no mention of how to pay for any of it either :-/

I haven't paid much attention to many Republican arguments these days because the ones I have heard have been nonsensical.

Something to remember: All of the "stimulus" money adds to the deficit no matter what bucket it comes from. That's its purpose - to temporarily run a larger deficit to stimulate the economy to grow faster, and to help those who have been hurt by the downturn.

There have been lots of arguments about what the TARP money should be used for, and how it should be "recycled" before being finally returned to the Treasury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP

The TARP will operate as a Ârevolving purchase facility.Â The Treasury will have a set spending limit, $250 billion at the start of the program, with which it will purchase the assets and then either sell them or hold the assets and collect the 'coupons'. The money received from sales and coupons will go back into the pool, facilitating the purchase of more assets. The initial $250 billion can be increased to $350 billion upon the PresidentÂs certification to Congress that such an increase is necessary.[3] The remaining $350 billion may be released to the Treasury upon a written report to Congress from the Treasury with details of its plan for the money. Congress then has 15 days to vote to disapprove the increase before the money will be automatically released.[2]. The first $350 billion was released on October 3, 2008, and Congress voted to approve the release of the second $350 billion on January 15, 2009. One way that TARP money is being spent is to support the "Making Homes Affordable" plan, which was implemented on March 4, 2009, using TARP money by the Department of Treasury. Because "at risk" mortgages are defined as "troubled assets" under TARP, the Treasury has the power to implement the plan. Generally, it provides refinancing for mortgages held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Privately held mortgages will be eligible for other incentives, including a favorable loan modification for five years.[4]

Personally, I think the TARP money should be used for the purposes that were listed in the law, or reasonable extensions that are related to its mission. Extending unemployment benefits, fixing physician payment rates, paying for government employees, etc., are far enough away from the financial purpose of TARP that it shouldn't be used. Money for those activities should come from a different bill. If TARP could be used to pay for those things, then why not use it to pay for MRAPs?

If I had to guess, I'd say that that's the argument that the Democrats would use. Just a guess, though.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #322,229 by boxley 3/2/10 12:20:50 PM Reply	no mention of how to pay for any of it either :-/ If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,230 by Another Scott 3/2/10 12:32:25 PM Reply	It's just a 30 day extension; part of a larger package.
Post #322,318 by Another Scott 3/3/10 8:26:18 PM Reply	Kevin Drum offers some guidance. http://motherjones.c...ing-rock-stimulus Tying a Rock to the Economy Â By Kevin Drum Wed Mar. 3, 2010 11:01 AM PST Jim Bunning's ostensible reason for blocking the extension of unemployment benefits was one of fiscal rectitude: he wanted the benefits paid for instead of added to the deficit. For some reason I haven't noticed anyone pointing out how dumb this is, but CBPP does the job today: [...] ;-) (See the original for embedded links.) Cheers, Scott.
Post #322,319 by boxley 3/3/10 8:47:22 PM Reply	question, and I dont have a link some repos wanted to use some of the UNSPENT stimulus money for this but the democrats demurred. Why is that? If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,324 by Another Scott 3/3/10 9:34:18 PM Reply	Lots of arguments about those things. I haven't paid much attention to many Republican arguments these days because the ones I have heard have been nonsensical. Something to remember: All of the "stimulus" money adds to the deficit no matter what bucket it comes from. That's its purpose - to temporarily run a larger deficit to stimulate the economy to grow faster, and to help those who have been hurt by the downturn. There have been lots of arguments about what the TARP money should be used for, and how it should be "recycled" before being finally returned to the Treasury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP The TARP will operate as a Ârevolving purchase facility.Â The Treasury will have a set spending limit, $250 billion at the start of the program, with which it will purchase the assets and then either sell them or hold the assets and collect the 'coupons'. The money received from sales and coupons will go back into the pool, facilitating the purchase of more assets. The initial $250 billion can be increased to $350 billion upon the PresidentÂs certification to Congress that such an increase is necessary.[3] The remaining $350 billion may be released to the Treasury upon a written report to Congress from the Treasury with details of its plan for the money. Congress then has 15 days to vote to disapprove the increase before the money will be automatically released.[2]. The first $350 billion was released on October 3, 2008, and Congress voted to approve the release of the second $350 billion on January 15, 2009. One way that TARP money is being spent is to support the "Making Homes Affordable" plan, which was implemented on March 4, 2009, using TARP money by the Department of Treasury. Because "at risk" mortgages are defined as "troubled assets" under TARP, the Treasury has the power to implement the plan. Generally, it provides refinancing for mortgages held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Privately held mortgages will be eligible for other incentives, including a favorable loan modification for five years.[4] Personally, I think the TARP money should be used for the purposes that were listed in the law, or reasonable extensions that are related to its mission. Extending unemployment benefits, fixing physician payment rates, paying for government employees, etc., are far enough away from the financial purpose of TARP that it shouldn't be used. Money for those activities should come from a different bill. If TARP could be used to pay for those things, then why not use it to pay for MRAPs? If I had to guess, I'd say that that's the argument that the Democrats would use. Just a guess, though. HTH. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!