Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rachel is right, Spending is better than tax cuts!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:32 PM
Original message
Rachel is right, Spending is better than tax cuts!
After watching her show I don't get Obama wanting to do tax cuts. Almost no one thinks it will help the economy like government spending on projects would. Any other sources I can read that argues FOR tax cuts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
smalll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. A problem: Tax cuts are good, spending would be better HOWEVER ---
Obama's proposed spending is not where it should be: where's the infrastructure spending? Where's the roads, the bridges, the high speed rail, even the bike paths? Left out in the dust. Unfortunately, from what I've heard, he's going more for things like making schools "wired" and "green" instead. A teacher here myself. Still think that robust infrastructure spending would be a lot more useful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. He's doing both, it's $800 billion dollars
I was just reading that he's putting nearly $20 billion in science R&D - the budget in 2008 was $4 billion.

Is $20 billion a drop compared to $800 billion? Yes. But it's massive compared to what we had been doing.

There's also huge amounts of money for health care subsidies, that I think they are also calling tax cuts to confuse people. I've got no idea why, except they want to spend money which kind of irks me. Help the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. He's trying to please Republicans by doing tax cuts. Why else would he do it?
Maybe if he did tax cuts for the middle class, and increased the tax to the mega-wealthy, as mega-wealthy George Soros and other mega-rich people have suggested....

He should stop listening to Repub policies and ideas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
20. The tax cuts are aimed at the middle class
Seriously, am I the only one who read this bill? :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
59. He did say pre-election that he was going to increase taxes of the mega-rich
That I heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Technically, that will be done by
doing away with the Bush tax cuts - via either a repeal or letting them expire in 2010 - which the Republicans want made permanent. They'd be going back to what they paid under Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. An increased Earned Income Credit?
That's one of the tax cuts. On this issue, she needs to listen to somebody besides the left and that includes my own congressman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. They can keep their lousy tax cuts. Give us Single Payer Universal Health Care instead!
With reforms for no pre-existing conditions, reimbursement for preventative care, mental health parity, and rewards for staying healthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. He promised middle class tax cuts.
The small business (reads corporate) tax cuts are superfluous and part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

I really want to see more $$$ for infrastructure projects that will put people to work and taxpayers will have something to show or it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. From the bill itself
Edited on Sat Jan-24-09 10:45 PM by Shiver
I posted an OP with a link to the bill itself, but few people seem to have read it. I went through all 647 pages, and this is what I found (note: This is not a complete list; I'm still compiling data)

Infrastructure
$32 billion to transform the nation's energy transmission, distribution, and production systems
$16 billion to repair public housing and make key energy efficiency retrofits.
$6 billion to weatherize modest-income homes
$10 billion for science facilities, research, and instrumentation
$6 billion to expand broadband internet access
$30 billion for highway construction
$31 billion to modernize federal and other public infrastructure
$19 billion for clean water, flood control, and environmental restoration investments
$10 billion for transit and rail
$14 billion for School Modernization and Repair Program
$6 billion for higher education modernization
$20 billion for health information technology


$200 billion total

Tax-related
$87 billion for a temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate.
$43 billion for increased unemployment benefits and job training
$39 billion helping with healthcare under COBRA and providing short-term options to be covered by Medicaid.
$79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cutbacks to key services
$4.1 billion to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments
$15.6 billion to increase the Pell grant by $500
$4 billion for state and local law enforcement funding.
$27 billion to local school districts through
$20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit by over 13% in order to help defray rising food costs.


$275 billion total

And the "in-house" summary, which is likely a lot better than mine: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

You can get a PDF of the stimulus bill at the link in the OP of this thread. The PDF is in the second paragraph on the Huffington Post page: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I wonder why Rachel said only 20% was spending
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. It's a talking point
coming from the left and I really can't figure out why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. One reason that I was able to come to
Is that Rachel is very big on infrastructure - one of her "pet issues" if I may use the term. Perhaps it's thought that if people hear that there isn't enough infrastructure spending, they might call their reps to try and get them to put more in. Get public support behind it and all that.

Another could be that she thinks not enough is going towards certain aspects of infrastructure.

On both points, she's somewhat right; there should be at least double the $200 billion for infrastructure, and a lot more allocated to fixing and upgrading roads, bridges and highways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
31. Some of the tax cuts
are for bonds and other incentives for infrastructure. Some of the infrastructure is in science R&D, $5 billion just for infrastructure out of nearly $20 billion, just for health R&D. The entire science R&D budget in 2008 was just over $4 billion. They aren't putting this in perspective, that this stimulus budget is twice the size of our regular budget, which we haven't even gotten to. Some of these tax cuts, like the increase in EIC, would be a nightmare to get through any other time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Very true
What should be done, I think, is the bill should be kept as is, but with another $250 billion for direct infrastructure. I do agree with her that more infrastructure spending is needed, and the jobs are out there. The spending on infrastructure would create jobs and make us safer, and the tax relief could help those people retain more of the money they earn.

I'm no economist, though... there are likely gaping holes in my logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hay rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Didn't see her show but
I've seen polls saying that 50% of the people would save a tax cut, 30% would use it to pay debts, and 20% would spend it. Maybe where the 20% figure is coming from... This is why tax cuts are relatively ineffective as a means of stimulating the economy.

The real rationale for including tax cuts is political.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
29. She said that only 20% was infrastructure
Not quite the same. Infrastructure is her thing and frankly we do need more of that. What better way to create jobs and shore things up for the future than to hire people to upgrade our electrical grid, fixing our water infrastructure, trying to get high speed rail going, and making sure that our bridges don't fall down underneath us.

Regards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
41. It looks to be more like only 30% is infrastructure. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy823 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thanks!
I just thing some people just don't listen to the right sources. If they want the "facts" then people should do as you have done and read the bill, not listen to second hand reporting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. Admittedly, reading the bill is a very trying task
It's very complex, and 647 pages long. I understood most of it, but at some points there were references to bills I hadn't read, or the language went beyond my ability to fully comprehend. By the end, I had a killer headache.

It was fun, though. I enjoy reading legislation for some stupid reason :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. On that $275 billion
Are they counting anything that is paid through a tax credit - a tax cut? Because some of that is really good stuff. I was trying to find an actual list. I'm going to call my Congressman Monday if I don't find something between now and then. I don't like the dishonesty with which these tax cuts seem to be being portrayed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. I should have labeled it "tax-related"
And not "tax-cut". But I think I should be granted a little leeway there - I had just finished reading 647 pages of a very involved document :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. There is plenty of spending in this bill. We're talking about an 800 billion dollar bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
16. At this time, yes. Tax cuts at this time won't stimulate the economy.
The economy is dormant. Money has to exchange hands, the more times the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. They aren't exactly tax "cuts"
Many items related to taxes would be more accurately described as "tax-relief" or simply "tax-related" - funding for law enforcement, for example, that doesn't come from increasing taxes on the middle class; $87 billion for a temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate; $43 billion for increased unemployment benefits and job training; renewable energy incentives, etc.

Actual tax-cuts are the ones Obama was referring to during the campaign - direct tax-relief to 95% of American people. I'd summarize these, but tax code is not my strong point, and I'd risk looking like an idiot. The information in the bill starts at page 251. (The bill can be found here, in a PDF in the second paragraph: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/house-stimulus... )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. I thought we were arguing over which is more important.
While useful, it won't jumpstart the overall economy at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Oh, I agree
I just wanted to clarify, as a lot of people seem to interpret "tax cut" as "for the rich" out of reflex. I just wanted to show that that wasn't the case.

More infrastructure spending, at least double what's currently in the bill now, is needed. Reducing the tax burden on people will help them in the short term, but there's no guarantee that they'll spend any extra money they get. And if they don't spend it, or spend enough of it, it won't do enough to help the economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
35. Poor people will spend
Once again, the elite have no clue what it's like to be broke. You don't pay your debt when you're broke. You spend the money. An increase in the EIC would absolutely help, the same way an increase in minimum wage would help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
19. The tax cut for individuals is so small, it really isn't worth bothering with.
A worker will see $9 a week more in their paycheck. Whoop-de-doo. It will probably cost double that to do the paperwork to get him the $9. Take the money and put it into healthcare reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
37. $1,000 EIC tax credit
Per household is very beneficial if you can't pay the power bill. $36 a month is several days of food. If you're in the bottom 50%, that is definitely worth bothering with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
24. Problem with spending is timing
It is the classic monetarist v. fiscalist argument.

Monetarists won the argument.

We would be doing better with the literal throwing money out of a helicopter (especially if the helicopter is over my house).










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
25. Will Obama be silent if the Senate bill continues to eliminate 'cramdown' including in House bill?
Edited on Sun Jan-25-09 09:44 AM by flpoljunkie
Read somewhere that Obama willl not insist on including 'cramdown' in the stimulus bill--even though the banks had apparently caved on 'cramdown' when they found they desperately needed more of the taxpayers' money. Will there be real help for homeowners facing foreclosure in the final bill?

Cramdown -- a court-ordered reduction of the secured balance due on a home mortgage loan, granted to a homeowner who has filed for personal bankruptcy.

Must read from Robert Reich on 'Cramdowns': http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-citi-turned...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
26. INFRASTRUCTURE,OBAMA! INFRASTRUCTURE!!!
= JOBZZZZ...


K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
47. READ THE BILL
There is plenty of money for Infrastructure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
27. I think we need both because some people are hurting badly,
but spending is essential because our infrastructure is falling apart. GOPers should ask themselves, if their house was structurally unsound and falling apart, would they just ignore it because they didn't have enough money in their savings account to fix it, or would they borrow? We're not talking about redecorating, we're talking about shoring up the infastructure of our country that, literally, holds us together.

Tax cuts should be minimal and only for the lower and middle class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
x-g.o.p.er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
28. Eventually, these debts will collapse this economy
More spending is insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. We've had higher levels of debt relative to GDP before. We survive them through
future prudent fiscal management.

Government investment is needed to get the economy to turn around. It won't on its own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
x-g.o.p.er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #34
57. "Future prudent fiscal management"
Isn't throwing good money after bad. The govt. has already pissed away almost a trillion dollars on this goddamn bank fiasco, and are salivating at the thought of throwing another 800 billion away.

This smacks of a lot of things, but prudent fiscal management isn't one of them IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #28
38. Every option is insane at this point
Its unimaginable to consider tax cuts or more spending. We are in BAD shape.

But since we have to do something, infrastucture spending is the best of two horrible options.

Tax cuts, in my opinion, are a waste of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
x-g.o.p.er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #38
56. But tax cuts
go back to people that earned the money in the first place. It's not the government's money, it's the individuals.

Why should the individual be forced to give more of their money to a government that has proven to be fiscally irresponsible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
30. Tax cuts are a waste of time.
failed supply-side repuke bullshit.

jobs, jobs, jobs.

any component of an economic package that is not focused specifically on DEMAND creation is a waste of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #30
42. The tax items in the bill aren't supply-side
The majority of them are aimed at the middle class, and should be considered more in the vein of 'tax relief'.

$87 billion for a temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate.
$43 billion for increased unemployment benefits and job training
$39 billion helping with healthcare under COBRA and providing short-term options to be covered by Medicaid.
$79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cutbacks to key services
$4.1 billion to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments
$15.6 billion to increase the Pell grant by $500
$4 billion for state and local law enforcement funding.
$27 billion to local school districts through
$20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit by over 13% in order to help defray rising food costs.


$275 billion total


Many will directly effect the middle class, and others will invest in key public services (police, education, etc) without taking money from the middle class to do so.

Spending is more important, I agree, and there isn't enough of it in the bill. Just wanting to clarify that the tax-items aren't directed towards the wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
33. We should be spending on a single payer universal health care system
which would create over 2 million new jobs and would actually produce something of value this country could feel good about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. That is what we should really do
Remove the burden of health care from business. I can't think of a better economic stimulus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. Thanks. Actually there is a brand new study that has just been released
that makes this very point. I will post it later this evening. I am running out the door right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #33
45. That can be seperate. That doesn't need to be in this bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
39. This is Obama's first big mistake
He is making bad policy. Real bad. And he is legitimizing Reaganomics at the same time.

Infrastructure spending has been neglected over the past 8 years, which makes it even more essential at this critical moment.

I am opposed to new spending and new tax cuts. But if we have to do something, infrastructure spending is the only way to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. Have you read the bill?
Most of the tax-related items are things Obama mentioned during the campaign. More infrastructure spending is needed, but the tax items are aimed mainly at benefiting the middle class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. I bet Obama hasn't read the bill either
No one reads a bill. All you need is a good breakdown of whats in it.

And what I have seen thats in it is more tax cuts than infrastructure spending. That's BAD business. It shouldn't even be close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. I read the bill
Edited on Sun Jan-25-09 03:47 PM by Shiver
All 647 pages of it.

And the "tax cuts" are the ones Obama was talking about during the campaign, the ones aimed at the middle class. The majority of the tax items in the bill aren't even cuts - they're tax-relief, funding and investment in public services (law enforcement, education, Medicaid, job training programs, etc) that doesn't take money from the middle class.

There does need to be more infrastructure spending, at least double what there is now. But there seems to be a major misconception in regards to the tax items.

Take a look at the bill. The tax items start on page 251.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. Tax cuts for the middle class isn't Reaganomics. And this bill includes
Edited on Sun Jan-25-09 02:37 PM by BrentTaylor
a ton of money for infrastructure.

This post is proof that people aren't reading the bill before commenting. Reagan wouldn't do any of this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. That's spin. I am very disappointed
1. Have you read the bill? NO, you have not.

2. Interesting way of phrasing it. "A ton of money for infrastructure" isn't a problem. The problem is focusing on tax cuts. A plan this size will have a ton of money for each item. Its HUGE. So that's just a completely meaningless thing to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Seriously. Read the bill. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. they don't want to be confused with the facts.
sadly, the mighty wurlitzer comes through loud and clear around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. read the bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Certainly. Where can I find the bill online? - nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. The link in this OP
Edited on Sun Jan-25-09 04:46 PM by Shiver
Has a dowloadable PDF of the bill, located in the second paragraph on the HuffPo page.

Edit: Duh, forgot the link. I've been up too long...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Edit two: Direct link to the HuffPo article... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/house-stimulus...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
40. Without jobs stick the tax cuts...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
58. You didn't get the memo.
This is the New Era of "Post-Partisanship".
It is now OK to be Half-Republican.


I'm reporting you to the Obama loyalty police.
You are gonna be sorrrrrry !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
61. Spend it on healthcare!
Edited on Mon Jan-26-09 11:25 AM by Prophet 451
Setting up a USHS (for lack of a better term) would instantly pump a load of cash into construction (for hospitals and roads to connect them) and the auto industry (ambulances); it creates a stack of new jobs, some of which are unskilled or semi-skilled (janitors, groundskeepers, admin staff, cook and serving staff for the canteen); the jobs are pretty much recession-proof and it's cheaper than the existing mixture on an annual basis (combined cost of Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance: around $2.3 trillion; cost to cover entire USA under NHS model: aprox. $600 billion).

OK, it's very expensive to set up but it's pretty cheap to maintain it once it's running and a helluva lot cheaper than repeatedly bailing out the banks.

However, since American politics seems to see tax cuts as a panacea, they're much more likely to get passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 21st 2014, 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC