What we need is spending NOW... especially projects that eventually will pay themselves back.
Well,then, since the money is going out the door anyway, and you say spending is needed "NOW" and, when we combine the bank bailout funds and the amount of this 'stimulus' package, we are talking 2 trillion dollars, and when we look at the 136 million tax returns filed in 2006, why not give every filer $14,705 to do with as s/he likes? Some will quickly spend all or part of it on consumer goods and services, others will use it to pay bills, others will use it to reduce their debt, others will put it directly into the bank, some will use it as a downpayment on a house, some will use it to buy a car, some will replace household items, some will use it to party hardy, etc. In other words, people using the money precisely for what they want, not money being spent by the government based on the various special interests they can satisfy, reward, or promote.
Of course, that will not happen for several reasons. The pols and those NGOs and 'activists' who are greedy to get their hands on that dough do not trust the individuals that make up The People. More importantly, it would be anathema to them to trun over or return that much power to the individuals who make up The People. Thirdly, it would deprive those whose inner fascist drives them to seek to socially engineer the rabble. But hey! What can ya say?;-)
Yours in musing,
Issodhos
With respect to how the TARP funds were used, you'll get no argument from me... in my opinion, that money should have gone directly to repurchase troubled loans
at or close to market value, and reset the interest rates to something rational. What was done was completely against common sense, and even against what Congress [said they] wanted in creating the program. I have little confidence that the second half will be handled any better, but I do believe the transparency will at least let us all know who's getting what and why, unlike the first half.
As for your 'remedy', it answers the first half (spending) but neglects the second part of my statement (pays itself back) - unfortunately, so do too many of the projects funded. I am not happy with all the contents either.
As much as I despise Boehner for other reasons, I heartily agreed with what he
said, that it should essentially be 100% infrastructure, and 100% jobs... unfortunately, the Senate Republicans disagreed.
I also think Obama made a huge mistake in seemingly turning the reins over the Pelosi to choose the projects, and likely too many wrong projects made their way into the bill, especially at first... the problem is, for all Boehner's talk against pork, if he had his way it likely would have been just as much pork, only difference being projects to the Republicans advantage. They are two sides of the same coin.
I don't have all the information of course, so I could be wrong... but that is my impression.
