Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Don't forget the disturbingly protectionist, "Buy American" provisions:Let's hope that gets let on the cutting room floor in the final version of the bill.
I thought Obama wanted to redo FDR's approach, not that of Hoover?Don't forget the disturbingly protectionist, "Buy American" provisions:Let's hope that gets let on the cutting room floor in the final version of the bill.
The abominable snowjob bill just passed the Senate, 61 to 37. Three Republicans voted for it; Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (both from Maine) and Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania).
Originally Posted by Spino:
The abominable snowjob bill just passed the Senate, 61 to 37. Three Republicans voted for it; Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (both from Maine) and Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania).
I think Maine gets the highest return on the stimulus bill, in terms of money in-money out. Good for them. Senators represent their states, not their national party. The abominable snowjob bill just passed the Senate, 61 to 37. Three Republicans voted for it; Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (both from Maine) and Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania).
As for Specter, I think the time has come to refuse him the right to caucus with with the party. He's more loyal to the Democatic party, and has been for at least the past decade, than at least half the Democratic senate caucus. If he's unwilling to make the letter change (R-> D), perhaps Senator McConnell should do it for him.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
As for Specter, I think the time has come to refuse him the right to caucus with with the party. He's more loyal to the Democatic party, and has been for at least the past decade, than at least half the Democratic senate caucus. If he's unwilling to make the letter change (R-> D), perhaps Senator McConnell should do it for him.
For what it's worth, here is Specter's justification for his vote.As for Specter, I think the time has come to refuse him the right to caucus with with the party. He's more loyal to the Democatic party, and has been for at least the past decade, than at least half the Democratic senate caucus. If he's unwilling to make the letter change (R-> D), perhaps Senator McConnell should do it for him.
I'm still a little surprised that the bill is almost $20B more than the House's version, I would have thought the opposition could have carved out a little more of the pork. So if the House approves $819B, and the Senate approves $838B, any bets on the final bill? I'm guessing a nice compromise at $850B.
Can we call it a spending package instead of a stimulus package? I would like to have the people who are robbing me to at lease be honest. I will put up with a liar or a thief but not both.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Can we call it a spending package instead of a stimulus package? I would like to have the people who are robbing me to at lease be honest. I will put up with a liar or a thief but not both.
How about if we call it the Health Care reform and government oversight of your your health care bill?Can we call it a spending package instead of a stimulus package? I would like to have the people who are robbing me to at lease be honest. I will put up with a liar or a thief but not both.
Originally Posted by :
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
How about if we call it the Health Care reform and government oversight of your your health care bill?
A-hem.How about if we call it the Health Care reform and government oversight of your your health care bill?
Clearly, LD knows no political boundaries.
CR
Originally Posted by drone:
For what it's worth, here is Specter's justification for his vote.
I'm still a little surprised that the bill is almost $20B more than the House's version, I would have thought the opposition could have carved out a little more of the pork. So if the House approves $819B, and the Senate approves $838B, any bets on the final bill? I'm guessing a nice compromise at $850B.
Actually, CBO figures suggest that a final tag for the House bill would be nearer $1.3T, whereas the Senat's will finish closer to $1.0T. However, I would not bet against the Conference process jacking it up a good bit. The three GOP Senators not only have to be less than pleased about the conference bill, but less than pleased enough to stage a unanimous filibuster effort with the rest of the GOP -- a tougher bet.For what it's worth, here is Specter's justification for his vote.
I'm still a little surprised that the bill is almost $20B more than the House's version, I would have thought the opposition could have carved out a little more of the pork. So if the House approves $819B, and the Senate approves $838B, any bets on the final bill? I'm guessing a nice compromise at $850B.
I guess that's what I get for looking at the fully spun press releases instead of the CBO. 
One ray of responsibility sunshine, the House leadership has decided to move forward with a bill to suspend their COLA raises for 2010. Tightening of the belt perhaps?
One ray of responsibility sunshine, the House leadership has decided to move forward with a bill to suspend their COLA raises for 2010. Tightening of the belt perhaps?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
God forbid that that should happen! Anyone familiar with the algorithm they use to determine the adjustment?
The Economist has also chimed in on the 'Buy American' provision in the stimulus. (They don't like it.)
Originally Posted by :
Once again, the task of saving the world economy falls to America. Mr Obama must show that he is ready for it. If he is, he should kill any “Buy American” provisions. If he isn’t, America and the rest of the world are in deep trouble.
Once again, the task of saving the world economy falls to America. Mr Obama must show that he is ready for it. If he is, he should kill any “Buy American” provisions. If he isn’t, America and the rest of the world are in deep trouble.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
I thought Obama wanted to redo FDR's approach, not that of Hoover?
It appears this is more of the House's work(not surprising given who leads it :I thought Obama wanted to redo FDR's approach, not that of Hoover?
). However, I really wish Obama would make a more concerted effort to nix this thing in the bud. I really can't stand these "buy *insert country*" things.How about, when you talk of final costs, you factor in the interest that needs to be paid until the resulting national debt has been paid off?
I think almost every economist agree's protectionism is bad... but when did something like expert opinion ever bother politicians...
One of National Review's (and the CATO Institutes') pet economists gets busted.
“I think about the stimulus as an economist but I feel it as a father. Barack Obama is destroying my daughter's future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs. That’s how I feel, now back to how I think.” [...]
Now, my first reaction was to sneer at the NRO blogger who, after 8 years of tax cut induced deficits that managed to double the national debt, has suddenly experienced a Damascene conversion and now believes that deficits are, indeed bad. I was going to post a note to that effect on this blog, but point out that as far as this fellow Arnold Kling is concerned, I just don't know enough about him to say whether or not he too is a convenient convert to the religion of balanced budgets.
But then I did a little googling and stumbled upon this gem on arnoldkling.com:
[...] "In conclusion, I believe that a large, temporary revenue-sharing program would be a good approach for fighting a recession. This form of fiscal stimulus would quickly find its way into the economy. Unfortunately, I suspect that there is little chance of any Keynes getting through to Bush."
So this CATO Institute economist who depicts Barack Obama's simulus plan as akin to a gang of thugs ransacking his house, and who worries for his daughter's future, is the same guy who back in 2000 was urging Bush to go on a Keynsian spending spree?
Now, my first reaction was to sneer at the NRO blogger who, after 8 years of tax cut induced deficits that managed to double the national debt, has suddenly experienced a Damascene conversion and now believes that deficits are, indeed bad. I was going to post a note to that effect on this blog, but point out that as far as this fellow Arnold Kling is concerned, I just don't know enough about him to say whether or not he too is a convenient convert to the religion of balanced budgets.
But then I did a little googling and stumbled upon this gem on arnoldkling.com:
[...] "In conclusion, I believe that a large, temporary revenue-sharing program would be a good approach for fighting a recession. This form of fiscal stimulus would quickly find its way into the economy. Unfortunately, I suspect that there is little chance of any Keynes getting through to Bush."
So this CATO Institute economist who depicts Barack Obama's simulus plan as akin to a gang of thugs ransacking his house, and who worries for his daughter's future, is the same guy who back in 2000 was urging Bush to go on a Keynsian spending spree?
Originally Posted by Lemur:
One of National Review's (and the CATO Institutes') pet economists gets busted.
Hmm, its not quite so simple. The economist said;One of National Review's (and the CATO Institutes') pet economists gets busted.
Originally Posted by :
Kling says this is a big bill, but not a big stimulus. There is nothing timely, targeted, or temporary about it. It is a simple transfer of money from one set of people to favored interest groups of the Democratic Party.
Which is a very good point; the bill is not what even a Keynesian economist would find ideal - it has long term spending, a whole bunch of pork ($300MM for green golf carts!), etc.Kling says this is a big bill, but not a big stimulus. There is nothing timely, targeted, or temporary about it. It is a simple transfer of money from one set of people to favored interest groups of the Democratic Party.
So wanting Keynesian spending back in 2000 and not liking this bill because it adds a huge debt and isn't that keynesian isn't hypocritical.
CR
Judd Gregg;
Jeanne Shaheen;
Paul Hodes;
and Carol Shea-Porter
are teh SUCK as a congressional delegation.
. Utter I mean, they have their head up their . They really, really suck. They're so inept and lazy, it should be criminal. We should impeach all 4 of them. 
Want to know what portion of the ~$1 Trillion, that's trillion with a "T" is going to New Hampshire? 10 billion? 1 billion? 100 million? Try ZERO!!! John Lynch announced that he had requested 300 million in state medicaid/medicare payments as part of the stimulus, and 200million in infrastructure improvements. I'm not certain, but I believe both technically are unfunded mandates, so it's not like Congress didn't force NH to spend the money in the first place. And this morning, on the news, I heard that Lynch will not be entering any federal stimulus money into the expected revenue, as none of what he requested was approved. NONE!
I can understand Gregg, being out in the wilderness, not being able to represent... but our Democrats are so abysmal at representing our state, it's criminal. Snowe and Collins, who represent Maine of all places, are bringing home about 15billion. NH? Not one penny. ARRRRGGGGGH!!!!! (I'm having a Howard Dean moment...)
Jeanne Shaheen;
Paul Hodes;
and Carol Shea-Porter
are teh SUCK as a congressional delegation.
. Utter I mean, they have their head up their . They really, really suck. They're so inept and lazy, it should be criminal. We should impeach all 4 of them. Want to know what portion of the ~$1 Trillion, that's trillion with a "T" is going to New Hampshire? 10 billion? 1 billion? 100 million? Try ZERO!!! John Lynch announced that he had requested 300 million in state medicaid/medicare payments as part of the stimulus, and 200million in infrastructure improvements. I'm not certain, but I believe both technically are unfunded mandates, so it's not like Congress didn't force NH to spend the money in the first place. And this morning, on the news, I heard that Lynch will not be entering any federal stimulus money into the expected revenue, as none of what he requested was approved. NONE!
I can understand Gregg, being out in the wilderness, not being able to represent... but our Democrats are so abysmal at representing our state, it's criminal. Snowe and Collins, who represent Maine of all places, are bringing home about 15billion. NH? Not one
penny. ARRRRGGGGGH!!!!! (I'm having a Howard Dean moment...)Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
Judd Gregg;
Jeanne Shaheen;
Paul Hodes;
and Carol Shea-Porter
are teh SUCK as a congressional delegation.. Utter I mean, they have their head up their . They really, really suck. They're so inept and lazy, it should be criminal. We should impeach all 4 of them.
...specifics.... ARRRRGGGGGH!!!!! (I'm having a Howard Dean moment...)
Judd Gregg;
Jeanne Shaheen;
Paul Hodes;
and Carol Shea-Porter
are teh SUCK as a congressional delegation.
. Utter I mean, they have their head up their . They really, really suck. They're so inept and lazy, it should be criminal. We should impeach all 4 of them. ...specifics.... ARRRRGGGGGH!!!!!
(I'm having a Howard Dean moment...)Stop sugar-coating things Don, tell us what your really feel.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO