"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Yes, They Won and More Pork

The economic stimulus plan could be better referred to as the Democrat's pork dinner. The plan has little to do with "infrastructure" improvements as originally billed, which was suppose to put people to work and stimulate the economy, and more to do about the Democrat's version of pork filled earmarks.

The pork plan will do little to rein in spending at state and local levels in order to solve budget problems. To the contrary it will close the current budget gaps and push real solutions that involve reducing spending further out in years and exacerbate the problem.

Nearly $100 billion would result from increasing the “Medicaid matching rate,” a technique for reducing states’ Medicaid costs to free up state money for spending on anything governors and state legislators want.

Tax credits for investment in homes or business would have been more effective in order to persuade people to spend and create some real economic activity.

The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each employed person. That’s not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year’s tax rebates led to additional spending.  

John McHugh and the rest of his colleagues did the right thing in voting NO on this pet project spending plan, they have no reason to give the Democrats bi-partisan cover for this ill conceived plan. After the Republicans soundly voted NO on this plan, the Democrats threatened to remove the tax cuts, which would surely be met with opposition from the public. 

Here is a selection of critics on the new American debt plan.

Read here, here, and public support for this mess is waning and rightfully so, read here


Dan Francis said...

McHugh and the other GOPers ARE not right in their "No" vote ... good politics, yes; poor performance, yes.

Right now it's purely political as the country sinks into a deeper hole and no amount of "tax cuts" will reverse course: we had two huge Bush tax cuts and stimulus and look at where that got us?

It would be wise to recall a few events back to 2001 and 2004 this way Tax Cuts, Spending, or Both?

and More Spending, New Tax Cuts Backed

One thing is clear: (1) Either Mr. Obama and his plan will work, or (2) the GOP and their "non-plan" will work.

One way hopefully saves the nation - the other: saves an incumbent in office! Either way, OUR government has let us down, and that's the sad, really sad part.

We shall see; We shall see.

~ dmf

John Quincy said...

I will give you this, Dan, that ou government has let us down. Obama comes strutting into the oval office promising a change of this that and the other thing. The only thing that has changed is the President's shift from sound governing pincipals to the special interest voter base that helped him get elected, i.e. unions and social liberls. As for his economics: throwing more money at the American public isn't going to solve anything. People are too freaked out to spend money and are in a hording mode. Whatever they cna scrounge up they are going to save to pay their bills and sustain themselves and their families. Is there really anything wrong with that picture? Think about it, people saving money to pay their bills and only buying the neccessities. That is the type of America that we need to return to. If society changes its exhuberant spending ways then the government must too. Kudos to Mr. McHugh and the Republican block for voting against Obama's bailout, I only wish he voted against Bush's too.

Anonymous said...

But Danny, as I see it, and as it is explained even by the supportive media, this "plan" of Obama's will not produce any results for EIGHTEEN MONTHS!
Even if it does work, we will all be pretty well dead by then. Again, I don't understand it. The idea would be to get people SPENDING, wouldn't it? How does government pork, financed by continued borrowing, get people to spend?

And I don't see the tax cuts of the past decade as being the cause of all problems. We've had a war, continued mass spending by government, energy meltdowns, terrorist threat and according responses, mismanagement by our financial leaders, and nothing but partisan politics. We just kept spending beyond our means. Some blame war, some blame energy, some blame greed, I understand the arguments. But to blame tax cuts alone isn't quite the whole story.

Government will not get us out of this. Too many people are not smart enough to realize that.

Anonymous said...

I am really not sure what Dan is saying here. One thing is clear his either or is wrong. Mr. Obama's plan or the GOP non plan do not have to work. It is not an either or. There are many forces working here.

THe economy can turn around and it won't be because of the spending plan.

What is interesting is that the republicans spent on the war and did not care about the debt but the democrats claimed the debt was going to overwhelm our children.

Now the democrats are spending and the republicans are decrying the deficit.

I think it is time to throw them all out and start anew.


Anonymous said...

Has any one, including you (iv) even read the damn HR-1 Bill. This bill is full of regulations and over site rules, completely opposite to the "3 page here's the money don't spend it all in one place stimulus package of last September. You Ditto Heads just don't understand that the reason big business and there bought and paid for Repukes hate this bill, is that the taxpayer gets a receipt when the money gets handed out. Read the bill, then tell me I'm lying.

Anonymous said...

Read a bill?


iv only reads national standard and headlines from matt sludge and articles screwing Senator Aubertine.

Anonymous said...

Good pic of the Messiah. I am glad you are brave enough to show Obama for what he is. An Uppity.

Dan Francis said...

I have read through the bill, and have a saved copy on my PC, and I am still absorbing it ... the House version is 647 pages (.pdf). Keep in mind, this is NOT the final bill -- the Senate is now playing (or should I say: adding to it)?

My basic point is this: we need something that is balanced and and right the problem solver; not this "pork and politics" that we see now ...

On top of that story I read this today about the banks Foreign Worker Abuse Program (my label)

These banks are the same ones we are lending BILLIONS in tax dollars. I have one question for anyone out there who can answer it honestly: "Who led the charge for getting a quicker, easier, and faster H-1B visa program for those foreign workers in the first place?"

HINT: People like this group have Unions in Kansas

That is why I say "our government has failed us." Yet, we keep the same old, same old crowd there about 90% of time ... progress, right? LOL

Anonymous said...

8:56 I understand your point. But borrowing $800billion is borrowing $800billion and 18 months before results is 18 months before results. Makes no sense to me, even if you think THIS crap bill is much better than the last crap bill. I suspect you think this one is Obama's and the last one was Bush's and that's enough for you to like one and hate the other.

Anonymous said...

Dan, we need this H-1B visa bill passed to bring back those valuable highly skilled jobs back to America.
Hear me out.
These good jobs in engineering, programing and scientist have already been outsourced to India, China and South America, these last eight years. I work in a highly skilled industry already largely outsourced, and can only compete by lowering my standard of living to compete with these hard working foreigners. I say bring these people here, and the jobs back here, to pay taxes here, and start business here, instead of over there. Dan you need to take in the big picture.

Dan Francis said...

Anon: 11:58 - sorry Anon: you got it assbackwards, and yes, I know the big picture.

The program in question here allows more and more foreign workers to come here, study here, and then stay here, and who earn less than if an American had the same job (or even competed for the same job).

I'm not talking about jobs already relocated overseas -- that's a totally different issue.

Please stay awake in class -- your grades are suffering.

Anonymous said...

Ok, ok. Dan let me explain it for you, as if your a wee one.

Lets say a Branch of the US military decided that hiring American born lieutenants are too expensive and began hiring lieutenants in Mumbai, India, over the last eight years. These Mumbai lieutenants were trained at West Point or VMI but had to go back to Mumbai, cause their student visa's expired.
Also lets acknowledge that this branch of the US military are already hiding most of their assets off shore thanks to business deregulation to avoid paying their taxes. This branch of the US military then hires these Mumbai lieutenants who send out all their orders to their American platoon sergeants via eMails and video conferencing.
These Mumbai lieutenants, would like to live and work her, cause unless your really rich, Mumbia bites, but they can't get H-1B visa's or immigrate here because stupid Americans want the foreign people already here, who pick our tomatoes and mow our lawns, to go back where ever they came from. You see, seasonal work, are jobs that Americans should be doing.
So these Mumbai lieutenants live, work raise their families and spend their US military salary in Mumbai and not in the Thousand Islands.

Stay awake Dan, most of the lieutenant jobs have already been out sourced and it time to bring them back to America, anyway we can.

Savvy, you arrogant, know nothing.

Anonymous said...

Again PIV is biased. Obama has been in a week and you dub him a failure. McHugh has been in sixteen years and proved that he is a failure.

Again I try to see things from your perspective but my head will not go up my dark side that far.

Dan Francis said...

Anon: 4:57>>>> that's the weakest argument and anology I've ever heard ... how weak you say?

As Lincoln once quipped to a challenger in a debate about his argument being weak, Abe
reinforced it when asked, "How weak," by adding:

"As weak as soup made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that has starved to death -- that weak, sir, that weak."

RWiley said...

As usual, Dan Francis sets the record straight. The only way we are going to pull out of the George Bush economic disaster is to study where Bush went wrong and reverse the political philosophy that put us there.

It does not take a genius to determine that President Obama's approach is different from the blank check Bush and Paulson gave as a reward to the Banks and Wall Street. It was their last big heist and the Republicans let it happen.

John McHugh was complicit with this Heist. And Dan is a bluedog who has a handle on the problems.

Jefferson's Leaning Left

Dan Francis said...

Wiley 7:58: I don't know about me being a "Bluedog DEM."

I basically don't like labels or label myself ... but I do have a USMC Bulldog wearing his Smokey Bear tatoo on my shoulder - does that count?

LOL (His name is Smedley)...

RWiley said...

Dan Francis

I have read "War is a Racket" twice. Once when in college in the 50's. I did a research paper on Smedley, for an economics class. I found out later that the prof was also consultant for G.E. heavy military. He was not pleased. I explained to him that I had a pre-draft agreement for AF flight school. Up until then, he pegged me for a commie.

Live Blogging