(02-06-2009 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If we're going to end partisanship, then we can't see one party's use of it as okay and the others as not. How many Democrats didn't vote for the bill?? Those are the ONLY ones who you can say with any honest support were likely not acting in a partisan fashion.

I would say anyone willing to put up with the silliness involved in getting a little "D" or "R" next to their name has already proved that they're partisan!

(02-06-2009 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  When a political novice like me who has only read small parts of this bill can point out a a portion of the bill that is so easily improved upon, it is highly likely that honest people who have read it in more detail can as well... and by voting against an obviously flawed bill... ESPECIALLY when they're spending 1 Trillion Dollars [/pinkie at cheek] are acting in the best interest of the country, rather than simply being partisan.

Totally random - but can we get some kind of wiki-bill editing system? Like, you put it online and people can suggest changes, which people could vote up or down on (like in the chronicle comments or slashdot sense) - you'd have to be clever to filter out the noise, but if in the end you got good suggestions to hand back to congress, that would be pretty cool, wouldn't it?

(02-06-2009 03:37 PM)JSA Wrote:  I'm not willing to do that... seriously. I'll do it with you personally, but not systematically.

Good enough.

Do you think my complaints about this particular provision of the bill are partisan? You seem to agree with me that they need to be more targeted to be effective... so while I'm certain that I'd vote against this bill for non-partisan reasons... it seems that you would too... which sort of negates your initial claim that voting against it proves partisanship... in fact, it seems you would agree that voting FOR such a bill is more proof of partisanship.... though I admit that some Senators simply don't ask themselves... can we do better... or others may be thinking a flawed bill now is better than a good one later.

How about THIS for a tax incentive for business that democrats should support.

How about we offer the bank an incentive to convert certain home loans from 7% taxable to the bank, to 5% tax free to the bank? remember, while YOU can deduct home mortgage interest, THEY cannot. The bank gets the same after-tax income, so they are happy, and the mortgage payment goes down significantly, so the borrower is happy. Further, the bank gets to keep a good loan that the guy is more likely to be able to pay rather than force ANOTHER home onto the foreclosure market... which helps the bank... and helps the real estate market... which helps the bank even more... which helps the economy... and encourages banks to "loosen up" because they will have fewer loans at risk. Best reason?? The cost today of this plan is zero, but the IMPACT is immediate and ongoing. All we lose is future potential revenue which we would have lost anyway when the loan went bad or the bank went bad. The lost revenue to the government is likely made up ten times over by the increased economic activity.

(02-06-2009 04:00 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  Totally random - but can we get some kind of wiki-bill editing system? Like, you put it online and people can suggest changes, which people could vote up or down on (like in the chronicle comments or slashdot sense) - you'd have to be clever to filter out the noise, but if in the end you got good suggestions to hand back to congress, that would be pretty cool, wouldn't it?

ooooh, i LIKE this idea... can't imagine how it would work... but i like it.

(02-06-2009 04:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 04:00 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  Totally random - but can we get some kind of wiki-bill editing system? Like, you put it online and people can suggest changes, which people could vote up or down on (like in the chronicle comments or slashdot sense) - you'd have to be clever to filter out the noise, but if in the end you got good suggestions to hand back to congress, that would be pretty cool, wouldn't it?

ooooh, i LIKE this idea... can't imagine how it would work... but i like it.

During the campaign, Obama promised that bills would be put online for public viewing and comment for 5 days before he signed them.

Hasn't happened yet, but a subordinate says they will do so as soon as possible. (Don't hold your breath).

"I haven't seen one single report that shows that significant amounts of any stimulus checks simply went into savings. I've seen reports showing savings have declined, not risen... so this statement doesn't seem likely."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1222/p14s01-wmgn.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SV...gsRate.jpg

Page 7 of:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national...pi1208.pdf

(See especially May and June, when almost all checks were sent out.)

Now, as to partisanship. Obama was watching the Republicans lead the spending-vs-tax cuts debate and realized he had to go more on the offensive to regain some ground. He can't just sit back if he wants to affect the debate. And, despite what some Republicans on the Hill have been saying, he has been talking to them from the start. (Yes, he does need at least a smidgen of the GOP.) If his tone last night in front of a 100% partisan crowd was stronger than it has been, does that completely invalidate what he said during the campaign? The stakes are incredibly high. He can't always pussyfoot.

And I don't see the evidence that he has kowtowed to Pelosi. The House Dems can do what they want, but the filibuster rule and the conference committee will do their thing and pull this bill back from where she wants it. I don't see that Obama had much incentive to go overboard in trying to rein her in.

Let's remember that this is all happening at an unusually rapid pace. Let's also remember that, in fact, there are going to be tax cuts in this package.

(02-06-2009 05:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Hasn't happened yet, but a subordinate says they will do so as soon as possible. (Don't hold your breath).

Give the O-Team another 2 weeks on the bill posting. The lefty "net root" folks seem all in a dither about this particular promise.

Was Obama's Thursday speech partisan? Yes.

Was Obama stupid for the partisan speech on Thursday? Not if his objective was a compromise on the stimulus bill he's consistently pushed as necessary. I'm sure the economic headlines on Friday (which the Admin had access to on Thursday night?) didn't hurt either.

Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 6, 2009; 6:33 PM

Senate Democrats appeared to have reached a tentative deal with a handful of GOP moderates this evening on significant cuts to a massive economic stimulus bill in an effort to push the package toward a final vote as early as tonight.

(02-06-2009 06:51 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 05:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Hasn't happened yet, but a subordinate says they will do so as soon as possible. (Don't hold your breath).

Give the O-Team another 2 weeks on the bill posting. The lefty "net root" folks seem all in a dither about this particular promise.

I don't know what "net root" means, but I will give them all the time they want. What other choice have I? When (if?) it happens, it will be bookmarked on my computer.

Regarding stimulus, and whether government spending qualifies...there are only two ways to stimulate the economy in the long run. First you can increase the accumulated capital stock. Second, you can increase the supply of labor. Deficit spending does neither of these things. It temporarily increases short-run output by allowing us to fast-forward future consumption to the present day.

Borrwing from China and stealing from savers does nothing to stimulate in the long run. It simply allows the bad debt to be carried forward for a few more years, when the hope is that overleveraged consumers and businesses (and governments) will be able to pay the P&I back with devalued dollars.

I would even argue that spending on roads, bridges, etc. is not a good idea. Let's say that Congress listened to the ASCE and passed a $2.2 trillion infrastructure spending bill. If that entire package were to be spent on infrastructure, would Congress do an NPV analysis to figure out which projects are the most valuable to society? Of course not. Each Representative will get a portion based on his/her support of the bill, tenure in Congress, political connections, etc. And a year from now people would be complaining that there is still more spending to be done.

If I were a republican senator, I'd tell the dems that I'll vote with them on the cloture issue but no on the plan. They dems have enough votes to pass this without republican support. Let them have their vote. It's a terrible bill, so let it be 100% their responsibility.

If they want bi-partisan support they need to come up with a bi-partisan bill. This one isn't, and pulling a few billion out to compromise will make it neither bi-partisan nor stimulating.

(02-06-2009 05:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 04:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 04:00 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  Totally random - but can we get some kind of wiki-bill editing system? Like, you put it online and people can suggest changes, which people could vote up or down on (like in the chronicle comments or slashdot sense) - you'd have to be clever to filter out the noise, but if in the end you got good suggestions to hand back to congress, that would be pretty cool, wouldn't it?

ooooh, i LIKE this idea... can't imagine how it would work... but i like it.

During the campaign, Obama promised that bills would be put online for public viewing and comment for 5 days before he signed them.

Hasn't happened yet, but a subordinate says they will do so as soon as possible. (Don't hold your breath).

Just remember that it took 6 God-days to create the heavens and the earth and all things that populate them. Depending on whether you are in the camp that proclaims Obama to be a god and what your view of the creation story is, that could suggest that 5 Obama days could be a very, very, verrrrrryy looooonnnnngggggggg time!

(02-06-2009 05:51 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  "I haven't seen one single report that shows that significant amounts of any stimulus checks simply went into savings. I've seen reports showing savings have declined, not risen... so this statement doesn't seem likely."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1222/p14s01-wmgn.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SV...gsRate.jpg

Page 7 of:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national...pi1208.pdf

(See especially May and June, when almost all checks were sent out.)

Now, as to partisanship. Obama was watching the Republicans lead the spending-vs-tax cuts debate and realized he had to go more on the offensive to regain some ground. He can't just sit back if he wants to affect the debate. And, despite what some Republicans on the Hill have been saying, he has been talking to them from the start. (Yes, he does need at least a smidgen of the GOP.) If his tone last night in front of a 100% partisan crowd was stronger than it has been, does that completely invalidate what he said during the campaign? The stakes are incredibly high. He can't always pussyfoot.

And I don't see the evidence that he has kowtowed to Pelosi. The House Dems can do what they want, but the filibuster rule and the conference committee will do their thing and pull this bill back from where she wants it. I don't see that Obama had much incentive to go overboard in trying to rein her in.

Let's remember that this is all happening at an unusually rapid pace. Let's also remember that, in fact, there are going to be tax cuts in this package.

I didn't say he kow-towed to Pelosi, just that she is uncontrollable.

I thought the speech I heard could've been interpreted in parts as a prod to Democrats to also abandon partisonship and the old way of doing business (i.e. load the thing up with pork and programs). I can understand why the media and others might not have picked up on that angle/possibility.

I've said Obama has been attempting to reach out to the GOP all along (and I don't think the GOP is blaming him, but rather the Democratic Congress, for their lack of substantive inclusion in the process up to now).

I'm ok with tax cuts in the package and some stimulus spending as well.

And as to where the stimulus checks went . . . I have my checks from the government direct deposited, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it all was saved. I think it's harder to track that stuff then we would like to think.

(02-06-2009 07:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know what "net root" means, but I will give them all the time they want. What other choice have I? When (if?) it happens, it will be bookmarked on my computer.

"net roots" as I understand it = http://www.dailykos.com, http://www.mydd.com, http://www.redstate.com, http://www.burntorangereport.com - the various political blogs which seem influence the media cycle - first heard the term during the rise and fall of Howard Dean/Joe Trippi

As far as bookmarking - don't forget the Obamameter . . .

(02-06-2009 08:08 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I thought the speech I heard could've been interpreted in parts as a prod to Democrats to also abandon partisonship and the old way of doing business (i.e. load the thing up with pork and programs). I can understand why the media and others might not have picked up on that angle/possibility.

I've said Obama has been attempting to reach out to the GOP all along (and I don't think the GOP is blaming him, but rather the Democratic Congress, for their lack of substantive inclusion in the process up to now).

Seems like the GOP is just reaping what they sowed when they controlled the rules. And the Democrats felt it when they lost it in the "revolution" of 1994. Etc., etc., etc. It's the way of power.

(02-06-2009 11:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sloth, I'm not going to go to the trouble of doing the detailed math... and I know you aren't either and aren't asking me to... but I don't believe the economic impact of selling more cars at lower margins without involving the banking system will even come close to replacing the overall economic impact of doing it my way. I threw out a few ideas I don't even really support to allow for some social engineering in the bill... In the simplest of examples... and the most "republican", the combination of subsidies and interest rebates in the pro-forma (before allowing for failed loans etc) would either cost 1/3 of the original bill ($5,000 in subsidies/interest vs $15,000 for the cars) or generate 3 times the sales volume for the same public capital. If Detroit lost 25% of that volume (which implies that non-factory add-ons are at least 25% or more the total cost of the car... remember, they mark up accessories, too) to accessory producers/local installers/dealers (who are ALSO potential constituents) and 60% of the remaining volume to foreign auto makers (though you could certainly be protectionist and only allow the subs for cars where 70% of them are made in the US or whatever) they would STILL be selling more cars to the public than the government... again, not to mention all of the other benefits.

The bolded part of the assumption is the part I don't agree with. And that's because you're rewarding a certain subset of people who were probably going to buy cars anyway. So you're really not getting an added car sale there. Maybe on the periphery, in terms of them spending more on options, or having more cash in the bank account to buy other things they may think they need or want. But I don't think it's a direct 1:1 translation in an increase in car sales. Not that it wouldn't be sold that way to the public.

And not really mundane to the overall conversation (especially the way that it is heading now). And like you, I really don't like the social engineering aspects of the proposal.

John Vincent Calipari for president, for the precision of the Memphis Machine carries over into politics.

(02-06-2009 08:08 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 05:51 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  "I haven't seen one single report that shows that significant amounts of any stimulus checks simply went into savings. I've seen reports showing savings have declined, not risen... so this statement doesn't seem likely."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1222/p14s01-wmgn.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SV...gsRate.jpg

Page 7 of:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national...pi1208.pdf

(See especially May and June, when almost all checks were sent out.)

Now, as to partisanship. Obama was watching the Republicans lead the spending-vs-tax cuts debate and realized he had to go more on the offensive to regain some ground. He can't just sit back if he wants to affect the debate. And, despite what some Republicans on the Hill have been saying, he has been talking to them from the start. (Yes, he does need at least a smidgen of the GOP.) If his tone last night in front of a 100% partisan crowd was stronger than it has been, does that completely invalidate what he said during the campaign? The stakes are incredibly high. He can't always pussyfoot.

And I don't see the evidence that he has kowtowed to Pelosi. The House Dems can do what they want, but the filibuster rule and the conference committee will do their thing and pull this bill back from where she wants it. I don't see that Obama had much incentive to go overboard in trying to rein her in.

Let's remember that this is all happening at an unusually rapid pace. Let's also remember that, in fact, there are going to be tax cuts in this package.

I didn't say he kow-towed to Pelosi, just that she is uncontrollable.

I thought the speech I heard could've been interpreted in parts as a prod to Democrats to also abandon partisonship and the old way of doing business (i.e. load the thing up with pork and programs). I can understand why the media and others might not have picked up on that angle/possibility.

I've said Obama has been attempting to reach out to the GOP all along (and I don't think the GOP is blaming him, but rather the Democratic Congress, for their lack of substantive inclusion in the process up to now).

I'm ok with tax cuts in the package and some stimulus spending as well.

And as to where the stimulus checks went . . . I have my checks from the government direct deposited, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it all was saved. I think it's harder to track that stuff then we would like to think.

I can't argue with anything in this post.

(02-06-2009 09:48 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 08:08 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I thought the speech I heard could've been interpreted in parts as a prod to Democrats to also abandon partisonship and the old way of doing business (i.e. load the thing up with pork and programs). I can understand why the media and others might not have picked up on that angle/possibility.

I've said Obama has been attempting to reach out to the GOP all along (and I don't think the GOP is blaming him, but rather the Democratic Congress, for their lack of substantive inclusion in the process up to now).

Seems like the GOP is just reaping what they sowed when they controlled the rules. And the Democrats felt it when they lost it in the "revolution" of 1994. Etc., etc., etc. It's the way of power.

That's understandable and that was one of my alternative scenarios in one of these threads. The Democrats know all along they're going to cram it down everyone's throats, and Obama is merely playing the good cop to keep his approval ratings up.

Of course this makes his Change mantra a load of B.S., that it's just business as usual, but with a popular figurehead atop the ladder.

Excuse me if I hold on to my alternative hope that Obama truly believes some of what he says about bipartisanship and will use common sense and logic in addition to ideology in moving forward.

We're going to have Social Security to worry about sometime in the future (a slow economy won't help that). We've already mortgaged our future, mortgaging our future's future is someday going to have the wrong consequences.

What was Tocqueville's postulate? Democracy will work up until the point where people realize they can vote themselves money? Or was it just something similar?

(02-06-2009 07:49 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 05:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 04:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 04:00 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  Totally random - but can we get some kind of wiki-bill editing system? Like, you put it online and people can suggest changes, which people could vote up or down on (like in the chronicle comments or slashdot sense) - you'd have to be clever to filter out the noise, but if in the end you got good suggestions to hand back to congress, that would be pretty cool, wouldn't it?

ooooh, i LIKE this idea... can't imagine how it would work... but i like it.

During the campaign, Obama promised that bills would be put online for public viewing and comment for 5 days before he signed them.

Hasn't happened yet, but a subordinate says they will do so as soon as possible. (Don't hold your breath).

Just remember that it took 6 God-days to create the heavens and the earth and all things that populate them. Depending on whether you are in the camp that proclaims Obama to be a god and what your view of the creation story is, that could suggest that 5 Obama days could be a very, very, verrrrrryy looooonnnnngggggggg time!

You know that somewhere, someone is saying "That is why i support the Democrats, so people like you can't force your religious views on the rest of us".

(02-07-2009 01:05 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 09:48 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 08:08 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I thought the speech I heard could've been interpreted in parts as a prod to Democrats to also abandon partisonship and the old way of doing business (i.e. load the thing up with pork and programs). I can understand why the media and others might not have picked up on that angle/possibility.

I've said Obama has been attempting to reach out to the GOP all along (and I don't think the GOP is blaming him, but rather the Democratic Congress, for their lack of substantive inclusion in the process up to now).

Seems like the GOP is just reaping what they sowed when they controlled the rules. And the Democrats felt it when they lost it in the "revolution" of 1994. Etc., etc., etc. It's the way of power.

That's understandable and that was one of my alternative scenarios in one of these threads. The Democrats know all along they're going to cram it down everyone's throats, and Obama is merely playing the good cop to keep his approval ratings up.

Of course this makes his Change mantra a load of B.S., that it's just business as usual, but with a popular figurehead atop the ladder.

Excuse me if I hold on to my alternative hope that Obama truly believes some of what he says about bipartisanship and will use common sense and logic in addition to ideology in moving forward.

We're going to have Social Security to worry about sometime in the future (a slow economy won't help that). We've already mortgaged our future, mortgaging our future's future is someday going to have the wrong consequences.

What was Tocqueville's postulate? Democracy will work up until the point where people realize they can vote themselves money? Or was it just something similar?

I think Obama does believe a little bit about the bipartisanship, but it seems to be getting wielded a little too cynically right now - more as a bludgeon to try to get folks in line than a badge of honor to be word. My note was merely to recognize that the Republicans are receiving what they dished out for a dozen years. Was sour grapes then, is sour grapes now.

Not that I like it any more when someone wields the power in that way. I actually find that more worrisome.

As for Social Security, some in Congress do share your concerns, including the top Democrat and Republican on the Budget Committee in the Senate (from David Broder's column this week), after Judd Gregg was nominated for Secretary of Commerce:

Quote:Gregg and North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, respectively, have been pushing for the creation of a bipartisan commission that would tackle the looming bankruptcy of the three big entitlement programs -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Conrad told me that he deeply regrets the departure of his partner and does not know where to find a substitute.

But help may be on the way. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the No. 3 man in the Senate Republican leadership, quietly joined the Budget Committee last month. When I asked him why, he said it was to "help move the Gregg-Conrad commission proposal forward."

I'm still prepared to be demagogued on the issue. That's too easy for opponents to score cheap political points.

(02-06-2009 05:51 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  "I haven't seen one single report that shows that significant amounts of any stimulus checks simply went into savings. I've seen reports showing savings have declined, not risen... so this statement doesn't seem likely."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1222/p14s01-wmgn.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SV...gsRate.jpg

Page 7 of:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national...pi1208.pdf

(See especially May and June, when almost all checks were sent out.)

Now, as to partisanship. Obama was watching the Republicans lead the spending-vs-tax cuts debate and realized he had to go more on the offensive to regain some ground. He can't just sit back if he wants to affect the debate. And, despite what some Republicans on the Hill have been saying, he has been talking to them from the start. (Yes, he does need at least a smidgen of the GOP.) If his tone last night in front of a 100% partisan crowd was stronger than it has been, does that completely invalidate what he said during the campaign? The stakes are incredibly high. He can't always pussyfoot.

And I don't see the evidence that he has kowtowed to Pelosi. The House Dems can do what they want, but the filibuster rule and the conference committee will do their thing and pull this bill back from where she wants it. I don't see that Obama had much incentive to go overboard in trying to rein her in.

Let's remember that this is all happening at an unusually rapid pace. Let's also remember that, in fact, there are going to be tax cuts in this package.

The fact that the government sent out checks, and people's income went up that month as a result, but their spending didn't necessarily go up that month doesn't mean that the money went into "savings". This is a textbook definition, and not a practical one. Notice that the savings rate declined VERY quickly to VERY sub-standard levels in the subsequent periods. The net increase in savings, while perhaps off of the floor as a result of the checks, is well below any long-term trendline.... and by now, which is the argument... with millions more people out of work, it is highly unlikely that net national savings are up in 2008 from 2007. Most people I know have dipped into their savings, not added to them.

(02-06-2009 09:54 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(02-06-2009 11:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sloth, I'm not going to go to the trouble of doing the detailed math... and I know you aren't either and aren't asking me to... but I don't believe the economic impact of selling more cars at lower margins without involving the banking system will even come close to replacing the overall economic impact of doing it my way. I threw out a few ideas I don't even really support to allow for some social engineering in the bill... In the simplest of examples... and the most "republican", the combination of subsidies and interest rebates in the pro-forma (before allowing for failed loans etc) would either cost 1/3 of the original bill ($5,000 in subsidies/interest vs $15,000 for the cars) or generate 3 times the sales volume for the same public capital. If Detroit lost 25% of that volume (which implies that non-factory add-ons are at least 25% or more the total cost of the car... remember, they mark up accessories, too) to accessory producers/local installers/dealers (who are ALSO potential constituents) and 60% of the remaining volume to foreign auto makers (though you could certainly be protectionist and only allow the subs for cars where 70% of them are made in the US or whatever) they would STILL be selling more cars to the public than the government... again, not to mention all of the other benefits.

The bolded part of the assumption is the part I don't agree with. And that's because you're rewarding a certain subset of people who were probably going to buy cars anyway. So you're really not getting an added car sale there. Maybe on the periphery, in terms of them spending more on options, or having more cash in the bank account to buy other things they may think they need or want. But I don't think it's a direct 1:1 translation in an increase in car sales. Not that it wouldn't be sold that way to the public.

And not really mundane to the overall conversation (especially the way that it is heading now). And like you, I really don't like the social engineering aspects of the proposal.

I disagree. Tell someone about to buy a 15,000 car they can have it for 12,000... and I bet they buy a few more accessories. Maybe not 3,000 worth, but not nothing... unless they weren't really willing to buy that car for 15,000 in the first place.