Patterico's Pontifications

1/28/2009

Where Your Hard-Earned Money Will Be Going

Filed under: Economics,General,Obama — Patterico @ 10:13 pm

Michelle lists the depressing details.

  • $1.5 billion (not a typo) for a “carbon-capturing contest”
  • $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing
  • $75 million for smoking cessation

Well, Obama has been having trouble kicking the habit . . .

108 Responses to “Where Your Hard-Earned Money Will Be Going”

  1. Michelle Obama might be a carbon-capturing contest winner!

    (One rumor says she is pregnant, not fat).

    Perfect Sense (0922fa)

  2. I’m sorry, but when I read about “chlamydia testing” I couldn’t help but wonder how the results worked out for verbal or quantitative reasoning on the part of those bacterial pathogens.

    I once read a journal article that had this gem in the title: “Canine evaluation of antibiotic efficacy….” I didn’t even finish the title. Those were smart, smart dogs, and I trusted their judgement.

    Eric Blair (e92b94)

  3. Fantastic. So basically the blue dogs are just there to give Mrs. Pelosi her power to write pieces of shit like this and cast symbolic votes against it. Gaurentee you that those 11 dems that voted against this piece of garbage would probably be down to around 3 if their votes really counted.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  4. Its interesting how this discussion plays out for some people — like above — with similar attention being spent on such dissimilar items. 1.5 billion vs. 75 million? The latter is what? 30 cents per person? Malkin had some of her professional rage for 40 million or so spent on ATV trails.

    Can you imagine? The CCC spent 3 billion (per wikipedia, don’t know if its in then or current dollars). Think if each 40 million of that got wingnut outrage?

    imdw (a81897)

  5. Is the HIV and Chlamydia testing for members of Congress? Because a lot of them are real horn dogs.

    Joe (17aeff)

  6. I guess that I’m having problems seeing how spending $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing is an economic stimulus. Clearly it is my inferior understanding that prevents me from seeing the obvious brilliance of this move.

    The willfully obtuse Dana (3e4784)

  7. Hey, a few million here, a few million there, pretty soon we may be talking a few billion. OK, so that old line is getting stale, but then so is the spending by all of these pigs (they don’t call it pork for nothing do they?)

    GM Roper (85dcd7)

  8. Dana,

    All those tests have to be performed somewhere. Clearly, the medical lab industry is tanking and needs a bailout quick. And swab manufacturing is down 130% from last year!

    Pious Agnostic (291f9a)

  9. “I guess that I’m having problems seeing how spending $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing is an economic stimulus. ”

    One view is that generating spending — either by directly spending money or giving it to people who do — is stimulus. Economic activity is down, so government acts in a counter-cyclical manner to uptick activity in downtimes.

    Another view of this money isn’t so much that it is spending, but rather more of an investment — investing in preventative care and testing now means lower spending and loss of work from sick people later. I assume similar arguments can be made for smoking cessation.

    imdw (3dead3)

  10. imdw: So, if I go for an HIV test now, even though I’ve been married to the same woman for 29 years, 8 months and 10 days, haven’t been messing around with other women or engaging in wide-stance behavior in airport restrooms, and haven’t been using recreational pharmaceuticals via intravenous routes, I’m still doing something good by stimulating the economy?

    The baffled Dana (3e4784)

  11. “So, if I go for an HIV test now, even though I’ve been married to the same woman for 29 years, 8 months and 10 days, haven’t been messing around with other women or engaging in wide-stance behavior in airport restrooms, and haven’t been using recreational pharmaceuticals via intravenous routes, I’m still doing something good by stimulating the economy?”

    No blood transfusions either?

    That’s the thing about economics — its not whether you need it. Its whether there was activity. Like if you bought a DVD you never watched, that would still have some stimulus effect on our economy, but it may be lower because the DVD may be made abroad. Health care is probably more of a stimulus since its a service — the action you’re creating takes place here. This is why services can make for good stimulus — the create jobs here.

    Now, the investment value of you getting it versus someone else at a higher risk is going to be lower.

    imdw (4dbc86)

  12. I’ve been married to the same woman for 29 years, 8 months and 10 days

    LOL not counting are you Dana?

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  13. “So, if I go for an HIV test now, even though I’ve been married to the same woman for 29 years, 8 months and 10 days, haven’t been messing around with other women or engaging in wide-stance behavior in airport restrooms, and haven’t been using recreational pharmaceuticals via intravenous routes, I’m still doing something good by stimulating the economy?”

    No blood transfusions either? Ok.

    That’s the thing about economics — its not whether you need it. Its whether there was activity. Like if you bought a DVD you never watched, or a book you didn’t read, that would still have some stimulus effect on our economy, but it may be lower because the DVD or book may be made abroad. Health care is probably more of a stimulus since its a service — the action you’re creating takes place here. This is why services and construction can make for good stimulus — they create jobs here.

    Now, the investment value of you getting it versus someone else at a higher risk is going to be lower. A similar dynamic can occur with construction: you build a dam where there is no water, you still get stimulus. But its not much for an infrastructure investment.

    imdw (5a32ad)

  14. Oh so government pork=stimulus? Now I get it thanks for clearing that up.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  15. Also when O! helped steer a million dollar government grant to his wife’s hospital that could be considered a stimulus package. Wow so why don’t we just just set the tax rate at 100% and then have the government dole it out. Then we could have never ending stimulus packages and condoms for all.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  16. Remember what Rohm Emmanuel said: “We can’t let a good crises go to waste!”

    Per the WSJ in this so called “stimulus plan” only $.12 of every $1.00 goes toward anything “stimulating” the economy. $.88 of every $1.00 is just run-of-the-mill liberal spend, spend, spend, spend, spend.

    J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3)

  17. You don’t stimulate the economy by pumping megabucks in every which way. You stimulate the economy by reducing the cost of doing business. Those Reagan years the liberals are always wanting to trash had proof-positive the laugher curve is fact. Reagan got across-the board tax cuts and the federal government actually took in MORE tax money afterward as businesses got revved up.

    Of course, he could only get those tax cuts by allowing the Democrats to pile on portions of their liberal spending pet projects, which caused the deficit to soar despite record levels of tax money coming in.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  18. Another view of this money isn’t so much that it is spending, but rather more of an investment — investing in preventative care and testing now means lower spending and loss of work from sick people later. I assume similar arguments can be made for smoking cessation.

    Comment by imdw —

    So, if everybody stops smoking, and adopts a healthy lifestyle, that will put millions of healthcare workers out of work. Maybe Congress could fund ads promoting smoking and fast food. Think of the jobs that would generate ! And not just in the advertising agencies !

    imdw, you’re a genius !

    Personally, I think they should ship 20 billion dollars or so, in cash, to each federal building in the country. They could announce that, at noon the next day, they will throw the money out the windows. Think of the stimulus ! It would even get people to use public transportation !

    Great ideas are everywhere.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  19. Can’t someone just send me $400 million to go to Vegas with, I promised to get tested for HIV and Chlamydia afterwards.

    I will definitely promise to stimulate the economy if Congress goes along with my plan. Call it Oprah’s Gift Plan for the not so charitable or civic minded.

    Joe (17aeff)

  20. VoR2; I do math problems in my head, just for entertainment . . . which may tell you more about me than you’d ever wish to know.

    The Dana who thinks -- incorrectly, as it happens -- that he's a math genius (3e4784)

  21. Dana,
    We have something in common — must be the Ky water. I have a “Rain Man” kind of ocd to add numbers in my head instead of using a calculator. Good for parlor tricks but not much else. When people are giving the latest count for how many days they have left on the job or on station I can’t help but to figure out how many minutes that works out to!

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  22. The Democrats and the MSM are in a real panic with no GOP votes, the Democrats and the MSM own this stinker. They’ll all lose their phoney baloney jobs!

    PCD (7fe637)

  23. One view is that generating spending — either by directly spending money or giving it to people who do — is stimulus. Economic activity is down, so government acts in a counter-cyclical manner to uptick activity in downtimes.

    There’s a problem with this logic, imdw. First, it assumes that no one else would spend the money absent the government spending it. Second, in order for the government to spend $400 million on HIV/Chlamydia testing — which is inarguably a highly specialized niche — it must take that $400 million out of the hands of consumers who would spend it on things far more productive.

    Steverino (69d941)

  24. Improving public health reduces health care costs for both the government and private concerns. That’s a good thing for the economy. I know the topic of sex gives people the heebie jeebies around here, but really you should grow up.

    The Republican party: intransigent jackasses for an army of Bristol Palins.

    tamizdat (e8f5ce)

  25. This “stimulus” plan would work much better if they would just divide up the money and send out checks to everyone, except the evil rich. As is, this is predictable traditional Dem spending.

    JD (a9f2c7)

  26. Comment by PCD — 1/29/2009 @ 6:59 am

    My hope and change sentiment regarding this is that just maybe the GOP is turning the corner in which they quit squabbling internally and unify as a party again.

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  27. Improving public health reduces health care costs for both the government and private concerns. That’s a good thing for the economy

    So, what is the cost to the economy of HIV and Chlamydia? Would that cost be lowered by more than the $400 million spent to test for it? What does the testing do to lower the cost?

    See, if you’re going to look at it economically, you have to consider whether the money you might be saving in the future is greater than what you’re spending today.

    Steverino (69d941)

  28. Tamizdat is one of those jackass Leftists like the ones that St. Amanda whips into a frenzy over at Pandagon. They are mentally incapable of understanding the difference between questioning spending choices and being afraid of sex. They are tiresome. And they have an unhealthy fixation on the kids and grandkids of Republican Vice Presidential candidates.

    JD (a9f2c7)

  29. I know the topic of sex gives people the heebie jeebies around here, but really you should grow up.

    It’s been my experience that the people who feel most compelled to obsess about sex are the ones least comfortable with their sexuality. Obsession with it is not something normally associated with conservatives.

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  30. If everyone in the country quit smoking tomorrow, federal, state, and local governments would be crippled due to the loss of tax revenue.

    JD (a9f2c7)

  31. #28
    AND it would strain an already overburdened social security system with the extra payouts resulting from the longer living ex-smokers.

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  32. I think that it is safe to say the idiots on here saying “I know the topic of sex gives people the heebie jeebies around here, but really you should grow up.” are probably not gettin sex at all. To try to argue that based upon ones political persuasion that you have different sexual attitudes is idiotic and speaks to a juvenile mind that is probably more at home sittin in his basement alone staring at a Sears catalog.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  33. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act just got signed. The constitutional scholar just gave a big fuck you to the concept of statutes of limitations.

    JD (a9f2c7)

  34. A similar dynamic can occur with construction: you build a dam where there is no water, you still get stimulus.

    Thanks for lowering the collective IQ of this blog’s readership by forcing us to read that piece of inanity. I have another good idea for a stimulus, just for you – first, take a long stick; next, prop it upright, right behind your backside. Next, insert fully…

    Then we have this:

    I know the topic of sex gives people the heebie jeebies around here,

    Followed by this:

    for an army of Bristol Palins.

    You sound like a budding pedophile here. Good luck with your impending incarceration.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  35. more at home sittin in his basement alone staring at a Sears catalog.

    Why do I get the feeling that he’s not just sitting in his basement?

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  36. The executives of America think the stimulus is a good thing. Sam Palmisano of IBM says it will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, for it’s investments in a smart grid and green technology and broadband. Those surely sound like Dem. pork projects to me (not). You guys continue to pick out one or two bizarre sounding things and go off the deep end with them. Everything will be transparent and here for anyone to see it’s progress: http://recovery.gov/

    So the anachronistic and intellectually putrifed GOP just lost the employees of some of the smartest best companies in the country (world), like IBM for 2010 and probably 2012. The understand the future, the GOP does not.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318835721826641.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Have a good day. 😉

    Peter (e70d1c)

  37. Taking the entire $800+ billion plus bill and pouring it on the ground and letting people grab it would be stimulus according to imdw logic. I can’t fault the logic, but I can certainly fault the effectiveness of program and that is what people are doing with this bill.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  38. “So the anachronistic and intellectually putrifed GOP just lost the employees of some of the smartest best companies in the country (world), like IBM for 2010 and probably 2012.”

    Peter – Where did they go? Can we find them? Have they been reported missing to the police? What makes you assume they are Republicans?

    Your hackery continues to amaze!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  39. Sam Palmisano of IBM says it will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, for it’s investments in a smart grid and green technology and broadband. Those surely sound like Dem. pork projects to me (not).

    Actually, even the Wall Street Journal thinks the broadband issue is a decent infrastructure expenditure.

    Not everything in the bill is wasteful pork spending, Peter. But surely even you can see that there’s a lot of waste and unnecessary spending, right? Are you going to defend that just because Obama isn’t a Republican? Or are you going to have a shred of intellectual honesty and call pork for what it is?

    Steverino (69d941)

  40. Another $400 million for colleges and universities!

    Rich (65f45e)

  41. Can you imagine the left’s reaction if Bush had submitted $800 billion in increased defense spending as a stimulus package? By imdw’s own logic, it would be stimulus — and it would certainly be a legitimate function of government (unlike paying for people to be tested for STDs).

    Somehow, though, I suspect they’d be shrieking like banshees.

    (Hmmm… the left’s spent the last five years or so declaring the US military “exhausted”. Is there any money in this “stimulus” plan to rebuild it? Or was the “exhausted” line a line of BS? Or do they just not see a reason to rebuild what they’ve declared to be “exhausted”?)

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  42. Broadband, highway infrastructure, military capability, electrical grid, foreclosed private and comercial properties – hell, yes. But auto, “green” technology (they can’t even define it, but they know it when they see it), universities who’ve been charging treble the inflation rates for tuitions over decades – hell, no.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  43. Comment by John Hitchcock — 1/29/2009 @ 6:35 am
    “…Those Reagan years the liberals are always wanting to trash had proof-positive the laugher curve is fact…”

    Laffer…laugher…
    Serious economic theory, or, derision…
    Which is it?

    AD (7d0655)

  44. Alright, AD, I didn’t properly research it. Laffer curve.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  45. Rob: Hmmm… the left’s spent the last five years or so declaring the US military “exhausted”. Is there any money in this “stimulus” plan to rebuild it? Or was the “exhausted” line a line of BS? Or do they just not see a reason to rebuild what they’ve declared to be “exhausted”?

    There are billions going to the military in the bill. Perhaps you should read it and not just get your news and opinions from WSJ Op-eds and this blog and that other guy on the radio. (Apologies if you don’t listen to that silly buffoon on the radio with the initials: RL.)

    Peter (e70d1c)

  46. “$400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing”
    Republicans against public health funding.

    “By imdw’s own logic, it would be stimulus”
    Yes. It’s called Military Keynesianism”
    Look it up.

    “ignorince is blis”

    sleepy (09c352)

  47. Pay attention, Peter, we have been reading the bill.

    sleepy, its not a public health bill. Its an economic stimulus bill. Try to pay attention too.

    SPQR (72771e)

  48. And Keynesian philosophy is not the only philosophy. It just so happens Keynesian philosophy is a bankrupt philosophy.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  49. There are billions going to the military in the bill.

    OK. But why isn’t it all military spending? Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to fund chlamydia testing?

    Here’s a stimulus package that would be effective and Constitutional: 50% tax cuts, 50% military spending increases. No earmarks. No NEA. No ACORN.

    Would you object to that?

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  50. Daleyrocks: What makes you assume they are Republicans?

    I’m not assuming they’re Republicans. What makes you think someone needs to be Republican to vote Republican. Not to mention that you fail to see the main point, which is that I, and Barack Obama, and many others, put the opinion of the Chairman of IBM over the Congressional Republicans when it comes to smart infrastructure development. But obviously, you seem to think Rush Limbaugh is an authority on these things, as are the lemming leaders McConnell and Boehner and the leadership of the RNC. Frankly, I have not seen one party work so hard for obsolescence and irrelevance and self-sabotage as these ass-clowns. I suppose all through history though there’ve been such figures without a clue that the not only has the ground shifted under them, they continue to stubbornly and desperately cling to illogic because they can’t deal with reality. I’m sure there plenty of idiots who still believed the world was flat after it was proven to be round.

    Your poor thinking and illogical arguments continue unabated.

    Wow.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  51. put the opinion of the Chairman of IBM over the Congressional Republicans when it comes to smart infrastructure development

    You know the #1 recommendation of any IBM employee when confronted with a technical problem? “Buy the IBM product”. Now, given that my experience with IBM’s recommendations is that they tend to fail spectacularly, I’d tend not to trust an IBM Chairman to recommend anything.

    My personal choice is to push the decisions (and funding) on these matters to as local a level as possible, because centralized decisions on infrastructure lead to ludicrous choices and massive inefficiencies. But that doesn’t empower the feds, so the odds that will happen are slim to none.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  52. #38 “the left’s spent the last five years or so declaring the US military “exhausted”. Is there any money in this “stimulus” plan to rebuild it?”

    Nice point, although they already have a leviathan sized budget so maybe the rebuild money could be “given” to them by leaving their budget alone with increases for inflation. Ie. don’t cut their budget in the name of “efficiency”.

    Wouldn’t a complete renovation of Walter Reed hospital which got such bad press come under “renewal of infrastructure”? You could get a twofer- stimulate the economy AND support the troops.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  53. And, really, Peter, if you’re so convinced Republicans are making mistakes that will end with them in the political wilderness for decades, why are you trying to stop them? “Never stop your opponent while they’re in the midst of making a mistake”

    It’s not like Republicans in Congress have the ability to stop any of the Democrat policies. There’s the odd chance of a Senate filibuster, but just two flipped Republicans can put an end to that. Given recent history, that should be as difficult to achieve as losing money in a casino.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  54. When you take money out of the pockets of citizens and put it in federal government, then have a federal agency send the money to the state level (with a “handling” cost) to have the state agency disperse it to the city and county level (with a “handling” cost) for the city or county to use for projects (with a “handling” cost), large portions of money vanish before ever getting where it’s going. How is that good? How is that efficient use of the citizens’ money?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  55. Wouldn’t a complete renovation of Walter Reed hospital which got such bad press come under “renewal of infrastructure”? You could get a twofer- stimulate the economy AND support the troops.

    Wow. It’s almost as if the moment that stopped being a political gain for Democrats, you stopped paying attention to it!

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  56. SPQR: Pay attention, Peter, we have been reading the bill.

    No you haven’t. As evidenced by that link, you’re simply reading what you want to read from blinkered Right Wing Mouth pieces. Are you kidding me?? Download the pdf and effin’ read it:

    http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf

    Peter (e70d1c)

  57. “$400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing”
    Republicans against public health funding.

    Sleepy, if you’re going to accuse Republicans of being against public health funding because of this one line item, you’re just falling into the Democrat pattern of the last 40 years.

    Here’s an exercise for you, sleepy (and anyone else who thinks spending an extra $400 million on testing for HIV and chlamydia is a good thing):

    1. What problem is this expenditure designed to solve?
    2. If this problem is not one of economic stimulus, how do you justify it being in a stimulus bill? (Ignore this question if the problem is economic stimulus.)
    3. How does the money spent solve the problem?
    4. How do we measure whether it has accomplished its intended goal?
    5. Are there any other means by which we can accomplish this goal?
    6. How much is the problem costing us right now?
    7. How much will the problem be abated by this expenditure?
    8. Is the reduction of the problem greater or less than the amount of money being spent?
    9. Is there a better use for the money than this particular expenditure?

    I think anyone proposing to spend the public’s money should answer all of those questions beforehand.

    Steverino (69d941)

  58. Frankly, I have not seen one party work so hard for obsolescence and irrelevance and self-sabotage as these ass-clowns.

    You apparently have been in a coma over the past two years since the Dems took over both houses of Congress. But never let the facts trouble you.

    which is that I, and Barack Obama, and many others, put the opinion of the Chairman of IBM

    This marks the statement from a person who’s never spent a day in the management of any business, let alone a behemoth like IBM. Businesses always do what’s in their best interests, that’s why it’s called capitalism. They don’t give a rat’s ass about anything else exept their employees and their stockholders, who would find out and fire them immediately for gross negligence of their fiscal duties. Neither of these groups want their companies to save the world, they just want them to do well in their respective marketplaces, and allow them to reap greater compensation for that achievement.

    Your continued ignorance of this subject is mind -boggling. You sound as if you’re still in school, working in your 6th year on that sociology degreee. Or is it in women’s studies?

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  59. Nice point, although they already have a leviathan sized budget

    That “leviathan” is barely over 1/5th of the federal budget. Or, if you want to believe the War Resister’s League, 1/3rd. We spend more on Social Security alone, and better than 50% more on other mandatory programs.

    That “leviathan” is one of the few proper functions of the federal government, yet it’s tiny in comparison to the rest.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  60. Ah Well, I just checked the spread sheet (Thank you SPQR)and there is quite a sum for the VA for medical construction. The military gets theirs too I see.

    I hope the money for the Army Corps of Engineers is going for rebuilding and ensuring the retention of wetlands up and down the Gulf Coast (yeah NOLA sure but also Texas City, Port Arthur, and all those other coastal towns where all our oil is brought in and processed). It takes longer to build them back but its much more effective at hurricane protection than any number of levees. If you get your hydrology right you also don’t have to pony up Xbillion every 30 or 40 years to rebuild your levees. Viable wetlands protect cities for free.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  61. As evidenced by that link, you’re simply reading what you want to read from blinkered Right Wing Mouth pieces. Are you kidding me?? Download the pdf and effin’ read it:

    Never mind answering my earlier question – this basically proves the point. Now go upstairs and clean the cat’s litter box, your mother’s getting annoyed at this point, and she just made you a nice mac and cheese. Say hello to her for us, no doubt you’re a nice boy.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  62. “I’m not assuming they’re Republicans.”

    Peter – You wrote the sentence not me. Stop blaming others for your inability to communicate in plain English.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  63. No you haven’t. As evidenced by that link, you’re simply reading what you want to read from blinkered Right Wing Mouth pieces. Are you kidding me?? Download the pdf and effin’ read it:

    Now you’ve gone and made a fool of yourself, Peter. Had you clicked through the link, you would have found a link to the PDF of the House bill.

    Oops.

    Steverino (69d941)

  64. That “leviathan” is barely over 1/5th of the federal budget

    1/5 of the federal budget is leviathan in my book Rob Crawford. I still liked your point.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  65. Rob: Wow. It’s almost as if the moment that[ie: Walter Reed and VA benefits] stopped being a political gain for Democrats, you stopped paying attention to it!

    Yes, you continue to get your thoughts and opinions from intransigent jackasses so you continue to display your ignorance:

    TITLE X—MILITARY CONSTRUC4
    TION AND VETERANS AF5
    FAIRS

    6 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    7 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY
    8 For an additional amount for ‘‘Military Construction,
    9 Army’’, $920,000,000: Provided, That notwithstanding
    10 any other provision of law, such funds may be obligated
    11 and expended to carry out planning and design and mili12
    tary construction projects in the United States not other13
    wise authorized by law: Provided further, That of the
    14 amount provided under this heading, $600,000,000 shall
    15 be for training and recruit troop housing, $220,000,000
    16 shall be for permanent party troop housing, and
    17 $100,000,000 shall be for child development centers: Pro18
    vided further, That not later than 30 days after the date
    19 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
    20 submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
    21 of Representatives and the Senate an expenditure plan for
    22 funds provided under this heading.
    23 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
    24 For an additional amount for ‘‘Military Construction,
    25 Navy and Marine Corps’’, $350,000,000: Provided, That
    VerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:48 Jan 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\HR1.XML HOLCPC
    January 23, 2009 (10:48 p.m.)
    F:\IBF\111\HR1.XML
    f:\VHLC1230912309.236.xml (421348|6)
    200
    1 notwithstanding any other provision of law, such funds
    2 may be obligated and expended to carry out planning and
    3 design and military construction projects in the United
    4 States not otherwise authorized by law: Provided further,
    5 That of the amount provided under this heading,
    6 $170,000,000 shall be for sailor and marine housing and
    7 $180,000,000 shall be for child development centers: Pro8
    vided further, That not later than 30 days after the date
    9 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
    10 submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
    11 of Representatives and the Senate an expenditure plan for
    12 funds provided under this heading.
    13 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE
    14 For an additional amount for ‘‘Military Construction,
    15 Air Force’’, $280,000,000: Provided, That notwith16
    standing any other provision of law, such funds may be
    17 obligated and expended to carry out planning and design
    18 and military construction projects in the United States not
    19 otherwise authorized by law: Provided further, That of the
    20 amount provided under this heading, $200,000,000 shall
    21 be for airmen housing and $80,000,000 shall be for child
    22 development centers: Provided further, That not later than
    23 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec24
    retary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Ap25
    propriations of the House of Representatives and the Sen-
    VerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:48 Jan 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\HR1.XML HOLCPC
    January 23, 2009 (10:48 p.m.)
    F:\IBF\111\HR1.XML
    f:\VHLC1230912309.236.xml (421348|6)
    201
    1 ate an expenditure plan for funds provided under this
    2 heading.
    3 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE-WIDE
    4 For an additional amount for ‘‘Military Construction,
    5 Defense-Wide’’, $3,750,000,000, for the construction of
    6 hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers: Provided, That
    7 notwithstanding any other provision of law, such funds
    8 may be obligated and expended to carry out planning and
    9 design and military construction projects in the United
    10 States not otherwise authorized by law: Provided further,
    11 That not later than 30 days after the date of enactment
    12 of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
    13 Committees on Appropriations of the House of Represent14
    atives and the Senate an expenditure plan for funds pro15
    vided under this heading.
    16 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
    17 For an additional amount for ‘‘Military Construction,
    18 Army National Guard’’, $140,000,000: Provided, That
    19 notwithstanding any other provision of law, such funds
    20 may be obligated and expended to carry out planning and
    21 design and military construction projects in the United
    22 States not otherwise authorized by law: Provided further,
    23 That not later than 30 days after the date of enactment
    24 of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
    25 Committees on Appropriations of the House of Represent-
    VerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:48 Jan 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\HR1.XML HOLCPC
    January 23, 2009 (10:48 p.m.)
    F:\IBF\111\HR1.XML
    f:\VHLC1230912309.236.xml (421348|6)
    202
    1 atives and the Senate an expenditure plan for funds pro2
    vided under this heading.
    3 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
    4 For an additional amount for ‘‘Military Construction,
    5 Air National Guard’’, $70,000,000: Provided, That not6
    withstanding any other provision of law, such funds may
    7 be obligated and expended to carry out planning and de8
    sign and military construction projects in the United
    9 States not otherwise authorized by law: Provided further,
    10 That not later than 30 days after the date of enactment
    11 of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
    12 Committees on Appropriations of the House of Represent13
    atives and the Senate an expenditure plan for funds pro14
    vided under this heading.
    15 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE
    16 For an additional amount for ‘‘Military Construction,
    17 Army Reserve’’, $100,000,000: Provided, That notwith18
    standing any other provision of law, such funds may be
    19 obligated and expended to carry out planning and design
    20 and military construction projects in the United States not
    21 otherwise authorized by law: Provided further, That not
    22 later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
    23 the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees
    24 on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
    VerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:48 Jan 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\HR1.XML HOLCPC
    January 23, 2009 (10:48 p.m.)
    F:\IBF\111\HR1.XML
    f:\VHLC1230912309.236.xml (421348|6)
    203
    1 Senate an expenditure plan for funds provided under this
    2 heading.
    3 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY RESERVE
    4 For an additional amount for ‘‘Military Construction,
    5 Navy Reserve’’, $30,000,000: Provided, That notwith6
    standing any other provision of law, such funds may be
    7 obligated and expended to carry out planning and design
    8 and military construction projects in the United States not
    9 otherwise authorized by law: Provided further, That not
    10 later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
    11 the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees
    12 on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
    13 Senate an expenditure plan for funds provided under this
    14 heading.
    15 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE RESERVE
    16 For an additional amount for ‘‘Military Construction,
    17 Air Force Reserve’’, $60,000,000: Provided, That notwith18
    standing any other provision of law, such funds may be
    19 obligated and expended to carry out planning and design
    20 and military construction projects in the United States not
    21 otherwise authorized by law: Provided further, That not
    22 later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
    23 the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees
    24 on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
    VerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:48 Jan 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\HR1.XML HOLCPC
    January 23, 2009 (10:48 p.m.)
    F:\IBF\111\HR1.XML
    f:\VHLC1230912309.236.xml (421348|6)
    204
    1 Senate an expenditure plan for funds provided under this
    2 heading.
    3 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE ACCOUNT
    4 1990
    5 For an additional amount to be deposited into the
    6 Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990, es7
    tablished by section 2906(a)(1) of the Defense Base Clo8
    sure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note),
    9 $300,000,000: Provided, That not later than 30 days after
    10 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
    11 shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the
    12 House of Representatives and the Senate an expenditure
    13 plan for funds provided under this heading.
    14 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
    15 VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
    16 MEDICAL FACILITIES

    17 For an additional amount for ‘‘Medical Facilities’’ for
    18 non-recurring maintenance, including energy projects,
    19 $950,000,000
    : Provided, That not later than 30 days after
    20 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Vet21
    erans Affairs shall submit to the Committees on Appro22
    priations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
    23 an expenditure plan for funds provided under this head24
    ing.
    VerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:48 Jan 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\HR1.XML HOLCPC
    January 23, 2009 (10:48 p.m.)
    F:\IBF\111\HR1.XML
    f:\VHLC1230912309.236.xml (421348|6)
    205
    1 NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION
    2 For an additional amount for ‘‘National Cemetery
    3 Administration’’ for monument and memorial repairs,
    4 $50,000,000
    : Provided, That not later than 30 days after
    5 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Vet6
    erans Affairs shall submit to the Committees on Appro7
    priations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
    8 an expenditure plan for funds provided under this head9
    ing.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  66. As evidenced by that link, you’re simply reading what you want to read from blinkered Right Wing Mouth pieces.

    So what? The fact is, Peter, I don’t want any of that spending. The fact that there might be a few items in it that are not nearly as obviously offensive doesn’t change that. My preferred way to stimulate the economy is for government to stop siphoning cash out of my pocket. Failing that, I’d settle for them just not interfering any more than they already have.

    If the Democrats really wanted economic stimulus, there’d be more interest in cutting the cost of doing business and working in the US. I don’t see that.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  67. Steverino: Now you’ve gone and made a fool of yourself, Peter. Had you clicked through the link, you would have found a link to the PDF of the House bill.

    This is SPQR’s idea of a link to the stimulus bill:

    http://readthestimulus.org/index.php?

    It’s a party organ BS propaganda site. My link goes straight to the gov site. I think most people will be able to clearly ascertain the “fool(s)” here.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  68. 1/5 of the federal budget is leviathan in my book Rob Crawford. I still liked your point.

    One-fifth is miniscule compared to the four-fifths. It’s also one of the few legitimate functions of government.

    Peter — WTF was the point of that cut-and-paste?

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  69. “It takes longer to build them back but its much more effective at hurricane protection than any number of levees.”

    Ed Wood – But if you remember, there was a wetlands solution that was proposed and in the works for NOLA after President Johnson promised the residents hurricane protection, but the fucking environmentalists sued, delayed, harrassed, and otherwise prevented its implementation.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  70. It’s a party organ BS propaganda site. My link goes straight to the gov site. I think most people will be able to clearly ascertain the “fool(s)” here.

    Seriously, Peter, this is weak. There are several links on the site of SPQR’s link that go to government sites, including CBO’s analysis of the bill and additional riders. For you to claim that anyone going to the site SPQR linked to hasn’t read the bill is just foolish.

    By the way, will you ever address the questions I asked at #36?

    Steverino (69d941)

  71. It’s a party organ BS propaganda site. My link goes straight to the gov site.

    Unless you can point to purposefully incorrect data on readthestimulus.org, your point is meaningless. In fact, it’s a logical fallacy.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  72. Rob: So what? The fact is, Peter, I don’t want any of that spending.

    I see, you don’t want any of that spending, but your saying it’s okay to form an opinion on the pre-chewed ideologically faulty distortions of the GOP and its media and web organs.

    So basically, your argument is that since you don’t want any spending you don’t have to inform yourself. Me doth think you’ve conceded my point and forfeited the argument. The only thing you can really express at this point (and most of you) is that you don’t care what the bill says (obviously) so you don’t have to read it, you can let your illustrious betters at the GOP tell you what to think. And you don’t really care about this country, what you really care about is ideological domination no matter what the cost to the nation.

    The arrogance of that POV is breathtaking. I doff my hat to you and the rest and bid a good day sirs. You have cemented your assclownery to levels even I couldn’t have deemed possible. I’ll come back when you guys want to discuss in good faith and you’ve read the God D*mned thing.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  73. “I think most people will be able to clearly ascertain the “fool(s)” here.”

    Peter – We already have, that’s why we’re bitching. I thought that should have been obvious to any sentient being.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  74. Peter – You said you were leaving a few days ago. Why do you keep coming back?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  75. I work here is not done, daley.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  76. Jesus Christ, Peter, comment #67 is a near Platonic ideal of bad-faith argumentation.

    I don’t want this spending because I think it’s the wrong thing to do. I think it’s bad for the country, bad for clean government, bad for our liberties, and that it won’t do anything for the economy anyway.

    Got it?

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  77. Steve: But surely even you can see that there’s a lot of waste and unnecessary spending, right? Are you going to defend that just because Obama isn’t a Republican?

    I think $400 million to the CDC is an absolutely worthwhile investment. It’s for a number of HIV/Viral and STD initiatives including Hepatitis. There is a mini-epidemic of these conditions going on and these items have been under-funded for much to long. These monies will be made available to public and private hospitals, research centers and medical universities all over the country and be real and quantifiable investments going right into the U.S. economy in many areas of the country. Benefiting local economies and leading to a decline in the the number of these sicknesses, and therefore a healthier country and reduce real medical costs over the long term. It’s an excellent investment on many levels, but all you guys see is CONDOMS being distributed, because Drudge screams it out and that fat fu*K on the radio.

    Any other pork, point it out to me. Please. Okay, now I’m really going, I’ve got bigger fish to fry and better things to do than read and explain this stuff to people too ideologically blinded to care.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  78. Peter, I don’t think we are going to change their minds on this, that’s obvious with their votes yesterday.

    All we can do is hope that the bill works (as all good American should), and hope that the so called “liberal Main Stream” media reminds us of yesterday’s voting after it does work.

    And to satisfy the Herd here, yes I do hope we are reminded of yesterday’s vote in the hopefully unlikely event that the bill fails.

    Oiram (983921)

  79. I think $400 million to the CDC is an absolutely worthwhile investment…

    What’s the NPV of that spending? What is its multiplier for economic activity, compared to an equivalent amount of tax reductions?

    And why can’t it be funded via private means? Find 20 million people to each pony up $20 and you’ve got that funding.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  80. I think $400 million to the CDC is an absolutely worthwhile investment. It’s for a number of HIV/Viral and STD initiatives including Hepatitis. There is a mini-epidemic of these conditions going on and these items have been under-funded for much to long. These monies will be made available to public and private hospitals, research centers and medical universities all over the country and be real and quantifiable investments going right into the U.S. economy in many areas of the country. Benefiting local economies and leading to a decline in the the number of these sicknesses, and therefore a healthier country and reduce real medical costs over the long term.

    You are long on words, but short on numbers. How much is this “mini-epidemic” costing? How much will it cost after the expenditure?

    It’s easy to say these diseases are costing the economy, but you need to quantify it before you can say the expenditure is worthwhile.

    According to the CDC, hepatitis a infections are at their lowest rate in 40 years. So, we’re doing just fine on that one without spending more money.

    Steverino (69d941)

  81. Oiram: yes I do hope we are reminded of yesterday’s vote in the hopefully unlikely event that the bill fails.

    The GOP will try to spin it as a failure no matter what. They seem to think this is 1992 and they can pull a 1994 in 2010, yet Obama is 9 days in as president and he is rockin’ their world. I don’t think they realize they’ve just been hit by a truck. By the springtime most of the Republicans in Congress are going to need some serious therapy. Check this out:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090129/bs_afp/uspoliticsobamaeconomyhousevote

    Peter (e70d1c)

  82. When you finally going to leave, Peter?

    Failing that, when you going to admit comment #67 was packed full of bad-faith argumentation?

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  83. I thought you had better things to do, Peter.

    Or does the sheer small-mindedness expressed in comment #67 bother you so much you feel like you should apologize, but can’t bring yourself to do it?

    It’s OK. We all understand. We’re all human. You can leave with a clear conscience.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  84. Not for hepatitus C:

    And there’s no vaccine for Hep C, so this $400 million won’t do a thing for it.

    Steverino (69d941)

  85. Rob: Failing that, when you going to admit comment #67 was packed full of bad-faith argumentation?

    Your the one who forfeited his right to discuss it, not me. Your against it from conception from any Democratic President, even one who’s only been in office 9 days. I’m for it from conception to execution. Not much else to do with that. But, really I admire at least that you’re honest enough to admit what leadership and demagogues on the Right really feel on this is, but nowhere else to go from there.

    Lot’s of working and unemployed people on both sides of the political spectrum who vote beg to differ, and the GOP will soon hear from them.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  86. Okay, now I’m really going, I’ve got bigger fish to fry and better things to do than read and explain this stuff to people too ideologically blinded to care.

    Comment by Peter

    That cat box really smells bad. Time to get busy, fella.

    The arguments about the value of such appropriations as CDC are irrelevant. This is an economic stimulus bill, not an appropriations bill. Those go to committee where the Congress can decide its priorities. What gets funded and what has to wait. What this is a 40-year Democrat wish list. Many, if not most, of these items are new baseline spending for programs that will never go away. The government has gotten into numerous areas, like ethanol subsidies, that are bad policy but, once funded, are immortal. They never go away.

    This crisis we are in is a consequence of overspending for 20 years. Clinton kept the budget under control by substituting domestic spending for military spending. Then 9/11 came along and Bush did not want to fight the Democrats and his own party on the domestic spending. What we got was both.

    What we need now are economic growth and a recovery of the housing market.

    This is trillions of borrowing. The only way to get this off the books down the line is inflation. If you are too young to remember Carter, you don’t know how bad inflation can be.

    I don’t mind infrastructure spending but it doesn’t come very fast. Most states have neglected infrastructure for social spending since the 70s. There is a big backlog but it will take a decade to rebuild infrastructure. It is not a stimulus for a recession.

    I don’t think this will work although the economy may recover on its own by the end of the year if left alone. We should be saving this spending for the “bad bank” legislation that is probably a month or two down the line. I hope the Senate GOP can hold this up long enough for the public to catch on and stall it.

    Mike K (8df289)

  87. Your against it from conception from any Democratic President, even one who’s only been in office 9 days.

    There’s that arguing in bad faith again.

    As I said — I don’t think this will do anything for the economy. Why shouldn’t I oppose pure deficit spending if I don’t think it’ll do any good?

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  88. Peter, will you agree “doing nothing” is better than “doing the wrong thing?”

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  89. Don’t bother, John. Peter said he’s leaving. Which means he’ll only be making a dozen more comments on this thread.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  90. So, Peter is now a fan of “big business” when Baracky is in office? Big business is bad under Republicans, good under Dems. Could you provide us a list of all of the other things that have switched from the bad-to-good or good-to-bad columns, Peter?

    In a short period of time, Peter made a good run at Ed from PA for Twatwaffle of the Day. Don’t you just love the preening self-Lefteousness of this one?

    JD (a635b5)

  91. This stimulus package can be viewed as an economic surge (though less well thought out than General Petreaus’.)

    Conservatives were astounded when a percentage of Americans said that they did not want the surge to succeed.

    My guess is that Oiram and other liberals are as shocked when conservatives say they want the stimulus to fail.

    In both cases you can be said to be rooting against America.

    I hoped that the surge would succeed. I read Kilcullen, Yon, Totten and others and understood why it stood a chance of success-it was not just more troops, but a complete change in strategy.

    I do not hope that the stimulus fails, but I expect that it will. If it succeeds in a demonstrably clear way, then I will have to re-evaluate my view of how the economic world works.

    MartyH (52fae7)

  92. MartyH, a “surge” in Democratic pork.

    SPQR (72771e)

  93. Peter, “worthwhile investment” is not equivalent to economic stimulus.

    That you do not understand this surprises me not at all, because no Democrats do.

    SPQR (72771e)

  94. Peter — WTF was the point of that cut-and-paste?

    To waste our time, which is why I never respond with any seriousness to anything he posts here. He’s just a kid, and he converses like an adolescent. What’s that old saw about wrestling a pig? You don’t get anything but mud on you, and the pig likes it.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  95. That you do not understand this surprises me not at all, because no Democrats do.

    To be fair, eleven brave democrats in the House did take a stand against their party and voted “No” on the stimulus bill.

    Bipartisanship lives, just not under the leadership of the House.

    Pons Asinorum (61628f)

  96. Pons, that is an important point. The OPPOSITION to the stimulus bill was bipartisan.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  97. The OPPOSITION to the stimulus bill was bipartisan.

    Apparently that fact is immaterial. What matters is that opposition could not possibly come from thinking it’s a bad idea.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  98. Thanks MikeK. Strange how that works, isn’t 😉

    Pons Asinorum (61628f)

  99. “Taking the entire $800+ billion plus bill and pouring it on the ground and letting people grab it would be stimulus according to imdw logic.”

    Not quite. But can’t really take credit for it:

    “If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.”

    http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/keynes/john_maynard/k44g/chapter10.html

    imdw (015c79)

  100. Peter is doing a pretty good job here. But I’ll add something. Since I made the point -was it on this thread?- that the republicans haven’t even tried to make a logical argument against the stimulus plan as it is, preferring to shout non-sequiturs in an authoritative voice! Anyway here’s Josh Marshall pointing to a credible critique by an old Reagan Man and giving him credit for making a serious argument.

    See how adults talk to each other?

    sleepy (09c352)

  101. You mean adults who happen to be rabid anti – Semites? Gee, you’re so reasonable sometimes, Dr. Goebbels.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  102. Dmac. I’m a Jew.
    Pat. “Clean up in aisle 100″
    If you want proof that I have a right to be offended by this shit
    ask me for confirmation. I’ll send you the family history.

    sleepy (09c352)

  103. “You mean adults who happen to be rabid anti – Semites?”

    Martin Feldstein is a rabid anti-semite?

    imdw (de7003)

  104. Anyway here’s Josh Marshall pointing to a credible critique by an old Reagan Man and giving him credit for making a serious argument.

    Um, yeah.

    Martin Feldstein’s opposition to a Democratic Stimulus Bill wouldn’t normally be a big surprise, given his background as a conservative economist and advisor to President Reagan. But he’s been trotted out a lot recently for his support of the Obama plan. So it caught my eye when I saw his editorial in today’s Post coming out in opposition to the bill in its current form.

    He’s fearless, that Josh Marshall. While sleepy is just funny.

    As for Feldstein’s argument:

    But the fiscal package now before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to raise national spending and employment.

    and sleepy’s:

    Since I made the point -was it on this thread?- that the republicans haven’t even tried to make a logical argument against the stimulus plan as it is, preferring to shout non-sequiturs in an authoritative voice!

    I guess I missed you in
    this thread.
    Almost makes me want to be a Republican.

    Pablo (99243e)

  105. Sounds like Rush Limbaugh is really getting under Peter’s skin, and that he listens to Rush Limbaugh far more than he wants to admit.

    I like Rush’s wager on the 52:48 split in spending. Give 48% of the “stimulus” as tax cuts, and give the remaining 52% as Democrat give-aways to worthless causes and patronage groups.

    Then see what happens.

    steve miller (3381bc)

  106. I like Rush’s wager on the 52:48 split in spending. Give 48% of the “stimulus” as tax cuts, and give the remaining 52% as Democrat give-aways to worthless causes and patronage groups.

    The Dems would never agree to it, they can’t take the chance that they’re wrong –
    it would destroy their “business” model.

    AD (d63605)

  107. We are essentially in this economic mess because individuals and companies borrowed more money than they could pay back. Our government’s solution is to borrow even more money that we can not pay back.

    Our national debt will take investment capital out of the economy in the long term which will significantly reduce long term growth.

    Borrowing more so we can just spend it is not the answer.

    PC (38c309)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.5421 secs.