About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
 susanthe
ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

RESPONSE!

by: JimC

Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 14:20:47 PM EST
The stimulus has passed.

I guess we should read it.
JimC :: RESPONSE!
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
RESPONSE! | 8 comments
Did they scrap (0.00 / 0)
the "Buy American" provisions? I hope so.

Overall, I don't expect it to be very stimulative, but it would have been terrible if it failed after so much build up.

It's stimulating discussion already n/t (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
I think I'd like to argue that when the federal government (4.00 / 1)
funds needs, as opposed to desiderata, it's taking advantage of economies of scale in the sense that the federal access to funds is more efficient and direct than the cumbersome processes 50 states have to follow to aggregate and allocate a similar amount of money.

What really seems to burn conservatives is that it's harder to take a "cut" from the federal funds.  While their cronies in various sectors, particularly the military hardware and security business, can make a tidy profit from federal expenditures, the opportunities for middle men, like brokers and financiers and insurers, are considerably less.  (Consider how many fees are available to be collected whenever a school board or municipality or state agency issues a bond.  When Washington hands out grants, all those opportunities for revenues are lost).

But seriously (0.00 / 0)
We should read it.

I'd be willing to take a section.

778 pages (4.00 / 1)
No mention of ACORN.
Rush Limbaugh is a liar. (0.00 / 0)
And this is far from the only thing he's lied about since Obama became President--not to mention all the lies before.

I do hope that after Senator Franken is seated, he becomes the kind of Senator who goes on TV regularly and fights back.

[ Parent ]
Good Summary (4.00 / 3)
Bloomberg has a good summary of the differences between the House and Senate versions here. Until the House and Senate have reconciled their versions I am not sure what we are supposed to read.

A key paragraph in the story, quoting an advisor to Senator McCain during the campaign, says:

"The House bill will create more jobs and a stronger economy than the Senate bill," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, who was a campaign adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Zandi estimates that the $838 billion Senate package would create about 625,000 fewer jobs than the $819 billion House version over the next two years.


Bi-partisanship Economic Analysis (0.00 / 0)
On Saturday Krugman in his column estimated that the difference between the House and Senate versions is about 600,000 jobs (with the House version creating more over the next two years).

Now that we have a bi-partisanship economic analysis in almost exact agreement on the number of jobs difference (see my post above for the Republican version), what are the odds that we will end up with a final version closer to the House version which creates the greater number of jobs in the quickest period of time. . .

The President has his work cut out for him in the next few days.

[ Parent ]
RESPONSE! | 8 comments
Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox