1 - Here is a delicious twist, 2 of the 3 senators that are in favor are from here in Maine, a blue state that Pres. Obama won. Both are popular here and have high ratings, and are probably safe whether or not they vote for it. They can safely vote for it whether it succeeds or not. Conversely, they would be at risk by voting against it and it succeeds, that would arguably leave Maine out in the cold while all the other New England states would benefit.

2 - Err,....

"Both are popular here and have high ratings, and are probably safe whether or not they vote for it."

should be:

Both are popular here and have high ratings, and are probably safe voting for it whether or not it succeeds."

my bad, sorry.

3 - Could it be that they actually voted in line with their economic principles? Even the bill as it leaves the senate is laden with socially directed spending that produces no jobs, and in some cases discourages employment (extending unemployment benefits and health insurance might seem a civil and nice thing to do, but it has the effect of encouraging people to stay unemployed).

President Obama's politicking for a perceived bipartisan effort was full of caveats that effectively said "Your ideas are failures, so I want you to convert to my ideas and then you can enjoy the pleasure of my popularity." Sorry, most conservatives do not need the pleasure to validate themselves.

Also, please stop the name calling. I am not a "Limbaugh red stater", a "religious conservative", a "bumbling hay seed" or any of the other names Liberals give to those who dare to hold an opposite point of view. I have an excellent education, a reasonably high IQ and I believe strongly that economic conservationism is a far fairer and humane approach to solving our current problems than the liberal approaches the Democrats have put forth.

Newbs.

4 - Newbs, I really don't think most Republicans have any economic principles (besides Ron Paul).

They were all fine and well with spending everyone's money by the trillions back when they were in power -- I find it hilarious that now, all of a sudden, they're back to being the party of "fiscal responsibility."

Give me a break.

Frankly, the way I see it, if the stimulus fails, then the last thing I (or anyone else I know) is going to be caring about two years from now is who we're voting for, since most of us will be out looking for jobs and trying to feed families.

5 - How come nobody talks about the debt anymore. Adding another Trillion or so will take it north of 11 Trillion I believe. So what if it stimulates growth for a year or two, it won't be long before all of our taxes do nothing but pay the interest on the debt.

I'm a Republican who's disappointed that the GOP has failed the fiscal conservancy test. This package will just dig us a deeper hole to crawl out of.

We'd be better to suffer through a recession now rather than build a debt so huge that we cannot possibly ever repay it.

6 - Some things to keep in mind:

According the the WSJ, only 12% of the "stimulus" actually is stimulus: { Link }

The Obama administration has claimed { Link } that virtually all economists support their approach to "stimulus" spending. This is patently untrue. Nobel Laureates Ed Prescott, James Buchanan, and Vernon Smith recently joined 200 other economists signing a letter opposing the legislation. Other notable economists critical of the stimulus package include Nobel Laureate Gary Becker, as well as Robert Barro, Greg Mankiw, Arthur Laffer, and Larry Lindsey. Martin Feldstein, who had been the only notable conservative economist loudly supporting the stimulus, has since changed his mind.

7 - @mdmadph - I for one was never "fine" with the BS spending of the last few years, much less the stuff that got crammed down our throats in the name of saving the banks or AIG or whoever. It was bad policy then, it is bad policy now.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
--C.S. Lewis

8 - Everybody's failed the fiscal competency test. Our "leaders" have no idea what will work. Economists apparently have no clue or they'd have given us some warning. These problems have been thirty years in the making.

Obama's got the right idea but he's been at it what, three weeks. After 9/11 we came together and helped each other. In fact the whole world was on our side ... for a time. (Bush killed that buzz quick, though.) We've got to stop thinking "them or us". We're all in it together and we can only get out together.

Einstein said, "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." So change your awareness! We've all of us got to start thinking differently and acting differently. We're in a crises of confidence, more than anything else.

So I think you're asking the wrong question. For sure any stimulus package will fail if we don't have a change in aptitude. Society is build on trust. Laws just define the gray areas but it's that trust that keeps things working day to day.

So that's what I'm trying to do right here, right now. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I see pros and cons on both sides. I think if we can all make accommodations for each other, be tolerant of each other and, more than anything else, for give each other, then we can begin to work together and build on that.

Or we can keep on the way we have been and see if something different will happen. Oh, isn't that the definition of insanity?

Peace,

Rob:-]

9 - "For sure any stimulus package will fail if we don't have a change in aptitude. Society is build on trust."

That should have read, "For sure any stimulus package will fail if we don't have a change in attitude."

But maybe aptitude is the right word.

Peace,

Rob:-]

10 - @3 Newbs, are you sure unemployment and health insurance don't have any effect on jobs? The unemployment benefits put money into pockets that would otherwise be empty, money that is always spent immediately rather than saved, and that expenditure makes a profit for some businesses. The health insurance provision will make people more likely to see their doctor or hospital for non-life threatening issues, helping maintain the economy in the medical sciences area. Do those two things help as much as, for example, new jobs in Detroit building cutting edge, fuel efficient cars? Probably not. But they do have an impact, and it isn't a negative one.

Note: I'm not talking about the effect of those programs in a strong economy. That equation is different.

11 - Could it be that it's just a HUGE budget bill that is not going to help us recover from anything? I am just looking at it from a very simple level. There is nothing in there that is going to "STIMULATE" the economy. It's just political spending. I recall a bridge to no where that got a lot of press a few months back that was used as a black mark, now it seems to be OK? Funny how the tables have turned?

12 - Could it be that it's just a HUGE budget bill that is not going to help us recover from anything? I am just looking at it from a very simple level. There is nothing in there that is going to "STIMULATE" the economy. It's just political spending. I recall a bridge to no where that got a lot of press a few months back that was used as a black mark, now it seems to be OK? Funny how the tables have turned?

13 - @ALL - Sorry about that double post. My browser died and then I think when It restated it submitted again. FIREFOX!

14 - @6 - In the interests of clarifying things, that particular WSJ article is in the opinion section. It isn't a research article in the business section. That doesn't automatically mean it isn't accurate, but it does put the conclusions under a different weight of reasonable skepticism from readers.

By the way, I find it more than a bit ironic that the bill is criticized for not having enough direct spending on highways and similar infrastructure when that spending is exactly the sort of thing the Senate 'compromise' cut from the plan.

15 - Rock, first can you tell us why you support the bill? I hope you're well aware that there is a TON of extras in the bill that won't directly (or indirectly) do what it's supposed to do. Even many people who voted for Obama are siding against the bill. I think it only has 32% support in the same polls that showed Obama winning the election by the margin that he did.

But please, can you stop the labeling of people here at your blog?

16 - @10 - "The health insurance provision will make people more likely to see their doctor or hospital for non-life threatening issues, helping maintain the economy in the medical sciences area."

Given that the unemployment rate for education and health services is 3.8%, that's not exactly an area that needs stimulus compared to construction which has an 18.2% unemployment rate.

@14.1 - "that particular WSJ article is in the opinion section"

Fair enough.

@14.2 - The problem with stimulus is that there's not really all that much that's shovel ready. In fact the CBO warns that "Throughout the federal government, spending for new programs has frequently been slower than expected and rarely been faster." { Link }

17 - @10 Rob, lets do the math. If I am employed, and I make, say $50K. My employers spends another $25K (about) for taxes, benefits, and other overhead. As long as I contribute $75K or more to the revenue of my employer I am a productive employee so I, in effect, cost them nothing. The $75K or more I get in salary, benefits, profit to my employer, etc. roll back into the economy either as spending or savings, both of which promote job creation.

As an unemployed person I get 60% of my salary, pay no taxes and have health insurance provided by the state. That amounts to maybe $40K, liitle more than 50% of the minimum amount I contribute as employee. So while jobs are created because of unemployment, at least 45% fewer are created, and the benefit of my effort towards the economy are zero, nada, zilch...

So I am incented to not find a job unless I can make more than the $50K because I can do nothing and have my needs provided for at the same level as when employed. All the while doing that hurts the economy more than if I took a job at 70% of my previous salary.

So, no, unemployment is a nice thing to give to people who are hurt by job losses, but it is not something that stimulates or helps the economy.

Walter Williams said it very well "Politicians love it when the victims of their policies are invisible and the beneficiaries visible. Why? Because the beneficiaries know for whom to vote and the victims do not know who is to blame for their plight." ({ Link }

In this case all of us are the victims, and we need to relearn economics to understand that.

Newbs

18 - Newbs - If you think extending unemployment benefits and insurance is going to encourage people to stay unemployed you've obviously not tried living on unemployment benefits lately.

As a newly laid off IT professional I qualify for the maximum unemployment benefit in my state and that doesn't amount to 25% of my previous salary. Every little bit helps but if I didn't also have a little bit of savings and a severance package I'd be thoroughly screwed when it comes to paying the bills.

Rock - I think you've got the correct read on the Republican House and Senate members - at least the ones from here in the deep South. They see no downside in dragging their feet and trying to obstruct progress.... but I have hope..... used to be you couldn't get elected dog catcher in the South unless you were a Democrat. A large number of working class and middle class Southern whites made the shift to the Republican tent during the Reagan revolution. My dad used to upbraid the newly minted Republican pols with the fact than without FDR they'd all still be dirt poor, with no electricity and their momma and daddy living in the back bedroom. I'm glad President Obama's trying to appeal to the Republicans and bring them in to the process because the more reasonable he seems the more obstinate they will seem to their constituents and maybe we'll see a shift of middle class and working class Southerners back to the Democratic camp. Hopefully with a little bit of a demographic shift we can send a few like our Senator Shelby home for a nice retirement.

An interesting piece on the Rachel Maddow show the other day - I don't know her sources but supposedly every $1 in tax rebates only provides $.92 in stimulus - not everyone is going to spend the money they get back.... but every $1 in direct government spending - for infrastructure, etc - will cause $1.52 in stimulus.

19 - @18 - Chuck, I'm pretty sure this is the source: { Link }

It's often quoted in the liberal blogosphere, but conservatives ignore it. I don't know why, since I haven't heard a "bias" claim, but there must be something they don't like about the source or the methods.

@Newbs - Every dollar your unemployed example gets and turns around and spends is a dollar that the economy does not receive if that person doesn't have unemployment benefit and stays unemployed. Since nobody is hiring now, cutting unemployment benefits takes money OUT of the economy. I'm not a Nobel prize winner or anything, but I can manage that particular calculation pretty easily. Is unemployment as good as a job for the economy? Of course not. I'm stunned that you think I was suggesting it is. It is simply better than the alternative, which is nothing. Being nice has nothing to do with it, this is about being smart.

20 - One other thing, I hope that the 3 RINO's who did vote for this see some backlash in the election.

Also, there's not really a concensus from economists as The President would lead us to believe. First of all, just go to { Link } and you won't find a single economist there who supports it. Secondly, to support this, here is a good article: { Link }

- 200 economists signed a letter opposing it
- Many of The President's current advisers opposed these types of stimulus packages just last year. I guess they've "change"d their minds...

So the tenor of this blog post is patently false in asserting that everyone should be on board with this. In fact, even the AP is becoming critical of the deceit surrounding this bill that's being propagated by this Administration. { Link }

21 - @19, Sorry Rob, every dollar in unemployment benefits comes from somewhere. The Government either taxes someone, prints the money or barrows it. In case of the tax it is a direct redistribution, in the case of printing money that takes from everyone by causing inflation, and in the case of borrowing it again takes from everyone, particularly small business because the pool of available money to borrow shrinks and becomes more expensive.

Sorry, there is no Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy or magic Genni who creates free money for the government to spend.

The problem with Mr. Zandi's and Moody's Economy.com assessment of the impact of the tax cuts versus spending is that they ignore this fact that the money does not simply appear out of thin air. They also ignore the importance of investment by business owners which has been shown to, in short order, double the value of the money received from permanent tax breaks. As a business owner I am much more likely to hire people if I know that I will have the same benefit next year and the year after as I do this year. If the benefit is transient I will use it for a transient expense like debt retirement.

@18 Chuck, I am sorry to hear you are laid off and I do not wish upon you or any individual the difficulty I can only imagine you are experiencing. I am, however, heartened that your unemployment coverage is insufficient incentive for you to stay unemployed. I wish you the best of luck in getting through your tough times.

Newbs

22 - Sorry I'm late to the party!

re: unemployment benefits. "You can give an man a fish and he eats for a day, or you can teach a man to fish and he eats for life".

Just last year, the US was at risk of losing business due to a shortage of skilled labor in several industries, including IT. Two of my friends currently out of work do not have an Associates Degree - just a few credits shy. One is a few credits shy of a 4 year degree. Most places hiring right now are in what we call a buyers market - they can be picky and are doing so. From that perspective, the current unemployment situation is good - companies that need to hire have plenty of people to chose from. We still haven't moved much towards closing the skilled labor gap, though, in the last year. Being unemployed is a convenient time to go back to school - student loans are still available.

Here's some commentary with historical perspective: { Link }

I agree with one of the conclusions (among others) that the article linked makes - what we need right now is not fierce urgency, but calm, deliberate planning. The only people sure to win in a situation where law is rammed through are the Authors. Senator Reid forced a cloture vote to cut off debate. Apparently too much light of day is not well taken by Senate Democrats.

Our monetary policy has had too much of what Ross Perot famously called Voo Doo Economics. When the Fed takes over a financial institution and wipes out the share holders, it engages in fiat currency. It determines the winners and losers directly and sets the value of the dollar for those losers to nil. Investors don't like playground bullies. The market is a skittish, manic, schizophrenic, fickle mess most of the time. The slightest disturbance yields a strong reaction. Unfortunately, it has become the barometer of our economic health, which taken as a long term average, it could be said to be. But taken by the hour, as it is, it induces panic. Indeed, we need to change our perspective.

One thing remains constant though - economic activity is only truly stimulated by needs being met. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, does not presently need $80 Million for new school construction. Due to declining enrollment, they have closed many schools in recent years. Columbus, Ohio, does not need $200 Million for light rail research. Seattle, Washington has already demonstrated the ongoing cost of maintaining a favored economic zone around a light rail system, all Ohio has to do is ask to see the books. The stimulus package is indeed full of money that is going to one thing and it's not meeting real needs - its going to buy the love and affection of voters for those politicians who can bring home the bacon. And for the most part, that love and affection garnering pork is directed at traditionally Democratic voters.

But real needs can be met in a variety of ways. People need counseling, financial planning assistance, job training or reeducation, guns, ammo, beer, sometimes food. There is still a critical catalyst present in the world - people with needs. The only challenge is meeting the needs with affordable products and demonstrable value. So you're out of work. Guess how many people would love to learn how to do what you do. Lots of other out of work people. Think maybe a community college could provide you with some part time employment?

The spending bill (that's really what it is) will create short term economic activity. But it will, critically, create artificial, non-self sustaining activity. Much like the way caffeine works in your brain - it provides the initial jolt that kicks off the production of a hormone that creates a cascade effect that slowly dwindles away on its own because it is not self sustaining. The biggest problem though is that short term impact will be delayed in the case of public works efforts where the usual feasibility studies and planning must be under taken - which in many cases takes several years. Repairing bridges and roads is not the same as Keynes advocating new roads and bridges that would expand the reach of commerce. It will just mean fewer potholes and a few less bridge collapses here and there (admittedly a good thing).

But spending, which must be doled out in the typical slow and deliberate manner of the government (see, we really have plenty of time to stop and study this thing), itself is unsustainable. What does the government get for its investment dollars? A poor return, unless the tax rate is raised above 100%.

However, cutting the individual income tax for a year is only a short term loss of 20% of revenues - a much easier debt to repay than the $2 Trillion combined stimulus and financial bail out funds being discussed now. And that puts money in the pockets of the vast majority of the population within one month. Imagine what you could do with an instant 30% pay raise. Think maybe you'd spend a little? Think that might create a sudden demand for goods and services? I do.

Unfortunately, the Dems are putting their well-being ahead of their employers - bad employees... we should fire them all!

23 - This is all very simple. Lower Taxes, lower taxes, then when you are done, lower taxes and in the end it will create jobs because WE THE PEOPLE will have the money and control.

Under Washington's current plan we are moving closer to a state that looks much like England and France, which right now are taxing at a rate about 20% higher than we are right now. Ask anyone who has lived there, they will tell you the government is expansive and does not do a very good job because there is no accountability.

Obama's "Bail Out" is nothing more than a HUGE HUGE Budget increase. If you call it anything else you are rolling yourself. Most of the programs in it are PORK Spending and Pet project to pay back or electing so many DEMS (& some REPS too) this past NOV. If you can't see that then why is ACORN getting so much money?

The Government wants us to be POOR and dependent on them for everything. If you don't see that happening then you need to wake up. With this new Budget Bill they are not fostering growth and would be better off taking out the Trillion dollars, splitting it up and giving it to every American Citizen to spend, imaging the shortage on goods we would have then. It's a stretch but it would be a better option than the pork spending that is going on now.

So with 306,000,000 people in the US, and $1,000,000,000,000 up for grabs, each person who is a US citizen would get about $3600 each. So in this case lets say you get the full amount for every adult over 18, and all under 18 you get $1600 each. So with my family I would get $8800 back from the government. Plus mu normal pay or what ever income I am getting. I would have fun with that. I know what I would do, I would stimulate the economy. Even if you put it in the bank, guess what, that is money they can now lend! Most Americans would spend it. Some would by houses, some would get a new car and some would sock it away. Others would pay bills, but researching a highway or planning bus routes, I already pay for that crap and we still have one of the most lack luster transportation systems in the world.

I don't think anyone has a good idea as to what to do. I say we give it to the citizens to spend and if that don't work let them figure it out in 12 months.

I just don't want the government expanding and trampling our rights as American citizens!

24 - Here is an alternative stimulus bill (START) from Idaho congressman Walt Minnick (D):

{ Link }

{ Link }

Now this seems much more sensible to me over the current $830 billion Porkulus Maximus.

Also, didn't President Obama float out a promise of a $175 billion stimulus somewhere around the end of the campaign last year? Food for thought.

25 - Wow, I actually didn't expect THIS type of response!

I'm not going to respond to each and every post directed to me; they are all pretty much saying the same thing. However, I will address a couple of the themes of the posts directed towards me, in the hopes that it answers the concerns mentioned.

In this post I did NOT intentionally call anyone a name; the only thing close to a "name" was when I called traditionally Southern (and GOP stronghold) states "Limbaugh Red" states. It was not a derisive name; instead I viewed it as a qualifier, or adjective, for the widely accepted Red State designation for those traditionally conservative states. I added the qualifier "Limbaugh" because I want to drive home that I am talking about the Red states that are always red states, at least for the last 25-30 years or so. I also mentioned Limbaugh because, by-and-large, conservatives are generally in agreement with Limbaugh - maybe not to the bombastic extreme he uses for entertainment, but the underlying gist of his beliefs are in concert with the bulk of conservatives. I did NOT use this designation with derisive intent; I used it to succinctly classify the depth of conservatism which is the cornerstone of these states. It is a characterization that is predominately accurate. I know this from a variety of evidence - from living in a "Limbaugh Red State" (GA), to the way the GOP Congressman FROM GA, Rep. Phil Gingrey, apologized publicly for speaking ill of Rush { Link } .

So, I stand by that characterization - because it is accurate for the bulk of conservatives (not ALL - but the majority).

Additionally notice that I did NOT attack the GOP Congressfolk for voting against the Plan; in fact I indicated that I would have done the same thing, had I been a GOP Congressman.

As far as my thoughts on the Stimulus Plan, I have to be honest - I'm not sure if I support it, because I don't know what it's going to look like when Congress is done with it. I do believe that the government needs to create jobs through public works-style projects, ala FDR's New Deal. And before you retort my thoughts here, those of you who are conservative, don't say that the New Deal didn't work - it did work. The unemployment rate shot up when it was implemented, and the only year when it went down - 1937 - was when FDR took "his foot off the gas" to try to begin reeling in the debt. We can debate that in another post, if you all want, but make sure you let me know that's what you want and make sure you check your facts beforehand - and I will too.

This post was to explore what I said it was intended to explore - that the GOP shouldn't vote for this plan no matter what, because there is no reward for them to do so. And don't tell me that Congressfolk don't think about their electability - they damn-well do, every day. There is little to no incentive for ANY GOP Congressman to vote for this plan, unless they are from a Blue State that went to Obama - then they have to weigh their options (as three of them in the Senate did). If you're from a deep-seated (read: LIMBAUGH) Red State (like GA), then you should not vote for the plan, at all, ever.

THAT'S my point.

Rock

P.S. I'm now going to go read the 20 or so posts that I haven't read yet.
So, I hope that explains this post.

26 - @25 - "don't say that the New Deal didn't work - it did work."

There's an old saying that if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. That said, here's an opinion that differs from your "statement of fact": "FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate" { Link }

27 - @26 - Super Article. Thanks for the post.

28 - { Link }

29 - I think y'hafta realize, since the new rules in the Senate nothing can get past this body without a cloture majority. Republicans never got that. Ever. They always had to pad bills for Democrats. Democrats have that, within a couple of liberal swing votes.

30 - Rocky,

31 - Rocky,
Your permutation and combinations regarding the stimulus package is amazing but altogether to deny that the stimulus package wont materialize is not fully acceptable. Even though once cannot expect any magical reversal of the economic condition, it will surely pump in some money to refresh the enervating economy.