NoaIzumiMore Stretching the Truth about the Stimulus
February 6th 2009 22:46
More opinions on the Obama stimulus package, from Kyle-Ann Shiver and the Investor’s Business Daily.
Barry, Honey, Can We Talk about Money?, by Kyle-Ann Shiver
“you might have kept your fancy inaugural festivities a bit under National-Disaster status that ended up costing us taxpayers $150 million plus"
Just to put it into perspective, President GW Bush’s inauguration in 2005 cost $158 million, mainly from the federal government and the District of Columbia. And his inauguration had a way smaller attendance.
Really Long Link
“No one, with two-cents worth of knowledge about money, thinks that the way to work out of a budgetary nightmare is to max out his credit cards, and then apply for umpteen more of the things"
Classic case of mis-stating the problem so that you can criticize the solution. The immediate problem is not the budget of the government (although I do hope they address that soon), it’s the economy of the country.
•A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
•$400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
•$6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.”
Assuming she’s right about the first two (although her arguments follow some righteously tripped out logic), wasn’t she aware that they have both been removed from the stimulus bill as part of the negotiations? In the comments section, she claims to have written the piece before it happened, but the money for STD prevention was dropped almost a week before the article appeared on American Thinker.
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Her beef about the weatherization stimulus seems pretty thin too. I could be interpreting it wrong, but it sounds like she’s saying, “Don’t bother doing anything, just endure the cold.” Great answer.
American workers earn money weatherizing the homes, the (American) families most in need save hundreds of dollars a year on energy bills, and less energy being used will bring the price down for everyone else. It’s not just win-win, it’s win-win-win-win.
Really Long Link
Time For Plan B, by Investor’s Business Daily
“The Congressional Budget Office reckons that just $29 billion, or 8%, of the $356 billion in discretionary spending under the plan will be spent this year. Another $116 billion, or 41%, will be spent in 2010.”
Not sure what they mean by “discretionary spending,” or why non-discretionary spending is not stimulative. Counting everything in the bill (going by the House version), over 64% of the items go into effect in the next year and a half. That would be over half, editors of IBD.
Really Long Link (PDF)
“And yes, it should include tax cuts, since fully 53% of those queried in a recent poll said they wouldn't support a stimulus bill if tax cuts weren't included.”
Then they should love this bill, since 25% of the stimulus that passed the House (H.R.1) consisted of tax cuts. The Senate version, when completed, will almost certainly have more.
“the plan includes a stunning number of unnecessary, unstimulating projects: $400 million for global-warming computers, $6.2 billion for "home weatherization," $25 million to rebuild off-road ATV trails, $20 million for "fish-passage barriers."
OK, what are global-warming computers, anyone know? I’m assuming they’re talking about global-warming research, but aren’t they the ones saying that we’re not sure about it yet and more research is needed?
As for the others, how can they call them unstimulating? Who do they think will weatherize the homes, rebuild the trails, install the barriers? Is Willow Rosenberg going to work some dark magic? Are robots from outer space going to do the work and take the money back to help the Titanian economy? No, it will be done by American contractors, American workers, and most likely even American materials. The money will go into American pockets and from there into other American pockets. Those projects are the definition of stimulus.
Barry, Honey, Can We Talk about Money?, by Kyle-Ann Shiver
“you might have kept your fancy inaugural festivities a bit under National-Disaster status that ended up costing us taxpayers $150 million plus"
Just to put it into perspective, President GW Bush’s inauguration in 2005 cost $158 million, mainly from the federal government and the District of Columbia. And his inauguration had a way smaller attendance.
Really Long Link
“No one, with two-cents worth of knowledge about money, thinks that the way to work out of a budgetary nightmare is to max out his credit cards, and then apply for umpteen more of the things"
Classic case of mis-stating the problem so that you can criticize the solution. The immediate problem is not the budget of the government (although I do hope they address that soon), it’s the economy of the country.
•A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
•$400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
•$6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.”
Assuming she’s right about the first two (although her arguments follow some righteously tripped out logic), wasn’t she aware that they have both been removed from the stimulus bill as part of the negotiations? In the comments section, she claims to have written the piece before it happened, but the money for STD prevention was dropped almost a week before the article appeared on American Thinker.
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Her beef about the weatherization stimulus seems pretty thin too. I could be interpreting it wrong, but it sounds like she’s saying, “Don’t bother doing anything, just endure the cold.” Great answer.
American workers earn money weatherizing the homes, the (American) families most in need save hundreds of dollars a year on energy bills, and less energy being used will bring the price down for everyone else. It’s not just win-win, it’s win-win-win-win.
Really Long Link
Time For Plan B, by Investor’s Business Daily
“The Congressional Budget Office reckons that just $29 billion, or 8%, of the $356 billion in discretionary spending under the plan will be spent this year. Another $116 billion, or 41%, will be spent in 2010.”
Not sure what they mean by “discretionary spending,” or why non-discretionary spending is not stimulative. Counting everything in the bill (going by the House version), over 64% of the items go into effect in the next year and a half. That would be over half, editors of IBD.
Really Long Link (PDF)
“And yes, it should include tax cuts, since fully 53% of those queried in a recent poll said they wouldn't support a stimulus bill if tax cuts weren't included.”
Then they should love this bill, since 25% of the stimulus that passed the House (H.R.1) consisted of tax cuts. The Senate version, when completed, will almost certainly have more.
“the plan includes a stunning number of unnecessary, unstimulating projects: $400 million for global-warming computers, $6.2 billion for "home weatherization," $25 million to rebuild off-road ATV trails, $20 million for "fish-passage barriers."
OK, what are global-warming computers, anyone know? I’m assuming they’re talking about global-warming research, but aren’t they the ones saying that we’re not sure about it yet and more research is needed?
As for the others, how can they call them unstimulating? Who do they think will weatherize the homes, rebuild the trails, install the barriers? Is Willow Rosenberg going to work some dark magic? Are robots from outer space going to do the work and take the money back to help the Titanian economy? No, it will be done by American contractors, American workers, and most likely even American materials. The money will go into American pockets and from there into other American pockets. Those projects are the definition of stimulus.
| 56 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
