Can someone explain why this is called a "stimulus"

[dude1394]

When only 29billion of a 825billion "stimulus" package will be spent in 2009, why is this called a "stimulus" package at all?
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0127193220.gif

And why in a "stimulus" package are we allocating 365billion dollars into projects (road, bridges, etc.) that will take decades to complete? It will take at least a year or two to even put anyone to work building those projects due to enviromental concerns.

Frequently in the past, in all types of federal programs, a noticeable lag has occurred between sharp increases in funding and resulting increases in outlays. Based on such experiences, CBO expects that federal agencies, states, and other recipients of funding would find it difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to spend added funds quickly as they expend their normal resources. The seasonal nature of some spending also affects the speed at which activities can be conducted; for example, major school repairs are generally scheduled during the summer to avoid disrupting classes.

I expect that cutting capital gains to zero and accelerating write-offs on equipment would do more than any of this pork.

[dude1394]

Or...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318933384726785.html

And what of the plan being put forward now? As crafted, it is unlikely to produce the desired results. For a similar amount of money, the government could essentially cut the payroll tax in half, taking three points off the rate for both the employer and the employee. This would put $1,500 into the pocket of a typical worker making $50,000, with a similar amount going to his or her employer. It would provide a powerful stimulus to the spending stream, as well as a significant, six percentage point reduction in the tax burden of employment for people making less than $100,000. The effects would be immediate.

[DirkFTW]

Sigh. This thing is so jam packed with earmarks and pork. I think there's an alternative bill proposal out there that costs half as much and is alleged to create twice as many jobs.

Various items from the House and Senate bills:

$6,000 million to subsidize university building projects
$400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing
$75 million to stop smoking
$1,500 million for a “carbon-capturing contest”
$200 million for DOD alternative energy vehicles
$572 million for Coast Guard “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements”
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$100 million for non-intrusive detection technology at sea ports
$150 million for construction at sea ports
$25 million to repair off-road ATV trails
$200 million for FEMA
$276 million for construction of data backup facilities and cyber-security for the State Dept.
$2,825 million for broadband internet, $1,000 million of which is for wireless broadband internet
$350 million for State Department broadband internet
STD education programs

At least they got rid of paying for contraceptives and reseeding the White House lawn.

This is a belated Christmas wish list, not a plan to save us from the worst economic crisis of our time.

[DirkFTW]

Link

Basically, this thing isn't even going to kick in until 2010 and beyond. Hope you all can tread water for the next 12-18 months.

Or worse yet, say we somehow get out of this recession in 2009... and then the real spending kicks in. Would that derail us again? This thing looks like a ticking time bomb for our kids, but it could blow up a lot sooner than that if our economy is as frail as they say.

[dalmations202]

Stimulus Payment Information


"This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a
very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV
set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the U.S. economy by
spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.
If you purchase a computer it will go to India .
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and
Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
If you buy a car it will go to Japan .
If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan .

And none of it will help the American economy.



We need to keep that money here in America.

You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a
baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic ONLY),
funerals, weddings, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in
the US .

[DirkFTW]

During this once-in-100-years economic crisis, the worst since the Great Depression and likely the Next Depression, where we allegedly stand at the precipice of resurrection or complete collapse...

the White House can still celebrate the passing of this stimulus plan with Wagyu steak for all the Congresspeople. That's a $100 steak.

I bet it was even more delicious because we footed the damn bill.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

the White House can still celebrate the passing of this stimulus plan with Wagyu steak for all the Congresspeople. That's a $100 steak.

I bet it was even more delicious because we footed the damn bill.

Ahh, bi-partisanship at it's finest...


(it doesn't matter if you vote Democrat or Republican - just remember, you're not one of THEM...)

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Ahh, bi-partisanship at it's finest...


(it doesn't matter if you vote Democrat or Republican - just remember, you're not one of THEM...)

No kidding. Here I am buying my own food like a chump!

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

No kidding. Here I am buying my own food like a chump!

...and with your OWN money!

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

...and with your OWN money!

What do you mean "own" money?

Money, much like all land only belongs to the government.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

What do you mean "own" money?

Money, much like all land only belongs to the government.

Touché...

[FreshJive]

"Money ain't got no owners. Only spenders."
Omar Little

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

What do you mean "own" money?

Money, much like all land only belongs to the government.

That's it, I'm running for public office. See you guys at the next steak party!

[dude1394]

Barry calling the kettle black.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/67977/

OBAMA CALLS WALL STREET IRRESPONSIBLE, but look at what he’s doing:

Eight hours of debate in the HR to pass a bill spending $820 billion, or roughly $102 billion per hour of debate.

Only ten per cent of the “stimulus” to be spent on 2009.

Close to half goes to entities that sponsor or employ or both members of the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions, or other Democrat-controlled unions.

This bill is sent to Congress after Obama has been in office for seven days. It is 680 pages long. According to my calculations, not one member of Congress read the entire bill before this vote. Obviously, it would have been impossible, given his schedule, for President Obama to have read the entire bill.

For the amount spent we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000.

We could give every person who had lost a job and is now passing through long-term unemployment of six months or longer roughly $300,000.

There has been pork barrel politics since there has been politics. The scale of this pork is beyond what had ever been imagined before — and no one can be sure it will actually do much stimulation.

Wall Street didn’t have Obama’s chutzpah. And it didn’t do nearly the damage to the nation that this bill will do. (Via Dan Riehl).

[dude1394]

And as expected...there are some special "gems" included.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../01/022687.php

Kimberly Strassel takes a look and finds Democrats enacting "Obama's agenda of government-run health care -- entirely on the QT." Strassel finds that the bill dramatically expands the number of Americans who qualify for Medicaid:

The bill's good works don't stop with Medicaid. They extend to the continuation of group health coverage that terminated employees are afforded under COBRA:

The "stimulus" also hijacks Cobra, a program that lets the unemployed retain access to their former company health benefits -- usually for about 18 months. The new stimulus permits any former employee over the age of 55 to keep using Cobra right up until they qualify for Medicare at age 65. And here's the kicker: Whereas employees were previously responsible for paying their health premiums while on Cobra, now the feds will pay 65%. CBO estimates? Seven million Americans will have the feds mostly pay their insurance bills in 2009.

In fact, COBRA affords terminated employees the right to continue their health coverage for up to (not "usually for about") 18 months.

My guess is that Hurt's and Strassel's valuable columns only touch on the many surprises Democrats have buried in their so-called stimulus bill in their mania to create a more socialized America.

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

We need to keep that money here in America.

You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a
baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic ONLY),
funerals, weddings, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in
the US .

But it´s a global crisis. Market protecion can make things go even worse.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

But it´s a global crisis. Market protecion can make things go even worse.

So in every country men should spend more money on prostitutes and alcohol.



Create more jobs because of the proof of supply and demand.



Makes more sense than $825 billion to me.

[mcsluggo]

David brooks makes a much better case for the argument espoused in this thread (by avoiding the whiny "my panties hurt" partisanship)

Cleaner and Faster

By DAVID BROOKS-- Published: January 29, 2009

Throughout 2008, Larry Summers, the Harvard economist, built the case for a big but surgical stimulus package. Summers warned that a “poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have worse side effects than the disease that is to be cured.” So his proposal had three clear guidelines.

First, the stimulus should be timely. The money should go out “almost immediately.” Second, it should be targeted. It should help low- and middle-income people. Third, it should be temporary. Stimulus measures should not raise the deficits “beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two.”

Summers was proposing bold action, but his concept came with safeguards: focus on the task at hand, prevent the usual Washington splurge and limit long-term fiscal damage.

Now Barack Obama is president, and Summers has become a top economic adviser. Yet the stimulus approach that has emerged on Capitol Hill abandoned the Summers parameters.

In a fateful decision, Democratic leaders merged the temporary stimulus measure with their permanent domestic agenda — including big increases for Pell Grants, alternative energy subsidies and health and entitlement spending. The resulting package is part temporary and part permanent, part timely and part untimely, part targeted and part untargeted.

It’s easy to see why Democrats decided to do this. They could rush through permanent policies they believe in. Plus, they could pay for them with borrowed money. By putting a little of everything in the stimulus package, they avoid the pay-as-you-go rules that might otherwise apply to recurring costs.

But they’ve created a sprawling, undisciplined smorgasbord, which has spun off a series of unintended consequences. First, by trying to do everything all it once, the bill does nothing well. The money spent on long-term domestic programs means there may not be enough to jolt the economy now (about $290 billion in spending is pushed off into 2011 and later). The money spent on stimulus, meanwhile, means there’s not enough to truly reform domestic programs like health technology, schools and infrastructure. The measure mostly pumps more money into old arrangements.

Second, by pumping so much money through government programs, the bill unleashes a tidal wave on state governments. A governor with a few-hundred-million-dollar shortfall will suddenly have to administer an additional $4 billion or $5 billion. That money will be corrosive both when washing in, and when it disappears in a few years time.

Third, the muddle assures ideological confrontation. A stimulus package was always going to be controversial, because economists differ widely about whether or how a stimulus can work. But this bill also permanently alters the role of the federal government, thus guaranteeing a polarizing brawl at the very start of the Obama presidency.

Fourth, Summers’s warnings about deficits have been put aside. There is no fiscal exit strategy. Instead, permanent spending commitments are entailed with no permanent funding stream to pay for them.

Fifth, new government expenditures on complex matters are being designed on a hasty, reckless timetable. As readers may know, the policy I am most passionate about is pre-K education. Yet I fervently hope that the Head Start expansion is dropped from this bill. A slapdash and shambolic expansion could discredit the whole idea.

Wise heads are now trying to restore structure and safeguards to the enterprise. In testimony this week, Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton’s former budget director, raised the possibility of separating the temporary from the permanent measures and focusing independently on each. “A long-term investment program should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package,” Rivlin testified. “The elements of the investment program must be carefully planned and will not create many jobs right away.”

The best course is to return to the original Summers parameters — temporary, targeted and timely — thus making the stimulus cleaner and faster.

Strip out the permanent government programs. Many of them are worthy, but we can have that debate another day. Make the short-term stimulus bigger. Many liberal economists have been complaining it is too small, so replace the permanent programs with something like a big payroll tax cut, which would help the working class.

Add in a fiscal exit strategy so the whole thing is budget neutral over the medium term. Finally, coordinate the stimulus package with plans to shore up the housing and financial markets. Until those come to life, no amount of stimulus will do any good.

This recession is scary and complicated. It’s insane to try to tackle it and dozens of other complicated problems, all in one piece of legislation. Leadership involves prioritizing. Those who try to do everything at once will end up with a sprawling, lobbyist-driven mess that does nothing well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/op...ml?ref=opinion

[mcsluggo]

now it is the senate's turn to take a crack.

I personally hope Republicans can end their petty petulance and become integral authors/owners of this legislation. By choosing to focus on "making a stand" and "demonstrating party cohesion" but largely failing to focus on substantive and constructive criticisms and contributions, Republicans thus far have allowed Democrats to fall back on THEIR worst instincts as well.

The best path is near the middle, but both Democrats and Republicans need the checks from each other in order to stay near there. If GOP decides to gamble that the whole thing will fail anyhow (and want to leave the Dems holding the bag) then they will take their ball and go home-- and will only offer baloney soundbite "contributions" that are aimed only at the next elections. If they do this, I fear what will end up.

The middle of the road dems in congress will not be able to hold their ground against the fringe ones without genuine republican participation... and we will basically end up with a mirror image of the dark "Tom Delay days"... just from the other side.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I personally hope Republicans can end their petty petulance and become integral authors/owners of this legislation.

My understanding of the problem with the House Bill is that only Democrats were allowed to author and contribute to it. Pelosi refused to meet with GOP leaders, something Obama had to do instead. I think bipartisan input on this thing could be very helpful.

But the realist in me says that bipartisan input will result in the worst of both worlds... something like the elimination of the Tax Code along with $3 trillion in spending. And Wagyu steaks stuffed with Kobe beef, garnished with Australian lobster, on a bed of arugula.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

So in every country men should spend more money on prostitutes and alcohol.



Create more jobs because of the proof of supply and demand.



Makes more sense than $825 billion to me.

On that note - what about legalizing/taxing marijuana?

How much money would that raise per state (not to mention the money it would save not having to house the 1% of our national population that currently reside in our overcrowded prison system)?


Just tossing ideas out there...

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

On that note - what about legalizing/taxing marijuana?

How much money would that raise per state (not to mention the money it would save not having to house the 1% of our national population that currently reside in our overcrowded prison system)?


Just tossing ideas out there...

I am not saying I am for it, but if this really is the home of free choice --

why not go ahead and tax legal prostitution, tax the snot out of many drugs, etc.

I have been to Amsterdam. All I ask for is that "IF" it is proved that a drug (alcohol) is the reason for the crime, the sentence be automatically doubled and no parole. Steal for drug money (double the sentence - no parole). DWI -- double sentence, no parole. Black Market drugs -- life in prison or death sentence.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I am not saying I am for it, but if this really is the home of free choice --

why not go ahead and tax legal prostitution, tax the snot out of many drugs, etc.

Yeah, this may be a conversation for another thread, but I'm all for legalizing/taxing EVERYTHING across the board...

(although a heroin-shooting prostitute such as myself might be a tad biased...)

[Mavdog]

this spending bill looks alot like what it would look like if there were a party at the capitol and every congressperson got drunk and voted.

maybe they did...

while there are many projects in the bill that I can support as they do invest in our future, this bill has way too many projects that are not "stimulus", and should be in the general spending bills.

guess we'll call it "the drunken sailor stimulus bill of 2009".

and yes udog, we should legalize and tax. think of the $billions that we save by no longer spending (futilly I might add) on enforcement, the revenue from the taxes, and the added benefit of no longer supporting the narco drug barons who are destabilizing our neighbors to the south.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yeah, this may be a conversation for another thread, but I'm all for legalizing/taxing EVERYTHING across the board...

(although a heroin-shooting prostitute such as myself might be a tad biased...)

I agree with this.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

this spending bill looks alot like what it would look like if there were a party at the capitol and every congressperson got drunk and voted.

maybe they did...

while there are many projects in the bill that I can support as they do invest in our future, this bill has way too many projects that are not "stimulus", and should be in the general spending bills.

guess we'll call it "the drunken sailor stimulus bill of 2009".

and yes udog, we should legalize and tax. think of the $billions that we save by no longer spending (futilly I might add) on enforcement, the revenue from the taxes, and the added benefit of no longer supporting the narco drug barons who are destabilizing our neighbors to the south.

Finding a quote where I nearly agree with everything is just marvelous. But, the drunken sailors were all Democrats because the Republicans were shut out by the rules instated by Nazi Pelosi.

[dude1394]

Not only shut out but voted agin it. This porkfest is all democrat.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yeah, this may be a conversation for another thread, but I'm all for legalizing/taxing EVERYTHING across the board...

(although a heroin-shooting prostitute such as myself might be a tad biased...)

I think, if we're to go along with this line of thought, that they should tax online gambling first, and see how that goes.

Even an extremely reasonable tax on that would increase revenue a boat load and enable congress to cut taxes fairly (i.e. for every American, including those working smarter and harder than most) across the board.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I think, if we're to go along with this line of thought, that they should tax online gambling first, and see how that goes.

That's actually a pretty good idea - I never really thought about gambling... There's probably more taxable dollars being spent on that than drugs, even...

[alexamenos]

legalize and tax?

how about, legalize and subsidize?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I think, if we're to go along with this line of thought, that they should tax online gambling first, and see how that goes.

Even an extremely reasonable tax on that would increase revenue a boat load and enable congress to cut taxes fairly (i.e. for every American, including those working smarter and harder than most) across the board.

Nope, first tax should be mineral rights -- when they are separated from the land.

Right now, people are taxed every year on the land they bought (continual taxation) -- but their is no tax or penalty for the ones who make the most money off them by keeping the mineral rights for years -- even when they sell the land. Then because they own the mineral rights, they have all the rights of what to do on the surface land -- and only have to pay a smidgen of the property value loss when they do.

First tax I would have --- tax the oil companies and people who have mineral rights separated from the land. Landholders get taxed for mineral rights with the land.

Second tax could be online gambling, but that is much harder to enforce.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Right now, people are taxed every year on the land they bought (continual taxation) -- but their is no tax or penalty for the ones who make the most money off them by keeping the mineral rights for years -- even when they sell the land. Then because they own the mineral rights, they have all the rights of what to do on the surface land -- and only have to pay a smidgen of the property value loss when they do.

First tax I would have --- tax the oil companies and people who have mineral rights separated from the land. Landholders get taxed for mineral rights with the land.

FYI -- mineral rights are already taxed (heavily) in the state of Texas. Oil companies and royalty interest owners pay taxes on their minerals the same way home owners pay taxes on the value of their homes. In most other states, oil companies pay a severance fee on oil and gas production to the state long before they pay income taxes (or not) to the fed gov.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

FYI -- mineral rights are already taxed (heavily) in the state of Texas. Oil companies and royalty interest owners pay taxes on their minerals the same way home owners pay taxes on the value of their homes. In most other states, oil companies pay a severance fee on oil and gas production to the state long before they pay income taxes (or not) to the fed gov.

agreed with Alexamenos. I know from prior discussions that Dalmations lives in a rural area as I do. I have some personal knowledge and experience on the issue of mineral rights as well. The value is heavily, heavily taxed. Of course, those with mineral rights are not complaining. It is basically free money with a passive income for which you do nothing. At some point, the family owned land where oil/gas was found, but they sold the land and kept the mineral rights. Thus, they no longer have any real investment in the passive income.

So, I understand both sides of the arguement.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

FYI -- mineral rights are already taxed (heavily) in the state of Texas. Oil companies and royalty interest owners pay taxes on their minerals the same way home owners pay taxes on the value of their homes. In most other states, oil companies pay a severance fee on oil and gas production to the state long before they pay income taxes (or not) to the fed gov.

Please show me the laws on this one.

I have never seen actual mineral rights taxed. Yes, any increase (ie the oil when it pumped) is taxed, but to just own them is not taxed to my knowledge. I'd love to see the codes there.

And yes, there is a severance fee, and yes the oil/gas is taxed once pumped...I know that, but I have never seen mineral rights taxed.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

agreed with Alexamenos. I know from prior discussions that Dalmations lives in a rural area as I do. I have some personal knowledge and experience on the issue of mineral rights as well. The value is heavily, heavily taxed. Of course, those with mineral rights are not complaining. It is basically free money with a passive income for which you do nothing. At some point, the family owned land where oil/gas was found, but they sold the land and kept the mineral rights. Thus, they no longer have any real investment in the passive income.

So, I understand both sides of the arguement.

I just hate the fact that I can't buy land with the mineral rights because someone has held the rights for eons because, as I have been told -- why give them up?

They might make something years from now worth more than all the land is worth right now. I'll never sell the mineral rights on the land where I live ...several generations down will have them -- regardless of what happens to the land (unless they start taxing the possible value yearly, in which case they'd have to give them up)

IMO, any land with non-producing wells, mineral rights should go back to the landowner after 10 years of non-production. All mineral rights separated from the land should be taxed heavily every year (if you are going to tax the land). Right now land owners are taxed more than mineral rights are "unless" they are producing.

[dude1394]

Only democrats could be this stupid.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...ism/?uniontrib

U-T Editorial: No protectionism
Strip 'buy American' rules from stimulus bill

2:00 a.m. January 31, 2009

Earlier this week, the European aircraft maker Airbus took itself out of competition to build a new fleet of planes to be designated as Air Force One for the president of the United States. That left Chicago-based Boeing as the only company in the world capable of supplying the world's most photographed plane.

Americans may breathe a sigh of relief that the president will continue to fly on American-made planes, but we shouldn't feel the same way about efforts in Congress to attach “made in America” provisions onto the massive stimulus bill that just passed the House.

As currently written, the $816 billion stimulus bill would require that all iron and steel used in stimulus-funded infrastructure bills be U.S.-made. It also would require that uniforms for the more than 100,000 officers in the Department of Homeland Security be made in America. Some members of Congress also want a $20 billion allocation for computerizing medical records to be directed exclusively toward companies in the United States.

It is true that a clear majority of Americans are concerned with global trade and manufacturing jobs lost in this country. And, yes, calls to “buy American” sound patriotic. But the world is more complicated than that. Once the United States throws up barriers to imports, our exports become targets of foreign governments. And governments from Canada to Brazil to China have warned the United States to refrain from adopting such blatantly protectionist measures.

America and the world are in the midst of a recession, perhaps the deepest since the Great Depression of the 1930s. There are many lessons to be learned from that period. Willis Hawley and Reed Smoot, two protectionist congressmen, persuaded Congress to impose tough trade tariffs. Other nations retaliated, and international trade collapsed. What America doesn't need at this time is job-killing legislation.

[dude1394]

From the Union Leader. I think the bloom may be falling from this stinkbomb.
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?...c-4a5976b88449

The alleged "stimulus" bill passed by the U.S. House Wednesday night is a cynical fraud committed upon a trusting American people whose hopes politicians are cruelly exploiting.

We were told that the bill will get the economy moving by upgrading America's infrastructure. Of the $550 billion in new spending, only $30 billion goes to highway construction. Another $13.1 billion goes to other Department of Transportation spending and $20 billion to renovating public schools.
people from winding up on the streets. Only $11 billion goes to housing assistance.

We were told that it would help Americans who got laid off. Only $4.6 billion goes to employment and training programs, and $27 billion to expand unemployment benefits. (By contrast, the bill raises Medicaid spending by $89 billion.)

We were told that it had to be passed immediately. But the Congressional Budget Office notes that large portions of the spending cannot even begin until spring and will take three to eight years to complete.

The Wall Street Journal calculated that only 12 percent of the bill's provisions can accurately be called stimulative. The rest is simply being thrown at favored constituencies by Congress. The bill even includes a provision forbidding the use of foreign steel in the construction projects it funds. Does no one in Congress remember Smoot-Hawley?

Naturally, U.S. Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes giddily voted for this monstrosity. They did this only five months after voting to kill last summer's smaller bailout bill. What a difference a partisan change in the White House makes.

President Barack Obama can call this recession a national emergency all he wants, but that doesn't make this bill any better. By pushing an irresponsibly gargantuan bill that spends too much and stimulates too little, he squandered his first opportunity to show real bipartisan leadership. What a waste -- of money and goodwill.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Please show me the laws on this one.

I have never seen actual mineral rights taxed. Yes, any increase (ie the oil when it pumped) is taxed, but to just own them is not taxed to my knowledge. I'd love to see the codes there.

And yes, there is a severance fee, and yes the oil/gas is taxed once pumped...I know that, but I have never seen mineral rights taxed.

www.texasconstitutionorsomethingsimilar.com

There are counties in W. Texas (Andrews, Yoakum, ...) that have multi-billion dollar property values and it's not because of the 70 or 80 shotgun houses and arid cotton patches in those counties. Ira-ann School District in Pecos Co. has (last I checked) the most property value per student of any school district in Texas because of the assessment on the Yates field.

The richness of property taxes in some of these counties in W. Texas was part of the reason we got Robin Hooded...to get these counties paying more in property taxes that could then be shipped to the State for re-doling.

[dude1394]

Phew.....

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01312009...off_152831.htm

POLITICS OF PAYOFF

I LOVE this. The new kind of politics of hope. Eight hours of debate in the House of Representatives to pass a bill spending $820 billion - or roughly $102 billion per hour of debate.

Only 10 percent of the "stimulus" to be spent on 2009.

Close to half goes to entities that sponsor or employ (or both) members of the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions or other Democrat-controlled unions.

This bill is sent to Congress after President Obama has been in office for seven days. It is 680 pages long. According to my calculations, not one member of Congress read the entire bill before this vote. Obviously, it would have been impossible, given his schedule, for the president to have read the whole thing.

For the amount spent, we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000.

We could give every person who had lost a job and is now passing through long-term unemployment of six months or longer roughly $300,000.

There has been pork-barrel politics since there has been politics, but the scale of this pork is beyond what had ever been imagined before - and no one can be sure it will actually do much stimulation.

Further, no one can be sure that we are not already at the trough of the recession - such that this money will be spent mostly after the recovery is well under way.

How long until the debt incurred under this program is so immense that it causes a downgrade in the nation's sovereign debt? What happens to us then?

This has been a punch in the solar plexus to the kind of responsible, far-seeing, mature government processes that are needed to protect America. This is more than pork-barrel - this is a coup for the constituencies of the party in power and against the idea of a responsible government itself. A bleak day.

Unfortunately, it is only the latest in a long series of such days stretching across decades of rule by both parties, to the point where truly responsible government is only a distant echo of our forgotten ancestors.

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Touché...

Wat