Barack H. Obama was the one mentioning the 0% capital gains rate. It may not be in the language circulating through congress. And alas, though I just found it earlier today, I cannot find that reference, and I assume you’ll just take it as some evidence that I don’t know WTF. Anyhoo. You’ve caught me at a bad time. I have very little hope left. And all this Obama bashing (the only politician left who seems to GIVE A SHIT), really breaks my heart. Call me weak. And keep pushing.

I’m done.

Obama referenced salary caps today of $500,000 for any executives receiving bail-out funds.

and he DID make appeasements. A LOT MORE than the Republicans could EVER have expected from another Democrat.

Unless you’ve been watching C-Span as much as I do (every day, including weekends), I suggest you stop trying to tell me what Obama is or isn’t doing. I’ve been following his every move. Catch up with me and then we’ll talk.

Obama claims to be centrist, but his actions with this particular piece of legislation show otherwise. That’s the equivalent of saying “We can all get along, as long as we all do what I want to do”. This is disappointing to me, because I had high hopes after his first couple of weeks in office that he would end up being more of a moderate once in office. His intentions may be good, but his actions on this particular piece of legislation are dividing in nature.

I am all in favor of a “bipartisan spirit”, to be honest I’d be happier if political parties did not exist, but electing a president who wants to bring both sides together is not going to change the nitwits on either side.

You mention that there is a 0% capital gains rate included in the bill, but I have read through Title I of the bill and can find no reference to that. (I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just saying that if it does I can not find it.) If you a reference it would be greatly appreciated. The closest I have found is a blurb on the White House website that Obama plans to give capital gains exemptions to small businesses and startups, which is good but is not necessary what is needed to stimulate investors who are just “inactive” due to the present situation. And it does not state that this is part of the Stimulus Act.

And although I’m not sure which pet projects of the Republicans you are referring to, NO pet projects are appropriate for this bill. Pork is pork no matter which slaughterhouse it comes from.

The question regarding whether policy follows Keynesian economic theory or more of a monetarist philosophy is a moot point — any government initiated action to stimulate the economy through expenditures or tax reductions is Keynesian in nature. Comparing Keynesian theory to a monetarist philosophy is a little like comparing apples and oranges in my limited understanding of economic principles — the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. My objection to the way that this bill affects us is related to the speed with which funds diverted to public programs will filter through to the bottom level (the consumer) and how much of its potential effect will be lost in the process. The Keynesian multiplier presents an argument that the most effective way of stimulating an economy is by starting at the bottom.

Really what it boils down to is that you and I are arguing different points — I am focusing on the content and mechanism of the bill and you are focusing on the politics of the situation. I can’t deny that politicians are politicians regardless of party affiliation — even finding a decent one is a little bit like polishing a turd, but frankly I couldn’t care less about who is motivated to do what, as long as they make responsible decisions and get the job done, which is not happening on either side.

Unfortunately, in the end you and I will probably both be screwed, Washington will remain a playground for the cliques and we’ll all be eating peanut butter for another year or two at a minimum. Care for another sandwich?

– B

P.S. – Preferably in another discussion, I’m curious to hear your opinion on the debate regarding salary controls for Wall Street, I am still trying to figure out if Obama is referring to controls only for companies who have received TARP funds or if he is referring to all financial corporations. The scope of the controls in my opinion heavily determines the appropriateness of the action. Any insight?

Since this is directed at my post on Facebook I should disclose that I am not a Republican. I’m an independent, or if stuffed into a pigeonhole you could call me a Libertarian, which is great because instead of poking fun at the other side I can make fun of everybody! The fact is that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of partisan bickering and irresponsible decision making based on party vitriol, there is no “one side” who is holding up any process. It happens in any important legislative action on the part of one side or the other. Supporters of our legislative system say it provides “balance”, I say it provides a smoke screen.

In regards to the WPA, it would be great if that was what this plan is doing but it’s not. This is not another WPA. It doesn’t pretend to be a WPA.

Do the spending items you listed above support worthy causes? Sure. We won’t debate that — I don’t disagree that youth sports is something that should be supported, or substance abuse programs, or energy efficiency, or any number of things in the list. Should these items be funded through charity rather than taxes? Some of them yes, but that’s another argument that is irrelevant in the context of the issue at hand. The issue I hold is that this is *not* the time nor the mechanism to provide funding for those things.

This plan is designed and intended to provide a quick boost to our economy — and it’s coming at a *huge* cost. We do not currently have the money to fund this, and it has to come from somewhere. Where will it come from? There are three possible sources — tax income, additional debt or creation of currency. The tax liability that it would present would be huge, over $9,000 PER TAXPAYER. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have $9,000 to throw into youth sports or substance abuse programs right now. Or as I mentioned, we could basically print the money through Fed purchase of bonds, but this introduces an even more diabolical proposition — inflation. Or we could just borrow the money, but we would just be passing our financial problems on to our children. And I’m sure in 20 years if they were given the choice of financial stability or having had enough bats to go around in youth baseball way back when, they’d choose financial stability.

My point in saying that is that there is a tremendous cost to the plan, and any pork in this bill is one pound of bacon too much. Contrary to popular belief, Republicans aren’t delaying things just to piss off the Democrats. They are fighting for revision of a bill that is stuffed with earmarks for projects that essentially compose a laundry list of the Democratic parties “wants”. The Democrats are using Obama’s appeal and the urgency of the situation to get funding for their pet projects under the door before it closes. It’s a perversion of the legislative system and it’s shameful.

Remember the last time that we all had the “just get this thing passed quickly” mindset? $700 billion dollars later we are having to babysit the recipients because there was no oversight included. That’s what happens when you rush something through legislature in order to make a quick fix. The current plan needs to be revised (or in my opinion rewritten from scratch), and the extra week or two that it will take to revise will harm us less than the extra year it would take for it to make any difference at all as it stands.

As I mentioned in my Facebook post, this bill should be short and sweet. Immediate tax rebate, moratorium on capital gains, and creation of a national “bad bank”. This puts more money in the hands of the “poor people” that you say the Republicans are trying to hurt, and stimulates the economy from the bottom up while cleaning up lender portfolios to allow for more lending. It also maximizes the ratio of effective cost to noneffective cost. It also encourages real estate investor activity which will bump up rental markets for those who can’t afford to buy.

The current plan is like fixing a flat tire by installing leather upholstery. It doesn’t truly address the problem at hand and it’s a waste of money in such dire times. For any legislator, liberal or conservative, to approve of it in its current form is irresponsible. Strip the fat and address the legitimate government funding requests at a more appropriate time and in a more place and you’ll have my support.

– Brandon

P.S. – I appreciate the opportunity for healthy debate.