What Exactly Are We Stimulating with Our Hundreds of Billions of Dollars?
Via Hot Air comes this clip of Republican leaders discussing their meeting with Obama about the stimulus package:
In the clip, Boehner repeatedly expresses concerns about the “size of the package” and asks at the end: “How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives — how does that stimulate the economy?”
It certainly is a good question whether you can get stimulated with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contraceptives. And sure, it certainly can depend on the size of the package.
I get a little uncomfortable when men starting talking about “the size of the package.”
Joe (17aeff) — 1/23/2009 @ 11:59 pmBuy a sports car. It’ll make you feel
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/24/2009 @ 1:31 ambiggerbetter about yourself.the condoms will be distributed to the citizens, since this plan will screw each and everyone of us.
i just hope they’re lubed, for a change.
“We’re Screwed 2008”
redc1c4 (9c4f4a) — 1/24/2009 @ 2:09 amWhen I think of who’s right politically, I often think of John Boehner, and the Republicans. After all, we never tried anything that he suggested. We never tried cutting taxes. We certainly never tried de-regulating the free market. Truly, we should follow these processes as much as possible. What’s the worst that could happen?
Country First (6c8833) — 1/24/2009 @ 3:13 amBarry Dunham wants to stimulate Democrat strongholds – unions, big cities (blacks & dem’s), state goverments, teacher’s unions, etc.
It’s called buying off loyalty for future votes.
BeT (f6cafd) — 1/24/2009 @ 5:07 amThere is nothing un-stimulating about the idea of handling those billions.
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/24/2009 @ 5:20 amAll that spending will stimulate Swiss bank accounts.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 1/24/2009 @ 5:35 amAs Country First so eloquently pointed out, the keys to stimulating the economy are raising taxes and increased business regulations.
JD (2d2bfc) — 1/24/2009 @ 5:42 amIt is too bad that Obama is choosing to largely ignore the GOP objections to parts of this bill such as the contraceptives. If the “spend it all” experiment doesn’t work the economy will be even further in the toilet this time next year making GOP gains in the house an easier task.
voiceofreason2 (7c7411) — 1/24/2009 @ 5:47 amAs Powerline pointed out, only 7% of the funds will be spent in 2009. More pork barrel fun, but Obama did assert that HE won and so he should be supported in his spending proposals. I see international abortion groups will now receive federal funding. How does that help us here? Funny thing, evil Bush spent all those dollars to fight AIDS in Africa and his approval rating THERE is around 80%. And the Eastern Europeans think Bush is swell also, but the euroweenie elite, including the cheese-eating surrender monkeys think Obama is god.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/24/2009 @ 6:24 amWhy does it feel like some combo of FDR,LBJ and Jimmuh Carter in the guise of Jugears/man-titty Bracky will take us down the road to fruition?
duh- road to PERDITION, but fruition of libtard dreams of crap like kissing terrorists’ dupas, union check cards, Fairness doctrine, massive brown shirt civilian gestapo rivaling defense dept. in size.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/24/2009 @ 6:26 amYou know, yesterday one of the right wing cronies of this site ripped a poster for using the word ‘tard’ in his/her posts. Where is the love for this clown?
Ed from PA (836625) — 1/24/2009 @ 6:29 amLet’s look at the numbers.
Bureau of Labor statistics reported a 7.2% unemployment rate for December up from 6.8% in November. 11,100,000 Americans are out of work.
To fix it Congress wants to spend $825,000,000,000. That comes to $74,324 per unemployed worker.
Rather than blowing the cash on inefficient make work government programs, why not offer business owners an interest free loan of $74,324 per new hire? The first payback would be $10,000 to $25,000 per year in taxes and social security revenue – $111,000,000,000 to $277,500,000,000. If the government loan period was five years, the annual repayment would be $165,000,000,000 per year. In two years the taxpayer would have recouped 1/3 to 1/2 of the money.
If businesses go under, you could liquidate their assets, which would be better than what we are seeing today.
arch (84c50a) — 1/24/2009 @ 7:58 amCan’t get…..this….thing…..to….work…..
Our so-called republican leaders are a bunch of wimps. We need some conseervative leadership that has some principles, some cajones!
Follow my link below to see a first draft of a potential new concept for a new conservative party.
J. Raymond Wright (e8d0ca) — 1/24/2009 @ 8:01 amThe Democrats put the contraceptive spending in the bill to attract criticism on purpose. The House GOP went for it, like moths to a flame, and now they look like pathetic old men who are horrified at contraceptives. In addition, this is not a subject that should be discussed by anyone whose name is Boehner.
Official Internet Data Office (a33193) — 1/24/2009 @ 8:09 amEither that embed link is bad or the Communist News Network pulled it. I don’t know why they’d pull it, though.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/24/2009 @ 8:43 amThere is many hidden left agendas in the stimulus bill that Obama wants passed quickly…now I understand why he says “quickly”. The people asked for this and so I guess we all will have to live with this non-sense for a few years…or at least a couple years and then maybe, just maybe the American people will wake-up from that kool-aid effect and vote the congressmen out that votes along with the Obama socialist government.
goodtimepolitics (c1917b) — 1/24/2009 @ 9:10 amWhen the government is asking the tax payer to bend-over, I think Vaseline is more important than contraceptives.
The government is always so out of touch with reality.
ML (14488c) — 1/24/2009 @ 9:13 amContraceptives will help the economy, but not right away. By lowering the birth rate, there will be less competition for jobs in the future, hence, less unemployment!
I’m surprised Boehner can’t see the logic. 🙂
Patricia (89cb84) — 1/24/2009 @ 9:20 amThe Democrats see small business owners as 95% Republicans and therefore last in line for help. This is all about rewarding supporters. See Barney Frank for examples. There actually is a model for what needs to be done in the 1990s Swedish bank restructuring. I expect that will not be considered until it is too late.
Mike K (ee3203) — 1/24/2009 @ 9:30 amI detect a note of sarcasm. When do you believe we actually tried conservative policies?
And how about cutting spending some time?
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/24/2009 @ 9:39 amThis package has $300 million set aside for contraception. Just a thought but how about financially insolvent males keep their package in their pants and women keep their legs together and right off the top, we save our children and grandchildren from incurring a ridiculously obscene debt? This is outrageous and frankly a major slap in the fact of taxpaying citizens who assume responsibility for their own actions.
I’m with Krauthammer on this,
This is one of the worst bills in galactic history.
Dana (137151) — 1/24/2009 @ 9:40 amSmall businesses are too decentralized; they’re too hard to control. Big businesses — and big unions — are easier to co-opt.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/24/2009 @ 9:42 amIs it too soon to start a movement to impeach this media-made Messiah?
He’s nothing but a race hustler – only a more smooth talking version of Sharpton and Jackson.
Buh-bye Barry…..
Timms (f6cafd) — 1/24/2009 @ 10:12 am“This package has $300 million set aside for contraception.”
I’ve got his package right here! The Democrats don’t need contraception, they need abstinence. They need to stop screwing around with the conomy and making things worse. A bill of which only 10% will be expended in the current year cannot correctly be labelled stimulus abd this should be pointed out at every opportunity. The pork in the bill should be highlighted and ridiculed at every opportunity.
Pelosi’s most ethical Congress ever was a joke and the Democrat Congress is just showing that they do not take the American public seriously and instead see their government jobs as an excuse to spend other peoples’ money for power and to garner votes.
Sunlight baybee! Disinfect these plague ridden mutants in Congress.
daleyrocks (ae34ca) — 1/24/2009 @ 10:17 amWhen do you believe we actually tried conservative policies?
While Reagan at least tried, the best he could do is halt the line on some programs. The worst thing about Bush’s legacy is the reality of huge expansions of both existing and new gov’t programs – he really opened the floodgates to the wild Keynesian economics we’re witnessing on dispay now.
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/24/2009 @ 10:17 amPeople wear condoms during high stimulus inducing activities. Afterwards they feel good and will more likely go out and spend more money in the economy. Thus by the government’s participation in this stimulus inducing activities the people will be more likely to stimulate others into a massive economic orgasm.
eaglewingz08 (c46606) — 1/24/2009 @ 10:21 amWhen you include interest, the amount of taxes collected will greatly exceed the $825 billion spent. This is an anti-stimulus for workers who will be in their prime earning years 10 years from now.
Wesson (3ab0b8) — 1/24/2009 @ 10:26 amHow you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives — how does that stimulate the economy?”
Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/24/2009 @ 10:34 amI’ll tell you how it stimulates the economy. With more contraceptives, people won’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancies. This will reduce spending on abortions which will in turn boost the economy. Make any sense? 🙂
More contraceptives, more sex. More sex, less stress. Less stress, more work out put. It’s a win-win. 😉
Untill the “Main Stream Media” publishes exactly which group and/or interest gets what amount and what time period these monies are spent we will need any stimulus induced activity.
mike191 (01d55b) — 1/24/2009 @ 10:42 amBush’s willingness to accept — to be an enabler to — the bloated budgets of the Congress during the years it was controlled by Republicans was, in my opinion, his greatest blunder or oversight. But if Gore or Kerry, or both, had been in the White House instead of Bush, not only would we have had bloated budgets, but probably higher tax rates too. So the worst of both worlds.
Now with Obama and Company chomping at the bit to raise spending for primarily government-based programs, and the debt of the US going up accordingly — and with China now seeing an economic slowdown and possibly being less willing to invest in American debt — I wonder if we’re entering not just uncharted waters, but shark-filled ones at that?
And it doesn’t help that Obama is starting to make a stink about the trading policies of China — mainly how it has dealt with the value of its currency over the past several years. BTW, I think there’s some validity to his position. However, if the economy of the entire world, including that of both the US’s and China’s, is taking a turn for the worse, for Obama to now be sniping at China is a sign of great timing.
Way to go, Obama!
Mark (411533) — 1/24/2009 @ 10:43 amBush’s willingness to accept — to be an enabler to — the bloated budgets of the Congress during the years it was controlled by Republicans was, in my opinion, his greatest blunder or oversight.
Agreed. The other failure was that of Greenspan who should have seen where the easy money policy was leading us.
Mike K (ee3203) — 1/24/2009 @ 11:42 amThe purpose is to get actual money to actual consumers to spend. How to do it?? Get it to the rich via tax cuts and they’ll just spend it on yachts, gold trinkets, and new multi-million dollar apartments. Get it to the poor and they will immediately spend it on drugs, beer, sex, or lawyers who will promise to get them “not guilty” pleas on their latest felony charges. Get it to the people in the middle and those assholes will just pay off their credit cards, a discredited practice which will only succeed in further damaging the banking system. Cynics would have us give it to the whores but they would give it to their pimps who will spend it acquiring more whores.
So what to do?
Well thinking politicians are already giving millions to their campaign contributors, present and future; they will give it to banks that have proven to be corrupt and insolvent and those banks will in turn give the money back to the politicians in the form of preferentially low interest loans that don’t have to be repaid real soon, or artificially lending to phony construction companies.
How will the money eventually get to the people who will waste it on cars, TV sets, restaurants, furniture, theme parks, and clothing for their kids?
I have no idea.
howard432 (cc8b85) — 1/24/2009 @ 11:53 amGood summary of a modern economy, Howard.
Mike K (ee3203) — 1/24/2009 @ 12:06 pmPresident Obama: “Okay, dinner on me at Olive Garden. We will start with the A’s and work our way down the alphabet!”
Joe (17aeff) — 1/24/2009 @ 12:23 pmThis post seems to clarify the term “orgy of spending”.
Apogee (f4320c) — 1/24/2009 @ 12:30 pmWanna stimulate the economy?
1) Make our country more hospitable to business activity. Lower taxes, across the board, for everyone, most importantly for business.
2) Government then should step back, get out of the way.
3) Recovery will come.
Q) Why won’t this be done?
A) Because politicians can’t get credit for it.
Timms (f6cafd) — 1/24/2009 @ 12:32 pmPrinter’s ink production?
Alan Kellogg (e4d258) — 1/24/2009 @ 3:12 pmAgree, too. I always tell my liberal friends I didn’t particularly like Bush either, but for different reasons. IMHO he is the great liberator. Economics? Frightful.
Patricia (89cb84) — 1/24/2009 @ 3:17 pmFrankly, I think Obama has now undermined the ability of any defense of a possible return of the “Fairness Doctrine”. By going after Rush Limbaugh, Obama has now focused with specificity a “laser beam” on Rush Limbaugh.
I seem to recall a tiff starting in 1988 involving the Boston Herald, then owned by R Murdoch, being critical of Sen. Kennedy and the Kennedy slipping an amendment into legislation to force the sale of Murdoch holdings including a Boston TV station and the New York Post. Kennedy had bragged that this was a hit job on Murdoch and eventually the SCOTUS agreed, striking down the amendment because it targeted an individual with the specificity a “laser beam”, a practice specially prohibited by the US Constitution.
Obama’s signaling of personal attacks on Limbaugh will provide plenty of room to use the same defense against any legislation involving the reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine” as a method of pushing Limbaugh off the air.
Limbaugh 1 Obama 0
Neo (cba5df) — 1/24/2009 @ 10:06 pmWhaaat????….talk about a cuckoo’s nest!
STEPHANOPOULOS: We also heard from Congressman Boehner coming out of the meeting today that again a lot of that spending doesn’t even meet the same test you just talked about right now. Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
Dana (137151) — 1/25/2009 @ 2:38 pm