Where's the Pork?

[swansont]

This is prompted by a comment in a thread about the stimulus package. I'll paraphrase rather than quote, because I think a direct quote would be out of context, but basically the implication was that there is pork in the stimulus package (and would be worse if it wasn't being opposed by the Republicans)

 

The recent discussions about cutting the NSF out of the package really irked me (not sure how it's playing out), because investing in science research is just that: an investment. It will pay dividends down the road.

 

So I ask, where's the pork? i.e. what's in the stimulus package that won't generate economic growth and/or jobs? (not to imply that I think there's none)

 

I think the insistence on tax cuts is an example of misusing the stimulus, because I don't think that this necessarily gets back into the economy in a way that creates jobs if people use it to pay down debt or are saving it . And if you are out of a job already, how is it going to help, when you aren't currently paying taxes? I'm not convinced that tax cuts are more effective, or even as effective, as direct government spending.

[ParanoiA]

Oh, that's easy. Long term super smart investment is not the point of a stimulus bill - that's the point of a typical budget.

 

That's the contention in all of this. The implied intent of any legislated spending is some kind of wise investment for the future, likely creating jobs and such. I don't think the intent is ever for bad investment that will retard the country, and shrink the economy. So that kind of reasoning misses the point in the stimulus qualifier of the bill. Pushing through non-stimulus spending while USING the "stimulus crisis" is putting one over the tax payer. And that's what making waves.

 

Incidentally, this is also why some of us are against the notion of a stimulus bill. We would oppose things in a stimulus, while supporting them in the annual spending budget.

[swansont]

That's the contention in all of this. The implied intent of any legislated spending is some kind of wise investment for the future, likely creating jobs and such.

 

I don't agree. The reason the government pays for lots of things is not because it creates jobs, or is an investment in the future. I buy a paper clip at work because I need a paper clip, not because I'm worried about the paper clip factory's ability to create new jobs, or because it will have a future payoff.

 

And you didn't answer the question. What, specifically, is non-stimulus in the package?

[ParanoiA]

I don't agree. The reason the government pays for lots of things is not because it creates jobs, or is an investment in the future. I buy a paper clip at work because I need a paper clip, not because I'm worried about the paper clip factory's ability to create new jobs, or because it will have a future payoff.

 

And you didn't answer the question. What, specifically, is non-stimulus in the package?

 

Perhaps I should have distinguished operating costs from proposed spending. We don't usually get a presidential address advocating we start buying paper from Dunder Mifflin.

 

I don't know that there is anything that is non-stimulus in some arguable way in that package - the question is what is not a primer for the metaphorical pump.

 

The electronic medical data base investment is one. That's not going to kickstart the economy. Wise investment? Ideological differences notwithstanding, sure.

 

I could give you a line by line, but it's pretty much going to be the whole spending section of the bill and much of the tax cuts. I like tax cuts, but these don't seem very stimulative. Capital gains would be a better place to cut, but I didn't see any reference to that. The infrastructure spending might be a good one, though. Some of the tax credits are good too, like the ones promoting home purchasing and updating. That would seem to be a crucial one, to get the real estate market going.

 

I guess if you want a more thorough answer than that, I'll have to come back later and do it. But I have a feeling you're looking for what republicans are calling pork, and I'm not sure what particulars they're complaining about.

[bascule]

The electronic medical data base investment is one. That's not going to kickstart the economy. Wise investment? Ideological differences notwithstanding, sure.

 

It will create jobs. How is it not beneficial to the economy?

[ParanoiA]

How many jobs is that going to create that would kickstart the slugish economy bascule? Hundreds of thousands of suddenly working americans? I don't think so.

 

Like I said, all of this is "stimulative" if you're not measuring the length of time taken to get it going. But a stimulus bill is about priming the pump, and medical databases don't do that. The hospital my father works for rolled out this project and it didn't require hiring anyone new, by the way, as he was picked to be part of that team. Of course, that's Columbia and they are profit based. I suppose you could throw efficiency out the window and hire more people than you need. But that would be yet another artificially created bubble that would burst later on - particularly when the database creation is done.

 

If they want to talk about long term investment then they should stop calling it a stimulus bill, or maybe rename it as a long term stimulus bill. Doesn't really matter, I'm never going to support additional spending, no matter how much they use fear. Obama certainly took notes from the Bush administration on that one.

 

Fear the terrorists, fear the economy, only the government can save us, yeah right. Padren had it right when he made the argument that democrats are rolling out the same double standard - suddenly they're on board with deficit spending. It just had to be their kind of fear.

 

 

 

Edit: War employs people too. Why didn't that kickstart anything? It's not just about jobs is it?

Edited February 10, 2009 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

Preserving Terri Schiavo's life would have arguably "benefited the economy" too, by furthering the employment of doctors and nurses and selling more medical supplies and food. Does anyone here feel that that would have been a good thing to include in a stimulus bill? Might we not be debating that very question, had this economy only faltered a couple of years earlier, while Republicans were still in charge? So isn't it pretty hypocritical to debate the inclusion of ideological preferences in a stimulus package?

 

You have to take ideological inclusions out of this -- they simply have no part in this kind of bill. The correct reason for removing the NSF funding from the stimulus package is that it's not what the package is for. All taxpayer-derived spending in a democracy should be debated on its own merits, not ensconced behind the scenes in a bill designed to solve a different problem. Remember: That's also why we hate earmarks.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Pangloss

[padren]

It will create jobs. How is it not beneficial to the economy?

 

Actually, it has the potential to cost jobs, as automation tends to do. It's like saying our auto plants are out of date and need an update, and putting in robots to replace workers - which is a good call in the long run, but not exactly job creation.

 

In this case however, I think the risk for costs to jobs is relatively low as it seems that the current system is already over stressed and people are overworked - the result may just be the same number of people being less overworked, and if they are on salary that isn't going to cost income.

 

It does create a few temporary contracts to get the systems installed, and if the hardware doesn't come from overseas it may increase manufacturing here somewhat, and the long term benefit is one I agree with.

 

 

The real question is if it is one of the most effective job creation/stimulus programs, or one that is wanted that is hoped to "also create some jobs perhaps maybe" - by what margin does it "make the grade" to be worth inclusion into such a costly bill?

The fact is the price tag is massive on this bill, and it is a gamble - if we spend this money and don't get results we are really screwed, so we should be extra critical of everything that goes in. It should just "create jobs" but create the very best jobs and stimulate the economy to the maximal capacity dollar for dollar that it can.

 

That said Obama's strategy is a little wider than straight up economic stimulus, and happens to be one I support: modernization and improving efficiency though the use of stimulus spending.

I think it's a good strategy as it cuts waste and lets us focus future budgets on their intended purposes - paves the way for less government spending in the future. The elements for scientific research and education also address some areas that we have failed in to such a degree that it probably has contributed to the mess we are in now. It's not just priming the pump but trying to make the engine more efficient at the same time.

I find that worth mentioning because if you view the plan solely in terms of immediate economic stimulus some things look like pork, but if you see it as a two element plan that has a high degree of synergy (gag, is there a better word?) it really does make sense from that perspective. It should be argued from that perspective though, as it doesn't stand up well when argued solely from economic stimulus.

[iNow]

And yet, nobody's answered swansonts question. What specifically in this bill IS pork?

[Pangloss]

I reject the characterization that anything removed from the bill is "pork". And my post above directly responds to swansont's question on point. The NSF funding is an example of what needs to be removed, for the reasons I described above.

[padren]

I reject the characterization that anything removed from the bill is "pork". And my post above directly responds to swansont's question on point. The NSF funding is an example of what needs to be removed, for the reasons I described above.

 

But Pangloss, what doesn't have an ideological bent? We may find enough people (due to the fact there are only two main parties in power) that agree on a few ideological factors and thus both support efforts such as road construction, but almost everything is going to be ideological.

 

Even tax breaks - when they're for leaders of industry, it's trickle down Reaganomics, for the working class, it's Keynesian. When it comes to choosing programs the moment you try to get any mileage out of them (do more than just digging holes and filling them to create jobs) by creating jobs that have beneficial secondary effects those benefits are going to be even more contested for ideological reasons. But what's the answer? To not include secondary benefits to maintain ideological neutrality would be criminally inefficient - I'd rather see secondary benefits go straight to faith based groups than see it wasted, regardless of my dislike for faith based groups getting federal funds.

 

So really, what is high yield and ideologically neutral in this package?

[Pangloss]

A better question might be how we can measure and rate the most efficient ways to boost the economy. But we can rely on this information from objective sources instead of ideologically-minded politicians (i.e. all of them). When we do that we establish that we are at least making the effort to objectively attack the economic problem and not some other goal.

 

Let me share with you a portion of an email letter I just received from my Senator, Bill Nelson of Florida (a Democrat).

 

Earlier today, the Senate passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—more commonly referred to as the stimulus bill. It's not a perfect bill, but the government has to do something to get us out of this economic tailspin--doing nothing wasn't an option.

 

As the bill heads to a conference committee, where the final details will be hammered out, I am optimistic that we can hold onto the $1.3 billion included for NASA.

 

Our space program was starved of resources under the previous administration, and we soon will face a gap of five or more years during which we will lack a U.S. vehicle capable of taking our astronauts to and from the International Space Station. As a result, we will have no choice but to pay Russia for seats on their spacecraft - even as we lay off thousands of U.S. aerospace workers across the country.

 

He starts out talking about the government "has to do something to get out of the economic tailspin". Then he goes right into a justification for spending based on an argument that has nothing to do with the economy. Clearly he's justifying the inclusion of an ideological preference in spending for reasons that have nothing to do with economics. He actually comes right out and says it!

 

Am I really the only one who sees the pitfall here?

 

Terri Schiavo!

Terri Schiavo!

Terri Schiavo!

Terri Schiavo!

Terri Schiavo!

 

Hello!

[padren]

A better question might be how we can measure and rate the most efficient ways to boost the economy. But we can rely on this information from objective sources instead of ideologically-minded politicians (i.e. all of them). When we do that we establish that we are at least making the effort to objectively attack the economic problem and not some other goal.

 

I agree completely - it's why I started the thread to discuss to rate the most efficient ways to boost the economy objectively instead of ideologically-minded politicians.

 

I also agree with you on the NASA spending comment from that letter. If he has said (with something to back it up) that the NASA funding would produce a high bang for our buck while helping the ailing agency, then I'd laud him for it.

 

I can see the future problems of throwing money at Russia to get to the space station instead of spending here being one of economics, but not one regarding immediate relief.

I am not convinced that spending that money on NASA won't be better at boosting the economy than road building or tax relief - I don't know enough about how it rates against those projects to know, and I wish more people were talking about it.

 

Regarding Terri Schiavo other than the one caveat that it would be immoral to pass a bill that kept her plugged in or unplugged her for the sake of the economy - if it fixed the economy and had a much higher return on investment than any other funding in the Bill, I'd say go for it. If we find we don't want to be so far right or so far left after the stimulus has stabilized the economy, we can deal with that then. We should of course be aware of radical plans (slavery would boost the economy, but have a huge social impact) that have impacts outside of their stimulus effect, but if they simply edge us a little left or right then we should focus on the bang per buck - and not get too concerned with ensuring the plan doesn't shift us at all left or right at the cost of bang per buck.

[swansont]

A better question might be how we can measure and rate the most efficient ways to boost the economy. But we can rely on this information from objective sources instead of ideologically-minded politicians (i.e. all of them). When we do that we establish that we are at least making the effort to objectively attack the economic problem and not some other goal.

 

Let me share with you a portion of an email letter I just received from my Senator, Bill Nelson of Florida (a Democrat).

 

 

 

He starts out talking about the government "has to do something to get out of the economic tailspin". Then he goes right into a justification for spending based on an argument that has nothing to do with the economy. Clearly he's justifying the inclusion of an ideological preference in spending for reasons that have nothing to do with economics. He actually comes right out and says it!

 

What part of "we will have no choice but to pay Russia for seats on their spacecraft - even as we lay off thousands of U.S. aerospace workers across the country" (emphasis added) has "nothing to do with the economy"?

 

And what part of "let's fund science" is ideological?

[Pangloss]

And what part of "let's fund science" is ideological?

 

The part that specifies NSF (or NASA in my example) and rationalizes that spending on the basis of whether or not it's a good idea to fund science, instead of whether or not it helps to bail out the economy.

 

I'm using the word for the sake of convenience, here, just to point out that it's not a decision based on economics, but rather on science. Of course, bailing out the economy is also an ideological decision, so perhaps a better way to phrase it would be "other ideological spending". But the point remains that this if this spending is not the most efficient way to boost economy then its inclusion in this bill represents a lie.

 

 

What part of "we will have no choice but to pay Russia for seats on their spacecraft - even as we lay off thousands of U.S. aerospace workers across the country" (emphasis added) has "nothing to do with the economy"?

 

Boy you just soaked that right up as if it actually made sense, didn't you? Did you stop to realize that he's talking about two completely different things there? He's not talking about NASA layoffs -- NASA's budget hasn't been cut -- this would be NEW spending on NASA. He's actually drawing some kind of vague reference to corporate layoffs which may or may not happen, for reasons that have nothing to do with this spending bill even if we were to throw in billions more for NASA.

 

Simply put, NASA has a budget. It has a plan to use existing infrastructure and personnel to build a new launch system after the shuttle retires next year. It doesn't need thousands of new workers -- they would have nothing to do. So for him to suggest that we throw a ton of additional money at NASA makes no sense whatsoever. What would a former Boeing factory worker do after moving his family to Florida? Clean the launch pad?

 

So yes, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Bill Nelson represents the "space coast" -- of COURSE he wants more money thrown at NASA. Sure! Why, surely they'll find something to do with it! And if the economy benefits, great, if not, whatever -- at least I get re-elected! Oh, you wanted efficiency? Well, why didn't you say so? Oh, you did? Oh well, too bad for you!

 

 

Answer my question about whether you'd like it if Republicans used stimulus money to keep a Terri Schiavo alive. It answers all of your questions perfectly.

[ecoli]

@swansont - you may be able to create jobs, but what happens when you have to pay that money back... how many jobs will be lost? Will industries re-inflated by the new deficit spending last long enough to provide long term employment?

 

Also, stimulating the economy may create jobs, but there's no guarantee that those jobs will be filled by the already unemployed.

[padren]

@swansont - you may be able to create jobs, but what happens when you have to pay that money back... how many jobs will be lost? Will industries re-inflated by the new deficit spending last long enough to provide long term employment?

 

Also, stimulating the economy may create jobs, but there's no guarantee that those jobs will be filled by the already unemployed.

 

I believe the consensus in Washington is that the current industries have been shrunk to below where they'd be otherwise due to a huge lack of confidence and lack of credit, and kick starting the economy is supposed cause a resurgence back steady levels, at which point the industries themselves will be paying these new employees, not the government funds.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The part that specifies NSF (or NASA in my example) and rationalizes that spending on the basis of whether or not it's a good idea to fund science, instead of whether or not it helps to bail out the economy.

Based on what analysis do you find NSF/NASA funding to give poor economic returns? We can't call it bad simply because it has an ideological basis and may not help much with bailing out the economy - we call it bad if it is bad at helping bail out the economy. And to be clear it takes more than "greater than zero" benefit to qualify as "good" for the bail out, it has to be competitively good relative to the top programs.

 

 

Maybe I am just not understanding what makes "good" bailout sense economically - what programs do you feel excel at economic stimulus and what makes them excel?

 

If I understand the standard you are using I may understand your dissatisfaction of these programs better.

 

Boy you just soaked that right up as if it actually made sense, didn't you? Did you stop to realize that he's talking about two completely different things there? He's not talking about NASA layoffs -- NASA's budget hasn't been cut -- this would be NEW spending on NASA. He's actually drawing some kind of vague reference to corporate layoffs which may or may not happen, for reasons that have nothing to do with this spending bill even if we were to throw in billions more for NASA.

 

Simply put, NASA has a budget. It has a plan to use existing infrastructure and personnel to build a new launch system after the shuttle retires next year. It doesn't need thousands of new workers -- they would have nothing to do. So for him to suggest that we throw a ton of additional money at NASA makes no sense whatsoever. What would a former Boeing factory worker do after moving his family to Florida? Clean the launch pad?

I don't know enough about the layoffs to comment on them, but wouldn't most of that money going to NASA be spent by NASA to contractors of established aerospace companies?

 

Wouldn't it help those companies keep their employees through this rough patch so they still have jobs when we come out on the other side of the recession?

I am not saying that in itself makes for well spent funds, but it's hardly as flawed as forcing all these people to move to Florida and dropping them shortly after.

 

So yes, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Bill Nelson represents the "space coast" -- of COURSE he wants more money thrown at NASA. Sure! Why, surely they'll find something to do with it! And if the economy benefits, great, if not, whatever -- at least I get re-elected! Oh, you wanted efficiency? Well, why didn't you say so? Oh, you did? Oh well, too bad for you!

[/b]

 

I may just have an unrealistic amount of optimism, did they just write a number next to the title NASA and say "That could help!" or did they see if NASA was in a position to create jobs, had projects they were sitting on, and assessed the amount of money to get the best of those put to action?

 

I was under the impression there was a little more research going into this - but I could be wrong. I would like to see from what information you drew your conclusions, as it's information I've been wanting to find but I haven't been having a lot of luck.

[ecoli]

I believe the consensus in Washington is that the current industries have been shrunk to below where they'd be otherwise due to a huge lack of confidence and lack of credit, and kick starting the economy is supposed cause a resurgence back steady levels, at which point the industries themselves will be paying these new employees, not the government funds.

 

i know that's the consensus, but i'm talking about reality here. In reality, though, consumer demand couldn't support the housing market during the bubble, because it was being supported on personal debt and subprime mortgages. Now the gov't. wants to return to the bubble conditions sponsored by public debt rather than private debt.

 

How do we expect the government to prop up demand for housing by creating more debt? If people couldn't pay their bills when times where good, why would they able to when times are bad (even with government help, keeping in mind that we have to pay for these things eventually, or devalue the currency by printing our debts away).

[padren]

i know that's the consensus, but i'm talking about reality here. In reality, though, consumer demand couldn't support the housing market during the bubble, because it was being supported on personal debt and subprime mortgages. Now the gov't. wants to return to the bubble conditions sponsored by public debt rather than private debt.

 

How do we expect the government to prop up demand for housing by creating more debt? If people couldn't pay their bills when times where good, why would they able to when times are bad (even with government help, keeping in mind that we have to pay for these things eventually, or devalue the currency by printing our debts away).

 

I do agree with you on the housing market, though I am not sure the plan is to return to the bubble's height, just correct for the extra dip taken immediately after.

I also agree that freeing up money to lend by banks doesn't help when those that would borrow it are too overextended to borrow. I don't know the housing market well enough to speak on it too much, but if part of the problem is people who could normally buy are unable to now (who did not buy during the subprime fiasco) due to bank reluctance, then helping them buy houses with reasonable mortgage terms will reduce the number of vacant houses on the market, and help it rebound to normal (non bubble) levels.

 

This stimulus package is about mostly spending power and jobs though, not housing. It was kicked off by the housing bubble bursting, but it's gone a lot farther than that and could continue to - hence we are trying to prevent that and get more people back to work. The consensus I was referring to is that regarding the economic situation regarding general industry, not housing.

[swansont]

The part that specifies NSF (or NASA in my example) and rationalizes that spending on the basis of whether or not it's a good idea to fund science, instead of whether or not it helps to bail out the economy.

 

I'm using the word for the sake of convenience, here, just to point out that it's not a decision based on economics, but rather on science. Of course, bailing out the economy is also an ideological decision, so perhaps a better way to phrase it would be "other ideological spending". But the point remains that this if this spending is not the most efficient way to boost economy then its inclusion in this bill represents a lie.

 

 

It sounds to me like your beef is that the government is compartmentalized. We shouldn't fund department X (or XXX, in the case of NSF), because they do a specific job. But the justification for boosting science funding does have an economic basis, since discoveries from research are the basis of future technologies and products. That's why it's a good idea to fund science in the stimulus package.

 

 

Boy you just soaked that right up as if it actually made sense, didn't you? Did you stop to realize that he's talking about two completely different things there? He's not talking about NASA layoffs -- NASA's budget hasn't been cut -- this would be NEW spending on NASA. He's actually drawing some kind of vague reference to corporate layoffs which may or may not happen, for reasons that have nothing to do with this spending bill even if we were to throw in billions more for NASA.

 

Simply put, NASA has a budget. It has a plan to use existing infrastructure and personnel to build a new launch system after the shuttle retires next year. It doesn't need thousands of new workers -- they would have nothing to do. So for him to suggest that we throw a ton of additional money at NASA makes no sense whatsoever. What would a former Boeing factory worker do after moving his family to Florida? Clean the launch pad?

 

So yes, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Bill Nelson represents the "space coast" -- of COURSE he wants more money thrown at NASA. Sure! Why, surely they'll find something to do with it! And if the economy benefits, great, if not, whatever -- at least I get re-elected! Oh, you wanted efficiency? Well, why didn't you say so? Oh, you did? Oh well, too bad for you!

 

So it's that Bill Nelson is touting this part of the package that bugs you?

 

I still don't see how you've made the case that extra spending by NASA won't help create jobs in the aerospace industry, and it's only your conjecture that the money would be spent inefficiently.

 

 

Answer my question about whether you'd like it if Republicans used stimulus money to keep a Terri Schiavo alive. It answers all of your questions perfectly.

 

No, I will not. It's a strawman argument. The Terri Schiavo case was never about spending,. This is not within the scope of the OP, which asked what was in the stimulus package would you characterize as pork.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

@swansont - you may be able to create jobs, but what happens when you have to pay that money back... how many jobs will be lost? Will industries re-inflated by the new deficit spending last long enough to provide long term employment?

 

Also, stimulating the economy may create jobs, but there's no guarantee that those jobs will be filled by the already unemployed.

 

This is an argument about whether the stimulus package is a good idea, and that's not the topic I raised. That's being discussed elsewhere.

[Pangloss]

Based on what analysis do you find NSF/NASA funding to give poor economic returns?

 

You're putting the cart before the horse. The correct question is on what analysis does Congress find NSF/NASA funding to give optimal economic returns. The answer to that question is none, because the funding was not included for the purpose of optimal economic returns.

 

We can't call it bad simply because it has an ideological basis and may not help much with bailing out the economy

 

Then you would approve if Republicans were in charge and included Terri Schiavo's life support, and criticize anybody opposed because they have no analysis indicating that it doesn't help the economy. Got it.

 

You can meander your way through all the grey areas of relative measurement you want, but the fact remains that these NSF and NASA inclusions were included to purchase political support, not to help the economy.

 

 

But the justification for boosting science funding does have an economic basis, since discoveries from research are the basis of future technologies and products. That's why it's a good idea to fund science in the stimulus package.

 

I agree with the value of science spending, but my point is that it's irrelevant to the purpose of this emergency, unplanned and extreme spending.

 

I say again to you that if Republicans were making these decisions we'd be including another Terri Schiavo, and you would have a problem with that even if the economic benefit were somehow comparable. That makes your support for this NSF funding ideological, not economic.

 

If we start to think the way you suggest, that this is all about funding the right programs and paying for good things, when in fact this spending has no basis in collected or even projected revenue, it will mean the complete and utter end of what tiny vestage of fiscally responsible governance remains in this country.

 

It's amazing to me that people have forgotten the purpose of this bill just because their favorite program suddenly gets an increase. What's going to happen next year when these programs have gone and spent all this money and suddenly have to deal with a massive spending shortfall? Pay them again? And again? And again?

 

 

The Terri Schiavo case was never about spending,.

 

Neither is NASA nor the NSF. They're about benefitting mankind through science.

 

 

So it's that Bill Nelson is touting this part of the package that bugs you?

 

It sounds to me like your beef is that the government is compartmentalized.

 

Please stick to what I actually write, instead of making up my opinion for me. Thanks.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Pangloss

[npts2020]

A few posts ago someone asked about pork in the bailout. Unfortunately, I think the most pork is in the very area that will also create the most jobs, transportation. We are going to spend hundreds of billions (I'm sure trillions over the next decade) of dollars trying to prop up both mass transit and an antiquated highway system and likely devote to little for either. We need to combine the two systems, automate them, and power them from renewable sources. IMO there is little the government can do in the short term that will help in the long term other than create conditions for future economic stability. At present there is no way to get around instability as long as the pipelines we use for energy and other raw materials are insecure from political strife, sabotage, exhaustion, manipulation etc. Seeing as our transportation system is one of the biggest consumers of resources in the world, automation and powering with wind and solar energy would go a long way toward addressing this problem. Just my two cents.

BTW I see nothing that is any more "pork" in this bill than was "pork" in the previous bailout bill..........why can't I get this bacon smell off my fingers?....

[The Bear's Key]

...emergency, unplanned and extreme spending.

 

.....

 

What's going to happen next year when these programs have gone and spent all this money and suddenly have to deal with a massive spending shortfall? Pay them again? And again? And again?

An interesting but kind of scary thought, which no one is really speaking about: bin laden's former promise to bleed the U.S. economy might be seen as coming true by any nations/leaders hoping for such an outcome.

 

Not to derail the thread or anything, just offering something to think about.

[swansont]

Please stick to what I actually write, instead of making up my opinion for me. Thanks.

 

Making up your opinion? It was a question. How might one know that? Because it had frikkin' question mark after it!

 

But that's OK. Don't clarify your position for me. I give up. I can't have a discussion with you,. I asked a straightforward question, and I'm sick of you hijacking the thread with the Terri Schiavo crap. I don't intend to respond to anything more here.

[iNow]

A co-worker of mine mentioned today something about the bill containing a provision to increase payments to Vietnam vets who are right now living in Indonesia. He mentioned that it was a huge amount, like $500M.

 

Can anyone substantiate this, or direct me to the truth that created his (likely skewed) perception?

 

I can't find it anywhere, but if it's true, that's a huge piece of pork that I have a very hard time justifying as part of our stimulus efforts.