Axis Mundi X discussion

30 views
In a word, I'm: Disgusted

Comments Showing 1-20 of 20 (20 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 2: by Charissa, That's Ms. Obnoxious Twat to You. (new)

Charissa (dakinigrl) | 3620 comments Mod
why does the EPA get 20 million and veterans only get 1 million? I really don't think that's enough to cover health care for all the vets returning from Iraq. I think we can spare a little from the EPA for mental health.


Servius  Heiner  | 1980 comments Mod
Why are either one of those included in a "economic stimulus" package? It seems to me that this is nothing more then a standard appropriations bill.

I made the mistake of printing it out... glad I am at work I would have hated to pay for the ink, 258 pages.


message 4: by Charissa, That's Ms. Obnoxious Twat to You. (new)

Charissa (dakinigrl) | 3620 comments Mod
I guess they felt that they had no other device on hand with which to distribute the money. So it went into the system that already exists, with the caveat that it be spent within a certain amount of time.

Looks like a massive cluster fuck from here. I can smell the corruption already creeping up from the sewers.


Servius  Heiner  | 1980 comments Mod
http://www.recovery.gov/

just something to keep an eye on in the coming weeks.


message 6: by Charissa, That's Ms. Obnoxious Twat to You. (new)

Charissa (dakinigrl) | 3620 comments Mod
Thanks Nick. Great link.


Servius  Heiner  | 1980 comments Mod
American recovery and reinvestment act of 2009:
“Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and state and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2009 and for other purposes.” End quote.


Department of:


Veteran’s affairs; 1,000,000 LABOR; 6,000,000 Agriculture; 22,500,000 Commerce; 10,000,000 Defense; 15,000,000 Education; 14,000,000
Energy; 15,000,000 Health and human services; 19,000,000
Homeland security; 2,000,000 Housing and urban development; 15,000,000 Interior; 15,000,000 Justice; 2,000,000 Transportation; 20,000,000 EPA; 20,000,000 General services Administration; 15,000,000

The kick in the ass… this isn’t even for anything tangible the above moneys are going to offices that all ready exist to do the jobs they are already doing…? WTF Donald duck. And why such an unbalance in the appropriations of funds? Is there anyone in this country that thinks the VA runs smoothly? Is that 15 million to the DOD going to create a job?


Sorry folks I just don’t understand why everyone is silent on this (Not just here on GR but everywhere, sure a few talking heads are bobbling about it but come on this is huge, deceitful, and complete bullshit.

There is 18.7 billion earmarked for sub prime loan insurance. Isn’t that how this snow ball started?

2.8 billion to bring wifi to rural areas (only if the project can be completed with the funds provided, and “provided further” (a term used a lot in the bill) that the area receiving moneys has less then 75% broadband access. I think this is an issue for private companies not the government.

There is a little silver lining in here, for folks with children that loose their jobs, 154.5 million per year (09’ and 10’) for after school feeding program for “at-risk” children. I think it is telling that they believe so much money will be needed; things are going to get bad.

For the most part this “stimulus package” doesn’t seem to address issues, or focus on anything, it is too scattered to have any meaningful affect. IMO



message 8: by Charissa, That's Ms. Obnoxious Twat to You. (new)

Charissa (dakinigrl) | 3620 comments Mod
Just to play devils advocate for a second, I always try and remember that money always goes to a person. The money spent on a bomber isn't sitting in a big pile next to that bomber, it went to the people who built it, designed it, and marketed it.

The money will go to people... which will create jobs (theoretically). But there is nothing built into this program that insures that it will create jobs. It didn't create a program which immediately hired thousands of people to accomplish something.

In my opinion the way to structure this would be to make a list of the things which would add value to our society as a whole, making us better off down the road. Tangible things. Here is a list I can think of which would improve the country as a whole:

1) Infrastructure (immediately creates construction jobs, needs to be done badly)

2) Education (immediately create more teaching positions, build more schools to reduce class size, improve schools across the country that are in disrepair or need more class rooms, upgrade technology in the schools for upper grades, invest in recruiting and educating math and science teachers, add the arts back into all the schools)

3) Environment - undertake the clean-up of the rest of the Superfund sites which have been languishing, left in their polluted states. Invest in flood abatement in needed areas, calling on new technologies.

4) (my daughter's suggestion) Build eco-friendly cars, eco-friendly buildings, more wind turbines, community gardens in cities, plant trees, put solar panels on government buildings.

Anyone got any suggestions?


message 9: by Not Bill (new)

Not Bill | 1062 comments Just to update KDs #8, it's not so much Obama raping the US, but Pelosi and Reid as they were the authors of the bill. Obama pretty much gave them a spending cap of approximately 850 Billion and the the rest was up to congress. So yes, Obama is somewhat to blame for allowing this to happen, but the Dems in congress are the real architects of this massive shit sandwich.


Servius  Heiner  | 1980 comments Mod
With this beauricratic expansion package I thought Obama might throw a curve ball and veto it... but now I hear he is going to sign it in Denver... denver really? I just don't see any feasible way for this to end well. The hole thing is like a sprung shot gun barrel. The shot is scattered all over the place, too dispersed to kill or injure anything, just pissing it off a whole lot. Just what we need an angry bleeding economy monster storming around the country side eating small children and sharpening it's claws on the elderly.


message 11: by Not Bill (new)

Not Bill | 1062 comments Obama's signing in Denver is pure politcal theater - a spectacle aimed at cementing Dem power in that state.


message 12: by trivialchemy (last edited Feb 17, 2009 11:48AM) (new)

trivialchemy It's a fairly scatterbrained bill, to be sure, but complaining about appropriations to the various departments Nick lists above is absurd. Those are appropriations for the departments' activities as inspectors general "for oversight and audit of programs, grants, and projects funded under th[e:] Act."

And please do the math. The total sum of inspectors general appropriations is 191.5 million dollars. That's chump change in this bill. To put it in perspective, the total inspectors general appropriations is under 7 percent of the sum appropriated for rural broadband development spending, and only 0.023% of the whole bill. So unwad your panties.

Second, the kind of infrastructure spending that Charissa is talking about does in fact comprise the majority of the bill. The proposition that said infrastructure spending -- such as on rural broadband development -- is "an issue for private companies not the government," is, I dearly pray, some manner of joke. If private companies were willing to unfreeze their liquidity for capital investment spending, we wouldn't need a stimulus bill in the first place, would we?

While we are on the subject of basic economics, "18.7 billion earmarked for sub prime loan insurance" is not -- to answer your question -- "how this snowball started". Loan insurance is designed to protect existing mortgages, not create a new supply of sub-prime loans. I don't know all the details of this, but I know that if this (a) reduces the risk of default by keeping mortgage values in line with asset (home) values, and/or (b) reduces principal obligation or interest rate (for example, by means of (a)), lowering net monthly debt obligation, then the provision is manifestly stimulative.



message 13: by trivialchemy (new)

trivialchemy Anyway, the sentiment of the "scatterbrained" complaint is a fairly reasonable one. But it's partisanship that got us here. What was needed was a spending package in line with the projected decline in GDP over the next few years, which is on the order of trillions. The reason this bill looks like it is is because everyone pussied out and compromised and did it all halfway. And now when it's insufficient, everyone will be able to blame the other side! Business as usual for Washington.


message 14: by Charissa, That's Ms. Obnoxious Twat to You. (new)

Charissa (dakinigrl) | 3620 comments Mod
Well said Isaiah.


message 15: by Not Bill (new)

Not Bill | 1062 comments Whoa! You think Reid and Pelosi pussied out? Bullshit. They wrote it whole-hog. What a crock. CBO and GAO both point out that the majority of spending regardless of it's target) won't happen until 2011 thru 2014. This is such utter crap. In the end, it depends on what ecomomic theory you hold to. What I believe has already been borne out. Now we get to see how the other side of the aidle rolls. Of course, we've already seen that played in Europe and Canada - and Japan. N

Eventually, the economy adjusts on it's own as it always does, and govt tards try to claim credit. History always proves otherwise.


message 16: by Servius Heiner (last edited Feb 17, 2009 02:09PM) (new)

Servius  Heiner  | 1980 comments Mod
I'm sorry Isaiah, I have to disagree with you across the board. That money I listed above is going to existing offices that are already staffed to do the "oversight" required for the projects. This is not a stimulus package it is an standard appropriations bill there is nothing stimulus about it. There are a lot of pet projects. And a word on government spend; generally speaking government moneys go to government contractors. I don't think companies loaded with government contracts are hurting, I think it is the folks that used to build offices and homes that need new jobs. Maybe just maybe if the folks in congress actually read it before voting on it things would be different. That you claim this is birthed through partisanship and "mutual compromise" is laughable. That you talk of 191 million as chump change then I'm chump. And if anyone is doing business as usual Mr. JPL then it is you. I am not attacking the left or the right, I am attacking both sides. I am attacking Obama for signing this useless bill. And I have a spine so don't worry about me being passive aggressive about it. I understand that I am not articulate, but I do have a rather firm understanding of this process weather I can communicate it or not. So through up some more math equations like that makes your point valid and we can all be happy.


message 17: by trivialchemy (last edited Feb 17, 2009 05:39PM) (new)

trivialchemy Nick, the wording of my last post may have been strong ... even for me ... but I don't see that it justifies your little underhanded jabs here. (Passive aggressive? "Mr. JPL?")

I have three enemies here:
(1) Shoddy right-wing economic thinking.
(2) Shoddy left-wing economic thinking.
(3) Shoddy non-partisan economic thinking.
Note that you are not on this list. So ease up off the ad hominem.

A good example of (2) is just as you rightly point out -- the belief that vast governmental appropriations are necessary to execute stimulative measures. The truth is that the more the government touches a stimulus dollar, the less stimulative it is.

But an example of (3) is the claim that a figure like "191 million dollars" to existing departments makes the bill a "standard appropriations bill." I understand that $191mn sounds like a big number. You may think of all the good you could do with such a sum. But when a government is concerned with the health of a $10 trillion economy comprised of 300 million people, it's simply insignificant. You may not like my using math to point out just how staggeringly insignificant it is, but like it or not, economics is a mathematical discipline, not a purely conceptual one.

Next, that "government moneys [tend to:] go to government contractors" is sort of a non sequitur. In the first place, "government contractors" are private corporations. They employ people like you and me. The idea of Keynesian stimulus spending is that the government contract provides artificial demand for goods and services. The winners of the contract (could be any company, it's not like there's just a list of Halliburtons up at the capital) have to go out and hire people that they would not otherwise have had to hire to get the job done. The people they hire are "the folks that used to build offices and homes [and that:] need new jobs."

Finally, if you re-read my posts you will see that I never implied that this was "birthed through partisanship and 'mutual compromise'" (quote marks yours; not an actual quote). I used the word "compromised" only after using the phrase "pussied out," which hardly creates the glowing tone you would ascribe me. I think the bill is fairly deficient, to put it lightly, but no doubt for different reasons than you do. I see the big foul-up here as an institutional problem, not an ideological one.


message 18: by Rusty (new)

Rusty (RustyShackleford) So that's what a filibuster looks like!


message 19: by Not Bill (new)

Not Bill | 1062 comments Oh no Rusty - you see, depending on who owns congress, dissent is either "the highest form of patriotism" or as in the words of Anderson Cooper "...an insurgency". Now...it's time to play "Guess That Party!"


message 20: by trivialchemy (new)

trivialchemy Ha!


back to top