3 ms·

Ok, you're right, there was a lump sum allocated to the Fed Dept of Ed which will eventually make it's way to the states through various reform-based programs -

by jbooth 17y ago

Ok, you're right, there was a lump sum allocated to the Fed Dept of Ed which will eventually make it's way to the states through various reform-based programs -- programs, which, btw, are based on teacher accountability in a way that the teachers' unions are hugely opposed to. I thought conservatives would eat that up? Between that and the tax cuts, I can see how the party-over-substance crowd would have a big problem with this guy actually documenting where the money went. It's a lot easier to just shout "socialism!" than to talk about the numbers. Regarding aid "to states to shore up their budgets", there was precisely zero, funding unemployment benefits and medicaid is not grant money going to states, it passes straight through to the recipients. There was originally a big item that involved the federal government contributing to state budgets in order to forestall state layoffs for a year, which I thought would be a great example of counter-cyclical spending. Unfortunately, it also made great hay for those who wanted to attack the bill in general as "big spending", so it got jettisoned. That's what I was referring to, not pass-through expenditures like medicaid, unemployment, etc.

hga 17y ago
"I thought conservatives would eat that up" Again, watch for the attached strings, which I've read include a Federal curriculum. And we've yet to see if these programs actually make it in the face of union opposition. Last time I checked 1/5 of the members of any given Democratic presidential nominating caucus are unionized teachers, and the shutdown of the D.C. voucher program, the one that provides among other things scholarships to the school Obama's children go to, does not inspire confidence. Conservatives don't think much of temporary tax cuts, you only get changes in behavior with permanent changes in fiscal policy (and as for permanent 1-1.5 trillion dollar deficits...). People just pocket one time a few hundred dollar things like the Bush stimulus or this. And we have a tendency to ask, "Is this worth the price?" You have to look at both sides of the ledger. While unemployment and Medicaid may be "pass-through" in terms of mechanism, the fact remains that the states are on the hook for most of that money anyway and would have had to pay it out if not for this temporary Federal windfall.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Well, hang on, you're saying that rather than a temporary tax cut, you'd have preferred the more substantive policy changes? Let's say Obama said "Hey, I thought about doing a temporary tax cut, but I'd rather concentrate on policy changes to help our bottom line" -- how do you think that would have gone over with the right side of the aisle? PS Regarding policy changes to help the bottom line... you've seen those projected deficit numbers right? Two questions: 1) Do you think those projected deficits are the result of Obama administration policy (about 3 months old at the time I first saw the chart), or because of underlying fundamentals? 2) If you had to guess at the fastest rising cost in government spending, would you guess healthcare? 3) Ok fine, one more but I can't resist, if Obama said "I'm not pursuing a tax cut, I'm prioritizing healthcare reform because it will save the government a ton of money", how do you think the conservative reaction would go? :)
  - hga 17y ago
    Yes, but not any substantive policy changes that Obama wants. 1. Obama administration policy. There's no limit to how fast a politician can spend money ^_^. (Well, to authorize the spending of money; as we've seen with the stimulus bill there's no limit to the amount of red tape a bureaucrat can then use to tie up a process.) 2. Yes. 3. Unfavorable, since we don't believe that the ends justify the means and we don't believe him on costs. The CBO doesn't believe him, and that's not counting the "savings" achieved by gutting Medicare, which will of course be repealed in due course or "adjusted" every year as is already done for Medicare payments to doctors.
    - jbooth 17y ago
      Well, sounds like the dude can't win with you -- I mean why waste the time with justifications and arguments if it's just a big fat "NO!", even when he's co-opting formerly republican ideas? There's exactly one time when the government should make a point of counter-cyclical deficit spending -- when in a recession. This is in pretty much every economics textbook, including the one by Greg Mankiw (Bush's chief economics adviser) that I read in college. What we saw however, was that according to Dick Cheney, "Deficits don't matter [as long as a republican is in office]", then as soon as a democrat is in office, deficit spending during the worst financial meltdown in recent history is against economic fundamentals all of a sudden. On healthcare.. I don't even know where to start, whether it's with your total refusal to acknowledge that we should focus on dollar-driven solutions ("I don't believe the ends justify the means"), or your incoherent philosophy "I don't believe in government financed healthcare in general EXCEPT for medicare, in which case I'll accuse you of 'gutting' it." At the end of the day, we have a huge budget hole as a result of skyrocketing medical costs. I spent 3 years in local government laying off teachers and feeling like shit about it because of those costs. Forgive me if I value those teachers' paychecks and the kids' education over abstract ideals about what is socialism, what isn't, and how something can only be a good idea if a republican proposes it.

by jbooth 17y ago

hga 17y ago

"I thought conservatives would eat that up" Again, watch for the attached strings, which I've read include a Federal curriculum. And we've yet to see if these programs actually make it in the face of union opposition. Last time I checked 1/5 of the members of any given Democratic presidential nominating caucus are unionized teachers, and the shutdown of the D.C. voucher program, the one that provides among other things scholarships to the school Obama's children go to, does not inspire confidence. Conservatives don't think much of temporary tax cuts, you only get changes in behavior with permanent changes in fiscal policy (and as for permanent 1-1.5 trillion dollar deficits...). People just pocket one time a few hundred dollar things like the Bush stimulus or this. And we have a tendency to ask, "Is this worth the price?" You have to look at both sides of the ledger. While unemployment and Medicaid may be "pass-through" in terms of mechanism, the fact remains that the states are on the hook for most of that money anyway and would have had to pay it out if not for this temporary Federal windfall.

jbooth 17y ago
Well, hang on, you're saying that rather than a temporary tax cut, you'd have preferred the more substantive policy changes? Let's say Obama said "Hey, I thought about doing a temporary tax cut, but I'd rather concentrate on policy changes to help our bottom line" -- how do you think that would have gone over with the right side of the aisle? PS Regarding policy changes to help the bottom line... you've seen those projected deficit numbers right? Two questions: 1) Do you think those projected deficits are the result of Obama administration policy (about 3 months old at the time I first saw the chart), or because of underlying fundamentals? 2) If you had to guess at the fastest rising cost in government spending, would you guess healthcare? 3) Ok fine, one more but I can't resist, if Obama said "I'm not pursuing a tax cut, I'm prioritizing healthcare reform because it will save the government a ton of money", how do you think the conservative reaction would go? :)
- hga 17y ago
  Yes, but not any substantive policy changes that Obama wants. 1. Obama administration policy. There's no limit to how fast a politician can spend money ^_^. (Well, to authorize the spending of money; as we've seen with the stimulus bill there's no limit to the amount of red tape a bureaucrat can then use to tie up a process.) 2. Yes. 3. Unfavorable, since we don't believe that the ends justify the means and we don't believe him on costs. The CBO doesn't believe him, and that's not counting the "savings" achieved by gutting Medicare, which will of course be repealed in due course or "adjusted" every year as is already done for Medicare payments to doctors.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Well, sounds like the dude can't win with you -- I mean why waste the time with justifications and arguments if it's just a big fat "NO!", even when he's co-opting formerly republican ideas? There's exactly one time when the government should make a point of counter-cyclical deficit spending -- when in a recession. This is in pretty much every economics textbook, including the one by Greg Mankiw (Bush's chief economics adviser) that I read in college. What we saw however, was that according to Dick Cheney, "Deficits don't matter [as long as a republican is in office]", then as soon as a democrat is in office, deficit spending during the worst financial meltdown in recent history is against economic fundamentals all of a sudden. On healthcare.. I don't even know where to start, whether it's with your total refusal to acknowledge that we should focus on dollar-driven solutions ("I don't believe the ends justify the means"), or your incoherent philosophy "I don't believe in government financed healthcare in general EXCEPT for medicare, in which case I'll accuse you of 'gutting' it." At the end of the day, we have a huge budget hole as a result of skyrocketing medical costs. I spent 3 years in local government laying off teachers and feeling like shit about it because of those costs. Forgive me if I value those teachers' paychecks and the kids' education over abstract ideals about what is socialism, what isn't, and how something can only be a good idea if a republican proposes it.