Visualizing the stimulus

Go here for a visual on just how ridiculously large this alleged stimulus package is compared to things like the Louisana Purchase, the New Deal, the Iraq War and more. 

I’ll probably be saying this a lot for a few years, but this is just uninhibited-drunk-running-through-the streets-naked-liberalism. 

Only 14% of the expenditures could even pretend to be true stimulus spending, and that assumes there won’t be rampant fraud and inefficiencies as it is doled out.

Maybe Nancy Pelosi can work some abortion incentives in there to save even more money. 

Less than two weeks in office and we’ve got this already?  What a disaster.

0 thoughts on “Visualizing the stimulus”

  1. Terrible isn’t it?

    What would you suggest. California not only has to scrap welfare but essentials too…like reducing their school week to 3 days..

    Its a mess. I am interested in where you think he should have started. Everyone is so critical, at least you know how to come with it instead of just bellyaching.


  2. The starting point is simple: Don’t borrow hundreds of billions from future generations to blow on worthless liberal social engineering. Most of what they are spending it on will not help and will just cause more pain later. This is truly an insane amount of spending.


  3. I totally agree, but they can’t seem to talk themselves out of it can they?

    I’m upset as a business owner really. Corporate extortion if you ask me. I’m wondering is he ever going to call their bluff?

    First step should be bringing business back home…we’re getting RAPED overseas!


  4. Neil, thanks for blogging about this. I’ve been too depressed to even think about it.

    MizClark: some economists suggest that the #1 best way to get out of a recession is this: do nothing. There’s a myth running around that the government has to do something, and gawd forbid we should ever have a moment’s bad time in America. A lot of people, however, think that the market will not only correct itself faster without government intervention, but will do so at a lower cost and with fewer problems.

    What the government should do, IMHO: clean up anything that hinders the free market (which is not the same as a totally unregulated market, by the way). A recent newspaper article pointed out that the lower home prices are stimulating home sales in some parts of the country. Awesome! Get speculators out, and get bad risks out, and get stable Americans in there. Break the bubble, and then home prices will be within reach of younger Americans and middle-class Americans with stable jobs and the ability to pay a mortgage every month.

    This business of trying to “keep people in their homes” only serves to prolong the crisis, because, at its root, it is a failure of the market. These “people” shouldn’t be in $400,000 homes anyway.

    By the way, the stimulus will probably create double-digit inflation within the next decade. If this thing passes, I’m locking in my student loan rates (which, at around 8%, are higher than I would like), and figure that it’ll be chump change when inflation hits 15% a year. We can’t keep printing money like this without suffering the consequences.

    Oh, yeah, I wonder what rampant inflation will do to the adjustable-rate-mortgage housing market, the ability of students to repay their loans, and basically every other at-risk market segment you’re looking at? Seems like, if you want to help out, you would do everything possible to keep inflation in check. Just sayin.’


  5. Nice work Theo. When are you running for office? To add to what you’ve said, lowering tax rates on capital gains and income would be a far greater stimulus to the economy than worthless pork barrel spending of this horrible plan. Once this gets enacted, it will mean that the money spent will be the precedent by which future spending will be compared. And as it won’t work, as it won’t accomplish true economic stimulation, they will certainly ask for more money because the whine will be that this wasn’t enough after all. My crass advice? Maintain a liberal supply of lubricant.


  6. Hey Marshall I thought crudeness was my department! LOL…nice.

    Theo, you and Whoppi (View fan here) should campaign for a cabinet position, that makes the most sense which is why they’re probably not doing it.

    Obama is gonna fold just like any other politician, because there are too many frightened people pushing him in that direction. I guess we have to follow Marshall’s advise and pray Obama uses constraint.


  7. What I don’t understand is that no one has explained to the American people how this stimulus package will actually work to improve the economy. They just print lots of money and give it away. And they are giving it away to their favorite organizations. Am I missing something?


  8. Neil, Obama is really siezing the opportunity to roll out everybig spending program the Democrats have even dreamed about over the past 20 years and putting it under the moral heading of emergy stimulus and trying to blame Bush for the problem that he as to save.

    The Democrats don’t want you to know that Obama himself is probably the single most central politician responsible for the banking crisis that ushered in this recession (It is not your garden variety Business Cycle recession, but a financial crisis recession). If any of your readers question it I have the research and documentation…………steve


  9. I can’t help but comment on some of the quotes from this thread so far.

    “Less than two weeks in office and we’ve got this already?”

    ” Don’t borrow hundreds of billions from future generations to blow on worthless liberal social engineering”

    “I guess we have to follow Marshall’s advise and pray Obama uses constraint [restraint].”

    “Neil, Obama is really siezing the opportunity to roll out everybig spending program the Democrats have even dreamed about over the past 20 years…”

    All of you seem to be forgetting exactly who accelerated us down this path of self destruction. George Dubya Bush. Talk about your RINOs! He never once stood on conservative principles when it came to spending our money. He accelerated (at record speeds) us down this path of bailing out anyone and everyone.

    He even overturned a less then two day old congressional decision NOT to bail out the auto industry using authority he didn’t have, setting a horrible precedent. Congress should have called BS and prevented it. Now they are doomed forever to be a powerless shadow to the will of the Executive Branch. Any President now has the legal ability to use money from any congressional bill for any whim of the moment purpose he wishes. Thank you for that Dubya. We might as well have a Monarchy.

    And please don’t try to tell me that McCain would’ve been any better in this department. I (and all of you, too) remember clearly how he left the campaign trail to return to Washington to spend spend spend – print print print – more money than ever before on a rediculous plan to bail out banks. Banks!

    In his efforts to appease the Democrats (just to get along I suppose), Dubya has damaged this country more than any other President in our history.


  10. Neil,

    Have you heard the exchange between Robert Reich and Charley Rangel? It is a fascinating look into what they perceive the stimulus package to be.


  11. Thanks Mark restraint was what I was looking for!

    I didn’t mention Bush cause…well the nightmare is over. Now we just have to get up and clean the soiled bedsheets!


  12. Neil,

    I had more time than I thought before work so I pulled some quotes for you. Sorry if this is a little long.

    “…the billions of dollars in the proposed economic stimulus plan should be allocated with social issues in mind, to make sure the money doesn’t go to just “white male construction workers ” or the highly skilled.””

    “It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that will have a high social return, that also can be done with the greatest speed possible,” Reich said.

    “I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers,” he said.

    “There are ways in which the money can be, criteria can be set so the money does go to others, the long term unemployed, minorities, women,”

    From questioning by Rangel; The federal government, he said, must “remove the discretion” about where the funds go, or what projects would be involved, even to the point of eliminating any input from governors or state legislatures.

    Reich agreed: “Governors ought to be, should be given a choice of signing on the bottom line or not.”

    Then Rangel noted the “middle class” would be unlikely to create any opposition to funds directed to minorities.

    “One thing that you can depend on, you don’t have to be worried about what the middle class is going to do. Things are so bad, they have to put food on their tables, get clothes for their kids, get them in school,”

    Reich said the following at his blog. “”I’d suggest that all contracts entered into with stimulus funds require contractors to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and to people with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.” January 8, 2009

    By the way, who are these overpaid white construction workers? Can you say, look for the union label? I’d just as soon not have a bunch of unskilled labor building roads and bridges, but hey I’m from the Twin Cities, we’ve already gotten to see what happens when that happens.

    BTW again, how do you measure “high social return”


  13. mizclark

    You’re welcome. Yeah, one nightmare is over. Are we starting another one? Maybe…

    It just makes me laugh (cry) though when I hear people like Sean Hannity being so hipocritical in his criticisms of Obama. Where were the criticisms of Bush when he was doing the exact same thing?

    Actually I really do get some serious chuckles listening to Hannity on my drive home everyday. He’s become such a mockery of himself it’s just funny.


  14. Craig said,

    Have you heard the exchange between Robert Reich and Charley Rangel?

    You know that syndrome where people don’t want to watch a train wreck, but they can’t stop watching? Rangel vs. Reichhhhhhhh is one train wreck I’m more than happy to miss!

    Don’t forget, Hussein Obama is the same man who said, “Only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the cycle that are (sic) crippling our economy.”

    One website found these little pork rinds in this “stimulus” bill:

    $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years

    $2 billion for child-care subsidies

    $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts

    $400 million for global-warming research

    $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects

    $650 million to pay for digital TV conversion coupons

    $150 million for the Smithsonian museum

    $500 per illegal alien, $1,000 per illegal couple

    A conservative analysis of the bill suggests that only 12¢ of every dollar will go to genuine stimulus things like creating jobs. How’s that for “change”? Looks like the same old crap to me.


  15. Neil,

    Those quotes from Reich and Rangel were mind-blowing.

    Dave Ramsey

    has some good thoughts on this issue. It seems like the good ol, so-tight-you-squeak-when-you-walk, fuddy duddy old school conservative spending principles will go a long way here: a) people will keep doing what you reward them for doing. b) if you give money to fools, they will do foolish things with it, c) don’t spend what you don’t have (how will borrowing more money help us decrease the national debt?). I’m no expert…not even close, but the more I see, the more I think the “old grandpa” thinking has something going for it.


  16. Bush spent like a Democrat. No conservative denies this. At the end of his presidency, he did the same thing that Obama wants to do and it didn’t work then, so it’s not gonna work now. It ain’t who’s doing it, it’s what they’re doing.

    But the spending that Bush didn’t veto didn’t cause this mess. (yeah, I know, everything is Bush’s fault) You’re confusing government spending with private sector activity. The Dem interference in the housing and loan industry did more to create this mess than any non-veto’d bill of the Bush era. With Bush’s tax cuts, less spending would have made things better than they were for the bulk of his terms. 52 straight months of growth is nothing at which one should sneeze. But when certain industries began to struggle and fail, for whatever reason, throwing money at them rather than letting them fail and restructure is what has and will continue to cause the rest of us great pain.

    So in a very real sense, doing more of what Bush did in the realm of tax cuts, will do more to stimulate the economy, and reduced federal spending on every little thing except what they are Constitutionally mandated to support, will be the best move. Too bad the One isn’t smart enough to understand this basic premise.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s