The Foundry

48 Responses to “True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion”

1. USMCdaughter1, New Jersey on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

   Dad always said you could steal more with a briefcase than you can with a gun….how right he is!

2. Just another opinion on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

   huh? Why not calculate the number over a century rather than just a decade. Your number sure will be much bigger and more shocking to the general public. How about telling us what the total GDP for the tens years and then compare your 3.27 trillion number as percentage of that?

   I loved watching the die hard GOP congressman a couple of weeks ago showing visual aids to describe what a trillion dollars is… “if you stack a trillion dollars in $100 dollar bills it will be 800 miles high” — “if you put a $100 bills end to end it would wrap around the earth X number of times” So, Mr Congressman, can we use your visuals to explain the cost of the War in Iraq?

   I don’t like to relate the Bush Administration or the GOP to main street Republicans because the Republican party has not represented Republicans very well for decades. None that I know anyway. Small government? Oh I get it as long as we pump money into other countries while neglecting our domestic issues, we can claim “small government” That is clearly Bovine Scatology if I ever heard it.

   We’ve spent trillions on our foreign policy over the past decade. What is wrong with spending an equal amount on ourselves. Oh I get it. The far right evangelists and the neo-crons are too scared. Grow a pair! The more paranoia you instill and the more military action on foreign soil, the more you will breed anti-American opinion World-wide that the next generation has to deal with.

   I relate to the core ideals of Republicans but NOT what the Republican party has offered up for decades.

3. Greg Goss Hudson NH on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

   I was waiting for someone to do the math….it certainly wasn’t going to be someone from Congress.

4. Dick Turpin, Dallas on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

   True act of highway robbery.

   There are two types of people in America today:
   1- those who remember the Carter years and
   2- those who are going to find out.

5. katablog.com on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

   …don’t get me wrong, we all realize that $7.8 billion is a gigantic debt to pass on to future generations. Many of us have a real problem with that number, thinking it’s astronomical. But now for the real truth: ….

6. Guy Fawkes, Colorado on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

   Remember, Remember the 2nd of November (2010)!!!

   V

7. Andy Roark on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

   Speaking of bovine scatology…

   “I relate to the core ideals of Republicans but NOT what the Republican party has offered up for decades.”

   I hear this comment from the closet liberals at work quite often – they are enraged over all the money WASTED by Bush and Republicans but are ok with it being done by Obama and Democrats.

   Little safety hint dude – if you are going to parade around in a Republican suit you actually have to be emotionally attached to the cause in question. I was sicked by Bush’s wasteful spending of money but in comparison to Obama and Pelosi Bush Jr. looked like a 70 year old tightwad lecturing his grand kids about the depression.

   Attacking this post by pointing to the lesser spending of the Bush administration does nothing to advance your agenda and only highlights your obvious duplicity.

   But hey, thanks for trying.

8. Karen, Indiana on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

   Nothing in this bill helps middle class Americans….. I love the part in Nancy Pelosi’s report about the rising cost of food so food stamp recipients get an increase by 13% but I get a tax cut of $7.50 a week.

   Hey Nancy my food bill costs the same as everyone else, I just have to shop smart, use coupons I don’t know anyone on food stamps that is starving and trust me they get more in food stamps than I spend a month on groceries,,, why? Because I can’t afford it and NO I’m not starving either, it’s called budgeting.

9. Dave C, Virginia on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

   holy cow.

10. Matthew Brendzel, Philadelphia on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Oh, please. “The Generational Theft Act”? No need to be so melodramatic.

    38% of this bill is tax cuts, which I’m sure you agree are a stimulus. And anyone versed in economics can tell you that a tax cut and government spending both behave as an economic stimulus.

    But what I find most shocking is your misunderstanding of how those sorts of programs even act as a stimulus. Basic macroeconomic theory says that when individuals are faced with a short-term increase in income (like Bush’s one-time tax rebates) they will increase their rate of saving, whereas when they are faced with a long-term increase in income they will maintain or decrease their saving rate and consume more. It is that consumption which is the entire point of tax breaks as economic stimulus. If anything, increasing the size of government programs in the long term (especially public works, which also have a positive payoff to the community) acts as a BETTER economic stimulus than a one-time rebate.

    Next, in response to the interest comment, the federal government finances its spending partially through taxes and partially (as some of the above have correctly pointed out) through debt, issued in the form of T-bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds. In fact, the interest rates for these securities are at all-time lows; the t-bill rate, for example, is down to 2.75% for 10-year bills! This amounts to basically free lending for the government.

    But most importantly, what difference does it make how big the deficit gets? The size of private borrowing in the US dwarfs government borrowing, so there’s not much of a ‘crowding out’ effect, and increases in government borrowing would not cause interest rates to rise very much. Most of the onus for interest rates comes down to the Fed, anyway. There’s no major risk of inflation there.

    Through it all, I cannot help but suspect that there is another dynamic here. Could it be that your revulsion by this bill is not caused by how expensive it is, but by the very programs that it supports?

    If so, then the question is not one of economics, but of social policy.

11. Dave, California on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    38% of this bill is tax cuts, which I’m sure you agree are a stimulus. And anyone versed in economics can tell you that a tax cut and government spending both behave as an economic stimulus.

    Tax cuts, yes. Government spending on itself does very little to the economy and those of us in the private sector. Better roads may improve the quality of transportation, but it a person has to make a decision between food or gas due in part to the amount of taxes taken out of his check, a nice road does nothing for them. Government has no problem “creating” jobs. The problem lies in the fact that many of these jobs simply are not needed due to demand on the open market. That is why the green jobs experiment here in CA has virtually failed.

    …whereas when they are faced with a long-term increase in income they will maintain or decrease their saving rate and consume more.

    Sounds right to me. The only problem is that there are no long term tax cuts for the average American employee in this bill. Obama’s grand “95% of Americans tax cut” averages out to $13 a week. That will start this June and end next January. As for the other tax cuts, they do NOT apply to the AVERAGE American (ex. single, married, children, children in college, salary, etc. All of these determine the amount of the actual tax cut).

    If anything, increasing the size of government programs in the long term (especially public works, which also have a positive payoff to the community) acts as a BETTER economic stimulus than a one-time rebate.

    I think the state of California (now nearly broke) would strongly disagree with you on this.

    But most importantly, what difference does it make how big the deficit gets?

    Wow! So much for that “Basic macroeconomic theory”.

12. Alexei Tov on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Thanks Matthew – your opinion is well stated. I’m curious about this chart. It shows no effort to demonstrate the positive (stimulative) effect of spending – in other words, it silently dismisses half of the equation. In order to properly analyze the situation, you would have to create a comparison of 1) the growth in wealth with the stimulus package, and 2) the growth in wealth without it (i.e., what would happen with this money otherwise). Also, as rightly suggested by another, it is certainly not in doubt that the benefits with or without the bill will accrue to differing parties – yet, is that to say the our country as a whole fares worse?

13. Ed G on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    What does The Great Depression II cost?

14. Thomas Karras on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Matthew Brendzel seems to think that opposition to the “stimulus” package stems from oppostion to the Dems social policy. The primary issue is that social policy and all non-emergency expenditures need debate and proper consideration. Not a rush read at 3:30 AM in the morning which is what I’m trying to do. That’s what makes it pork–funding done without possibility of examination.

    Tom Karras

15. Ellis Wyatt on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    “Could it be that your revulsion by this bill is not caused by how expensive it is, but by the very programs that it supports?”

    My opposition is caused by both how expensive it is and by the programs it supports. Happy now?

16. Greg, Washington D.C. on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    “Basic macroeconomic theory says that when individuals are faced with a short-term increase in income (like Bush’s one-time tax rebates) they will increase their rate of saving, whereas when they are faced with a long-term increase in income they will maintain or decrease their saving rate and consume more. It is that consumption which is the entire point of tax breaks as economic stimulus. If anything, increasing the size of government programs in the long term (especially public works, which also have a positive payoff to the community) acts as a BETTER economic stimulus than a one-time rebate.”

    Your macro-economic theory is correct, but your understanding of either that theory and the stimulus bill are incorrect. First of all, the tax cuts in the stimulus are all short-term one-shot rebates instead of the permanent tax rate cuts that conservatives support because of the basic economics you just described. Second, government spending does not stimulate consumption because it does not “increase individuals’ income”, which you said yourself is necessary to stimulate consumption.

17. Don Meaker, maywood ca on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Any tax cuts in this bill will be overwhelmed by the Alternative minimum tax.

    The GDP is about 13 trillion per year *or was*. Usual government spending is about 3 trillion. Bumping it to 4 trillion is a big deal, and pretending to cut taxes is just a lie. The Fed Reserve will just create money out of nothing to fund the rest. Inflation is a cruel tax, and the fed creating money has and will lead to inflation.

18. Loretta Budny, Ct. 06063 on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    As far as I can see, it looks like we have some very ignoant leaders or they are truely pieces of trash on feet.

19. james freeman on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Umm, the est. may be a bit low. ONce inflation hits 10-15%, won’t the costs be adjusted up?

20. Jay, The Wasteland on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Matthew, I’m afraid I’m going to have to give you an F in economics. The point of tax cuts isn’t to get people to spend more money. It’s to give people the freedom to decide what to do with their own money. And (watch carefully, now) when people save that money, it doesn’t just disappear. It is loaned out by banks, which, duh, GROWS THE ECONOMY. Understand now?

21. Rich, New Jersey on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    “To preserve independence (of the people), we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.” – Thomas Jefferson

    Looks like we’ve been given servitude.

22. Slayer of Liberal myths on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Matthew Brendzel needs to check his history and his economics. First off, government spending has never ever stimulated this economy, ever. It failed in the Great Depression and it has failed every time it has been tried since. Second, this bill will add approximately $13 a week to people’s paychecks. That’s not enough to stimulate anything. Furthermore, this stimulus does not have 38% of tax cuts. What it has is welfare checks given to people who pay no income taxes under the guise of “tax cuts”. Liberals have beautifully co-opted the term “tax cuts” to mean whatever they want it to mean. Obama’s plan will take people who pay ZERO income taxes and instead of calling it what it is (welfare) they refer to it as something else. And third, tax cuts work when marginal rates are slashed. Basic macroeconomic theory states that when businesses and the wealthy have their taxes cut, they invest in their businesses and hire people. This has worked every time it has been tried.

    It baffles me that Obama has stated “We are not going to return to the failed policies that doubled our national debt and sent our country into a tail spin” when he is exploding the deficit, this rapidly increasing our debt and increasing government spending, which has prolonged economic hardships every time it has been tried.

23. scott, Gladstone on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    So, how will robbing our children help? That is like running out of money so we just aquire 3000 credit cards and spend away. We’d go to jail, they get kickbacks. And $2 billion for ACORN?

24. Curtis, Alabama on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Seems to me that the argument over this spendulus (and everything else the federal government does)should start with whether it is constitutional.

25. Charles K. Forest Park, Ga. on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Nothing but spending and debt…just like liberals; us in the tank while they’re sitting on the side, watching us drown. Won’t even throw us a life preserver.

26. Al Adams, Albuquerque, NM – USA on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Has America REALLY come to this???? Have all the good men and women that have shed their blood and given their live done so in VANE????

    Have we joined the ranks of Kruschev, Stallin, Mao, Ill, and the rest to satisfy the elitists and bring shame to our souls? What will the rest of the world do now – that the ONE great democracy is now on her knees?

    Have we just thumbed our fingers at millions who have depended on us for Moral support, Monetary and Charitable Aid??? To this we have bowed.

27. randy, fort worth, texas on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    I hope and I pray that Obama is the real deal. The United States, the World, will suffer if he isn’t. What if, this were the most diabolical terroist plot ever dreamed of. That he has been groomed to run for president for years. And, it happened. What if, the plan was to break the United States by bankruptcy. The dominoes would start falling all around the world.
    My heart breaks for all people that have fallen in terroist attacks. But, think of the monetary results from 9/11. Think of the costs incurred by all since then, in all facets of finance. I truly hope, this thought is so very wrong.

28. New Jersey on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Greetings: My understanding with the stimulus $$ is supposed to create jobs? If that is the case then, according to Obama he claims that he will create two million new jobs with the stimulus bill. However, the creation of a single new job at this rate will cost ~ 600,000 dollars for a 50,000 dollar job. Obama is misleading the gullible sheeple Americans?

29. Michael Brown, Coarsegold CA on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Proverbs 1:10-19:

    10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
    11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
    12 Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
    13 We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
    14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
    15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:
    16 For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.
    17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
    18 And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.
    19 So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.

30. Lila, Livonia, MI on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Even China and Japan are no longer buying our debt – that says they don’t see a whole lot of future for the US economy – why can’t the Congress see it, and why will the taxpayers tolerate this detestibly criminal legislation?

31. Misery-Index-Rising on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Just another opinion writes:
    –Why not calculate the number over a century rather than just a decade. Your number sure will be much bigger and more shocking to the general public.

    So then, let’s not look at it over 10 years, even though that is the reality. Are you not shocked at $800 Billion (that’s with a B) in spending in just one year – bigger than the cost of the New Deal and all wars since? And oh by the way – they are not done quite yet – this is only HR1 of 2009. We still have Health Care to centralize; free education to whip up for the masses; and extended unemployment for the millions of lost jobs yet to occur in years out.

    How about this stat: “President Obama anticipates that spending over $800 billion will create 3.7 million new jobs. That means each job will cost more than $200,000.”

    Personally, I doubt even 3.7 thousand net jobs will result in the next 4 years.

    –Mr Congressman, can we use your visuals to explain the cost of the War in Iraq?

    Iraq pales in comparison to this spending monstrosity – your answer to past mistakes is to make more and grossly BIGGER mistakes ?

    –Small government? Oh I get it as long as we pump money into other countries while neglecting our domestic issues, we can claim “small government”.

    Sir, I don’t think anyone could honestly say that our Government is small by any objective measurement, even before this bill; even looking back 30 years. Now it is officially off the charts HUMONGOUS. When Govt spending and servicing of the debt reaches what number … 40% … 50% … 60% of GDP – will Govt be “too big” for you then ?
    When just Entitlement and debt interest costs eat up every tax dollar received in a year, and everything else the Govt does is financed, who do you think wins ? I’ll tell you, the central banks win. I am sure you know what happens when the debt can no longer be paid – don’t you ? You DO – right ??

    Do you really think that tax money should be used for what is in this bill? Do you not see the absolute waste in this law? And do you think the spending stops here ?

    –We’ve spent trillions on our foreign policy over the past decade. What is wrong with spending an equal amount on ourselves.

    What selfishness. I do agree with you that Foreign spending is much higher than is should be. But this is a dangerous world we live in. Take a cruse off the coast of Somalia, if you doubt it. Without defense and foreign spending, the danger would be at both our shores in quite dramatic ways at this moment. You are very generous with future earnings of my grandchildren that will likely be taxed at 70-80% to pay back this $3.27 Trillion. That’s IF they can even find a job in the depression era that could last until they are seniors. I’d like to know how you believe any of the spending in this bill is going to benefit ANYONE in this country besides the lobbyists and pols who will be lining their coffers with it for many years to come. They can’t find enough cracks and crevices to hide this bounty for later retrieval. If you think any of this money is going to solve any problem of the US citizens, you or your neighbors, you have been drinking too much of the koolaide, and should check yourself in to Betty Ford Clinic – Don’t worry – I am sure Obama will pay for your “treatment” there.

    Wake up America! National Socialism is not what our forefathers shed their blood, sweat, and tears for us to achieve. Liberty cannot be provided by a Government; it is the right you were born with. Soon very few will be working and paying tax for the benefit of very many. And when that begins to fail, then the only place to work will be for your Government. And then very many will be far worse off than any of the “poor” you will find today. The Government should be working for the governed, and not confiscating all earnings to provide anything beyond the basic services that it was chartered to provide. If you can’t see how wrong this is, regardless of what wrongs you can point to in the past, then you are missing the very point.

    All of this I would say to my Mother at the dinner table, because she too would say some of the same dribble that “Just another opinion” is spewing here. For all of her 65 years of life, the Govt has kept her poor; but she thought they were helping her. That’s the illusion, and THAT’s the problem.

32. Mark, CA on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Did anybody pull out a calculator? $800 billion to create 3.5 – 4 million jobs that works out to about $200,000 / job created!?!?!?!?! I am a small business owner and you know how many jobs I can create for $200K? I would love to hire on new workers for graphics and warehouse but credit has been so tight I can’t do it right now. I don’t like government spending because it really makes no sense that they are going to take money from the people to give back to the people because the people didn’t have enough money to spend. Can someone tell me how that logic makes sense? If we are going to spend that kind of money it would make more sense to just send the majority of the money to the SBA and have them dole it out to small business like mine that apply for a grant. The application form wouldn’t be anything complicated and could be completed in a short amount of time. Make it a matching program or a loan that can be forgiven if certain objectives get matched. That will stimulate the economy since 70% of all jobs are created by small business. Otherwise scrap this stupid bill and leave the money in our pockets.

33. Jassen, Parker Colorado on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    If anyone thought this was not going to happen are very naive. Change you can believe in! Well things are certainly going to change now the only question will be how bad for our beloved country

34. Louis Sklaroff, Kingston,N.Y. 12401 on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Rome fell because of a bloated Beauacracy, high taxes,and the Visigoth’s invasion. Oue country has all these factors. Substitue Mexicans for Visigoths,

35. Marvin Kraus Troy,Ohio on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Our gandchildren will be spitting on the graves of those politician that have forced this stimulum bill upon our nation.

36. MoneyAsWealth, Minnesota on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    The problem is that we are using debt for money.
    In April 2008, the Total Money Supply in the U.S. was $7.7 Trillion NY Federal Reserve.
    All of that was debt.

    Then, they borrowed $8.5 Trillion ARTICLE, now another $3.7 Trillion. They are not “printing it”, they are borrowing it. Big difference. Ex: Your employer prints up your paycheck – just pray he does not borrow it to you.

    Not understanding how our money system works makes the US population easy prey for the greedy, supported by the incompetent.

    When you use debt for money, what do you expect to get? It better be more debt, or you will be disappointed.

    BLOG
    For some answers: Money As Wealth, Read Bottom to Top

37. Werner Strasser, Lexington, KY on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Instead of representing me/us the Democrats succumb to Obama-hype and Wall Street greed.

    Apparently, Master Obama successfully castrated virtually all Democrats, making them his slaves and impotent to serve us. I never imagined that the illogical and stupid jive of the executive branch could hijack more than one halve of our legislative branch. And the $3 Trillion is only the beginning, with no end in sight and no way to stop this madness.

    Again, we are right back to the same irresponsible behavior by the House and Senate Democrats which is also part of how Americans got into this economic mess, and will be one of the reasons we’re not likely to get out of it anytime soon. I regret my insanity at the voting boot with a “mea culpa”. Insanity is doing the same over and over again and expecting different results.

    To be re-elected the Democrats’ need to stop their herd-mentality. I didn’t vote democratic to advance the White House’s neo-Marxist agenda but to preserve and build my representatives’ positions and power so they can represent my interest most effectively.

38. Happy screaming middle-class, Omaha on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Thanks to “Misery Index Rising”, I too watched my mother and quite a few relatives pulled into the government will take care of me syndrome. Fact is $2500 a month in welfare will never replace the earning $7-10K a month and the economic frugality that comes when someone must decide how to spend it.

    As for the our new President’s legacy…let it be said he did more in one month in office to destroy us than the cost of all the things mentioned (9/11, our wars combined, etc…).

    As a Constitution Party Member, I’m not bound or endeared to partisan issues; so, here goes the strait economic skinny, Obama 1 month cost = Bush 8 year cost–he’ll definitely be the most famous Harvard grad of all time. GW Bush certainly was not perfect either, but he wasn’t trying to push my country off of a cliff either.

    As for the all those who want to bring up war cost (both money and American deaths) here is a challenge for you. Go look up (google the department of transportation) how many have died from drunk driving in the US each year (about 42,000 and the costs that go with it)–would it shock you to find more of them occur in Democratic districts–how about we fix that first over gitmo and Afghanistan. Charity starts at home!

    It is a shame in his time at the hallowed Harvard Halls, he only “sought out…the Marxist professors” (an exerpt from one of his many self narrated bios) he should have sought out the other professors to show what a failure Marxism is and that capitalism only suffers when shackled to Marxist policies. My “hope” is that we’ll have more than just “change” in our pockets when his sociological experiment is done.

    Let it be said Barack Hussein Obama was never “judged by the color of his skin but by the content of his character”–and it was found lacking and full of anti-American sentiments (Bill Ayers).

    I’m sure, he’ll make a fine President for the 47 million he seeks to make more dependent on the government. The other 231 million better wake up or you’ll be getting table scraps too.

    Prediction: We’ll all be told that we need to elect him again to fix these problems “he was handed” (can you say Community Reinvestment Act of 1977)…then we’ll need to elect the new, revamped,foreign policy, guru Hillary “Ramrod” Clinton when he cannot pull off the promised miracles in the time alloted.

    Once, the United States middle class is extinct and we resemble France will the Marxists be happy–yes they will, then what? No one to tax at 50%, no money for handouts, no creativity, motivations are gone…

    The solid people of this country will survive, because if there are only going to be two classes then those of you who support left-leaning, Marxist, terd policy can truly hate the rest of us for doing well–the gloom, doom, whoa-is-me, you bring is yours to bear and you’ll never be happy–We will not accept defeat.

    Enjoy your paltry welfare check or get to work–the choice is yours

39. More happy screaming middle class, Omaha on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    For you great students of economics here is a problem:

    If you have a present value of $800B, at a 5% avg rate for 30 years, what is the future value of that initial $800B? Answer: $3,457B

    So,$3.5 with a capital “T” now adjust that figure for stagflation (feel free to use the Carter era figures for 1979-1981)–write me when your done

    P.S For the knuckle head who wanted to see the numbers for one hundred years out its about $105T at 5%, a very big price for the guy’s first month in office–scared yet? Here is another one for you how about 10 years at Carter stagflation rate of 12% thats $2.5T, this (plus the crap added to it over the term) will be the bill we had all of our current 8-year old children-your welcome kids.

    Nothing anyone could say can make partisan zealots deny their made up truths. If you want change get both the Democrats and Republicans out of office–no multi-millionaire is going to look out for you. At least the Republicans are truthful when they say they are for big business and capitalism; the Democrats don’t even have that to offer.

    Now we know how Hugo Chavez got his start–first instill fear, second close the jails (like Gitmo), free the criminals and terrorists (we’ll call this the Bill Ayers Act of 2009), Third blame everything on those who don’t agree with you (Rush Limbaugh is one heck of a scapegoat, but he fights back), Fourth welcome those who will take your stolen national treasure and help get you into power (Unions, Acorn, etc..), Fifth, destroy the will of the middle class…yep seems we’re right on track, Saul Alinsky is beaming with pride!

    All in one month, very efficient B-HO now lets get rid of term limits (thanks William J.C for that idea)–don’t forget to send Hugo a conrats, he did away with term limits today in Venezuela-I’m sure we can get this all done in the 1st 100 days if we try… Come on Nancy, Hillary and Harry you can do it–show those pesky middle class folks, the foundation of America who is boss.

40. Correcting Just Another Opinion, USA on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Just Another Opinion opined:

    So, Mr Congressman, can we use your visuals to explain the cost of the War in Iraq?

    Sure – it’s about 25% of this bloated pork-fest bill. That’s for the entire thing.

41. Fernao de Magalhaes, Ecuador on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Thanks Heritage Org. I am starting to do like Jim Rogers and divest myself out of dollars and into non dollar assets.
    I now see the effects of the public (government) school system as to how this boondoggle HR1 bill passes.

42. Dan Harrison Yorktown Heights, NY on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    What do BA and OT mean in the chart? Does anyone know?

43. Ang Dallas on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    thank you Dick Tupin for writing what you did, There are two types of people in America today. 1. Those that remember the Carter years. 2. Those that are going to find out what the Carter years was all about.

    Funny how people want to blame Bush, but they dont know their politics, the congress was run by the Dem’s for 6 of the 8 years.

    I cannot find the stimulus bill on the White House site. hmmmmm

    I got it from c-span.org

44. Ang, Dallas on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    Happy screaming middle class. Great blog. In four years it will still be Bush’s fault. lol I guess this is what he meant by change. Funny how he said he didnt know ayers. Few days after he won. Ayers came out and said he did know him and just stepped aside so he could win. And now look at the simulus alot of money going to Acorn. For Shame. They have made the White house a mess.

    Michelle getting on to the company that made those dolls. lol she said her kids were private citizens. lol No one else’s kids were that were in the White House. Oh their different. Thats right. Special

    What a mess and shame on anyone who voted for him for not checking out the TRUTH, they believed lies. They were warned. So shame on them. They asked for it and their gonna get it. I cannot believe that he is increasing welfare cks and the food stamps 13% My husband served 20 yrs in the service and lucky to get 5% if that, most of the time it is 1 or 2% And these ppl never ever worked. OMG

45. Deloyce Thorn. Texas on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    The government needs to give the people some of the money. They need it more than the large corporations and banks. How about sending us some of the stimilus money…….

46. PatHeexy on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    mm. amazing ))

47. Matthew Brendzel, Philadelphia on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    I’m intrigued by how much of a response my comment generated…
    Let me see if I can address people’s responses individually.

    To Tom Karras:
    I agree with you that pushing through legislation without giving it proper consideration, especially when it is over something contentious. But the Democrats didn’t invent this – they copied it from the Republican push for the Patriot act and the argument for the war in Iraq. Republicans then argued, as the Democrats do now, that the costs of waiting were too high and that decisions needed to be made quickly, even at the expense of bipartisanship.

    To Jay the Wasteland (?):
    Your point that saving improves the economy is well taken. However, there is a fundamental trade-off. On the one hand, increasing saving decreases interest rates, which means that companies can more easily invest in new capital. On the other hand, increasing consumption drives demand. In fact, tax cuts cause both effects. However, in terms of growing the GDP, I’m fairly sure that the effect from increased consumption is much more significant.
    I also would like to add that there’s no need for incivility. We’re all intelligent people here, discussing complex, real-world problems that (if we are honest with ourselves) we really don’t know all the answers to. I just think that the kind of discourse we have should reflect that.

    To Slayer of Liberal myths:
    It may surprise you to know that both tax cuts and government spending, as policies, are fundamentally Keynesian ideas. Yes, “The government should pay people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up” Keynes. In his eyes government spending and direct tax cuts were both ways of priming the economic pump. To support tax cuts (at least from an economic standpoint) is to support government spending. And while our escape of the Great Depression may or may not be due to FDR’s spending policies, you’re neglecting one very big governmental expense, WWII, which almost certainly played a role.
    I also must protest your comment about tax cuts to the wealthy. Wealthy people have higher expenses than poorer people, but (generally speaking) aren’t their net incomes also considerably larger? If so, then wealthy people could be expected to save a greater portion of their money than poorer people, who can’t afford to. And since the consumption effect on GDP is more significant than the saving effect, this means that tax cuts to wealthy individuals should stimulate the economy less than dollar-equivalent tax cuts to poorer people (or even dollar-equivalent welfare, if they earn so little that they pay no income tax).

48. actuancit on February 12th, 2009 at 11:08am said:

    emm… funny.