Comments on: Today’s Q for Gibbs

By: zak

zak — Fri, 01 May 2009 00:35:19 +0000

“I DON’T WANT TO GET INTO WHAT VOTE COUNT IN THIS OR THAT COMMITTEE”..
Naaah, you want to go back to your exclusive secret meetings that deny representation to half of Americans.
To levy unconstitutional taxes on unrepresented people by virtue of the fact that they arent even BORN YET.
Well guess what fed kids. The states made you and we can break you. Red blue or green polkadot states, the people can withdraw consent on a moment’s notice just like YOU withdrew access to democracy.
That’s not a right, it’s a duty.
Feds unconstitutionally ‘own’ more than HALF of Oregon, and now Obama is the expert land manager as well as CEO 4x over.
Cutting off logging entirely is going to create or save jobs?
pffft.
My grandpa was managing Oregon forrest land before oblamer’s learned how to walk.

By: Bud

Bud — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:26:00 +0000

Jake, I think you and your media fellows (and the “let’s do nothing” House Republicans) are being a bit too nit-picky (and also ill-informed).
The projects you outlined in your question all would have stimulative effect. (How exactly would they not?) They may not be your idea of road building or high-tech infrastructure but they will get dollars into the economy to good effect. And they make up less than .2% (a fifth of one percent) of the total package.
I was going to give you the NEA money, but as Philip M. notes, art and creative content are one of our biggest exports. And, who knows, perhaps some of that money is for building upgrades.
Same thing for the USDA. Obama has said repeatedly that government office buildings would be upgraded to save energy costs (thereby saving $$$ long-term). The USDA is one of the oldest departments of the gov’t, so I imagine they do have many outdated facilities leaking lots of energy.
And what’s wrong with doing upkeep on the National Mall? Is there any greater national image or more often used public space than the National Mall? It is likely among the most highly visited tourist attractions in the country. As such, I imagine it could use some upkeep. Along with the grass, I imagine there will be sprinklers installed or repaired (especially if there are breaks and leaks, which I imagine happen when the ground freezes in winter). And perhaps there are security upgrades that need to be made as well. lights, cameras, etc. All that sounds like a lot of good contracting and construction work to keep people working, paying taxes, etc.
The school snacks are obviously not infrastructure spending, but they’ll of course have secondary effects of helping food companies, farmers, and food wholesalers/distributors. And it sounds to me like EXCELLENT PUBLIC POLICY!!!
Millions of people are losing their jobs and families being forced to cut back on everything, including food. Good nutrition is so important for kids, especially these at risk kids who are likely not the most well-fed. A nutrition program like this will not only help supplement these kids basic food needs, but will have secondary effects of giving them better focus on their school and moderating behaviour problems.
And as for the GOP’s professed concerns with the deficit, how is it that tax-cuts do no harm to the deficit? How do they think we went from a budget surplus in 2000 to adding over $5 trillion to the National Debt. It just wasn’t increases in spending. It just goes to show that these fools are still clueless since they even refuse to listen to economists of their own political persuasion. The only economists who are calling for their plan are libertarian types who would prefer to see all the troubled banks, auto companies, investment cos, etc., etc. go bankrupt and millions lose their jobs, to satisfy their fixation on free-market orthodoxy. Some people on here have noted that what we are doing is borrowing money to spend it. Would they prefer what GWB did for 8 years – borrow money so that the top 10% could have massive tax cuts? I think it is time for the bottom 90% to get a break this time.
So, Jake, I think you really need to think through some of these questions to look at the benefits of programs before you start being so nit-picky. If you like, you can post the questions in advance and we can all screen them for you.
Just trying to do my part.

By: kathy

kathy — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:53:10 +0000

I’m under the impression that more than 3% of the stimulus plan is going into the infrastructure. I think it was stated that 25 billion was immediately ready, which would be around 3% of the total. But when you factor in other funds set aside for roads, rail, and water projects along with gridwork and federal building improvements, the infrastructure funding is around 90 billion. The NYT has a pie graph demonstrating portions significantly larger than 3% for infrastructure related projects.
The stimulus plan is bound to provoke further controversies and confusion, but I don’t believe it’s in anyway comparable to the Paulson bailout scheme for roughly the same amount . It has proven itself to have very little accountability for the 350 billion released. At least Obama’s plan involves a good deal more scrutiny and debate before its enactment -with the legislative plan itself, all 647 pages, available online.

By: moderate

moderate — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 01:20:57 +0000

Great question, Jake. Keep up the good work.
The stimulus bill contains way too much stuff that is by no stretch stimulative. And when they assure us that 75% of the money will be spent in the next 18 months, as if that’s okay, I want to remind them that given the enormity of the numbers being tossed around, 25% of this spending bill is a huge amount of money. If it doesn’t get spent in the next year and a half, it is not going to have an effect on the present recession and does not need to be in this bill. And I’m really disturbed that only 3% of the money is dedicated to infrastructure, after all Obama’s emphasis on that area. Many of the spending priorities here are laudable projects (like afterschool snacks) but not stimulus-related projects. Let them stand on their own merits and be voted on in separate bills, not just lumped together in a joke of a grab-bag. Leave this bill for the real stimulus projects– shovel-ready infrastructure, spending in targeted areas that will get money into the economy and provide paychecks to those who need them most, etc. This is starting to make the TARP look downright sensible and well-planned.

By: Phillip

Phillip — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:59:32 +0000

kathy: “First of all, parental involvement has decreased because of economic realities. Both parents are wage earners, many exceeding a forty hour week to make ends meet.”
Maybe parents should just live within their means? My parents made less than 20k a year (more on the lines of 16k). My dad worked and my mom stayed home to take care of me. Somehow we didnt go wildly into debt and still managed to eat and we always had a place to live. Maybe we just didnt feel the need to drive a Mercedes around and then complain about the economy? Most recently I made about 33k a year and sent my wife to college, and supported us financially all on my own. Why? Because I lived within my means. This whole two jobs crap to make ends meet is because people spend more on a lifestyle they neither need nor can afford. Parental involvement and personal care of their children far more important than a salary. The government should not even attempt to raise our children, and the very thought that they are trying to should send warning bells to any parent that loves their child and truly cares about how they are raised. Would you let a stranger off the street rear your children? If not, why would you let the government?

By: kathy

kathy — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:38:19 +0000

To Kathy and all those so in favor of schools offering after school snacks and supper programs. What ever happened to parent involvement with their children? Our values are so low, it brings tears to my eyes. We need a change in how parents raise our future generation or our problems will never be fixed. We want government to take care of our children until suppertime? Parents should work on improving the quality of the horrible nutrition offered by our public school systems instead of asking for more of it to pollute our children.
**********************************************
First of all, parental involvement has decreased because of economic realities. Both parents are wage earners, many exceeding a forty hour week to make ends meet. Taking care of kids till suppertime? That’s very relative to a family- after school programs provide a source of safety and increased educational opportunities for the working family, whose parents are able to pick their kids up after work. After school daycare programs outside the school tend to be extremely crowded without ample supervision and also expensive. Providing support to families who need it hardly indicates “low values,” nor is providing adequate nutrition in schools. The studies correlate academic achievement and nutrition in an indisputable way. You sound fortunate in your parenting situation, but apparently, have difficulty seeing after school programs in a perspective outside your own.

By: Philip M

Philip M — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:49:19 +0000

The arts in the United States provide 5.7 million jobs and account for $166 billion in economic activity annually.
It is our nation’s second largest export, behind defense products.
This sector is at serious risk and must be larger part of an economic stimulus package.

By: Philip M

Philip M — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:46:27 +0000

The Arts Mean Business. In 2007, the arts provided 5.7 million US jobs and account for $166 billion in economic activity annually.
Specifically, the arts/entertainment industry is the second largest U.S. export category, just behind defense products. Ironic isn’t it.
Because arts industries are by nature, fragmented, no single organization’s demise threatens the greater economy and claims headlines. But thousands of organizations, and the state of America’s arts ecology, are in danger.
If you don’t think the arts are an integral part of our economy, you are sadly mistaken.

By: Sid

Sid — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:04:38 +0000

“There’s $726 million for after-school snacks, $50 million for the NEA, $44 million to repair the USDA, and $200 million to work on the National Mall, including grass. ”
Any spending on goods or services produced in the USA is stimulative. In fact, the programs above would be more stimulative than the same amount spent on tax cuts (the tax cut might not be spent, which would reduce its stimulative effect).

By: Michelle

Michelle — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:26:27 +0000