Chuck Shumer says American's don't care about pork

I am a very conservative republican but I fully understand the whole taking a dollar from one person and giving it to another is a stimulus thing. Let's take Dave Chapelle he makes like $20M/year now he probably spends like $3 or $4 million of that and banks the rest. IF we punished him for being succesful like Barack wants and we "share his piece of pie" with 100,000 Tron's who each get a couple hundred bucks, those guys are worthless and all their income is disposable so they'll have no choice but to spend it on DVD's and video games and candy thus stimulating the economy. So its punish the rich who save to give the poor who can't save......Barry is a modern day Robin Hood

 

stereotype and overgeneralize much?

 

What a dumb thing for Schumer to say. People like pork coming to their states, but don't like it going to the other 49. I don't see the comment getting a warm reception.

I think talking about what is "stimulus" is too vague. What we want are high-NPV projects. If the NPV is high, it will stimulate the economy because it generates wealth. If the NPV is not higher than a private individual can generate from that money, the government shouldn't be spending it.

Incidentally, I don't think the government has been very concrete about what is stimulus. In a business, every capital project would have a justification built on the NPV or other analysis of return. Somehow, I don't think the government has done that with these projects. How can they justify spending billions without taking a swag at the return?

 

It isn't a punishment. If paying taxes on 20 mil a year is punishment, I would happily take that punishment.

Is making 13.5 million really such a horrible punishment? As far as what has been shown via studies to work, we know that increasing money in unemployment, food stamps etc. leads to more spending.

You can make all the phony, misdirected, wiseass cracks you'd like, but the studies and facts are available.

 

But the natural park examples brings in tourism, which helps restaurants, hotels, souvenir shops, gas stations, etc.

 

Strom Thurmond's been dead for a few years now. Can't we let the man rest in peace... at least until we discover a new branch in his family tree?

 

You were asked about this comment in another thread but refused to respond. I have no other option but to think lesser of you.

 

This depends - keep in mind, this isn't money that US citizens would otherwise have and be spending in the economy. This is money being borrowed from mostly foreign sources and dumped into the US economy. So rather than comparing it to what a private individual could do with it, you could also compare it to what it costs to borrow it (3 or 4% per year or whatever). If it generates a return higher than that, then it makes sense. If not, not so much.

There's also non-numerical component of it. Much of an economy is founded on confidence. So some of the impact of it is based on whether the bill as a whole stimulates confidence over the long-run. A bunch of individual private projects doesn't have the confidence building factor of a massive single passage - but these things are hard to gauge and put a value on.

 

until you realize that the most state parks budget are so low that they cannot possibly keep the building up and it gets condemned.

 

Point well taken. But to nitpick, the required return would be higher than the interest rate because of the risk of the projects.

As for confidence, I'm not suggesting the projects be approved piecemeal. You can still have them in a big, impressive package. But, they should be better vetted individually before they're included.

 

Only if one espouses the economics of Bush-Cheny and the hate government crowd. Many state parks have been kept up for generations.

Haven't your parents ever taken you to a state Park?

 

They actually do universally agree on many basic assumptions, like supply, demand etc. That is what enables them to even have debates in the first place: A common set of basic assumptions.

This is one of those assumptions.

The point is incredibly basic, and one that is so simple that it is almost circular, and rests on the assumption that 1+1 =2 - basically, that an increase in demand for goods and services constitutes an increase in aggregate demand. Taking it a level further, this has a multiplier effect that spreads throughout the economy.

YOu would get fat "F" in introductory Macroeconomics on if you refused to accept it. This would be true of any economics class taught by any professor of any poltitical stripe in the country

That's completely irrelevant to the basic assumption that we are discussing and that you rather foolishly are arguing against. It doesn't matter who you "take" it from - when you spend money that would otherwise not be spent, consuming goods and services that would not have otherwise been consumed - it augments aggregate demand.

This is getting embarrassing for you.

Like I said - if you oppose the idea of a stimulus then just say it, but don't make yourself look like a complete idiot by saying that increased spending does not stimulate the economy.

Apparently you don't, because you don't even know what concepts are being discussed. Maybe you too should sit this one out.

 

Interesting I don't remember mentioning anything but the best way to spend stimulus and now I am a W supporter and gubment hater.




Genius.

 

Hey, you are the one who made the silly post:

Maybe you were just joking? If so, a smiley helps.

 

One man's pork is another mans...



pork pie.

Seriously....I agree with Juan Valdez. People like pork coming to their states, and hate it when it goes to the other 49. Deal...with...it.

 

only thing embarrassing is that you and basso (or any other stubborn, party liner opposite of you) are exactly the same.

what's funny is that you despise them for the way they are.

what's sad is that you can't see that.

 

This has nothing to do with party line.

This is a black and white issue - they do exist.

It's not a political issue but a mathematical one.

Aggregate Demand at Time 1 + more demand > Aggregate Demand at Time 1.

If you or anybody else has a problem with this equation then please let me know exactly what is wrong about it.

Underlying your post is evidence that you operate under the fiction that all opinions are created equal - but when certain opinions are created under a set of factual assumptions that are demonstrably wrong by a reasonably objective assumption - this opinion doesn't have as much value.

This is essentially what DaDakota does when confronted with evidence of how much Spanoulis sucks/sucked - just scream "it's all opinion anyway and you never know!"

So you're on the losing end of an argument, so just say that i'm intolerant of other people's opinions.

Well I don't accept a lot of beliefs and think people who have them are dumb. Creationists are full of crap. Wiccans are looney. People who believe the moon landing was faked are wrong. People who insist that spending is not stimulus are wrong. I guess that makes me an intolerant motherf-ker, I rather think it's the definition of being a critical thinker.

and btw, If I were a basso, I would post an article saying what I want to believe, without bothering to understand the content or comment on it.

Fortunately for you, I am intellectually capable enough to discuss the underlying assumptions in an intelligent way.

 

I thought the discussion was about state parks, yet you post a picture of visitors center in a national park that is closed because of structural integrity problems.

This should be no surprise. During the W. administration, national parks were crying for money to perform maintenance and upkeep on the stuff they had and to do the kinds of science necessary in the "natural" parks like Yellowstone and Glacier. The Repubs then "increased" the park budget, but not for the things that were already there, but instead to build new... that way, they could claim they were good enviros and cultural stewards because they increased the budget when in reality they just saddled the park service with more long-term liabilities while farming more contract money out to hand-picked firms. Additionally, it turns out they really didn't increase the budget at all, they just moved piles of money around and tried to suggest that an increase in Pile A, even if taken from piles B-E, is a net increase. Example A is the closure of the visitors center you posted... it had structural problems for years and finally had to close in July of 2006 because of the danger to employees and tourists. That's 5 1/2 years the Bush administration had to follow through on their campaign promises.

 

OK so your response is to blame it on idiot number one?



Guess how much money is being spent on it by idiot number 2 (out of the 820 billion)

 

Yep.

I don't know how much, but the last version I saw had $3.4 billion for public lands and parks along with $1.4 billion for Federal buildings. Beyond those broad categories, we'll have to wait and see how it shakes out.