spending bill

[Lobowolf]

Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.

Virturally all governors want more money from Washington, not less. I know every tiny little town around where I live have hired Washington Lobbyists to get more money, not less.

 

The good news is it is only early March and Congress can pass more. I do not think it is fair to blame the new President for these bills. He has not even been in office a 100days yet. Lets give the guy a break.

Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small.

 

Ummmm...we can?

 

 

All or almost all  economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.

 

The ones I've heard have been pretty clear that they mean by that not that we should spend all the money in the current bill, and also a bunch more, but rather that too little of the bill will actually result in economic stimulus.

 

 

Virturally all governors want more money from Washington, not less.

Of course they do. They can get credit for all the stuff their constituents get, and Congress can get the blame for whatever associated taxes or deficits attach. Most kids on their parents' credit cards think the limit should be higher, too. That doesn't mean it's a great idea.

[jdonn]

All or almost all  economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.

The ones I've heard have been pretty clear that they mean by that not that we should spend all the money in the current bill, and also a bunch more, but rather that too little of the bill will actually result in economic stimulus.

Even though the rest of what he wrote is drivel, I think on this point he is exactly right and you are backwards. From what I have heard most economists say, the overall size of the first stimulus bill wasn't big enough. How it was spent was a problem to (Republican) politicians, but not to most economists.

[mike777]

Wolff,

 

1) It seems you agree 100% with me that economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills. I assume you agree that Krugman advocates much, more more spending. Those were the two points I made here.

 

2) Again it seems you agree with me that Governors want more money from Washington. That was the point I made here.

 

3) I was a little unclear whether you want Washington to spend less and if so how much less. My guess is between now and December they will spend more but you may be right.

 

4) As for kids using their parents credit card, I think that is illegal. I thought only the person who is named on the card can legally use it? In any event I do not remember my parents having credit cards when I was growing up. I am not sure if you are advocating kids to use parents credit cards or if they are not using them enough.

 

 

 

:)

[mike777]

All or almost all  economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.

The ones I've heard have been pretty clear that they mean by that not that we should spend all the money in the current bill, and also a bunch more, but rather that too little of the bill will actually result in economic stimulus.

Even though the rest of what he wrote is drivel, I think on this point he is exactly right and you are backwards. From what I have heard most economists say, the overall size of the first stimulus bill wasn't big enough. How it was spent was a problem to (Republican) politicians, but not to most economists.

Ok JDonn but I still think it is not fair to blame the new President for these spending bills, you use the phrase drivel. :)

 

 

"Even though the rest of what he wrote is drivel"

[Lobowolf]

Wolff,

 

1) It seems you agree 100% with me that economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills. I assume you agree that Krugman advocates much, more more spending. Those were the two points I made here.

 

2) Again it seems you agree with me that Governors want more money from Washington. That was the point I made here.

 

3) I was a little unclear whether you want Washington to spend less and if so how much less. My guess is between now and December they will spend more but you may be right.

 

4) As for kids using their parents credit card, I think that is illegal. I thought only the person who is named on the card can legally use it? In any event I do not remember my parents having credit cards when I was growing up. I am not sure if you are advocating kids to use parents credit cards or if they are not using them enough.

 

 

 

:)

I do agree that Krugman advocates much more spending. I didn't realize that was one of your main points; I thought you were simply stating it to support the statement that the spending and earmarks are too small. Apparently, though, that was not one of your main points. I misunderstood.

 

Similarly, I misread your comment about governors.

 

If those were the points you intended to make, indeed we agree! As I am neither a governor nor Paul Krugman, however, I assumed that by the inclusion of "we all," you had something else in mind.

 

Holders of credit card accounts can authorize other users on those accounts. I apologize if I was ambiguous by talking about the parents' cards, rather than their parents' accounts. Additional cards may be issued on the parents' accounts, in the children's names, even though the cards are being issued on the parents' credit rating and history, not the kids'. My primary point, though, was that the fact that the kids would fairly unanimously agree that those limits should extremely high, "we all" shouldn't similarly agree.

[mike777]

Wolff,

 

1) It seems you agree 100% with me that economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills. I assume you agree that Krugman advocates much, more more spending. Those were the two points I made here.

 

2) Again it seems you agree with me that Governors want more money from Washington. That was the point I made here.

 

3) I was a little unclear whether you want Washington to spend less and if so how much less. My guess is between now and December they will spend more but you may be right.

 

4) As for kids using their parents credit card, I think that is illegal. I thought only the person who is named on the card can legally use it? In any event I do not remember my parents having credit cards when I was growing up. I am not sure if you are advocating kids to use parents credit cards or if they are not using them enough.

 

 

 

:)

I do agree that Krugman advocates much more spending. I didn't realize that was one of your main points; I thought you were simply stating it to support the statement that the spending and earmarks are too small. Apparently, though, that was not one of your main points. I misunderstood.

 

Similarly, I misread your comment about governors.

 

If those were the points you intended to make, indeed we agree! As I am neither a governor nor Paul Krugman, however, I assumed that by the inclusion of "we all," you had something else in mind.

 

Holders of credit card accounts can authorize other users on those accounts. I apologize if I was ambiguous by talking about the parents' cards, rather than their parents' accounts. Additional cards may be issued on the parents' accounts, in the children's names, even though the cards are being issued on the parents' credit rating and history, not the kids'. My primary point, though, was that the fact that the kids would fairly unanimously agree that those limits should extremely high, "we all" shouldn't similarly agree.

ok no problem.

 

While you did not come straight out and say it I am guessing you think Congress should spend less. I guess not "everyone" is for more spending but my guess is everyone or almost everyone in Congress will vote for more spending the rest of the year. I doubt even Republicans can vote no on all the increased spending.

 

As for your analogy with the kids using their parents credit cards, if I was a kid I agree this sounds like a great idea. What nice parents.

 

Side note...how do stores know someone else is authorized to use the card. I have never seen stores check for this. I suppose the store could call the credit card company but I have never noticed anyone do this.

[luke warm]

Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.

well if the stated purpose is to spend money to stimulate the economy, you're right... i'm not clear on where it comes from, but what difference does that make?

[hrothgar]

Tell you what:  If you can find a single speech or comment or quote from Obama where he's any like the following:

 

"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month.  Hell, I'll make it two...

what does this mean?

 

“The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past,” Mr. Obama told reporters before signing the bill in private. “So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”

 

what future, and what past, is he referring to? it sounds to me like he's saying, yeah *this* one might be bad but it's necessary to continue the old way of doing business, at least for now, but don't worry - next time will be different, next time will be more responsible and accountable... isn't that how it reads to you?

The quote that you excerpt is a promise that things will be different in the future.

 

The quote where Obama justifies passing a spending bill that contains earmarks is the following

 

I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can't have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery.

 

Obama is specifically stating that this is a one time thing, forced by the the speed at which events are unfolding.

 

He is justifying his behavior based on circumstance. This is in no way equivalent to "well Bush did it too"

[Lobowolf]

When CAN we have a Congress bogged down with no spending bill signed, though? Sure, because of the current economy, it's probably particularly critical now, but even after this crisis is over, is Obama really going to hold up getting a spending bill passed until hundreds of representatives, with no term limits and accountable only to the voters in their own district, waive their earmarks? I can't see him winning that game of chicken. It's the prisoner's dilemma on a large scale. Would we all be better off if nobody did it? Probably. But if some do it and some don't, and the ones who do are better off, guess what's going to happen?

[TimG]

“So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”

It is not clear to me from this quote whether the piece of legislation being referred to is the last of the old way or the first of the new way. Or, maybe stuck in between.

[mike777]

Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all  economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.

well if the stated purpose is to spend money to stimulate the economy, you're right... i'm not clear on where it comes from, but what difference does that make?

Ya, I am also a bit unclear where the money comes from. I do know the money comes from Washington DC.

 

I think China gave us a Trillion and I guess Europe and Canada give us a bunch.

 

Given that about 40-50% of all Americans, including children and the elderly do not pay any income taxes not sure how many care.

 

Wolf, seemed to suggest something about a credit card and we get to use it but not sure how that works.

 

 

One possible idea is too have lots and lots of young workers pay into a fund which us older folks can draw on. :)

[luke warm]

Tell you what:  If you can find a single speech or comment or quote from Obama where he's any like the following:

 

"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month.  Hell, I'll make it two...

what does this mean?

 

“The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past,” Mr. Obama told reporters before signing the bill in private. “So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”

 

what future, and what past, is he referring to? it sounds to me like he's saying, yeah *this* one might be bad but it's necessary to continue the old way of doing business, at least for now, but don't worry - next time will be different, next time will be more responsible and accountable... isn't that how it reads to you?

The quote that you excerpt is a promise that things will be different in the future.

you asked for a quote, i gave one from the speech you posted... see you in two months

“So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”

It is not clear to me from this quote whether the piece of legislation being referred to is the last of the old way or the first of the new way. Or, maybe stuck in between.

let's hope it isn't the first of the new way because it's much worse than the last of the old way

Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all  economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.

well if the stated purpose is to spend money to stimulate the economy, you're right... i'm not clear on where it comes from, but what difference does that make?

Ya, I am also a bit unclear where the money comes from. I do know the money comes from Washington DC.

and really, that's all you need to know

I think China gave us a Trillion and I guess Europe and Canada give us a bunch.

 

Given that about 40-50% of all Americans, including children and the elderly do not pay any income taxes not sure how many care.

you worry too much... 50-60% of americans still pay taxes, they (we) will just have to make sure we pay enough to be fair - it is, after all, patriotic to want to pay more

One possible idea is too have lots and lots of young workers pay into a fund which us older folks can draw on. :)

that's what i'm hoping

[hrothgar]

Tell you what:  If you can find a single speech or comment or quote from Obama where he's any like the following:

 

"Its OK that I'm signing this pork riden bill because Bush did so too", I'll leave the water cooler for a month.  Hell, I'll make it two...

what does this mean?

 

“The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past,” Mr. Obama told reporters before signing the bill in private. “So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”

 

what future, and what past, is he referring to? it sounds to me like he's saying, yeah *this* one might be bad but it's necessary to continue the old way of doing business, at least for now, but don't worry - next time will be different, next time will be more responsible and accountable... isn't that how it reads to you?

The quote that you excerpt is a promise that things will be different in the future.

you asked for a quote, i gave one from the speech you posted... see you in two months

Please review what I originally wrote.

 

I stated:

 

If you can find a single speech or comment or quote from Obama where he staed [sic] any like the following:  "Its OK that I'm signing this pork ridden bill because Bush did so too"

 

The quote that you are point too doesn't is remotely equivalent....

 

In what way, shape or form is Obama justifying inclusion of pork/earmarks based on past behavior?

 

Moreover, he directly states that the reason that he is tolerating said pork is [actually] the current dire economic circumstances.

[jdonn]

you asked for a quote, i gave one from the speech you posted... see you in two months

Lol. Not to inject myself into this part (ok, to inject myself) but he asked for a quote that meant something, you gave a quote you thought meant that and asked if he thought it meant that, he pointed out that it meant something else, and you said too bad I win? I just want to make sure I got everything straight.

 

Maybe you are just getting fed up that you are so often disagreed with on here, because lately you resort more and more to silly incorrect one-liners and childish barbs that I would have expected from many (me?) but not you.

[barmar]

Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all  economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.

well if the stated purpose is to spend money to stimulate the economy, you're right... i'm not clear on where it comes from, but what difference does that make?

Aren't you talking about two different things?

 

The purpose of this spending bill is to keep the government going. We had a separate stimulus bill to stimulate the economy.

 

Notice that the stimulus bill didn't designate specific projects to fund. Rather, it allocated a huge fund from which states could then apply for funds for their projects. Thus, individual projects were not as much a factor in political negotiations for the bill.

 

On the other hand, when earmarks are included in a spending bill, they can be used to hold the bill hostage -- a legislator could say "This bill isn't going to pass unless you include my earmarks."

[luke warm]

you asked for a quote, i gave one from the speech you posted... see you in two months

Lol. Not to inject myself into this part (ok, to inject myself) but he asked for a quote that meant something, you gave a quote you thought meant that and asked if he thought it meant that, he pointed out that it meant something else, and you said too bad I win? I just want to make sure I got everything straight.

 

Maybe you are just getting fed up that you are so often disagreed with on here, because lately you resort more and more to silly incorrect one-liners and childish barbs that I would have expected from many (me?) but not you.

actually i'm not the only one who sees this 'blame bush' thing... coincidently, this article appeared this morning... i know you and richard are very partisan, but even you can see what obama's doing

[luke warm]

Jimmy, I think we all can agree that the spending bill and earmarks, whatever they are, is too small. Krugman advocates spending something closer to 3 trillion dollars. All or almost all  economists agree there is too little stimulus in these bills.

well if the stated purpose is to spend money to stimulate the economy, you're right... i'm not clear on where it comes from, but what difference does that make?

Aren't you talking about two different things?

 

The purpose of this spending bill is to keep the government going. We had a separate stimulus bill to stimulate the economy.

 

Notice that the stimulus bill didn't designate specific projects to fund. Rather, it allocated a huge fund from which states could then apply for funds for their projects. Thus, individual projects were not as much a factor in political negotiations for the bill.

 

On the other hand, when earmarks are included in a spending bill, they can be used to hold the bill hostage -- a legislator could say "This bill isn't going to pass unless you include my earmarks."

i *should* be talking about 2 different things, you're right... but (and my info could be wrong here) i think i saw where the spending bill has $21B, which is a lot, in other spending, some of which ought to have been addressed earlier, if at all

[jdonn]

actually i'm not the only one who sees this 'blame bush' thing... coincidently, this article appeared this morning... i know you and richard are very partisan, but even you can see what obama's doing

I am? I pretty much hate almost all politicians. Obama is the obvious exception, but Pelosi is about as bad as they come. And I am most definitely not a Democrat. If you were in my position you would be replying "so I'm partisan because I disagree with you?"

[hrothgar]

you asked for a quote, i gave one from the speech you posted... see you in two months

Lol. Not to inject myself into this part (ok, to inject myself) but he asked for a quote that meant something, you gave a quote you thought meant that and asked if he thought it meant that, he pointed out that it meant something else, and you said too bad I win? I just want to make sure I got everything straight.

 

Maybe you are just getting fed up that you are so often disagreed with on here, because lately you resort more and more to silly incorrect one-liners and childish barbs that I would have expected from many (me?) but not you.

actually i'm not the only one who sees this 'blame bush' thing... coincidently, this article appeared this morning... i know you and richard are very partisan, but even you can see what obama's doing

Comment 1: The article very specially notes that "Blame Bush" is a new behaviour pattern for Obama

 

Comment 2: So what? Why wouldn't you blame Bush? Bush is probably the worst President this country has every had. He's almost destroyed the country. It seems perfectly reasonable to point out that Bush screwed the pooch, big time.

 

Comment 3: Before you get started... There is a big difference between:

 

"Bush screwed up the economy, so we're in a bit of a pickle"

 

and

 

"It's OK if I pass a spending bill that contains earmarks because Busg passed a spending bill that contained earmarks"