Gregg didn't like what he saw with the stimulus and other crises. There goes his big republican name in the cabinet.

Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican, withdrew this afternoon as President Obama's nominee for Commerce Secretary, saying he had too many difference on the stimulus package and the Census.

 

?However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy," Gregg said in a statement.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi..._withdraws.html

Gregg comes out looking like a loser here. He couldn't have figured this out before? Obama is a Democrat (relatively liberal on many issues) and Gregg is a conservative. This will make the Republicans look bad in the public eye, as Obama is reaching out to them and they're rejecting his overtures.

Gregg comes out looking like a loser here. He couldn't have figured this out before? Obama is a Democrat (relatively liberal on many issues) and Gregg is a conservative. This will make the Republicans look bad in the public eye, as Obama is reaching out to them and they're rejecting his overtures.

 

Read his press release, their conflicting stances on the stimulus were discussed before he was even offered the position. Something likely changed after he was offered it -- more than likely this:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html

Gregg comes out looking like a loser here. He couldn't have figured this out before? Obama is a Democrat (relatively liberal on many issues) and Gregg is a conservative. This will make the Republicans look bad in the public eye, as Obama is reaching out to them and they're rejecting his overtures.

The whole Republican in the cabinet thing is nothing more than an Obama ploy to mask his partisanship and far leftism. You can't blame Gregg for backing out after the obscene way in which Obama politicized the bailout and the census. How can a guy look bad for not allowing himself to be used as a token?

Gregg comes out looking like a loser here. He couldn't have figured this out before? Obama is a Democrat (relatively liberal on many issues) and Gregg is a conservative. This will make the Republicans look bad in the public eye, as Obama is reaching out to them and they're rejecting his overtures.

 

Read his press release, their conflicting stances on the stimulus were discussed before he was even offered the position. Something likely changed after he was offered it -- more than likely this:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html

You do know that's a pretty biased opinion article, right?

 

I agree that Gregg should have realized before accepting the nomination that clearly there would be major differences between his position and Obama's. Did he honestly think that Obama was going to just suddenly agree to everything he wanted? I'm not sure what he was thinking...

Gregg comes out looking like a loser here. He couldn't have figured this out before? Obama is a Democrat (relatively liberal on many issues) and Gregg is a conservative. This will make the Republicans look bad in the public eye, as Obama is reaching out to them and they're rejecting his overtures.

The whole Republican in the cabinet thing is nothing more than an Obama ploy to mask his partisanship and far leftism. You can't blame Gregg for backing out after the obscene way in which Obama politicized the bailout and the census. How can a guy look bad for not allowing himself to be used as a token?

 

Yes, Obama is clearly a far leftist, communist. Indeed. You're right. That's why he suggested a stimulus with 38% tax cuts. Yup yup. You're right.

Gregg comes out looking like a loser here. He couldn't have figured this out before? Obama is a Democrat (relatively liberal on many issues) and Gregg is a conservative. This will make the Republicans look bad in the public eye, as Obama is reaching out to them and they're rejecting his overtures.

The whole Republican in the cabinet thing is nothing more than an Obama ploy to mask his partisanship and far leftism. You can't blame Gregg for backing out after the obscene way in which Obama politicized the bailout and the census. How can a guy look bad for not allowing himself to be used as a token?

 

Yes, Obama is clearly a far leftist, communist. Indeed. You're right. That's why he suggested a stimulus with 38% tax cuts. Yup yup. You're right.

I thought it was over 40%?

Gregg comes out looking like a loser here. He couldn't have figured this out before? Obama is a Democrat (relatively liberal on many issues) and Gregg is a conservative. This will make the Republicans look bad in the public eye, as Obama is reaching out to them and they're rejecting his overtures.

The whole Republican in the cabinet thing is nothing more than an Obama ploy to mask his partisanship and far leftism. You can't blame Gregg for backing out after the obscene way in which Obama politicized the bailout and the census. How can a guy look bad for not allowing himself to be used as a token?

 

Yes, Obama is clearly a far leftist, communist. Indeed. You're right. That's why he suggested a stimulus with 38% tax cuts. Yup yup. You're right.

I thought it was over 40%?

 

It's exactly 38%. He originally aimed for 40%, but it ended up being 38%.

Gregg comes out looking like a loser here. He couldn't have figured this out before? Obama is a Democrat (relatively liberal on many issues) and Gregg is a conservative. This will make the Republicans look bad in the public eye, as Obama is reaching out to them and they're rejecting his overtures.

The whole Republican in the cabinet thing is nothing more than an Obama ploy to mask his partisanship and far leftism. You can't blame Gregg for backing out after the obscene way in which Obama politicized the bailout and the census. How can a guy look bad for not allowing himself to be used as a token?

 

Yes, Obama is clearly a far leftist, communist. Indeed. You're right. That's why he suggested a stimulus with 38% tax cuts. Yup yup. You're right.

I don't know where you're getting the 38% number from but assuming it's correct I believe the costs of the ATM patch is about $70 billion and this patch is done every single year so that right there reduces the tax cuts to around 30% and a good chunk of the 30% is actually welfare disguised as tax cuts. So we have 30% of tax cuts (includign the wekfare ones) and 70% in bridges to nowhere like pork. Not a good deal.

I respectfully disagree. Please point out line by line what you think is pork and why you think it is pork, and do not refer to Republican talking points. Also please point out instances where welfare is disguised as tax cuts.

It was nothing more than Obama trying to create the illusion of bipartisanship.

 

Come on, you could apply that statement to a multitude of political gestures. Obama could put only Dems in the cabinet and catch crap.. he makes the effort to put someone from the GOP and he catches crap.

If Obama had really wanted to be partisan, he wouldn't have started off with a proposal that included 35% tax cuts. He would have simply said, F-U, no tax cuts, we'll do this on our own.

I respectfully disagree. Please point out line by line what you think is pork and why you think it is pork, and do not refer to Republican talking points. Also please point out instances where welfare is disguised as tax cuts.

I don't have the details but correct if I'm wrong the biggest spending chunks includes about $150 billion in aid to state and local governments (this figure includes medicaid) to plug the budget holes they should plug themselves by cutting spending. This is pork. The other big spending chunk is about $150 billion for yet to be determined insfracture spending projects. These are pork but can be moved from the pork bucket if and when they prove to be worthy projects. I doubt the $8 billion targeted (but unnamed) for the metrorail between Anaheim and Las Vegas will be moved from the pork bucket. On welfare, there are "tax cuts" going for people who don't pay taxes with the earned income tax credit. Social Security recipients are also getting "tax cuts" and I'll bet a high percentage of them don't pay income taxes and for those the tax cuts are welfare.

I respectfully disagree. Please point out line by line what you think is pork and why you think it is pork, and do not refer to Republican talking points. Also please point out instances where welfare is disguised as tax cuts.

I don't have the details but correct if I'm wrong the biggest spending chunks includes about $150 billion in aid to state and local governments (this figure includes medicaid) to plug the budget holes they should plug themselves by cutting spending. This is pork. The other big spending chunk is about $150 billion for yet to be determined insfracture spending projects. These are pork but can be moved from the pork bucket if and when they prove to be worthy projects. I doubt the $8 billion targeted (but unnamed) for the metrorail between Anaheim and Las Vegas will be moved from the pork bucket. On welfare, there are "tax cuts" going for people who don't pay taxes with the earned income tax credit. Social Security recipients are also getting "tax cuts" and I'll bet a high percentage of them don't pay income taxes and for those the tax cuts are welfare.

 

Please provide a definition of "pork" in a stimulus package.

 

1. Aid for states that are having a hard time paying police officers and teachers is not pork. Cutting spending during an economic meltdown such as the one we're experiencing right now is just as bad if not worse than raising taxes during a downturn. These states are having problems meeting their budgets not because they planned poorly but because the tax base has shrunk as a result of the economic downturn. This is not pork. This is the best way to avoid hundreds of thousands of layoffs that would occur if the federal government didn't step in. You seem to be okay with states and municipalities laying off teachers and police officers; I am not.

 

2. It's actually not $150B for infrastructure spending... it's more like $60B. Please tell me how spending money on infrastructure projects is not stimulative. And please also tell me what projects are worthy? I say they're worthy if 1) they're shovel ready and 2) would save or create many jobs. The Port of Miami Tunnel could get significant aid. That is not pork. And it would generate thousands of jobs down here.

 

3. The earned income tax credit and the tax cuts for social security recipients constitute among the most "stimulative" tax cuts around. I get your point, but the whole idea behind the stimulus is to stimulate spending, which in this case is ideal. Nevertheless, many people who day pay income taxes and small businesses ARE GETTING tax cuts.

 

We are fundamentally in disagreement not because of "pork" or any other silly term you use, but because I believe that spending and tax cuts are stimulative any way you look at them, and certain spending and tax cuts are more stimulative than others, and you clearly do not believe there is such a thing as stimulative spending. The multiplier effect varies depending on the type of spending, and the multiplier effect you get from spending money on food stamps, welfare, etc., is the highest you get from any form of government spending or tax cuts. Targetted tax cuts to people who will spend the money is the most stimulative form of tax cuts, not the tax cuts to the rich.

 

Fundamentally, if you don't believe government spending can be stimulative in a downturn (which would put you at odds with 95% of all economists), then you think the entire stimulus is pork.

 

Again, I really don't know what you mean by pork, besides, of course, what Republicans consider pork, which is spending on anything they don't like.

It was nothing more than Obama trying to create the illusion of bipartisanship.

 

Come on, you could apply that statement to a multitude of political gestures. Obama could put only Dems in the cabinet and catch crap.. he makes the effort to put someone from the GOP and he catches crap.

He would not have "caught crap" if his attempts to be bipartisan could be perceived as sincere.

Like his critics would ever admit that any of his attempts were sincere.

 

Judging by his behavior in regard to this spending bill, Obama was being far more hard-headed than the Republicans were. After all Obama is the one who resorted to saying "Well, I won so I trump you."

 

Well, to be frank, he is the President. He is going to get more say in things.

Judging by his behavior in regard to this spending bill, Obama was being far more hard-headed than the Republicans were. After all Obama is the one who resorted to saying "Well, I won so I trump you."

 

Well, to be frank, he is the President. He is going to get more say in things.

 

But congress doesn't answer to the President, they answer to their constituents -- they owe it to their constituents to vote not based on how nicely Obama asks them or how dire he thinks the situation is or how much he whines about the lack of bi-partisanship from the right, but if they think this bill is in the best interest of their constituents. Plain and simple.

Well, to be frank, he is the President. He is going to get more say in things.

Congress sure listened to his requests for a bipartisan stimulus package.

 

What's sad about Gregg withdrawing is that a liberal friend of mine immediately said, "I wonder what he's hiding..."

I respectfully disagree. Please point out line by line what you think is pork and why you think it is pork, and do not refer to Republican talking points. Also please point out instances where welfare is disguised as tax cuts.

I don't have the details but correct if I'm wrong the biggest spending chunks includes about $150 billion in aid to state and local governments (this figure includes medicaid) to plug the budget holes they should plug themselves by cutting spending. This is pork. The other big spending chunk is about $150 billion for yet to be determined insfracture spending projects. These are pork but can be moved from the pork bucket if and when they prove to be worthy projects. I doubt the $8 billion targeted (but unnamed) for the metrorail between Anaheim and Las Vegas will be moved from the pork bucket. On welfare, there are "tax cuts" going for people who don't pay taxes with the earned income tax credit. Social Security recipients are also getting "tax cuts" and I'll bet a high percentage of them don't pay income taxes and for those the tax cuts are welfare.

 

Please provide a definition of "pork" in a stimulus package.

 

1. Aid for states that are having a hard time paying police officers and teachers is not pork. Cutting spending during an economic meltdown such as the one we're experiencing right now is just as bad if not worse than raising taxes during a downturn. These states are having problems meeting their budgets not because they planned poorly but because the tax base has shrunk as a result of the economic downturn. This is not pork. This is the best way to avoid hundreds of thousands of layoffs that would occur if the federal government didn't step in. You seem to be okay with states and municipalities laying off teachers and police officers; I am not.

 

2. It's actually not $150B for infrastructure spending... it's more like $60B. Please tell me how spending money on infrastructure projects is not stimulative. And please also tell me what projects are worthy? I say they're worthy if 1) they're shovel ready and 2) would save or create many jobs. The Port of Miami Tunnel could get significant aid. That is not pork. And it would generate thousands of jobs down here.

 

3. The earned income tax credit and the tax cuts for social security recipients constitute among the most "stimulative" tax cuts around. I get your point, but the whole idea behind the stimulus is to stimulate spending, which in this case is ideal. Nevertheless, many people who day pay income taxes and small businesses ARE GETTING tax cuts.

 

We are fundamentally in disagreement not because of "pork" or any other silly term you use, but because I believe that spending and tax cuts are stimulative any way you look at them, and certain spending and tax cuts are more stimulative than others, and you clearly do not believe there is such a thing as stimulative spending. The multiplier effect varies depending on the type of spending, and the multiplier effect you get from spending money on food stamps, welfare, etc., is the highest you get from any form of government spending or tax cuts. Targetted tax cuts to people who will spend the money is the most stimulative form of tax cuts, not the tax cuts to the rich.

 

Fundamentally, if you don't believe government spending can be stimulative in a downturn (which would put you at odds with 95% of all economists), then you think the entire stimulus is pork.

 

Again, I really don't know what you mean by pork, besides, of course, what Republicans consider pork, which is spending on anything they don't like.

 

According to CNN (*) the infrastructure projects are $150 billion. If the $150 billion is spent on worthwhile projects that would be needed regardless of the state of the economy then go ahead and do them but otherwise they're pork. To spend billions on a project a couple of yeras down the road (or maybe even longer) just because we need to stimulate the economy RIGHT NOW is ridiculous. I don't really have a problem with the welfare to the SS recipients and the non-taxpayers as this will stimulate the economy right now but just call it what it is anf it's welfare. If you call it waht it is perhaps they would motivate themselves a bit more. State and local governents absolutely need to cut spending. They spent like drunken sailors when times were good and now they need to adjust their budgets to the current reality. If private entities can adjust their budgets to current realities I don't see why governmental entities cannot.

 

(*) Not a particularly reliable news organization but I'll go with their number over yours.

I respectfully disagree. Please point out line by line what you think is pork and why you think it is pork, and do not refer to Republican talking points. Also please point out instances where welfare is disguised as tax cuts.

I don't have the details but correct if I'm wrong the biggest spending chunks includes about $150 billion in aid to state and local governments (this figure includes medicaid) to plug the budget holes they should plug themselves by cutting spending. This is pork. The other big spending chunk is about $150 billion for yet to be determined insfracture spending projects. These are pork but can be moved from the pork bucket if and when they prove to be worthy projects. I doubt the $8 billion targeted (but unnamed) for the metrorail between Anaheim and Las Vegas will be moved from the pork bucket. On welfare, there are "tax cuts" going for people who don't pay taxes with the earned income tax credit. Social Security recipients are also getting "tax cuts" and I'll bet a high percentage of them don't pay income taxes and for those the tax cuts are welfare.

 

Please provide a definition of "pork" in a stimulus package.

 

1. Aid for states that are having a hard time paying police officers and teachers is not pork. Cutting spending during an economic meltdown such as the one we're experiencing right now is just as bad if not worse than raising taxes during a downturn. These states are having problems meeting their budgets not because they planned poorly but because the tax base has shrunk as a result of the economic downturn. This is not pork. This is the best way to avoid hundreds of thousands of layoffs that would occur if the federal government didn't step in. You seem to be okay with states and municipalities laying off teachers and police officers; I am not.

 

2. It's actually not $150B for infrastructure spending... it's more like $60B. Please tell me how spending money on infrastructure projects is not stimulative. And please also tell me what projects are worthy? I say they're worthy if 1) they're shovel ready and 2) would save or create many jobs. The Port of Miami Tunnel could get significant aid. That is not pork. And it would generate thousands of jobs down here.

 

3. The earned income tax credit and the tax cuts for social security recipients constitute among the most "stimulative" tax cuts around. I get your point, but the whole idea behind the stimulus is to stimulate spending, which in this case is ideal. Nevertheless, many people who day pay income taxes and small businesses ARE GETTING tax cuts.

 

We are fundamentally in disagreement not because of "pork" or any other silly term you use, but because I believe that spending and tax cuts are stimulative any way you look at them, and certain spending and tax cuts are more stimulative than others, and you clearly do not believe there is such a thing as stimulative spending. The multiplier effect varies depending on the type of spending, and the multiplier effect you get from spending money on food stamps, welfare, etc., is the highest you get from any form of government spending or tax cuts. Targetted tax cuts to people who will spend the money is the most stimulative form of tax cuts, not the tax cuts to the rich.

 

Fundamentally, if you don't believe government spending can be stimulative in a downturn (which would put you at odds with 95% of all economists), then you think the entire stimulus is pork.

 

Again, I really don't know what you mean by pork, besides, of course, what Republicans consider pork, which is spending on anything they don't like.

 

According to CNN (*) the infrastructure projects are $150 billion. If the $150 billion is spent on worthwhile projects that would be needed regardless of the state of the economy then go ahead and do them but otherwise they're pork. To spend billions on a project a couple of yeras down the road (or maybe even longer) just because we need to stimulate the economy RIGHT NOW is ridiculous. I don't really have a problem with the welfare to the SS recipients and the non-taxpayers as this will stimulate the economy right now but just call it what it is anf it's welfare. If you call it waht it is perhaps they would motivate themselves a bit more. State and local governents absolutely need to cut spending. They spent like drunken sailors when times were good and now they need to adjust their budgets to the current reality. If private entities can adjust their budgets to current realities I don't see why governmental entities cannot.

 

(*) Not a particularly reliable news organization but I'll go with their number over yours.

 

1. I am a little confused by the numbers, because CNN is reporting here (http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/house_final_stimulus/?postversion=2009021318) that it is 120B for infrastructure and science projects (without breaking them down) and 30B for green related infrastructure. So the numbers are a little confusing... not really sure what the true number is.

 

2. Like I said, please point out specifically the projects that are not needed that will be getting stimulus money. You have not shown one. From what I understand, they're funding "shovel ready" projects. And how do you define "what's needed"? Do you think the Port of Miami Tunnel is needed? I do.

 

3. The reason they're not spending the entire amount up front (right this second) is because top economists, including Admin Summers, say that the stimulus needs to be sustained over a one or two year period to have a real impact on the economy. In part, I think the reasoning behind it is there might be a fear among market participants that the economic boost will be shortlived - as a result, you will not have sustained economic growth (you'd have a sharp spike of a few months and then another collapse... this actually happened with President Bush's stimulus in the first quarter of 2008... the economy in the the second quarter made a nice recovery, but then it fell off a cliff).

 

4. It's not welfare - it's a stimulus because it is short-term, not long term. Plus, they've already said it is for unemployment benefits and food stamps - what else do you want to hear?

 

5. Perhaps you're right about the states and municipalities reigning in their budgets - but the point of the stimulus is to revive the economy. Stop the preaching. This bill is about saving and creating jobs, kickstarting the economy, and avoiding a complete economic meltdown. Forget about ideology - let's focus on the economy and jobs.

I don't think these are "shovel ready" projects. Even the tunnel is not shovel ready. It takes long term planning (years) to get these huge projects going. One of the problem is you'll end up spending a lot of it by the time the economy already recovered. These long term projects should be in separate bill as they have nothign to do with stimulating the economy right now. One bill should have addressed the stimulus and another the pet projects.

I don't think these are "shovel ready" projects. Even the tunnel is not shovel ready. It takes long term planning (years) to get these huge projects going. One of the problem is you'll end up spending a lot of it by the time the economy already recovered. These long term projects should be in separate bill as they have nothign to do with stimulating the economy right now. One bill should have addressed the stimulus and another the pet projects.

 

As someone involved in the tunnel project, I can tell you for a fact you are dead wrong. The projects that are being targetted now are projects that have had trouble obtaining financing since late summer 2007 because of the credit crisis. In other words, projects that would have been started by now if not for the credit crisis. They're not financing projects that they're just starting to think about. You would be amazed at the number of infrastructure projects around the country that have been halted because the credit markets are too hard to access right now.

You may be right and the tunnel may be ready to go but I don't knwo why you think the tunnel is one of the projects. The projects have not being selected except for Harry Reid's $8 billion train. If the projects were already selected they would have being disclosed on the bill given Obama's view on transparency.

You may be right and the tunnel may be ready to go but I don't knwo why you think the tunnel is one of the projects. The projects have not being selected except for Harry Reid's $8 billion train. If the projects were already selected they would have being disclosed on the bill given Obama's view on transparency.

 

I don't think it works that way. This money will be distributed by various infrastructure/transportation agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration, to projects that meet certain guidelines (which will be promulgated by rule or perhaps from the statute itself) and apply for such aid. Generally speaking, these kinds of projects are not specifically granted money in a law (except when you get Senators putting in earmarks).

 

My hunch is that there are hundreds of projects that have requested aid from various federal agencies because they can't get access to the capital markets. The federal agencies have probably granted aid in some cases, but in most cases probably have not moved ahead because they simply don't have the money. In this case, they will now get the money.

 

Also, there are various tax components which are too complex for me to discuss here (this would take me several hours to explain, and I doubt you want to read that, and I don't have that kind of time). I believe in some circumstances if projects meet certain requirements they will get grants from the government (up to 1/3 the total cost of the project), in other instances they will get tax rebates, in other instances they will get tax credits, etc.

 

The Miami tunnel project may get money for this - it depends on a bunch of factors to which we are not privy. I would imagine they have requested aid from the federal government already. We really don't know - but I do know that from a design/engineering/construction perspective, they are far along.

You may be right and the tunnel may be ready to go but I don't knwo why you think the tunnel is one of the projects. The projects have not being selected except for Harry Reid's $8 billion train. If the projects were already selected they would have being disclosed on the bill given Obama's view on transparency.

 

I don't think it works that way. This money will be distributed by various infrastructure/transportation agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration, to projects that meet certain guidelines (which will be promulgated by rule or perhaps from the statute itself) and apply for such aid. Generally speaking, these kinds of projects are not specifically granted money in a law (except when you get Senators putting in earmarks).

 

My hunch is that there are hundreds of projects that have requested aid from various federal agencies because they can't get access to the capital markets. The federal agencies have probably granted aid in some cases, but in most cases probably have not moved ahead because they simply don't have the money. In this case, they will now get the money.

 

Also, there are various tax components which are too complex for me to discuss here (this would take me several hours to explain, and I doubt you want to read that, and I don't have that kind of time). I believe in some circumstances if projects meet certain requirements they will get grants from the government (up to 1/3 the total cost of the project), in other instances they will get tax rebates, in other instances they will get tax credits, etc.

 

The Miami tunnel project may get money for this - it depends on a bunch of factors to which we are not privy. I would imagine they have requested aid from the federal government already. We really don't know - but I do know that from a design/engineering/construction perspective, they are far along.

 

This articles speculates on how the money will be distributed.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/weekinre...;pagewanted=all