democracy. It is why our system is the way it is.

 

It's a Senator's job to get pork for their state. That's the whole point of representative democracy. It is why our system is the way it is.

 

Then put some of this stuff in a seperate bill. Have a 'global warming initiative bill' and such for the other stuff. I am against these big bills with everything under the sun stacked into it; stay with the bills intent.

So... your solution to the economy is to hire Joe the Plumber, and do nothing else?

Sounds like the current GOP plan.

Then put some of this stuff in a seperate bill. Have a 'global warming initiative bill' and such for the other stuff. I am against these big bills with everything under the sun stacked into it; stay with the bills intent.

What exactly do you think stimulus is? It's money that is temporarily used by the federal government to juice the economy. You may not like a particular program, but saying "stay with the bill's intent" is just incoherent when the intent of the bill is to spend as much money as effectively as possible to make sure the downturn doesn't continue to spiral.

I like the bill a fair amount as written. I think it strikes a decent balance between rapid stimulus in the form of the middle class tax cuts and includes enough to continue providing a stimulus through 2010, and it includes a number of important legislative actions that are much needed.

 

A few things I would change:

 

1. Increase the size of the infrastructure spending. There are a number of avenues that have not yet been explored; things like additional rebuilding of the national park system, additional money to pay for the operation of current transit systems (i.e. getting Amtrak actually running closer to on time, adding GPS tracking), etc.

2. Significant additional funds for rail construction. (Order $15 billion or so)

3. Significant additional funds for alternative energy. Specifically, wind and solar generation, not just modernization of the power grid; actually buy the bloody things. The Senate bill is better on this than the House, but you could easily put another $25 billion in there over the next 2 years and still say it wasn't enough.

4. Scale back the generic business tax cuts. You might be able to talk me in to a one time repatriation tax credit of some magnitude, but only if I get that first $20 billion back, and some actual votes.

5. Add additional spending on targets that still run through mid-2011 to keep the foot on the accelerator.

 

The danger with this package is not that it will be too big, if it's too big that's actually not a bad thing because it restores power to monetary policy. The danger is it will be too small or that it will be too watered down with tax cuts to actually make a dent.

What exactly do you think stimulus is? It's money that is temporarily used by the federal government to juice the economy. You may not like a particular program, but saying "stay with the bill's intent" is just incoherent when the intent of the bill is to spend as much money as effectively as possible to make sure the downturn doesn't continue to spiral.

 

No it really isn't. This argument that merely spending money will fix the economy is not something I am buying into. Wasting trillions of dollars does not 'stimulate' the economy. It's cancerous and will end up destroying the economy. I mean, really, it's gotten to absurd levels. You are basically setting the precedent that all spending, no matter what it is on, will no be considered economic stimulus.

Edited February 3, 200917 yr by mr_genius

I think the government should buy up everyindividual mortgage out there and set the interest rate at a fixed 4% for 30 years.

It's a Senator's job to get pork for their state. That's the whole point of representative democracy. It is why our system is the way it is.

Sort of. Classically, that is really more the job of a House Rep. Senators too, to an extent, but they are supposed to be a filter for it as well.

 

What exactly do you think stimulus is? It's money that is temporarily used by the federal government to juice the economy. You may not like a particular program, but saying "stay with the bill's intent" is just incoherent when the intent of the bill is to spend as much money as effectively as possible to make sure the downturn doesn't continue to spiral.

 

That is pretty interesting. When you are talking about adding an estimated 330,000 government jobs, I really don't call that temporary, as I can't recall the last major governmental job layoff that has happened. Its also only spends an estimated 8% of the funds in 2009.

 

Here are my keys to a stimulus plan.

 

-Truely temporary spending, in that it would be one time outlays, and not any continuing programs.

-Tax cuts and rebates. This gets money into peoples hands now, and not in 2011, 2012, or whenever.

-Revoke Sarbane's Oxley. It has caused more problems that it has solved. It wouldn't have prevented Enron or Worldcom, and it hasn't stopped fraud from happening. All it has done is added an expensive layer of compliance to each companies statements, which is wasted money.

-Make sure you have the ability to adjust to future economic challenges, but not making too many permanent changes. The economy could be better in 2-3-4 years, and all of this spending could be causing inflation. It could be worse, and we need something different or new instead. The point is we don't know, and we can't use up all our ammo when no one knows what will happen.

-Don't allow state and local governmental agencies who receive any kind of temporary funds from a stimulus package to raise taxes. If they do, take away funds on a dollar for dollar basis. It does no good to the general public if they get money from one source, only to get it taken away by another.

 

I'm tentatively behind ss2k5's plan.

 

 

-Revoke Sarbane's Oxley. It has caused more problems that it has solved. It wouldn't have prevented Enron or Worldcom, and it hasn't stopped fraud from happening. All it has done is added an expensive layer of compliance to each companies statements, which is wasted money.

It helped bolster confidence in the financial markets after repeated fraud at companies like the ones you mention.

It's a Senator's job to get pork for their state. That's the whole point of representative democracy. It is why our system is the way it is.

 

But it doesn't have to be. I disagree with pork coming to my state / town.

 

My Congressman just arranged for money to come to my town to fox a minor intersection with street lamps, benches, pretty faux brick crosswalks. Why? This money should come from the state. It should come from local tax dollars. Why should someone in California or Washington or Hawaii pay for an intersection in Cedar Lake, IN, population 9000??

 

Federal taxes are too high! Most of our tax dollars should go to the state. It's bass ackwards. The state knows better what we need than a bunch of guys in DC. That's the way it was supposed to be. We sent people to Washington to protect our interests, not get us money.

 

 

 

Edit: I realize I'm probably in the minority with this view, unfortunately.

Edited February 3, 200917 yr by mreye

But it doesn't have to be. I disagree with pork coming to my state / town.

 

My Congressman just arranged for money to come to my town to fox a minor intersection with street lamps, benches, pretty faux brick crosswalks. Why? This money should come from the state. It should come from local tax dollars. Why should someone in California or Washington or Hawaii pay for an intersection in Cedar Lake, IN, population 9000??

 

Federal taxes are too high! Most of our tax dollars should go to the state. It's bass ackwards. The state knows better what we need than a bunch of guys in DC. That's the way it was supposed to be. We sent people to Washington to protect our interests, not get us money.

 

 

 

Edit: I realize I'm probably in the minority with this view, unfortunately.

I agree in principle, but in reality we are never going to change that unless we're going to blow up the entire federal system and do a fresh reboot.

I agree in principle, but in reality we are never going to change that unless we're going to blow up the entire federal system and do a fresh reboot.

And do what? Get rid of single member districts? It's the nature of the system, it has nothing to do with the individuals we elect. There is no real alternative either, proportional representation might work great for Sweden but America is 3000 miles across and the logistics alone make it impossible.

 

Sure money gets wasted, but pork accounts for considerably less than 1% of the budget. Removing the aspect of the system that creates pork would render the system itself toothless.

And do what? Get rid of single member districts? It's the nature of the system, it has nothing to do with the individuals we elect. There is no real alternative either, proportional representation might work great for Sweden but America is 3000 miles across and the logistics alone make it impossible.

 

Sure money gets wasted, but pork accounts for considerably less than 1% of the budget. Removing the aspect of the system that creates pork would render the system itself toothless.

If we're talking about getting money for schools and such, the states should be doing that.

 

But I agree that the evils of pork and earmarks are way overblown. Last summer there were times when McCain made it sound like all Congress had to do was "stop putting pork in their bills" and the federal budget would be magically fixed.

If we're talking about getting money for schools and such, the states should be doing that.

 

But I agree that the evils of pork and earmarks are way overblown. Last summer there were times when McCain made it sound like all Congress had to do was "stop putting pork in their bills" and the federal budget would be magically fixed.

 

Yes, schools. I'm basically talking about the 10th Amendment. No, not to a "T", because you have to have federal money for Interstates and such.

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Legalize 'it" and collect the tax dollars.

It helped bolster confidence in the financial markets after repeated fraud at companies like the ones you mention.

And it's bulls*** - you know this.

 

So this "stimulus" will help "bolster confidence in the financial markets after repeated" (downturns) "at companies like the ones you mention"... it doesn't make it right.

 

It helped bolster confidence in the financial markets after repeated fraud at companies like the ones you mention.

 

Confidence brought us Lehman and Bear. I'd rather have them in business, than bankrupt.

Confidence brought us Lehman and Bear. I'd rather have them in business, than bankrupt.

No or limited regulation helped bring us where we are. I'm ok with corporate accountability.

Legalize 'it" and collect the tax dollars.

 

Sure. It fits right in with our junk food/tv/unemployment society.

No or limited regulation helped bring us where we are. I'm ok with corporate accountability.

Are you serious?