Stimulus Package

[hitest]

It seems that President Obama will soon have enough votes to pass the stimulus bill. I am uncomfortable with the idea of the USA loaning 800+ billion to help revitalize the economy. However, it is also clear to me that Obama must do something as I think just sitting around and hoping that things will sort themselves out seems dangerous. Banks keep failing and almost 600,000 Americans lost their jobs in January. I have a keen interest in this issue as my country is linked to America.

I know the GOP hates the idea of government intervention. Is there a middle ground here? Moving from a recession to a depression would really suck.

[Bubba Bob]

I went to a speech last week being given by my house rep. He was one of the 11 Democrats in the house that voted against it. He said at the start, the bill was supposed to be a sub 500billion, 90 day stimulus plan. However, by the time everyone was done adding in their wants, it was a 2 year stimulus plan that was over 800billion dollars. According to him, over half was just politicians dipping their hand in the coffers.

Now the Senate has pushed it to roughly an even trillion dollars.

I am uncomfortable with the idea of the USA loaning 800+ billion to help revitalize the economy.

So Are We.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Bubba Bob

[hitest]

According to him, over half was just politicians dipping their hand in the coffers.

Hasn't some of the pork been cut away from the package? I think that is how Obama is now close to a deal with the bill due to moderate senators cutting away some of the fat. I think the package is now lower than a trillion.

Anyway whatever the size of the package it looks like this is the way forward.

On an unrelated note I like the tone that VP Biden is setting with Europe and Russia. I am hopeful that Obama's reset button will work in establishing meaningful relationships with oversea partners. Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq will be huge challenges for the new President. Interesting times ahead!

[JDoors]

Guess I have a lot of thoughts, with no clear idea what it all will mean for the next few years:

• A lot of people believe it was politicians apparent mandate to "do something" that got us into this financial mess in the first place. It's more complicated than that of course, but they had their hands in it, and to ask them to solve the problem they helped create makes no sense.
  
• History shows what happens when governments spend money to "fix" things, things get worse and recovery is delayed.
  
• Re: Pork. There's a ton of it in the current bill. Even more than the original (hence the balooning cost). Politicians with a blank check are like kids in a candy store, no restraint.
  
• Democrats can pass the bill without the participation of the Republicans, so it's a foregone conclusion that it will pass.
  
• Mortgaging the future may give you peace of mind for the present, but the bill eventually comes due and you'd better have a way to pay it. There're no plan on how this one will be repaid.
  

[hitest]

Mortgaging the future may give you peace of mind for the present, but the bill eventually comes due and you'd better have a way to pay it. There're no plan on how this one will be repaid.

That is my fear as well. I guess the rationale is that a good kick start to the economy will start to move things in a positive direction generating capital as businesses gain more confidence, and the credit market opens up.

Alternatively, can Obama afford to sit around and do nothing as things spiral lower? This is a tough spot for the President.

[sultan_emerr]

Alternatively, can Obama afford to sit around and do nothing as things spiral lower? This is a tough spot for the President.

"A new report from the nonpartisan (but now largely populated by Democrats) Congressional Budget Office. The CBO analysis indicates that, in the long haul, both the House and Senate versions of the “stimulus” bill would result in such an increase in government debt that private investment would be “crowd(ed) out.” “[Our] basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital,” the CBO analysts wrote. This would lead to a lower Gross Domestic Product during the next decade than if the government had done nothing. "" = http://news.google.com/news?client=opera&a...l=en&tab=wn

Edited February 8, 2009 by sultan_emerr

[hitest]

Alternatively, can Obama afford to sit around and do nothing as things spiral lower? This is a tough spot for the President.

"A new report from the nonpartisan (but now largely populated by Democrats) Congressional Budget Office. The CBO analysis indicates that, in the long haul, both the House and Senate versions of the “stimulus†bill would result in such an increase in government debt that private investment would be “crowd(ed) out.†“[Our] basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital,†the CBO analysts wrote. This would lead to a lower Gross Domestic Product during the next decade than if the government had done nothing. "" = http://news.google.com/news?client=opera&a...l=en&tab=wn

That will be a catastrophe if true. That is one analysis. Only time will tell. De-regulation sure didn't do anything for the US/World economy.

[shanenin]

imagine if all 800 billion was kicked back to every person who files an income tax form, even if they owed no taxes. Then each of these people would spend this money how they wanted. That would guarantee the biggest growth ever in the world economy. THAT WOULD CREATE TRUE STIMULUS.

[hitest]

imagine if all 800 billion was kicked back to every person who files an income tax form, even if they owed no taxes. Then each of these people would spend this money how they wanted. That would guarantee the biggest growth ever in the world economy. THAT WOULD CREATE TRUE STIMULUS.

That would be awesome:) In addition however, I do think that some money needs to be spent on upgrading infrastructure, highways.

[JDoors]

... I guess the rationale is that a good kick start to the economy will start to move things in a positive direction generating capital as businesses gain more confidence, and the credit market opens up. ...

If getting business back on track is the goal then lowering their taxes would do just that, immediately, as long as the cuts were deep enough to mean something and permanent (so they don't have to worry about having money in the future, they'll just take the money and run if they can't plan to use it for the future).

... De-regulation sure didn't do anything for the US/World economy.

DE-regulation? It was the DEMAND that banks make loans to unqualified applicants that caused the FannieMae collapse. There were demands for MORE regulation for the last decade by politicians that saw this coming, but politicians whose bread was buttered by FannieMae blocked it saying what a wonderful job they're doing over at FannieMae (ka-CHING!).

imagine if all 800 billion was kicked back to every person who files an income tax form, even if they owed no taxes. Then each of these people would spend this money how they wanted. That would guarantee the biggest growth ever in the world economy. THAT WOULD CREATE TRUE STIMULUS.

I saw the numbers, we'd each get a LOT of money. Of course I'd just pay down debt and some people think that's not "productive" enough. Hey, guess what? That means I have more of MY money to spend rather than just paying down debt. Anyway, since it comes from us in the first place I'm not sure how anyone comes out ahead in the long run.

[hitest]

DE-regulation? It was the DEMAND that banks make loans to unqualified applicants that caused the FannieMae collapse. There were demands for MORE regulation for the last decade by politicians that saw this coming, but politicians whose bread was buttered by FannieMae blocked it saying what a wonderful job they're doing over at FannieMae (ka-CHING!).

Call it by any name you wish (de-regulation, increased demand). The bottom line is this could have been avoided if stiffer criteria for lending was in place. This happened on Bush's watch. More oversight could have prevented this lending nightmare.

[bozodog]

We did have oversight. Barney Frank and his ilk oversaw the tanking of the mortgage business, by believing everyone should own a home. The banks then took that worthless note paper and sold it of to the greedy guys on Wall Street., who passed it along once again.

Guess what? The house of cards has collapsed, and while it was on Bush's watch, the Dems ruled congress.

When will DC get a clue? Over 70% of Americans were against TARP and the big 3 bail out. Do they listen? Not to us peons, they know better than us, ya know?

And here's a list from Sen. Coburn's office on the wasteful and non-stimulative items in the Nelson-Collins substitute:

* $2 billion earmark for FutureGen near zero emissions powerplant in Mattoon, IL

* $39 billion slush fund for "state fiscal stabilization" bailout

* $5.5 billion for making federal buildings "green" (including $448 million for DHS HQ)

* $200 million for workplace safety in USDA facilities

* $275 million for flood prevention

* $65 million for watershed rehabilitation

* $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries

* $650 million for the DTV transition coupon program

* $307 million for constructing NIST office buildings

* $1 billion for administrative costs and construction of NOAA office buildings

* $100 million for constructing U.S. Marshalls office buildings

* $300 million for constructing FBI office buildings

* $800 million for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities

* $10 million to fight Mexican gunrunners

* $1.3 billion for NASA (including $450 million for "science" at NASA)

* $100 million to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program

* $10 million for urban canals

* $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars

* $1.5 billion for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140 (though section only authorizes $1 billion for five years)

* $300 million for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees

* $198 million to design and furnish the DHS headquarters

* $255 million for "priority procurements" at Coast Guard (polar ice breaker)

* $500 million for State and local fire stations

* $180 million for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities

* $500 million for wildland fire management

* $110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

* $522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs

* $650 million for abandoned mine sites

* $75 million for the Smithsonian Institution

* $1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth

* $412 million for CDC headquarters

* $500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD

* $160 million for "volunteers" at the Corp. for National and Community Service

* $750 earmark for the National Computer Center in MD

* $224 million for International Boundary and Water Commission – U.S. and Mexico

* $850 million for Amtrak

* $100 million for lead paint hazard reduction

No pork in there, nope, notta, no way...

Heres a good read

Edited February 10, 2009 by bozodog

[hitest]

Guess what? The house of cards has collapsed, and while it was on Bush's watch, the Dems ruled congress.

Granted the Dems take some of the hit with this mess. The buck still stops with the President, he can change the economic course if things are going awry. The GOP policy of letting the market find its own way was flawed, even Greenspan admitted as much. Predatory lending helped to fuel the collapse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business...24panel.html?hp

Also, spending 8-9 billion every month on Iraq doesn't help a lagging economy. The US has spent almost 600 billion on Iraq to date.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

[JDoors]

Granted the Dems take some of the hit with this mess. The buck still stops with the President, he can change the economic course if things are going awry. The GOP policy of letting the market find its own way was flawed, even Greenspan admitted as much. Predatory lending helped to fuel the collapse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business...24panel.html?hp

Also, spending 8-9 billion every month on Iraq doesn't help a lagging economy. The US has spent almost 600 billion on Iraq to date.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

I had only said "politicians" tried to regulate FannieMae because I was trying to be non-partisan (as our President wishes) but if you wish to place blame then I'll say it: It was the Republicans who, seven times over the last decade, tried to introduce MORE regulation of FannieMae, including bills backed by Bush. It was Democrats, including Frank, who whistled past the graveyard claiming, literally, that there was nothing wrong with the lending practices at FannieMae.

All you have to do is search YouTube for "Barney Frank + FannieMae" to get videos of him and other Democrats refusing to reign in FannieMae's practices while Republicans grilled them relentlessly. Why would Democrats defend the indefensible? One reason is that among the largest campaign contributors to every one of the Democrats who fought regulation was -- FannieMae and FreddieMac. If Bush is to blame for anything it's for letting the Democrats run roughshod over the Republican party when they all knew this was coming.

Six-hundred billion over eight years is a fraction of the pork-package being shoved down our throats. Not to mention that military spending stimulates the economy at least as much as any of the proposed pork would. That money's not "lost" to the ether; things are being built, people are getting paid. We could certainly argue whether or not that's an efficient use of money, but it's not just disappearing into thin air.

As for the pork-package itself, my local paper ran an article stating how the local school district is salivating at the opportunity to cash in on it. I have a problem with the money being spent on what are mandatory government expenses. NEW spending is what we need (if there's an argument for government stimulus at all), not just increasing the size of government.

[Matt]

Not debating a side, just reporting an update:

President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan has passed the Senate and is on its way to difficult House-Senate negotiations.

Just three Republicans helped pass the plan on a 61-37 vote and they're already signaling they'll play hardball to preserve more than $108 billion in spending cuts made last week in Senate dealmaking. Obama wants to restore cuts in funds for school construction jobs and help for cash-starved states.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29119293/

[jcl]

Granted the Dems take some of the hit with this mess. The buck still stops with the President, he can change the economic course if things are going awry.

I don't understand why people believe that. The economy emerges from the economic behavior of every individual in the economy. The only way to control the country's economy is to control the behavior of every single person in the country. The president can't do that. The most the president can do is try to influence people to behave in a way that will produce the economy he desires. Even then he can only succeed by accident because he cannot reliably predict how the economy will react to his actions.

The GOP policy of letting the market find its own way was flawed, even Greenspan admitted as much.

That isn't the GOP's policy. Greenspan might have believed that it was his policy but he was still regulating the economy.

[Pete_C]

I couldn't believe that I saw a Republican Senator last night expounding that the economy "shows signs of turning around" and that "it would be better to wait and see" than pass a stimulus package. We have tried that and it did not work.

But by far the most disappointing was the chief Republican blowhard advocating that they should vote against it because he has not read it because it is 1100 pages.

Well maybe if he spent more time reading an less time holding press conferences he could have at least read the important parts.

Part of the reason that it is so long is that everything has to be phrased correctly in redundant legalese to pander to lawsuit happy lawyers and idiots.

In reality while it would be nice for the Senators and Representatives to have taken the time to read over it ; most of them would probably not have gained much from that. The reality is that first of all it was not drawn up by one person or committee; there were different committees and people working on different sections and each was trusted to do their job and make sure that their section does what it should and is written correctly. Perhaps there should be consequences for them if they fail in this aspect of their job or try to slip in something unrelated but there are not at this time.

Secondly each Senator and Representative has a staff; rather than wasting time on sound bites and press blurbs to expound the party line they should have each been given a portion of the bill to review and write a synopsis of which the Senator / Representative can then read to understand what the bill includes and lacks. This should have been taking place all along over the past six weeks since they began working on the economic stimulus package. I find it hard to fathom that they have had six weeks on the job to accomplish this and claim that they have not had the time to do their job and read at least a synopsis of what they are voting on.

I think that this shows that the Republicans had their minds made up to be obstructionist from the start regardless of what the consequences are. They have taken the attitude of Rush Limbaugh that it does not matter how badly it hurts the country they hate the President and the Democrats so much that they wish they would fail so the Republican party can reclaim its dominance.

The President went over and above the standard meeting with Republican leaders and asking Democrat leadership to modify the bill they had crafted to appease the Republicans only to find out that they had decided even before they met with him that they would vote en mass against the bill no matter what.

It is therefore time to stop wasting time trying to appease the Republican leadership and instead do what is best for the country regardless of their obstructionist stand and unwillingness to compromise.

Now we have passed this first step to deal with what could become much worse if nothing is done and it is time to address the root causes of the crisis we are now in.

We have always been a country of checks and balances until Bush took power and now we see the consequences of abandoning the Constitution and repealing regulation and abandoning enforcement and oversight. The fox cannot be trusted to guard the henhouse.

We need to have legislation regulating the mortgage industry. We must prevent future loans to those who cannot afford them made with the lure of "you can resell it for more than you paid before we raise the payments; things always go up in value". We need to guard both lenders and borrowers against the consequences of short term fluctuations in value. (perhaps a mortgage insurance program which could insure against a market value loss or job loss ; something you pay into and repay what you take out but which acts as a safety net against problems which would result in default or foreclosure .)

We need legislation to prohibit predatory practices ; speculation and manipulation of markets like what happened with the gas and oil futures and with real estate values , short selling of stocks etc.

And above all we need to re establish the investigation and prosecution of these crimes.

They have caused far more damage to our nation than drugs and terrorists combined.

Remember; as of sept 2008, over $4Trillion dollars in stock market value had gone down the drain.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/16/the-m...down-the-drain/

$1.4 Trillion in a single day

http://club.ino.com/trading/2008/09/14-tri...day-nice-trade/

We had Madoff make off with $50 billion through a ponzi scheme and I am sure he was not the only one who took advantage of the lack of investigators and prosecutors targeting financial fraud and white collar theft.

Yes, we need to have checks and balance ; rules , regulations, and consequences investigated and prosecuted for the banking, real estate , stock , insurance and financial industries; just as we have environmental regulations which industrial manufacturers and farmers must comply with, restrictions on who can practice medicine prescribe and distribute drugs and which drugs they can manufacture and distribute.

Anarchy, ignorance, and deregulation do not work. The world is just to big and there are too many "evil" or just plain uncaring aholes out there to allow them unfettered free reign to do as they please no matter what the consequences to the nation and other citizens.

[JDoors]

Funny stuff there Pete. When Democrats held things up for the last eight years they were being responsible, now that Republicans are hesitant to turn this great nation into a socialist paradise, they're obstructionist. Oh well, that's politics!

Gotta love the two-party system.

You make some good points otherwise though. Legislation has become so cumbersome few legislators really have any idea what it is they're passing. One reason so much crap gets through. OK, that's one point, can't find any others.

So it seems you believe this spending bill will be a positive thing? I don't know that I can go along with that. It's not some magical "government" money being showered upon the nation, it's money taken from us. I don't agree that forcibly taking our money to spend on what the government decides is "best for us" is the way we should go. I don't agree that, despite the lessons of history, THIS TIME, government spending WILL prop up a weak economy and lead to economic recovery.

I wonder when price controls will rear its ugly head -- Other than telling people how much they should earn because the government thinks it just too gosh-darn much (nevermind that cutting their income also cuts their taxes, by some estimates that government mandate alone will cost ONE BILLION dollars in lost taxes -- but at least we'll feel better knowing the fat cats got their salaries cut).

On another note: I see that with Bush out of the picture, Limbaugh is the new boogyman. If he's running things I guess I should find out when his show is broadcast and start listening. Thanks for the tip.

*****

Edited February 14, 2009 by JDoors

[jcl]

I couldn't believe that I saw a Republican Senator last night expounding that the economy "shows signs of turning around" and that "it would be better to wait and see" than pass a stimulus package. We have tried that and it did not work.

I've been hearing a lot of back-and-forth on this for the last couple months. The problem, I suppose, is that the economy isn't monolithic; some sectors could be recovering at the same time others are receding. Your perception of the overall state of the economy would depend on the part of it that you examine.

And we did not try the wait and see approach. We panicked and threw a bazillion dollars at the financial services industry.

But by far the most disappointing was the chief Republican blowhard advocating that they should vote against it because he has not read it because it is 1100 pages.

Well maybe if he spent more time reading an less time holding press conferences he could have at least read the important parts.

The final bill wasn't released to the Congress until Thursday night. From what I heard there were several inconsistent drafts circulating as late Thursday afternoon.

Amusingly, when I hit the committee sites to grab the final version yesterday, one gave me a 404 and the other gave me what appeared to be a scanned copy of a xeroxed copy of a draft with notes scribbled in the margin. This was after the House had passed the bill and Senate vote had started.

The President went over and above the standard meeting with Republican leaders and asking Democrat leadership to modify the bill they had crafted to appease the Republicans only to find out that they had decided even before they met with him that they would vote en mass against the bill no matter what.

The Republican's claim that the congressional Democrats excluded them from the process. I think it's plausible that Obama wanted a bipartisan bill but I think it's equally (or more) plausible that the House leadership couldn't have cared less. After all, they didn't need Republican votes to pass the bill.

We have always been a country of checks and balances until Bush took power and now we see the consequences of abandoning the Constitution and repealing regulation and abandoning enforcement and oversight. The fox cannot be trusted to guard the henhouse.

God I'd love to use a pun here but with the language rules and all.... Anyway, I've never understood how people can simultaneously believe that the federal government destroyed the world and that the federal government will save the world.

[baker7]

I agree that the economy is in dire straights and needs to be revitalized. There has been too much of a "wait and see" approach to Washington Politics for 8+ Years and it is time for the common man to have a stake in what is going on.

I see that we have a banking problem, we have businesses closing, we have double digit unemployment, we have a HOUSING crisis and we have banks that will not lend money, even after they took some of the TARP funds - This is unacceptable - This proves that we need to do something to get the economy MOVING..........The time for people to SAY we have a problem is OVER. we have to SOLVE it.

Dems and Reps and Inds. need to stop playing the same political games they have played for many years, and realize that we need help. It also does NOT help that we have Wall Street "fat cats" still playing the same games, and congress putting in earmarks (PORK) into this bill when Obama said "There will be NO EARMARKS in this stimulus package."

I like the part that says that people who are disabled will get more Foodstamps and will get a one time payment of $250 - I just wish that we could have gotten the first "stimulus" check this way rather then going through the IRS HELL to get it, because filing taxes is a nightmare, and I don't understand it, and I don't think I will. (I didn't file for this, because I would have NOT received it)

I am sick and tired of the ritzy execs getting all the help, and little guys that can't afford mortgages and food and helthcare getting next to nothing. It is time to throw the Washington Book away, and start doing unconventional things that have been untried, and begin efforts to change what we can. Obama is NOT responsible for this crisis, but he is going to do what he can to solve it, and he says that it will take time, and I agree. So far, Obama has delivered what he said he would, and he has had his trials, but he can do it - We have to be united, and work together to get this done.

We have to upset the applecart of Washington Politics to get this moving, for if we don't we risk losing more and more jobs and banks and businesses and credit.

My .02

Brian

[Pete_C]

I think the most significant thing about the passage of the stimulus package is that Obama has in one month achieved more of his and the Democratic parties "agenda" as President than George Bush and the Republicans did in eight years.

It would have been far nicer if there could have been bipartisan support ; if they could have worked together and put forth an interim package which would be unanimously supported rather than the normal infighting.

I think that the majority of the "earmarks" and "pork" will be addressed in the administration of these funds. It would be nice if they had not been put there in the first place. I leave it to the media and internet community to scrutinize things and find out who put them in and publicize that information so that we all know who is responsible for what.

But I think that far more important is that the government get to work. The infrastructure of the country has been allowed to crumble because those in power were willing to spend trillions on the war in Iraq and the infrastructure of a foreign country and not spend a few hundred billion on our own problems. So, it is more important now to provide funding for projects which can be put in motion right away than it is to make twice sure that the project is essential . A park project may not be as vital to national infrastructure as a road and bridge project; but funding it now so that there are construction jobs and material demands right away and the money which would have been allocated for it down the road can go for another project is still money well spent to stimulate the economy and stabilize the building industry. Same with funding construction of an arts district. Building and construction are building and construction and projects involving them will keep those industries alive until other projects get underway and the economy recovers enough for private sector projects to get funding.

Yes, it would be nice if all the money went to rebuilding roads, bridges, port facilities etc. But then which roads are really vital? What bridges? I know of a bridge which was declared dangerous and closed and languished for three years before funds became available. In the meantime people living in the community it served had to drive twenty miles extra to get out of their homes and go to work. An extra forty miles a day commute adds up ; and obviously many small businesses in that community closed or relocated before the bridge was replaced.

Was it vital to the city ,or Nation? No but it sure had its value.

Likewise, a rail line from LA to Las Vegas may seem wasteful to some; but it will give the rail and construction industry a project where the future technology of high speed rail in the US can be developed and give future projects a heads up on environmental issues, passenger considerations etc which they will have to deal with.

Sure not everything in the bill is needed now; but something was needed now. Most of the projects would have been funded sooner or later over the next couple years; so why not fund them now and get things rolling while the economy is down.

Undoubtedly there will be need down the line for more specific targeted development and funding. The problem is that we are looking at fixing years of neglect and have a choice of doing things halfway or going overboard.

Consider you just bought a house. The previous owner had spent all his money on fixing up his vacation house and had let this one slip into disrepair. The roof leaks, the plumbing is old and patched, the electrical wiring is substandard and cannot meet todays demands, the phone and cable wiring is a mix of old and new. There may be termintes in the footings, the foundation may have been damaged by water leaks etc.

Do you just come in and throw on a new coat of paint and patch things as they go wrong? Or do you get a construction loan and have things done right? Have the foundation inspected the insects treated, the roof replaced, all new plumbing and wiring?

Of course you do it right if you can get the construction loan.

Now consider you are replacing all the plumbing; do you keep the old toilet? Or while you are at it do you gut the bathroom , replace any water damaged framing reinforce the rest and properly insulate and ventilate it? How about the roof? Just slap on new shingles or do you go ahead and reinforce the framing and put on new decking to replace the damages stuff and make it sound enough for possible future placement of solar panels ? (hey if you can make it fly put them in too).

Are all these investments necessary? No.

Are they going to immediately pay off?No.

Will they be worth what you put into them in the long run? Yes the house will not collapse in a couple years, it will be restored to a strength where it can stand for another generation and be worth more than what was put into it in the long run. Not only that but you will save money you would otherwise have had to spend on upkeep, energy and water usage etc which will further lower the cost over the long term.

I was watching a special on state and regional water district needs for the near and long term. The city of Dallas water manager said that thirty percent of the treated water is lost through leaky pipes. Think about that. Replacing old outdated worn out infrastructure would be equivalent to building new reservoirs and treatment plants equal to one third of our usage.

To me that is a no brainer; fix the leaking pipes.

[isteve]

The problem is if you spend money you don't have to fix your house and can't pay it back someone else will be living there. Likewise if you build a train and can't afford the hundreds of millions of dollars a year to maintain it...

[jcl]

But I think that far more important is that the government get to work. The infrastructure of the country has been allowed to crumble because those in power were willing to spend trillions on the war in Iraq and the infrastructure of a foreign country and not spend a few hundred billion on our own problems.

In fairness, our infrastructure was created by idiots.

Speaking of which, it now appears that my home town is going to lose money under the stimulus because funds they were expecting from the feds for transportation projects are being routed through the state and the state wants to use nearly all of the money for state highways. It won't actually be enough to fix the highways because, as it turns out, highways don't work, but at least it will maintain the illusion for a few more years. Literally a few more years since at least a couple of the state projects are to repair things that are scheduled to be replaced within the next five years.

Likewise, a rail line from LA to Las Vegas may seem wasteful to some; but it will give the rail and construction industry a project where the future technology of high speed rail in the US can be developed and give future projects a heads up on environmental issues, passenger considerations etc which they will have to deal with.

That would be a major win. The renewed interest in rail over the last decade has been heartening. If they go ahead with the Anaheim-Las Vegas maglev proposal I might even consider saying something nice about California and Nevada.

Do you just come in and throw on a new coat of paint and patch things as they go wrong? Or do you get a construction loan and have things done right? Have the foundation inspected the insects treated, the roof replaced, all new plumbing and wiring?

Honestly, I think houses should be periodically razed and rebuilt. It's not worth the trouble to maintain them for more than a few decades.

(At least not as long we use wood as a building material. Seriously, it's dead trees. It's supposed to decay. That's what dead things do. Either accept that your house is going to fall apart or build it out of something that isn't dead. But I digress.)

[hitest]

On a related note. Grim times for US auto makers:(

But according to a Wall Street Journal report Saturday, GM will offer the government the choice of giving it billions more in bailout money or seeing it file for bankruptcy when it presents its restructuring plan next week.

Linkage

[JDoors]

... we did not try the wait and see approach. We panicked and threw a bazillion dollars at the financial services industry. ...

I read (from an unverified source) that the financial companies originally bailed out (and without stipulations) were the companies that are responsible for politician's retirement funds. "Oh crap! There goes our sweet-sweet retirement funds! Quick! Throw money at them!"

If true, IMO the reason those financial companies didn't "spend" the money efficiently was they thought of that money as sort of a quid pro quo; take care of the politician's retirement funds and you get tons o' money to spend however you like, we both win!

I think the most significant thing about the passage of the stimulus package is that Obama has in one month achieved more of his and the Democratic parties "agenda" as President than George Bush and the Republicans did in eight years. ...

Hmm, could that be because for nearly eight years the Democrats were in the majority and were being "obstructionist?" Bush himself and many Republicans TRIED to reign in FM/FM, but Democrats repeatedly defended those entities as if they could do no wrong. And apparently Bush got PLENTY done since, according to some, he is SOLELY to blame for the complete collapse of civilization as we know it.

... The infrastructure of the country has been allowed to crumble because those in power were willing to spend trillions on the war in Iraq and the infrastructure of a foreign country and not spend a few hundred billion on our own problems. ...

In most cases it's the States that are responsible for such infrastructure. Money allocated (by both Republicans and Democrats) to the military was never going to be spent on state or local roads, bridges and water infrastructure anyway. It would have been spent on Federal programs.

I'm in Illinois and despite decades of tax increases that were supposed to go to infrastructure we have yet to see much improvement. Maybe my view is colored by the unbelievable corruption in my state, but I'm guessin' that other states have squandered their taxed income on pet projects other than infrastructure.

*****

Someone sent me a YouTube vid of MY representative questioning what the hell happened to the original bailout money, I thought it was funny:

Edited February 16, 2009 by JDoors