Is the Stimulus package even worth it anymore?

[aerius]

I'm against all stimulus packages unless the entire financial system is crammed down and cleaned up at the same time. Otherwise the best case scenario is zombie banks and a lost decade or 2 as with Japan in the 90's, and worst case is a Greater Depression which makes the 30's look rosy. You can stimulate your way out of a recession, you can't do so out of a systemic failure.

[Yogi]

Well, this bill is primarily a short term solution. Unless Americans start saving money, balance the budget and start paying off loans, cut back their lifestyle and start investing in the future, it's really only going to put off an evben bigger crash in the future, where no one will lend to America.

Those of us who know what the average American is like can guess the possibility of that happening.

[SirNitram]

I'm afraid you'll have to quote, you know, anything I said pegging you as supporting the TARP. I am adding a dose of perspective. Otherwise, put down the strawman argument and back away slowly.

It was just in response to the idea that there has been more thought put into this than the TARP program, as I am summarizing from your previous post. TARP was a massive clusterfuck and this bill has hardly had much more time to run around Congress than TARP did. At least TARP was successfully defeated and had to make another round, and even then, we know how great that ended up working for all of us.

Since your argument is 'Not enough time', when can I expect quantification of 'enough time'?

Different group of people organizing it would be a solid reason. Unless we're going to simply generalize about all politicians. Particularly since the Stimulus has text to apply requirements on groups that already took TARP money. The 2007-2008 Congress is not, in fact, the 2009-2010 Congress.

Last time I checked the same people are still in charge of the Senate and the House. Could have sworn that was the case. Sure the Dems in the Senate are closer to a philibuster proof majority, but it simply means they need to make less concessions to get their version through. The same people and party that came up with that wonderful TARP bill are the architects of this current Stimulus bill. They are also the same people that are claiming the world will OMGCOLLAPSE if it doesn't get passed THIS FUCKING INSTANT!!!

Which is why we're still sitting through the 30 hour requirement since yesterday's cloture vote, and Washington is in flames.. Oh wait..

You're right, though. There's less compromises this time. They don't have to throw out the Sanders requirements that were laughed out last September. They're.. In the bill. No Republican made an effort to remove it.

They don't have to compromise to curb H1-B visaholders taking over the jobs of TARP funded firms.

You know, shit that actually happened, not whatever you're imagining.

So the new stimulus bill has retroactive elements to the bill they previously fucked up? Super great, I guess they get a pass for their initial fuck up then. Does it remove the cluase that says the Treasury Secretary has full and total control over how the TARP funds are spent so that we can finally get some visibility on the last few hundred billion before it disappears down the drain?

That was removed in the first go around by the Dems(That clause was only from Bush's man Paulson), but of course, the Bush Administration enacted some backdoor methods to avoid it anyway, probably illegally. But this is clearly the fault of the other party, who instituted the oversight that the Administration just stonewalled, of course.

Exactly how much do you know about what you're debating here? You're apparently confusing Paulson's three pages with the bill that actually passed last Congress, you throw around statements with no logical path to what you seem to be rebutting, and your argument is on 'not enough time' without giving a hint on what's acceptable.

Re: Corporate Tax Cuts: Actually, they're only present in the current bill because the Dems have compromised.. And, very pointedly, they go into effect quickly. And perhaps, since you're asserting they'll 'recoup' the cost eventually, you could produce evidence. Or a study.

In case that's too much work, meeting the burden of proof, we could consult the CBO. Link Oh look, they characterize your beloved corporate rate cut as small cost effectiveness. And they don't even improve our roads, power grid, etc for the trouble.

[The Original Nex]

This may be old news here, but I just saw this C-SPAN interview with Rep. Kanjorski on just how close we were in Sept. to total economic collapse. The real fun begins around 2:10:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INAGMSARPYw

[The Romulan Republic]

If only Obama would take away from this the message that being "bipartisan" in the eyes of the modern GOP means taking it up the ass, plain and simple.

Bipartisan cooperation is a fine ideal, but its meaningless when your opponent will hypocritically block everything you do to score political points, or fanatically cling to their ideology.

Or we can look at it from another angle. The infrastructure re-building is a bipartisan policies to begin with, one that will benefit everyone regardless of them being conservative or liberal.

Obama can simply states that my policies are bipartisan to began with, its the Republicans that are not being bipartisan. A lot of people seems to think that being bipartisan means pandering towards the GOP, when in actual fact, it works another way round.

I think my point was more that he needs to stop trying to look bipartisan to the GOP. Who will demand serious concessions, and then stab him in the back anyways.