New York Getting Porkilicious Share of Federal Budget

No, it is not. Stimulus is merely getting money into the hands of people who will then spend it.

So it's stimulus of what? It sounds more like a "continuous" if you ask me.

Nevertheless, almost anything that federal government spends can be considered stimulus (debating the merits of each program and/or whether the federal government should be doing it is another matter)

What? How so?

Secondly, regarding productivity: building bridges DOES increase productivity. It gets people to work faster. It moves raw materials to producers faster. It moves goods to market faster. Even if you could export a bridge to Europe, that would not increase productivity.

The point is that most of these projects were already planned and ready to be paid for by the state. I have no problem with bridge building, but the states should be paying for this.

You seem to be of the mindset that all central planning is stimulative. "Even if we pay unemployed people to dig holes and fill them in, it's putting money in their hands which buys groceries which gives the grocer money who can buy new shoes that he needs which transfers it to the shoe maker who can buy the new tiling for his kitchen which gives money..."

That Keynesian theory has never worked and will never work. Because the government cannot create this wealth that they're giving away out of thin air; it must come from somewhere, right? If that wasn't the case why doesn't the government prime the pump and stimulate in good times, too? We could be served by robots and never have to work again!

You must remember that the government cannot give you something without first taking it away. And for every stimulative bridge they build that's a private sector job they're destroying.

Bottomless Chips, Serious Question: what do you suggest instead of the Stimulus plan?

I'm not baiting you here, I'm really curious. Me, I think the Gov't needs to do something for the citizens and, IMO, continuing the last 8 years of deregulation and big business/upper income tax breaks doesn't work.

Again, IMO, if the Gov't does nothing the markets won't be confident and continue to slide. If the Gov't does anything less than buy the "toxic" assets, the markets continue to worry and continues to slide.

I think providing leadership is much better than not.

So, what do you suggest?

I'm not baiting you here, I'm really curious. Me, I think the Gov't needs to do something for the citizens and, IMO, continuing the last 8 years of deregulation and big business/upper income tax breaks doesn't work.

Okay, I understand the frustration and the knee-jerk reaction is to do something. However, at the end of the day, do you really want Barney Frank and Chris Dodd running our banking system? Do you really want Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid soliciting ideas from lobbyists on who and what to bailout? I'm not implying that they're corrupt, but by nature they're going to have to pick and choose whom to help who to let fail. That's unenviable and immoral.

Again, IMO, if the Gov't does nothing the markets won't be confident and continue to slide. If the Gov't does anything less than buy the "toxic" assets, the markets continue to worry and continues to slide.

What you're seeing with the markets now is because of government buying up toxic assets, and propping up companies. We're seeing AIG and GM blow through cash and those who once were for the bailouts are now going, "Fuck. We can't save those guys even after BILLIONS and we're not going to be able to save anyone." So there's a huge sell off as everyone wants cash and conservative investments.

I think providing leadership is much better than not.

Leadership is a great trait to have, but it will do nothing to stop this falling knife.

Bottomless Chips, Serious Question: what do you suggest instead of the Stimulus plan?

There's no silver bullet, but we can start by stopping the bailouts and loans. We need to let the malinvestments purge. You do that by getting out of the way and letting the sell offs occur. Yes, this is going to result in cash hoarding and unemployment as companies in every sector fold. The decrease in aggregate demand coupled with increased savings rate, will increase the velocity of money and we'll see more buying. This will result in the securities markets loosening up and new business and innovation will have a chance once again.

Unfortunately, President Obama is of the belief that government can save us from this problem that they helped create. His solutions will include printing more money and regulation. This is anathema to free-market capitalism and will result in a dead decade for us, I fear.

I'm of the belief that unemployment is going to continue and we'll see poverty that our generation has never had to face. We can either keep putting thumbs in the dyke to save face, or let the water go and rebuild a dam built on sound money and free markets.

Ah, and just as they did in the 1930s, the republicans are massing for yet another failed revolution at the polls. Hope you can scrounge up an Eisenhower in twenty years.

Ah, and just as they did in the 1930s, the republicans are massing for yet another failed revolution at the polls. Hope you can scrounge up an Eisenhower in twenty years.

I'm a Libertarian.

Well, I disagree with your approach, but at least I clearly know what you think.

Thanks for that.

Let's clear up a few misconceptions:

"stimulus is denoted by most as an increase in productivity"

No, it is not. Stimulus is merely getting money into the hands of people who will then spend it. Sometimes referred to, by economists, as "priming the pump." It has nothing to do with productivity. Various administrations have used different methods (remember the Bush "stimulus checks"? these were considered to be poor forms of stimulus because many people chose to save the money or pay off existing debt) to accomplish this. Nevertheless, almost anything that federal government spends can be considered stimulus (debating the merits of each program and/or whether the federal government should be doing it is another matter)

Secondly, regarding productivity: building bridges DOES increase productivity. It gets people to work faster. It moves raw materials to producers faster. It moves goods to market faster. Even if you could export a bridge to Europe, that would not increase productivity.

So the problem isn't the spending, it's the mechanism for that spending?

The problem is that the Constitution doesn't provide for this type of federal spending. I have no problem with spending money on bridges and roads, but it should come from NYS and NYC tax monies and not federal money. Ideally, there's no federal income tax but we seem to be moving further and further away from a repeal of the 16th.

$7.7 billion out of $410 billion is not a "shitload" of pork.

that bridge can be stimulative in the long run if it can expand access among cities in the region and allow more people to get to more and different jobs. similarly, high-speed rail that's being funded now

So the problem isn't the spending, it's the mechanism for that spending?

"Watchdog groups argue that many of these special projects—such as $950,000 for a pedestrian bridge in Poughkeepsie (a bridge in nowhere?)—win funding based on each politicians' power, not because of the projects' merits."

I've seen that bridge in Poughkeepsie. What a waste that is. Might as well flush the money down the toilet.

Liberals always claim that they don't mind paying a bit more in taxes for universal health care because it's for the greater good of everyone. Ultimately it will save us all costs down the line to pay now.

I of course disagree with that, but even if I accept that logic, how does a pedestrian bridge or the Second Avenue subway benefit someone from Hawaii or LA?

Likewise, how does a biological resort or tattoo removal for the Crips and Bloods in LA help me?

$7.7 billion out of $410 billion is not a "shitload" of pork. pork is an easy target for right wing pseudo populists but it constitutes just a tiny part of our overall national spending.

and is our productivity only valuable to the extent that what we make can be exported? that bridge can be stimulative in the long run if it can expand access among cities in the region and allow more people to get to more and different jobs. similarly, high-speed rail that's being funded now (with ~$10 billion between the budget and the recovery act) can make cities more competitive.

I of course disagree with that, but even if I accept that logic, how does a pedestrian bridge or the Second Avenue subway benefit someone from Hawaii or LA?

It doesn't. But for every tax dollar the feds collect from NY state, we get back 77 cents in funding. So how about we ask about all the projects our extra 23 cents per dollar are funding around the country rather than helping out in NY state?

Oh, I agree completely that we should get our tax dollars back in some form. But we're all receiving more services than tax revenues can finance.

And even if the budget was balanced we all receive less than we put in because of overhead and bureaucratic red tape costs. But, yes, many states in the south get more than a dollar back for every dollar they put in. That is unfair.

When discussing earmarks, it has more to do with local & regional projects, rarely national ones. There's a shitload of pork in this budget but Pork in itself is very stimulating to the economy. I just don't know how the hell they expect to pay for all of this with just modest tax increases.

I've given pork to many ladies with great results.

"I've given pork to many ladies with great results."

They complimented you on the ham and cheese sandwiches?

There's a shitload of pork in this budget but Pork in itself is very stimulating to the economy.

Pork is not stimulating. It's just spending. Stimulus is denoted by most as an increase in productivity. Building a bridge in Long Island doesn't increase our nation's productivity. We cannot export that bridge to Europe. That bridge is "stimulating" only for the length of the project insofar that it puts food on the table of some union workers. But it's not sustainable and it's not exportable.