Page 8 of 69 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121858 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 1023
  1. #106
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    I understand.
    On some things? Sure American companies should some sort of preference.
    But when immediacy is the object? Id hate to see employment of construction workers held up for want of materials that may not be available
    pronto from domestic suppliers. Id want to balance the "notion" with the reality. If the lead time to obtain the/some materials is too long from domestic suppliers? Who wins when ready to work labor waits for materials? Nobody. And maybe Ive pissed off Enmore/Meridian Steel who weve been buying from forever who can supply materials faster and for less $

    My argument with Davis-Bacon[sorry] is pretty simple.
    Why pay the equivalent of "union rate" when ordinarily a lesser rate prevails.
    A quick example. Replacing light bulbs in schools.
    Probably done by someone from the plant operations staff.
    Is there any real reason to up the guy's wage because the cost
    is being born by the Feds?
    And if not? How is the guy from plant operations/maintenance going to feel when "temporary workers" are brought in to do the job and are paid
    beyond his deal?
    At some schools the maintenance guys may or may not be paid "prevailing" rate.

    In the end? Prevailing Rate is a mechanism to put Union guys on equal footing with non union guys in the bid process.
    I dont think that process serves everyone in all cases.
    IMO

    Davis-Bacon

    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

    ^^The history and implications are also bothersome for me.
    Last edited by jimzinsocal; 01-30-2009 at 01:50 PM.

  2. #107
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    The scope and effects of this crap sandwich are simpy staggering..

    Generational Theft Act Will Re-Start Trade Wars-- Expand Welfare State & Nationalize Healthcare

    The Generational Theft Act that is being pushed on America by Obama and the Democrats is loaded with goodies for liberal causes.
    It is so bad that Dinocrat says calling it a "stimulus bill" is a distortion of the English language:

    The bill is characterized as a “stimulus package”, but is really largely a pork barrel created exclusively by the political majority:

    – $20.0 billion to increase the maximum benefit under…Food Stamps…
    – $18.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy…
    – $20.4 billion for programs administered by the Department of health and Human Services…
    – $17.6 billion for Pell grants…
    – $29.1 billion for other elementary and secondary educational programs…
    – $13.1 billion for other transportation programs
    – $11.2 billion for housing assistance programs administered by HUD
    – $19.5 billion (minimum, could be higher, as per Title XIII) for education grants to states
    – $27.1 billion for increase unemployment benefits
    – $13.3 billion to increase health insurance for unemployed workers
    – $11.1 billion for “Other Unemployment Compensation”
    – $20.2 billion for Medicaid and Medicare incentive payments
    Not only does it fund Far Left causes but because of the inclusion of protectionist measures it is likely to start a trade war with Europe.
    That is what democrats did in the 1930's that helped turn the national recession into a national depression.
    The Telegraph reported:

    The EU trade commissioner vowed to fight back after the bill passed in the House of Representatives late on Wednesday included a ban on most purchases of foreign steel and iron used in infrastructure projects.
    The Senate's version of the legislation, which will be debated early next week, goes even further, requiring that any projects related to the stimulus use only American-made equipment and goods.

    The inclusion of protectionist measures has quickly raised hackles in Europe.

    Catherine Ashton, the EU trade commissioner, said: "We are looking at the situation. The one thing we can be absolutely certain about, is if a bill is passed which prohibits the sale or purchase of European goods on American territory, that is something we will not stand idly by and ignore."

    Despite the parlous state of the US economy, some major American firms, including General Electric, are also opposed to the Buy American stipulations, fearing reprisals from overseas and further damage to the global economy.
    Hat Tip Larwyn

    The massive democratic boondoggle will also reestablish the welfare state and create dependency on government.
    The New York Post reported on this change for the worse:
    Buried deep inside the massive spending orgy that Democrats jammed through the House this week lie five words that could drastically undo two decades of welfare reforms.

    The very heart of the widely applauded Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is a cap on the amount of federal cash that can be sent to states each year for welfare payments.

    But, thanks to the simple phrase slipped into the legislation, the new "stimulus" bill abolishes the limits on the amount of federal money for the so-called Emergency Fund, which ships welfare cash to states.

    "Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary for payment to the Emergency Fund," Democrats wrote in Section 2101 on Page 354 of the $819 billion bill. In other words, the only limit on welfare payments would be the Treasury itself.

    "This re-establishes the welfare state and creates dependency all over the place," said one startled budget analyst after reading the line.
    The Democrats are also sneaking in the nationalization of healthcare in the package, via Power Line:

    Kimberly Strassel takes a look and finds Democrats enacting "Obama's agenda of government-run health care -- entirely on the QT." Strassel finds that the bill dramatically expands the number of Americans who qualify for Medicaid:


    Under "stimulus," Medicaid is now on offer not to just poor Americans, but Americans who have lost their jobs. And not just Americans who have lost their jobs, but their spouses and their children. And not Americans who recently lost their jobs, but those who lost jobs, say, early last year. And not just Americans who already lost their jobs, but those who will lose their jobs up to 2011. The federal government is graciously footing the whole bill. The legislation also forbids states to apply income tests in most cases.
    So, once again... is the change you've been looking for?
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #108
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    The more I hear about this bill, the worse it gets. This must be the biggest piece of pork in history. I am only glad the Republicans finally showed some backbone by voting against it.
    Brian

  4. #109
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Let me clarify some more over Davis Bacon and prevailing wage.
    I get how it can be seen as a positive. Keep out cheap labor etc.
    I get all that. But read the history.
    And also be aware of the number of minority owned business that are shut out of the work because they are unable...if nothing else to finance the monster administrative costs.
    Thats the other side of the sword.
    But again I understand how it can be seen on its face as a good tool.

  5. #110
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Bamma's own Stop economic adviser Summers stated this pork-o-rama is exactly what we do NOT need just prior to taking the position. Guess we should not be horribly surprised he's just like the guy he is currently working for... CHANGE..

    Cleaner and Faster

    Throughout 2008, Larry Summers, the Harvard economist, built the case for a big but surgical stimulus package. Summers warned that a “poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have worse side effects than the disease that is to be cured.” So his proposal had three clear guidelines.

    First, the stimulus should be timely. The money should go out “almost immediately.” Second, it should be targeted. It should help low- and middle-income people. Third, it should be temporary. Stimulus measures should not raise the deficits “beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two.”

    Summers was proposing bold action, but his concept came with safeguards: focus on the task at hand, prevent the usual Washington splurge and limit long-term fiscal damage.

    Now Barack Obama is president, and Summers has become a top economic adviser. Yet the stimulus approach that has emerged on Capitol Hill abandoned the Summers parameters.

    Spoiler!

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #111
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Quote Originally Posted by jimzinsocal View Post
    I understand.
    ....

    Davis-Bacon

    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

    ^^The history and implications are also bothersome for me.
    The link you gave is somehow broken. I did this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Bacon_Act

    At any rate, I think we're saying pretty much the same thing from different directions. So bear with me. We're saying much the same thing about Foreign competitors- though I'm emphasizing fair trade competitors. Yet I also have to state that I don't give a sh*t if China can dump it cheaper on my doorstep today- I refuse to underwrite the criminal modus operandi that gets it there.

    I'm trying to delineate intent from implementation...and agree with the intent and state why.

    Sure, bring the work to AZ. We'll love to do your union labor rate job with illegals whom we'll pay two bucks and a candy bar...and not refund the taxpayer a plug nickle.
    Last edited by AeroSim; 01-30-2009 at 02:35 PM.

  7. #112
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Agree. We just come at things from different directions.
    I came back to Davis Bacon cause I thought my post sounded needlessly
    pointed and that wasnt my intent at all.

    Here is the link I followed...the html version

    [PDF] The History & Economics of Davis- Bacon

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
    The History & Economics of Davis-. Bacon. The 1931 Davis-Bacon Act needlessly inflates the cost of federal and federally-supported ...
    rpc.senate.gov/_files/ECONPOLICYmc091802.pdf - Similar pages


    or here Basically similar

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-017.html

    Passed at the beginning of the Depression at the instigation of the labor union movement, Davis-Bacon was designed explicitly to keep black construction workers from working on Depression-era public works projects. The act continues today to restrict the opportunities of black workers on federal and federally subsidized projects by favoring disproportionately white, unionized and skilled workers over disproportionately black, non-unionized and unskilled workers. Since President-elect Clinton has promised to significantly increase federal spending on America's infrastructure, it is a particularly appropriate time to challenge the act. If the Clinton administration continues to enforce the act, it will make a mockery of the president-elect's promise to expand job opportunities for the disadvantaged--to say nothing of his promise to bring economic efficiencies to government.


    My objections are nothing new. Search Davis Bacon at this forum
    Last edited by jimzinsocal; 01-30-2009 at 02:49 PM.

  8. #113
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package


  9. #114
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Always time for a bit of a break. Especially a Rand break

    http://online.wsj.com/video/atlas-sh...819E5E31F.html

  10. #115
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    This thing isn't going to pass and its far too full of pork and what-not to be revised enough to pass.




    I hope.

    Keep the change.

  11. #116
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    This thing isn't going to pass and its far too full of pork and what-not to be revised enough to pass.




    I hope.

    Keep the change.
    I hope you are right but I think you're wrong.
    Brian

  12. #117
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    McCain: I don’t see any GOP votes for the stimulus in the Senate

    Too good to check? Maybe, but I don’t think Maverick’s bluffing this time. So craptastic is this crap sandwich that Democrat Ben Nelson felt obliged to warn The One this morning that he can’t count on a straight party-line yes from his own side, hint hint.

    And to add insult to injury, he chose Fox News as the network on which to deliver that message. Heart-ache:

    “I don’t even know how many Democrats will vote for it, as it stands today,” Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., told FOX News…

    “What I’m hoping to do is bring together a bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats and offer changes that will attract others and improve the bill,” he told FOX News. “People want this to succeed.”…
    One item that likely will be discussed is an amendment that would add billions of dollars to infrastructure projects. Nelson is crafting that measure with Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, both on the Appropriations Committee.

    And Nelson doesn’t want to stop there. He wants to pluck out what he says are extraneous projects in the stimulus bill to pay for the amendment. Providing hundreds of millions of dollars for prevention of smoking and sexually-transmitted disease — though they may be worthy causes — does not create jobs. Nelson even is willing to remove popular Pell Grant increases, saving them for annual spending bills later in the year.
    I’m sure this is a bluff — the Democrats aren’t going to humiliate Obama with a close vote on his signature legislation — but if they strip enough crap out of the sandwich, the decision to vote against it will be significantly harder for the GOP than it is now. On the other hand, who cares? The bill’s bound to pass anyway, so anything that can be done to de-pork it is all to the good.

    Note, by the way, how careful Republicans are being to blame the bill’s failure on the House, on Pelosi, on Rahm Emanuel (“Rahm hates us and lets us know it, and we hate him back”) — anyone but Obama. That’s a testament to The One’s approval ratings, but also evidence of how they’re maneuvering already to run on this in the midterms. Anyway, two clips here, with the stimulus bit in the first; I included the second just because it’s fun hearing Maverick sound constipated in having to defend Rush Limbaug
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #118
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    5,942

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    I hope it doesn`t come down to "protectionism". To shut out Canada(the US`s biggest trading partner) would be unfair, and against NAFTA. If this were to happen. I would hope Canadian politians would grow the b@lls to sign a deal with EU, and other global partners to shut out American goods. And to sign with OPEC, and shut off the tap to Canadian oil exports with the US.


    Just thinking out loud.

  14. #119
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    The speed at which this sh*t sandwich is being rammed through the system alone should make any objective observer take notice.

    ONE HOUR

    David Harsanyi nails it:

    Imagine that. The most expensive social experiment in American history — one that will cost taxpayers more than both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined — was allotted less than a single day of debate in Congress.

    How many speed-reading whiz-kid representatives do you think slogged past their own pork to read the entire 647 (or so) pages of the "stimulus" menu?

    This week, more than 200 notable economists — including three Nobel laureates — signed an open letter in The New York Times challenging President Barack Obama's false suggestion that all economists agree a bailout is needed. It was titled: "With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true."

    So though Nobel laureates can't reach anything resembling a consensus, your former community organizing/car-dealing/ambulance-chasing congressperson has the intellectual capacity to digest a $900 billion piece of legislation in mere days.

    Amazing.
    Name a single Iraq war supplemental that wasn't debated to death? You can't?

    And did you know, that when the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came before the Congress there were 1,000 hours of debate?

    So what does the largest and most intrusive spending package in the history of the US get in Nancy Pelosi's House?

    An hour.

    One stinking hour.

    Yup - the same people who are screaming their guts out about the misuse of the first half of the TARP funds are now proposing two and a half times that amount of spending and deem it only worth - an hour.

    They tell us it can't wait. They tell us this is so important to talk about or examine. Instead we must - wait for it - trust them.

    My goodness, if you're not laughing out loud, you ought to be. Then you should cry.

    Trust them? They bear as much responsibility for us being in the shape we are financially and economically as anyone. And when they tried this recently they ended up not even knowing where the first $350 billion went. And now they want more and don't intend to debate it or examine the bill in detail?

    No sale. I wouldn't be satisfied with a 1,000 hours of debate on this turkey.

    The Heritage Foundation is asking some questions, 10 of them in fact.

    I'd love to see Congress answer any one of them, much less all 10. Like:

    Politicians say deficit spending will expand the economy (as if President Bush's $300 billion budget deficits brought economic nirvana). If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit — the largest in history — would already be rescuing the economy. It's obviously not. So why would $800 billion more of the same suddenly end the recession?
    Or:

    We're told that government spending will add new spending power to the economy. But Congress doesn't have a vault of money waiting to be distributed: Every dollar lawmakers "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. If government borrows the money from American investors, investment spending drops accordingly. If it's borrowed from foreigners, net exports drop accordingly. How does borrowing $800 billion from one group of people and giving that $800 billion to another group of people make us wealthier?
    Or how about:

    Policymakers are basing the "stimulus" bill on economic models that wrongly assume every $1 of government spending increases the economy by approximately $1.60. Is it really that simple? By that logic, debt-ridden, big-government countries like Italy, France and Germany should be wealthier than America. And why stop at $800 billion? Such logic suggests unlimited prosperity could be guaranteed by the government borrowing and spending $800 trillion. Should America be basing such costly decisions on these types of economic models?
    But you can't even ask those questions in an hour's time much less begin to answer them and all the other important questions that our "leaders" are ducking with the excuse "this is too important to wait".

    Uh, no, it's not. In fact, it's too important not to wait and examine, debate and for the most part, reject.

    However, given how the Democratic House refused to do that, I doubt we're ever going to see that happen. The Senate, I'm told, plans an even more expensive version than came out of the House.

    Hope and change.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #120
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    What's this? Trouble in paradise?

    SENATE DEMOCRATS WAVERING ON THE STIMULUS: “Sen. Conrad: ‘I’d have a very hard time voting’ for recovery package as it stands.” Likewise for Ben Nelson. If you’re from their home states and don’t like the stimulus, it might be worth telling them.

    Posted at 9:04 pm by Glenn Reynolds

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •