Side By Side Comparison of the House vs. Senate Stimulus Bills

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://www.propublica.org/special/the-stim...ouse-vs.-senate

[Jasman0717 9]

How long will it take them to battle the differences out

[dalegg 143]

How long will it take them to battle the differences out

until the Republicans recognize that Obama won.

This is my favorite one--

$138,000,000 less in accountability from the Senate. Does this mean the house is more accountable for issues than the Senate?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How long will it take them to battle the differences out

I am sure that Nancy and Harry have already written the bill. The Senate Majority leader said today, "The number of conferees will be few, to speed things along, and from the Senate, this will be some Senators' first conference."

What does that tell you? Scripted and controlled...

Edited February 11, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Heracles 417]

Tax Cuts Total $282,284,000,000 $358,162,000,000 ▲$75,878,000,000

I must seriously be missing something with regards to the tax cuts somehow being a boost.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Aficionado

[dalegg 143]

Tax Cuts Total $282,284,000,000 $358,162,000,000 ▲$75,878,000,000

I must seriously be missing something with regards to the tax cuts somehow being a boost.

The idea is that if people get to keep more of their money instead of paying it into taxes they will go out and buy things from companies that are about to go under because of slumping sales. Then these companies can keep paying their employees who will go out and buy things from other companies. Now both of these companies are not only keeping more employees on hand, but they are paying more taxes to the government to make up for the tax cuts.

This is the best way to stimulate the economy. Everything else is just socialism

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Tax Cuts Total $282,284,000,000 $358,162,000,000 ▲$75,878,000,000

I must seriously be missing something with regards to the tax cuts somehow being a boost.

The idea is that if people get to keep more of their money instead of paying it into taxes they will go out and buy things from companies that are about to go under because of slumping sales. Then these companies can keep paying their employees who will go out and buy things from other companies. Now both of these companies are not only keeping more employees on hand, but they are paying more taxes to the government to make up for the tax cuts.

This is the best way to stimulate the economy. Everything else is just socialism

Right on!

[NickD 203]

While I can criticize the government, do not have an inventive mind like they to do come up with some of this stuff like some of the rules, regulations, and forms they print.

But let's look at the concept, the whole purpose of this money is to STIMULATE the economy, who in the hell ever came up with the word STIMULATE? Are they watching porn movies or something? That is certainly a form of stimulation for some. To me, if the economy is broke you Fix it.

In engineering with a new product that fails, you retrace all of your steps, sometime the concept is 100% wrong, start over, most of the time, a little here and a little there needs correcting.

We could go clear back to the time of Eisenhower, when we had a good economy, find out what was done to weaken it, and reverse it. Eisenhower, even though a general and we had a cold war, was very tight on military spending, military spending is non-productive and he knew that. And while we had WW II, Korean and VN wars that actually boosted the economy even for non-productive means, it put Americans to work the the government can tax and get it all back. In theory at least, all the raw materials were given to us in this earth, it's just labor that is needed to make stuff with it and labor can be taxed.

Even a country like Japan succeeded with a strong economy and very limited natural resources, hell, they could buy the raw materials and energy for a couple of bucks to make a VCR and sell it for 1,500 bucks, that brought cash into their country, in this case, our cash. Now it's China, that has got to be fixed.

War in Iraq is breaking us, and Bush only knows where that money was going to, but certainly not to the American economy nor the troops, that has to be fixed.

If high taxes is the problem, that has got to be fixed. If we have an uneven playing field with our banks and Wall Streets, that has got to be fixed.

If you look over that huge spending bill, is that actually fixing problems? How would a tax cut help those that are unemployed? And why are all the states going broke? And why do we put all of our trust in a handful of guys? These are some of the problems that have to be fixed, but can't expect idiots to do that, they are the ones that got us into this mess.

Is this spending bill actually fixing the broken problems? I do not think so.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Tax Cuts Total $282,284,000,000 $358,162,000,000 ▲$75,878,000,000

I must seriously be missing something with regards to the tax cuts somehow being a boost.

The idea is that if people get to keep more of their money instead of paying it into taxes they will go out and buy things from companies that are about to go under because of slumping sales. Then these companies can keep paying their employees who will go out and buy things from other companies. Now both of these companies are not only keeping more employees on hand, but they are paying more taxes to the government to make up for the tax cuts.

This is the best way to stimulate the economy. Everything else is just socialism

According to whom - there's the difference, Dale. When leading economists and nonpartisan think tanks all are essentially saying the same thing - that investing into infrastructure and particularly programs like food stamps are the most effective ways to stimulate an economy, while tax cuts are not very effective at all. It's the Republicans who are arguing based on ideology rather than sound economic principles.

I posted the piece below yesterday, but I'll post it in this thread because it addresses this very issue.

(Note especially the parts in red)

....

The GOP's Fact-Free Economics

Are House Republicans reading the reports from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service? Because if the language they used today at a series of Capitol Hill press conferences on the stimulus is any indication, they are not doing their homework. Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, the third-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, kicked the day off with a morning press availability. Reacting to the town hall event President Barack Obama held in his state on Monday to sell the stimulus to ordinary Americans, Pence called the bill a "monstrous wish list of tired liberal spending priorities." Sitting in a well-apportioned conference room on Capitol Hill, he insisted that a "so-called stimulus bill" loaded with spending would never get the support of the conservative House GOP caucus. "We're going to dig in, almost irrespective of the polls." He then noted that support for the bill is dropping in the polls.

The one thing that Pence pointed to as a panacea, both for the nation's economic problems and for the bill's lack of bipartisan support, was tax cuts. "The fastest way to jumpstart an economy in a recession," he said, is to give tax relief to families and small businesses. He noted that he too had held a town hall in Indiana, and the biggest rounds of applause always came for tax cuts.

A few hours later, the number two Republican in the House, Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia, held his own press availability. "Poll after poll" show that Americans want tax cuts, he said. He claimed that a plan put forward by House Republicans that is heavy on tax cuts will cost half as much as the current stimulus and create twice as many jobs.

The problem is that few people who study economics see things the same way as the Republican leadership. Liberal economists such as Paul Krugman, James Galbraith, and Dean Baker, have been clamoring since the beginning of the stimulus debate that massive infrastructure investment is a far better stimulant than tax cuts. But the conclusion is not an ideological one. Mark Zandi, the universally respected chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, released data (represented in several handy charts floating around the web) that showed food stamps, unemployment benefits, and infrastructure spending are all better at stimulating the economy than tax cuts.

And now, an unimpeachable non-partisan source has been revealed as coming to the same conclusion. Early this week, thousands of reports from the Congressional Research Service, which exists to provide unbiased answers and info to curious lawmakers, were leaked on the website wikileaks.org. One such report from January 23 of this year called "Economic Stimulus: Issues and Policies" [pdf] makes it clear that the GOP's talking points place ideology over good economics. "Economists generally agree that spending proposals are somewhat more stimulative than tax cuts since part of a tax cut may be saved by the recipients," says the report. "The primary way to achieve the most bang for the buck is by choosing policies that result in spending, not saving. Direct government spending on goods and services would therefore lead to the most bang for the buck since none of it would be saved."

The CRS report also says that if tax cuts must be used they should be slanted toward low-income Americans, never Republicans' favorite constituency. "The effectiveness of tax cuts also depends on their nature... tax cuts received by lower income individuals are more likely to be spent."

Particularly useless are corporate tax cuts, which are one of the cornerstones of the GOP's stimulus alternatives. One such alternative pushed by Senator Jim DeMint was a package of tax cuts that included cutting the corporate income tax by roughly one-third. CRS is not excited about the prospect:

Most evidence does not suggest that business tax cuts would provide significant short-term stimulus. Investment incentives are attractive, if they work, because increasing investment does not trade off short term stimulus benefits for a reduction in capital formation, as do provisions stimulating consumption. Nevertheless, most evidence does not suggest these provisions work very well to induce short-term spending. This lack of effectiveness may occur because of planning lags or because stimulus is generally provided during economic slowdowns when excess capacity may already exist. Of business tax provisions, investment subsidies are more effective than rate cuts, but there is little evidence to support much stimulus effect.

One wonders what the congressional Republicans' sin is. Have they simply not read the economic research, including some from within the Congress itself, that suggests their ideas are not good for the nation? Or are they aware of the truth but choose to ignore it, because their united opposition makes life difficult for the new president and their embrace of tax cuts at all costs will always be popular with voters? They must hope that as they push debunked economic proposals, voters don't come to the conclusion that their party is either incompetent or disingenuous.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archiv...x_cuts_crs.html

[dalegg 143]

Tax Cuts Total $282,284,000,000 $358,162,000,000 ▲$75,878,000,000

I must seriously be missing something with regards to the tax cuts somehow being a boost.

The idea is that if people get to keep more of their money instead of paying it into taxes they will go out and buy things from companies that are about to go under because of slumping sales. Then these companies can keep paying their employees who will go out and buy things from other companies. Now both of these companies are not only keeping more employees on hand, but they are paying more taxes to the government to make up for the tax cuts.

This is the best way to stimulate the economy. Everything else is just socialism

According to whom - there's the difference, Dale. When leading economists and nonpartisan think tanks all are essentially saying the same thing - that investing into infrastructure and particularly programs like food stamps are the most effective ways to stimulate an economy, while tax cuts are not very effective at all. It's the Republicans who are arguing based on ideology rather than sound economic principles.

I posted the piece below yesterday, but I'll post it in this thread because it addresses this very issue.

(Note especially the parts in red)

....

The GOP's Fact-Free Economics

Are House Republicans reading the reports from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service? Because if the language they used today at a series of Capitol Hill press conferences on the stimulus is any indication, they are not doing their homework. Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, the third-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, kicked the day off with a morning press availability. Reacting to the town hall event President Barack Obama held in his state on Monday to sell the stimulus to ordinary Americans, Pence called the bill a "monstrous wish list of tired liberal spending priorities." Sitting in a well-apportioned conference room on Capitol Hill, he insisted that a "so-called stimulus bill" loaded with spending would never get the support of the conservative House GOP caucus. "We're going to dig in, almost irrespective of the polls." He then noted that support for the bill is dropping in the polls.

The one thing that Pence pointed to as a panacea, both for the nation's economic problems and for the bill's lack of bipartisan support, was tax cuts. "The fastest way to jumpstart an economy in a recession," he said, is to give tax relief to families and small businesses. He noted that he too had held a town hall in Indiana, and the biggest rounds of applause always came for tax cuts.

A few hours later, the number two Republican in the House, Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia, held his own press availability. "Poll after poll" show that Americans want tax cuts, he said. He claimed that a plan put forward by House Republicans that is heavy on tax cuts will cost half as much as the current stimulus and create twice as many jobs.

The problem is that few people who study economics see things the same way as the Republican leadership. Liberal economists such as Paul Krugman, James Galbraith, and Dean Baker, have been clamoring since the beginning of the stimulus debate that massive infrastructure investment is a far better stimulant than tax cuts. But the conclusion is not an ideological one. Mark Zandi, the universally respected chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, released data (represented in several handy charts floating around the web) that showed food stamps, unemployment benefits, and infrastructure spending are all better at stimulating the economy than tax cuts.

And now, an unimpeachable non-partisan source has been revealed as coming to the same conclusion. Early this week, thousands of reports from the Congressional Research Service, which exists to provide unbiased answers and info to curious lawmakers, were leaked on the website wikileaks.org. One such report from January 23 of this year called "Economic Stimulus: Issues and Policies" [pdf] makes it clear that the GOP's talking points place ideology over good economics. "Economists generally agree that spending proposals are somewhat more stimulative than tax cuts since part of a tax cut may be saved by the recipients," says the report. "The primary way to achieve the most bang for the buck is by choosing policies that result in spending, not saving. Direct government spending on goods and services would therefore lead to the most bang for the buck since none of it would be saved."

The CRS report also says that if tax cuts must be used they should be slanted toward low-income Americans, never Republicans' favorite constituency. "The effectiveness of tax cuts also depends on their nature... tax cuts received by lower income individuals are more likely to be spent."

Particularly useless are corporate tax cuts, which are one of the cornerstones of the GOP's stimulus alternatives. One such alternative pushed by Senator Jim DeMint was a package of tax cuts that included cutting the corporate income tax by roughly one-third. CRS is not excited about the prospect:

Most evidence does not suggest that business tax cuts would provide significant short-term stimulus. Investment incentives are attractive, if they work, because increasing investment does not trade off short term stimulus benefits for a reduction in capital formation, as do provisions stimulating consumption. Nevertheless, most evidence does not suggest these provisions work very well to induce short-term spending. This lack of effectiveness may occur because of planning lags or because stimulus is generally provided during economic slowdowns when excess capacity may already exist. Of business tax provisions, investment subsidies are more effective than rate cuts, but there is little evidence to support much stimulus effect.

One wonders what the congressional Republicans' sin is. Have they simply not read the economic research, including some from within the Congress itself, that suggests their ideas are not good for the nation? Or are they aware of the truth but choose to ignore it, because their united opposition makes life difficult for the new president and their embrace of tax cuts at all costs will always be popular with voters? They must hope that as they push debunked economic proposals, voters don't come to the conclusion that their party is either incompetent or disingenuous.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archiv...x_cuts_crs.html

Steven, what you have posted is in direct contradiction to many other economists. The cutting taxes approach is logical to me, because it is a cyclic approach that feeds itself and is therefore sustainable.

Throwing money at a problem to artificially create stimulus by creating jobs whose product does not feed back into the economy is only a temporary solution. Put people to work rebuilding bridges for 2 years for example. Okay so these people have a job for 2 years and they will of course add to the economy. But the bridge itself will not show its economic gains for years, and by that time the jobs created are no longer needed. The only way to sustain those jobs is to create more work, and thus more government spending with no return. You are only delaying the problem and meanwhile increasing the debt.

There are make-work jobs that I do believe can create long term economic progress. Some of the green energy projects are an example because they ultimately reduce costs for every citizen giving them more money to put back into the system, but putting money into "head start" programs is nothing but a wish and relies on many other factors to succeed.

Edited February 11, 2009 by dalegg

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven, what you have posted is in direct contradiction to many other economists. The cutting taxes approach is logical to me, because it is a cyclic approach that feeds itself and is therefore sustainable.

Throwing money at a problem to artificially create stimulus by creating jobs whose product does not feed back into the economy is only a temporary solution. Put people to work rebuilding bridges for 2 years for example. Okay so these people have a job for 2 years and they will of course add to the economy. But the bridge itself will not show its economic gains for years, and by that time the jobs created are no longer needed. The only way to sustain those jobs is to create more work, and thus more government spending with no return. You are only delaying the problem and meanwhile increasing the debt.

There are make-work jobs that I do believe can create long term economic progress. Some of the green energy projects are an example because they ultimately reduce costs for every citizen giving them more money to put back into the system, but putting money into "head start" programs is nothing but a wish and relies on many other factors to succeed.

Sure - there are economists that differ over the effects of it, but the point I was making is that nonpartisan think tanks with economists are saying that infrastructure spending is the most effective way to stimulate the economy.

The idea is to get money flowing back into the economy - spending and lending....with the idea that long term job growth will naturally come from the private sector as it normally does. The reason why job growth has stammered and we have such high unemployment is mostly because people are not spending and the banks are not lending.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Steven, what you have posted is in direct contradiction to many other economists. The cutting taxes approach is logical to me, because it is a cyclic approach that feeds itself and is therefore sustainable.

Throwing money at a problem to artificially create stimulus by creating jobs whose product does not feed back into the economy is only a temporary solution. Put people to work rebuilding bridges for 2 years for example. Okay so these people have a job for 2 years and they will of course add to the economy. But the bridge itself will not show its economic gains for years, and by that time the jobs created are no longer needed. The only way to sustain those jobs is to create more work, and thus more government spending with no return. You are only delaying the problem and meanwhile increasing the debt.

There are make-work jobs that I do believe can create long term economic progress. Some of the green energy projects are an example because they ultimately reduce costs for every citizen giving them more money to put back into the system, but putting money into "head start" programs is nothing but a wish and relies on many other factors to succeed.

Sure - there are economists that differ over the effects of it, but the point I was making is that nonpartisan think tanks with economists are saying that infrastructure spending is the most effective way to stimulate the economy.

The idea is to get money flowing back into the economy - spending and lending....with the idea that long term job growth will naturally come from the private sector as it normally does. The reason why job growth has stammered and we have such high unemployment is mostly because people are not spending and the banks are not lending.

Now, where did you find a "one-handed" economist? They always qualify everthing they say, "On the one hand, ...... but on the other hand,......)"

[dalegg 143]

The reason why job growth has stammered and we have such high unemployment is mostly because people are not spending and the banks are not lending.

If they aren't lending then we need to get our money back!