Does supporting my retirement count?
It is both a want and a need.

the stimulus is a joke, $300 million for environmentally friendly golf carts. Just let me keep my money.

I could really use my $6,200 share of the "stimulus". They should just send it directly to me and I'll figure out how to support local businesses with it.

"Only government"...can fix the economy - what a $#%* joke. Buyer's remorse anyone?

@Patrick Mcgranaghan: Golf.. carts?

The true environmentally friendly solution would be to can the golf carts and turn all the golf courses into wildlife preserves...

Yup. its sad but true. Read it here: [www.nypost.com] and enjoy "your tax dollars at play".

@timx: All the Kool-aid drinkers around here think its the best thing next to the 2nd coming.

My lawn needs cutting and edging. It's both want and a need, and I could employ several people to do it. I just need that federal money any day now...

@Ingram81: I miss the new and the mothership is close to earth again?!?!?

@timx: Yes. When consumers aren't spending and businesses aren't spending the only other entity that can continue to spend during a recession is the government. It is a basic economic principle.

@Patrick Mcgranaghan: Referring to what?

Dear Santa,

I want a pony.

@Patrick Mcgranaghan: You are being less than honest about this. The $300,000,000 is for a range of environmentally friendly vehicles. This includes hybrids, electric cars and neighborhood electric cars. The last is what some are calling golf carts. I believe this is part of the modernization of the government fleets to help save money in the long term. Either way to say this is all for golf carts is not correct.

Alas, yet another great idea for a website that is run into the ground almost immediately by racist and ignorant comments:

Every state already has an African American Heritage Trail, they are called STATE PRISONS AND GHETTO'S!

HURR. Swell.

Will it give me a kitchen? Or a PS3?

@undefined: I am being totally honest about this. The dishonesty is coming from your government representatives who are using fear-mongering to push this through the congress. Upgrading some government cars to electricity should not be a priority. Tax cuts would go a lot further.

@umbriago: Whoa. I see what you mean. I don't think I would vote for that project, but people were WAY over the line.

@Patrick Mcgranaghan: You realize it's $300 Billion in tax cuts, right?

@Patrick Mcgranaghan: Tax cuts were tried. You can't cut taxes of people who aren't making money. Tax cuts also tend to favor the wealthy. And in this economy less people are going to be willing to start new businesses because there is too much risk. Retooling the fleet will create jobs because products will have to be produced. Additionally it will save the taxpayers money since they will be more fuel efficient. Finally, there are tax cuts in this stimulus plan. They are targeted to the lower and middle classes so those people who are still employed can also help stimulate the economy.

@thezone: And what about those of us who are making income in this environment, but choosing not to spend the money in the economy? I would be much more tempted to go out and buy something with a $500 tax check in my pocket than one from my own work.

@umbriago: this is pretty ridiculous, there are much better things to spend money on instead of some trail for blacks

@thezone:
"the only other entity that can continue to spend during a recession is the government"
Your 'basic economic principle' comes at the expense of fleecing the taxpayers both consumer and corporate. They aren't spending *because* the government bleeds us dry. You have to think a lot more long term, not be so short-sighted.

@Ingram81: That's why there are targeted tax cuts in the package. Other spending increases have a greater return. See page 5 [www.house.gov]

Tax cuts alone will not get us out of this mess. It will need a mixture of Spending, Tax Cuts and reforms. The sooner we do them the better.

@Patrick Mcgranaghan: I don't disagree that spending money on any historical trail is not needed. But must you disregard it as "some trail for blacks?" People can disagree on how money should be spent without disrespecting each other.

Shovel-ready is a joke. Just in ohio, hundreds of projects, that the state has already encumbered money for by the way, have been stopped, and they have been thrown into state requests for stimulus money. Ohio has stopped all new construction, even if there is money for it, because they would rather lump it in to pad their stimulus request.

@timx: Funny. Bush's tax cuts gave more money back to the people and yet people still aren't spending more. Under your thinking if we moved the tax rate to near 0 the world would be perfect. This is not the case. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting the government should spend this much in the long term. But tax cuts alone will not solve this economic melt down.

It has become conventional wisdom that much of the stimulus is justifiable due to the urgent need to repair our badly worn infrastructure (roads and bridges and such). Could anyone provide an argument that this assessment of the nation's infrastructure, and the attendant urgency of its repair, are valid? Is the country really suffering because some bridges are in need of repair (discounting the extremely rare catastrophe such as that which occurred in Minnesota)? If so, how is this suffering measured, and how would we measure how infrastructure investments actually alleviated this suffering? How would spending on these public works projects be more stimulative than tax incentives for private-sector employers to create jobs across the skill spectrum?

There may be logical, reasonable cases for the relative merit of infrastructure spending, but I certainly haven't heard them. I simply hear tired and misleading comparisons to the New Deal WPA, demagogic invocations of the memory of Katrina, and fear-mongering to make this a public safety issue. Could someone please point me in the right direction?

@thezone:
Who said trim tax rates to zero? You are making baseless assumptions which isn't supporting your position. The argument is whether the government can spend its way out of a bad economy. The answer is in this question - When you find yourself in financial trouble - do you go out and spend more? No. And neither should the government. Especially with money they have to borrow from us the taxpayers.

@thezone: thezone, Where is the money coming from?

@Cattivella: Exactly.

@MooseOfReason: It will be deficit spending that will need to be paid back once the economy recovers.

@ohiomensch: Why spend your own money if you can get some for free?

But it's not really free, since we'll be paying for this "stimulus" through inflation.

@timx: Home finances and macroeconomics do not work the same way. Yes you can spend your way out of a bad economy. In fact FDR did it.

@thezone: Nonsense. Government can provide incentives for consumers and businesses to spend via creative tax policy; it is not the only entity which can spend during a recession. Your "basic economic principle" is belied by research that demonstrates that even modest tax rebate schemes (at $35 billion, the 2001 rebate program was nothing of the scale that could be undertaken in lieu of the present stimulus package) can spur consumer spending. A nice summary of said research can be found here: [economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com] And, remember, the government doesn't have money to spend, it simply has the ability to take or borrow money from you and me, and spend that.

@timx: I'm finding this all very odd. Quite suddenly, everyone is worried about deficits and spending, when for all of the Bush Administration, nobody said a word about it. You also realize that the war in Iraq is going to cost just as much as this stimulus plan, correct? Were you just as hopping mad about deficit spending for that war? They said it would take a few billions dollars and pay for itself. Tell me, where my oil revenue check is from that war? At least with this bill there is a much more direct impact (positive) on our economy.

You realize that we borrowed money to pay for Bush's tax cuts, yes? And likely, we'd have to do the same now if that's what you really wanted. So, are you for tax cuts or stopping deficits? Because given our current economy, you won't get both.

@AtomicPlayboy: Here's why I don't think tax incentives for private sector employers will work. Business are laying off people because of a lack in demand. Even if the government gave an incentive for creating a job there is not enough demand to make that a good decision. Most businesses are trimming their staff because of a lack of revenue. Creating jobs through infrastructure projects will help give jobs to people who need them so they can start spending again. If consumers spend again there will be more revenue for companies which means they will need to create products and services again which means they can hire again. Fast job creation is the most important aspect of the stimulus plan.

@thezone: what, I don't want my money spent on some trail for blacks somehow makes me a racist? chillax dude. Seriously how many double negatives can you fit in a sentence.

@AtomicPlayboy: Tell you what, apply that logic to the Iraq war first and then we'll work on the suffering v. cost issue of repairing bridges and roads. This sudden influx of fiscal conservatives is amusing and annoying. Nobody had any trouble borrowing money to pay for tax cuts or to pay for an pointless war. Now that a Democrat is in power, suddenly, we're spending too much?

@AtomicPlayboy: the incident in Minnesota was blamed on bad bridge engineering, not lack of infrastructure investment.

@Patrick Mcgranaghan: No. It doesn't make you a racist. But the comment is not respectful at all. A historic trail about the underground railroad is not "a trail for blacks". Just like a historic place at Elis Island wouldn't be "a trail for immigrants". Or a trail documenting the holocaust wouldn't just be "a trail for jews". It would be a historical landmark for everyone. That being said, it is not a proper item to be spent on.

@AtomicPlayboy: Could anyone provide an argument that this assessment of the nation's infrastructure, and the attendant urgency of its repair, are valid?

Yes. Here's the argument: Most of the water and sewage infrastructure we use in major cities in the US was built about 50 - 100 years ago, depending on region (east coast tends to be older than others). Upgrades were made to some aspects over the past few decades, but those are mostly at the beginning & end of the system, but very little to the actual pipes under the roads. They were usually built to last about 50-100 years, and now they've reached their expiration date.

Additionally, we have a lot more water going through the sewage systems now - mostly the result of huge expansions in paved surfaces in suburban / peri-urban areas - AND dumping a lot more stuff into the wastewater than was ever planned for. So sewage systems have to transport more waste and clean it to a higher caliber than they were designed to do. The result is that in cities like Philadelphia and Washington DC with combined sewage overflow systems (and probably others, though unfortunately I'm not familiar with them) routine storms can cause massive backwashes of untreated wastewater up through the pipes. This is a public health hazard, and could also lead to road and pipe damage.

To answer your questions: how is this suffering measured? Degrading water & sewage systems cause leaks which waste money (since treated water is leaking away) and can cause sinkholes underground, which are expensive to repair especially in urban areas if the sinkholes lead to road collapses, etc. The problems of CSO are public health hazards from the waste (which also reduces the ability to use rivers for recreation, tourism, etc).

How would spending on this kind of public work be more stimulative than giving money to the private sector for something equivalent? Public sector is the only one who can do this. Private sector water suppliers exist, but they usually 1) operate water systems after they're already built or 2) build new systems in undeveloped areas. When you don't have to worry about disrupting electrical, fiber optic, transit, traffic and other systems, building a water system is much cheaper. Repairing something in place - on the scale that's needed - is expensive in large part becuase of the disruption to everything that's arond the pipes.

And sewage infrastructre is even more expensive. Most recent developments run their sewage through larger municipalities' system (and pay for it) since there are no companies that are interested in paying for something so enormously expensive. It's usually the most expensive thing a city ever does, and upgrades are usually more expensive than the original project (because of technology changes, higher standards, and disruptions to other services). Sewage has been a public burden for a long time, and I think it's going to stay that way.

@oneandone: This testimony from an officer in the American Water Works Association has a lot more detail & is more clear on the reason pipes need to be replaced & what the benefits would be.

[www.win-water.org]

What's the over/under on stimuluswatch.com becoming an "I like to watch" pr0n site?

@thezone: The tax rate is zero for almost 50% of the population, unfortunately it is not the ones who provide jobs and money to the economy.

@thezone: No he did not, World War II ended the depression not spending by the government.

@Collie: The lowest two quintiles of the population pay no Federal Income Tax. However, they do still pay federal taxes. There are Social Security taxes that they pay at a higher rate, corporate income taxes that they pay at a lower rate and excise taxes that they pay at a higher rate. See Chart [Fwww.cbo.gov]

So everyone pays taxes. In our progressive system those who can pay more do pay more.

@thezone: hmm the link did not work. Let's try again.

[Fwww.cbo.gov]

@Collie: Really. Then why did unemployment drop well before WWII? FDR lowered the unemployment rate from 25% to 14% through targeted spending. You cannot change that history.

@thezone: Got it

[www.cbo.gov]