Stimulus Bill - For or Against?

[Perchoutofwater]

Personally I think this stimulus bill is probably the worst piece of legislation since the New Deal, and would have to vote against it. I would you vote for it in it's current form or a slightly modified form that will be coming out of the conference committee?

[Caveman_Nick]

Voted.

[TimC]

I would piss on it if I could...and then spray a little on Pelosi and Frank.

[cre8tiff]

I haven't read it all yet, and so cannot form an honest opinion of it.

 

Unlike you, who I am certain has formed an opinion through well-perused documentation and consideration.

Edited February 9, 2009 by cre8tiff

[whomper]

If you had a vote, would you vote for or against the stimulus bill as it is currently or with minor changes?

 

I am not how to answer this question with Just yes or no as the options. Some people might want to answer yes to as it is written or no to as it is written but yes with minor changes. Ill go Puddy on this one

[wiegie]

Personally I think this stimulus bill is probably the worst piece of legislation since the New Deal

Given your track record on evaluating the New Deal, I would have to say that you just convinced me to vote for the bill (the house version of it, anyway)

 

In the 1930s FDR implemented a bunch of make work projects and expanded government just like the Dems are trying to force down our throats right now and turned a recession in to the Great Depression.

uh, the employment rate was above 23% by 1932 and here are the real (inflation-adjusted) figures for GDP growth in the 1930s (from the BEA):

 

1930 -8.6

1931 -6.4

1932 -13.0

1933 -1.3

1934 10.8

1935 8.9

1936 13.0

1937 5.1

1938 -3.4

1939 8.1

 

In other words, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[Randall]

If no republicans will vote for it I'd take out many of the tax cuts and put in more infrastructure spending.

 

So my vote now is no. I want a new bill.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I'm not sure it's the best bill, but we need to do something.

[Clubfoothead]

Given your track record on evaluating the New Deal, I would have to say that you just convinced me to vote for the bill (the house version of it, anyway)

 

:snap:

 

I'm not qualified to offer a solution or even an opinion as to what the solution should be. Neither are 99% of the rest of you probably.

 

I know that the economy has not responded well enough to the first $350,000,000,000.00 for me to believe that another $400,000,000,000.00 would help. On the flip side I can't see how our government doing nothing while every other modern economy in the world takes some for of action to stabalize their individual economies will benefit Americans.

[TimC]

The problem is people have stopped pumping money into the system like we used to. This is a complete re-boot of the economy (like the difference between the old Battlestar Galactica and the new one). Since people aren't spending, the Government is making up the difference like it was still Lorne Green at the helm instead of coming up with a way to deal with the new way. They are delaying the inevitable and ultimately making it worse unless people start spending like Dirk Benedict was still humping everything in the galaxy again. If people don't start spending again soon and no money is flowing through the system, then we'll all have to get used to Starbuck being a woman instead.

 

God, I love bad metaphors.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Krugman - The Destructive Center

 

He continues to say we need to do way way more to have an impact...

[dmarc117]

the world was bouyed by the american consumer. the american consumer was all fake. times are gonna change. no more credit!!!

[muck]

I still think the best way through this is to eliminate complexity.

 

The best way to do this is to facilitate a refinancing of all performing residential mortgages at lower rates. Even better would be a move to requring banks to finance mortgages like they do in Europe (where a bank will issue bonds with a specific pool of mortgages as collateral for the bond issuance, this way a single bank controls the entire credit, rather than multiple investors and banks (including some outside the US) controlling pieces of the mortgage).

 

I voted NO simply because I believe there is a better and simpler way.

[Sox]

Just for the record,my vote was no.

[TimC]

I still think the best way through this is to eliminate complexity.

 

The best way to do this is to facilitate a refinancing of all performing residential mortgages at lower rates. Even better would be a move to requring banks to finance mortgages like they do in Europe (where a bank will issue bonds with a specific pool of mortgages as collateral for the bond issuance, this way a single bank controls the entire credit, rather than multiple investors and banks (including some outside the US) controlling pieces of the mortgage).

 

I voted NO simply because I believe there is a better and simpler way.

 

I agree with this 100%. Keep it simple. Help out the mortgages and you will see results almost immediately. And it will be real help.

[wirehairman]

If no republicans will vote for it I'd take out many of the tax cuts and put in more infrastructure spending.

 

So my vote now is no. I want a new bill.

 

More infrastructure spending won't make a difference. Many in our engineering firm, including myself, have read the proposed bills in detail and followed the progress closely. Roughly $90 billion of the $819 billion in the original House version would actually be dedicated to traditional infrastructure projects. Obviously, the Senat bill is slightly different, and both are morphing daily.

 

The administration has stated that they want a bill signed by mid-February and the money spent by mid-June and have created the term "shovel ready projects" as part of the plan. Finding enough projects to spend this amount of money that are designed or nearly designed to meet the June deadline is not realistic. We've closely scrutinized our current workload and available FTE's, and there is only a limited amount we can do to get addtional projects ready under the deadline. We simply do not have enough engineers.

 

They will be lucky to see half of the money allocated by mid-June, let alone spent.

[Ursa Majoris]

I agree with this 100%. Keep it simple. Help out the mortgages and you will see results almost immediately. And it will be real help.

Better yet, make the mortgage lender keep the loan themselves. That way everyone will know exactly what assets they have and risk will be sharply lowered.

[Randall]

More infrastructure spending won't make a difference. Many in our engineering firm, including myself, have read the proposed bills in detail and followed the progress closely. Roughly $90 billion of the $819 billion in the original House version would actually be dedicated to traditional infrastructure projects. Obviously, the Senat bill is slightly different, and both are morphing daily.

 

The administration has stated that they want a bill signed by mid-February and the money spent by mid-June and have created the term "shovel ready projects" as part of the plan. Finding enough projects to spend this amount of money that are designed or nearly designed to meet the June deadline is not realistic. We've closely scrutinized our current workload and available FTE's, and there is only a limited amount we can do to get addtional projects ready under the deadline. We simply do not have enough engineers.

 

They will be lucky to see half of the money allocated by mid-June, let alone spent.

 

 

Many states have curtailed projects due to a lack of money. Much of this money could go to the states(some is).

 

I'd like to see a modernization of our electrical grid, when could that be done?

 

I'd like to see investment in our country on a lot of levels(including education) so we can compete on the world stage. I'm not looking for any of the money myself but would like to see more investment in this country even if it does take longer. .

[Skippy]

I wish I had the insight to vote yes or no.

[Sox]

I still think the best way through this is to eliminate complexity.

 

The best way to do this is to facilitate a refinancing of all performing residential mortgages at lower rates. Even better would be a move to requring banks to finance mortgages like they do in Europe (where a bank will issue bonds with a specific pool of mortgages as collateral for the bond issuance, this way a single bank controls the entire credit, rather than multiple investors and banks (including some outside the US) controlling pieces of the mortgage).

 

I voted NO simply because I believe there is a better and simpler way.

 

 

What?You don't think that giving $726 million to the after school snack program won't help? $1 billion for the 2010 census won't help?

 

What's in the Stimulus Bill

 

The Wall Street Journal estimates that the bill is 10% stimulus,90% social programs.

 

Stimulus Tragedy

 

What should set alarms off for everybody is the way they're trying to rush it through-"We need to do this NOW!".That's what used car salesmen do when they're trying to push you into buying a lemon.

[wirehairman]

Many states have curtailed projects due to a lack of money. Much of this money could go to the states(some is).

 

What projects have they cut that still got designed and are ready to build?

 

I don't want to speak outside of my area of knowledge so will stick to Montana. Other than the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), which can pull some projects of the shelf as soon as funding is available, very few public infrastructure projects in our state are designed and ready to build if they don't already have funding. Projects simply don't get designed until there is funding, and the design process doesn't happen overnight. A project can be fast tracked, but it eats up the resources of an engineering firm and greatly limits the number of projects going out the door.

 

I'd like to see a modernization of our electrical grid, when could that be done?

 

Our firm does not work in that discipline, so I cannot give you a definite answer. However, if plans are not in place and design is mostly complete, it would take anywhere from 2 to 5 years to break ground depending upon the complexity of the project, IMHO.

[muck]

I still think the best way through this is to eliminate complexity.

 

The best way to do this is to facilitate a refinancing of all performing residential mortgages at lower rates. Even better would be a move to requring banks to finance mortgages like they do in Europe (where a bank will issue bonds with a specific pool of mortgages as collateral for the bond issuance, this way a single bank controls the entire credit, rather than multiple investors and banks (including some outside the US) controlling pieces of the mortgage).

 

I voted NO simply because I believe there is a better and simpler way.

 

I agree with this 100%. Keep it simple. Help out the mortgages and you will see results almost immediately. And it will be real help.

 

Better yet, make the mortgage lender keep the loan themselves. That way everyone will know exactly what assets they have and risk will be sharply lowered.

 

Ahem. I believe this is already on the table, Ursa...

[Perchoutofwater]

What projects have they cut that still got designed and are ready to build?

 

I don't want to speak outside of my area of knowledge so will stick to Montana. Other than the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), which can pull some projects of the shelf as soon as funding is available, very few public infrastructure projects in our state are designed and ready to build if they don't already have funding. Projects simply don't get designed until there is funding, and the design process doesn't happen overnight. A project can be fast tracked, but it eats up the resources of an engineering firm and greatly limits the number of projects going out the door.

 

 

 

Our firm does not work in that discipline, so I cannot give you a definite answer. However, if plans are not in place and design is mostly complete, it would take anywhere from 2 to 5 years to break ground depending upon the complexity of the project, IMHO.

 

+1

 

Commercial construction is usually one of the last areas hit by a recession. The reason, is funds are set aside early prior to plans being developed, and the development of large projects usually take 18 months or longer. Right now we are as busy as we have ever been as are most of the road crews in the state of Texas. Our problem will come in around 0ctober or November of 2010 when the backlog is worked off and no new projects are designed. Any money sent to infrastructure or for that money schools for construction will not stimulate the economy, as most commercial construction is still booming, and will be for the next 18 months or so. It is after that, that anything done now might help, but it wont be an immediate impact. Basically it might keep things from getting worse if money is allocated to these projects, but it really isn't going to do much of anything to make things better.

[Kid Cid]

I firmly believe that putting together a half-assed bill in a short amount of time will do far more damage than help. Take the extra time and put together something of substance and meaning. But then again everyone just wants to do things fast now-a-days, no one really cares about the consequences of undirected speed.

[Perchoutofwater]

I firmly believe that putting together a half-assed bill in a short amount of time will do far more damage than help. Take the extra time and put together something of substance and meaning. But then again everyone just wants to do things fast now-a-days, no one really cares about the consequences of undirected speed.

+1