Ron Paul: Stimulus Packages Will Turn Recession Into A Depression

[Arrian]

Ok, found this summary:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/stimulus-holds-tax-relief-help/story.aspx?guid=%7BCD0FF22B-F34A-4850-9265-1C07F5DC5A04%7D&dist=msr_4

Tax cuts
• Payroll-tax holiday: $99 billion
• Expanded earned-income tax credit: $25 billion
• Tuition tax credit: $10 billion
• Business expensing tax breaks: $90 billion
• Renewable-energy tax credit: $20 billion
Relief
• Expanded unemployment insurance: $42 billion
• Health insurance for unemployed: $40 billion
• Expanded food stamps: $20 billion
• Housing assistance: $11 billion
• Supplemental Security Income payments: $4 billion
• Welfare: $3 billion
Infrastructure
• Highways: $30 billion
• School renovation: $20 billion
• Health information technology: $17 billion
• Transportation projects: $16 billion
• Water projects: $8.4 billion
• Military and V.A. construction: $7 billion
• Accelerated deployment of broadband: $5.6 billion
Help for state and local governments
• Medicaid cost sharing: $87 billion
• State grants: $79 billion
• State and local bond tax credit: $42 billion
• Community development: $5 billion
• Rural development: $4 billion
Energy efficiency
• Federal energy-efficiency projects: $22 billion
• Energy-efficiency grants: $18.5 billion
• Smart electric grid: $11 billion
• Renewable-energy loan guarantees: $8 billion
Human capital
• Education programs: $29 billion
• Pell grants: $18 billion
• Job training: $4.6 billion
• Scientific research: $3 billion

That's the HoR bill.

-Arrian

[Felch]

The House version is 647 pages. Who here has actually read it? I certainly haven't.

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf

[Naked Gents Rut]

The CBO says that 78% of the Senate legislation will be spent in the first 18 months.

Which means nearly a quarter of the spending is inappropriate for the purposes of a stimulus package.

[DinoDoc]

That's not the case.

That actually is the case as it stands now as no one is seriously opposed to the idea of a stimulus (at least those that I have heard and Arrian's secret knowledge notwithstanding) what people are opposed to is the bill that passed the House and the Senate version that seems on track to dwarf its monsterous predecessor in size and scope of things covered that don't stimulate the economy but only serve to expand the size of government.

[Felch]

If we trust market watch, and I see no reason not to, it looks like the tax cuts will be targeted significantly at lower income workers.

The largest chunk, the payroll tax holiday, is good for workers since FICA withholdings are disgustingly regressive. Earned income tax credits are also of greater benefit to working classes. Tuition tax credits will help the less fortunate apply themselves towards getting an education. The renewable energy tax credit is more upper class, but certainly inspired by progressive thinking. Only the "Business expensing tax breaks" sound Republican, and they come out to less than 37% of the total package.

[Arrian]

There's a lot of benifits stuff in there - again targetted at the neediest who are also the most likely to spend. That's certainly stimulative.

Aid to states counteracts the budget cutting the states would otherwise have to do, which in turn would depress things further. That is more "sustainative" than "stimulative" but it's fine by me.

Infrastructure we've discussed. Energy-efficiency puts contractors to work and will provide dividends down the road.

I mean... what am I missing here? Where's the pork?

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

I find it interesting that there are a number of people here crying about increasing the size of the government.

Interestingly, I don't recall any such outrage from those folks during the 8 years of the Bush administration, during which time the size of the government was greatly expanded.

Just an idle observation from the gallery.

Carry on.

-=Vel=-

[Naked Gents Rut]

Interestingly, I don't recall any such outrage from those folks during the 8 years of the Bush administration, during which time the size of the government was greatly expanded.

You obviously weren't paying attention. Typical idgit voter...

[Velociryx]

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

...and considering the source of the insult, you'll forgive me if I'm not terribly concerned.



-=Vel=-

[Naked Gents Rut]

Of course you're not concerned. If idgits actually cared about being talked down to by their betters, they'd educate themselves and no longer be idgits.

[Velociryx]

Drake...you're one of a kind, and a wonder in your own mind. Carry on, good sir!

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

Which means nearly a quarter of the spending is inappropriate for the purposes of a stimulus package.

Not really. The spending tapers off pretty quickly after 2011. Probably projects that were started earlier, and took a few years to complete. $49.7 billion in 2012, 10.1 in 2014, .6 in 2016, -1.6 in 2018. It is not long term spending, by and large.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9977/hr1senate.pdf

That actually is the case

I want major changes, but I would still vote for the bill. The Gallup question is not measuring what you think it is.

seems on track to dwarf its monsterous predecessor in size and scope of things covered that don't stimulate the economy but only serve to expand the size of government.

Like what? Can you answer Arrian's question? Which big ticket items won't stimulate the economy?

[Naked Gents Rut]

Not really. The spending tapers off pretty quickly after 2011.

Any spending after 2010 is likely to be worthless as a stimulus.

[Ramo]

Only if we're dealing with a normal recession, and private investment eliminates the output gap within a couple years. I'm not particularly optimistic.

But the vast majority of the spending is targeted towards that time frame. The exceptions, primarily energy and health care investments, are things we desperately need to do anyways. These are small potatoes. If you're a real deficit hawk, military spending is what you would want to target.