Why do you have so little faith in the opposition? Perhaps if they were given a chance to read it, they may vote for it. However, be happy with your tyranny of the majority; de Tocqueville is turning in his grave right now.
And the vast majority of this spending comes after 2010, when the economy is likely to recover on its own. Even your party no longer calls it a stimulus package, but a "Recovery and Reinvestment Act". It's a payoff worthy of the dirty Baltimore and Chicago political machines where Speaker Pelosi and President Obama cut their teeth.
And if you want the economy to get going, put money directly into the pockets of those who will invest in the economy. Tax cuts are the most direct way of doing so. Of course, then you can't control who gets the money, and the Democrats are all about controlling the purse strings.
Who are those people who will invest in the economy, and why aren't they investing now, and do you really think if they get a tax cut, they'll all of a sudden start investing? Or would they just buy more zero interest treasury bonds? barfo
The argument that the title of the bill proves something is pretty silly. It was never called the "Stimulus Package Act", so pretending like they changed the name isn't a winner. The delay in some of the spending is indeed a flaw. And as for a payoff, it's not. It's the platform Obama and the Democrats ran on. I know you don't like it but that doesn't make it corrupt. barfo
Who do you think would make a better decision on how to spend money: a coterie of bureaucrats or 100MM taxpayers? I believe in the law of large numbers. Give individuals more money on an on-going basis (so they know it's not a one time thing) and get government off the backs of small businesses and watch them grow. P.S. Existing housing sales increased last month without any help from the government.
Hmm, interesting. I must have missed "more money for ACORN", "$650MM for television converters", "$8B for a railroad from LA to Vegas". And I know they did run on saying they were going to be bipartisan and allow 48 hours for review of all bills. People voted for "Hope" and "Change". The polling numbers show that people don't think this spending bill represents either.
Yes, I think they will. Many housing market prices are now approaching a reasonable investment when you look at prices, rents and incomes. I believe that if a stimulus is going to be given, a little more incentive in the real estate taxes and interest rate areas would get some investors that are on the fence to finally jump in. I know I fit this description, and I know several others in the same position. Yes, small sample set, but decent example.
Yeah right. Since they didn't vote for either of the two bills that were merged to make this one, it seems not very credible to claim they'd vote for this one. But in any case, they don't matter. I'm happy with it so far. It beats the most recent alternative. barfo
Uh huh. But you aren't going to jump in unless you get a tax cut, right? If you were already jumping in, and were saying that if you got a tax cut you'd add that to your investment, then I'd find it convincing. Sitting on the sidelines is exactly the problem. barfo
The problem is that Congress took out the first time homebuyer exception and are unlikely to engage in conforming loans--the two areas that could bring much needed help to a flagging market.
Well, if he doesn't deliver, he and/or his party will be accountable at the next election, just like always. barfo
But that's one area where a change in government policy would help clear the market. In fact, its the loss of value in the real estate market that have turned our negative savings rate to 3.6% in a period of two months. Instead we're creating a $1.2 trillion debt for the next generation so we can payoff some people who voted our current administration in. Shameful.
You call it payoff, I call it investment in the future. I think a train from LV to LA is a great idea, for example. barfo
It's much worse that that. Government programs have a ratcheting effect. It's easy to give them and tough to take them away. Once these programs are in, its unlikely they're ever going away. Oh, and if you're interested in private investment, tell me how almost $1T of government money hopping to the front of the line helps private entities to investing in the economy. The crowding out of private investment has yet to rear its ugly head.
You must not have seen the part where I mentioned the interest rate incentives. Yes, if there were an incentive / stimulus bill passed to produced fixed, lower-rate mortgages, you bet I would be getting back into the real estate investment market. Tax cuts would help. Real estate tax cuts would make it so that real estate investments got into my personal target area much more quickly. If people were already jumping in, there would be no need for incentives and stimulus packages. I'm still in the real estate investment market. If I got a tax cut, I wouldn't use the tax cut to reduce my investment. Yep, we're in agreement here. That is why I am saying that money spent on fixed rate mortgage incentives would go a lot further than giving money to the National Endowment for the Arts. A few weeks back, one of the republican senators put out the idea of a government backed, 4.0% mortgage rate. That is a better idea for a stimulus than most of what I see in this bill.
Cultural differences, high percentage of car ownership, density of investment in road infrastructure, inexpensive flight options and distance between destinations. Acela doesn't turn a profit, and that runs along the most densely populated stretch in the US. How is a desert railway going to make money?
