|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 30, 2009 23:16:28 GMT -5
Irrespective of whether this is good or bad politics, my $.02 is that the absence of Republican votes for the bill inspires confidence. To the extent Senate Republicans follow suit, it will likewise inspire confidence in the bill. As to the Senate Republicans, they also voted unanimously for the purportedly strict constructionist who couldn't even handle the Presidential oath of 35 words. Senate Republicans, with the exception of Lincoln Chafee, also voted unanimously for the IWR - to disarm Iraq of WMD despite the fact that Saddam had none at the time of the war and could not at the time attack his neighbors with spitballs let alone the United States with missiles. This is not exactly a distinguished record of getting things right. For the sake of the country, I hope they can get back on the balance beam soon. Yet, it is to Obama's credit that he has reached out so aggressively to Congressional Republicans. I have not seen an argument that Obama steamrolled this one or railroaded Congress. That is good policy (despite the less than inspirational record of many Congressional Republicans) even if it is not necessarily good politics. My view of this vote is that the Republicans did not offer an alternative or, to the extent that they supported an alternative, they did not make a credible effort to get behind it and explain why. So, Bando hit the nail on the head in point #3. A. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume the comment about John Roberts was a joke. If you are actually saying that he is not fit for SCOTUS, or that Republicans were in error to vote for him, I really don't think that's a supportable argument. B. I forgot that the initial vote on Iraq was so partisan. All of those Senate Democrats voted against it, if I recall correctly. Oh, wait, that's right. They only came out against it AFTER they voted for it. Sorry for the snark, but I think it was earned in those first initial comments. C. On to more substantive issues, if you really believe that the Republicans are offering no alternatives or are not making the case for those alternatives, then with all due respect, I don't really think you are paying attention. Republicans have been all over the papers, airwaves and tubes, talking about not only how this bill is bad, but how it can and should be made better. The mainstream media is reporting that, and people are listening. Obama has a lot of good will, and I do believe his efforts are genuine. But if you believe that good will extends to the Congressional leadership, I think you are sorely mistaken on that count. People are skeptical of this bill and they are willing listen to those who oppose it, particularly after TARP. Furthermore, if this is such a great and wonderful bill, then why are we hearing now from Nelson, McCaskill and Warner about things like "Gang of 14," and how this bill really doesn't have enough job creation in it and needs a LOT more work? Last I checked, those people didn't "vote in a block" with Republicans. And ed's point is right on. This is not a knock on Obama, but on Nancy Pelosi. Sure, it's all fine and good for Obama to say, I went and talked to Republicans. But what exactly were the substantive items that Pelosi actually allowed Republicans to have in this bill where she can honestly claim bipartisanship? (OK, maybe it's a little bit of a knock on Obama, since he should be able to have some influence over Pelosi, but only an indirect knock). Finally, this is not relevant to this particular discussion, and it is simply a prediction on my part, but I don't think Robert Gibbs is going to last a long time as press secretary. Just my opinion, as is everything else preceding. A. I was certainly embellishing to a degree as to Roberts, but I will say that the flub did not inspire confidence. If you claim to be a strict constructionist and during the most public moment in your time as CJ, you had better be able to recite what is in the Constitution. I agree that he is fit for SCOTUS, although I think there were better candidates for Chief Justice (Scalia et al.), and his nomination was elevated on the basis of expediency - Rehnquist's death - rather than his ability to interpret the Constitution and apply the law. B. The Senate Dems are generally blameworthy just as the Republicans are, and my argument did not exclude that possibility. That being said, some Senate Dems and Lincoln Chafee voted against it and should be recognized for getting it right. My understanding is that the point of "getting it right" is as yet unchallenged in this thread. C. I don't like the Dems' Congressional leadership - Pelosi and Reid just as I did not like Daschle/Gephardt. As to the issue of alternatives, I mentioned the issue of credibility, which I consider to be significant. The 2 highest ranking Republicans in their leadership are junior in their own states. D. I am not a big Gibbs fan either. Stephanie Cutter or Linda Douglass would have probably been a better nominee, but I can understand why Gibbs got the nod - loyalty. Hopefully it is simply a reflection of priorities and the pressing need to have the best people in policy-oriented positions and the need to stop the "permanent campaign" mode that befell the Press Office for the last decade or so. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 31, 2009 8:45:55 GMT -5
Comparing Bush's TARP and this bill is a ridiculous comparison. This bill has things like weatherization, electric grid improvements, energy efficiency, and renewable energy investment that all have quantifiable years to payback. Can anyone tell us when or if we will get the TARP money back? Or even where it went? Love how elvado is concentrating on .0004% of the spending in this bill. Maybe he can develop some outrage about the pennies sitting in his couch. I like all those things. But can anyone tell us how this bill is going to stimulate any part of the economy? Some of these projects are noble but this bill is supposedly one targeted at this specific economic environment. In that way, it is incredibly uninspired. If you read this bill, would you know we were in a deep recession? Would you think this was a plan to help us out of said recession? I wouldn't. This could be passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress in any economic environment, maybe not all in one bill, but certainly in the first 100 days. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jan 31, 2009 10:49:52 GMT -5
I like all those things. But can anyone tell us how this bill is going to stimulate any part of the economy? Some of these projects are noble but this bill is supposedly one targeted at this specific economic environment. In that way, it is incredibly uninspired. If you read this bill, would you know we were in a deep recession? Would you think this was a plan to help us out of said recession? I wouldn't. This could be passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress in any economic environment, maybe not all in one bill, but certainly in the first 100 days. Honestly? I think those parts of the bill are inspired. The past 8 years have proved that giving people $300 checks to spend on big screen TV's and video games makes things worse rather than better. Tax cuts in this environment aren't going to get anyone hired - we're still in a deflationary spiral. The logic here is that Government has to step in and spend some money (and I know there's a section of the board that disagrees with that idea), so why not spend it on things that are worthwhile and improve our national balance sheet in the long term? What is your inspirational solution that creates jobs and specifically targets the recession? |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 31, 2009 11:47:26 GMT -5
To target the recession, how about corporate tax rate cuts? It would spur industry (small and large) to hire more people.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 31, 2009 11:47:55 GMT -5
I like all those things. But can anyone tell us how this bill is going to stimulate any part of the economy? Some of these projects are noble but this bill is supposedly one targeted at this specific economic environment. In that way, it is incredibly uninspired. If you read this bill, would you know we were in a deep recession? Would you think this was a plan to help us out of said recession? I wouldn't. This could be passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress in any economic environment, maybe not all in one bill, but certainly in the first 100 days. Honestly? I think those parts of the bill are inspired. The past 8 years have proved that giving people $300 checks to spend on big screen TV's and video games makes things worse rather than better. Tax cuts in this environment aren't going to get anyone hired - we're still in a deflationary spiral. The logic here is that Government has to step in and spend some money (and I know there's a section of the board that disagrees with that idea), so why not spend it on things that are worthwhile and improve our national balance sheet in the long term? What is your inspirational solution that creates jobs and specifically targets the recession? Again "inspired" I think you mean as "worthwhile." I'm not arguing investing in renewable energy isn't worthwhile. And I'm sure as hell not arguing that giving people $300 is a viable solution. But spending and printing are all nice but it's quite unfortunate they don't work. I think the government has to step in and make specific capital grants to businesses and prospective home buyers in good standing and combine this with actually making lending decisions. Nobody wants to hear this. Everyone will say it's a fundamental part of our capitalist economy that banks make lending decisions. Well, they screwed that up and now the government has to actually intervene and grants can deal with the price point issue and lending needs to be done outside of the banks because they'll hoard any capital at this point. A traditional government program takes too long to see return and usually has significant negative short-term returns (again it might be fantastic long-term, but that doesn't do anything right now). Geithner, Paulson...doesn't matter which guy is in there. Neither will admit we're in a position where the banks fundamentally failed and their role in this economy has to be taken over. It's not popular with either party and it is a very difficult solution to implement. What is easier is cutting checks or putting together a new deal type program. Unfortunately neither actually will improve the economy. I will say, at least this plan could have positive benefits on the other side of the recession versus the check cutting. But short-term, there's nothing new here for an economic problem that should cause everyone to re-think traditional government solutions. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 31, 2009 11:56:07 GMT -5
To target the recession, how about corporate tax rate cuts? It would spur industry (small and large) to hire more people. If by "hire more people" you mean "hire one security guard to protect safe with money saved from tax cut" then yes it would. |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jan 31, 2009 12:48:58 GMT -5
Considering that Republicans in the past 8 years have done everything in their considerable, nearly unfettered power to obliterate their claim to being the party of fiscal responsibility, do the opposite of what's right for the country, and prove yet again that supply-side economics is a huge farce, it amazes me that they still think they have something to contribute without any new or better ideas.
If you think that investing in a crumbling infrastructure and taking an opportunity to retrofit federal and state facilities for greater energy efficiency is not a good thing, I really have nothing to say to you.
TARP and ARRP could not be more philosophically different, despite the very daunting things they share: huge sums, borrowed from overseas.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 2, 2009 18:52:06 GMT -5
To target the recession, how about corporate tax rate cuts? It would spur industry (small and large) to hire more people. Actually, that's pretty unlikely in this environment. It probably wouldn't even stop many of the layoffs, at least at large corporations. Corporate stimulus for directly creating jobs -- works projects that companies bid on; investment in new technologies; investments in new capital in the US in manufacturing would likely create jobs. A corporate tax cut to a dying company does little -- losses mean little if you aren't paying anyway. But even companies making money right now are using the economy as an excuse to restructure, and that's not going to change with a tax cut. It will just mean big bonuses and inflated stock prices -- nothing that will drive real economic growth. Government spending is usually a much better stimulus than tax cuts. And given the state of the US infrastructure, it's a smart way to go. I don't like a lot of the items in the plan, but overall spending here is better than tax cuts that end up in the hands of people who don't spend as much. |
|
