Whose or Who's? Doesn't quite make sense to me.

Can Oregon do anything that isn't harmful to minorities? I think pretty much every post you've made reaches the conclusion that we're not embracing enough diversity somehow.

Will women, people of color, ex-felons and the homeless not benefit from better transportation, infrastructure, and green jobs?

For one thing, if I must generalize about classes, it seems to me those groups may be more likely to rely on public transportation, and to be impacted by the pollution that seems to always be concentrated in the less-privileged neighborhoods.

Are those groups less likely to need food stamps and unemployment? Are they less likely to need grants for school? Are they less likely to be part of a working family in need of assistance?

Is there anything in particular you'd want to add to the stimulus package that would help those groups? If it meant taking out something that's already there, what would you eliminate? I'd be up for replacing some of the tax cuts with something better, but what?

Jo Ann,

You might be playing a bit fast and loose with the statistics. You are not Nancy Pelosi (500,000,000 jobs lost) but you have erred and might want to change it.

I think you will find that there were approximately 3,000,000 jobs lost in all of 2008, not just since October as you state. Add that to almost 600,000 in January this year to get your 3.5 million number.

The exageration robs you of any credibility. Isn't 580,000 jobs lost last month enough for you?

Just remember, no matter how much money is thrown at this, it will never be able to bring the economy back. Your essay reminds me of someone pitching a penny into a fountain and making a wish that will never come true. Look at the facts: Our economy has always been uniquely capitalistic, it is the sole reason why we are the most powerful country in the world, it's not a coincidence. Handing out money is counter-intuitive to what this country has sustained itself with since it's inception. We don't need this stimulus bill to bring things back, we just need the government to get out of the way of entrepeneurs and business of all sizes. There will always be rich, middle class and poor in a capitalistic market but there will always be opportunities for those with the drive and ambition to go out and work hard for it. Countries that take the more socialist approach of giving stuff away to everybody and helping everybody only make their economy's stagnant and no one really prospers. I know it sounds good, and it feels good to think that Obama wants to create this kind of equality in American socio-economics. The truth is, you can give free healthcare, money and tax-credits to people who don't even pay taxes, but it will never motivate those people to take better care of their health, find a job or make enough money so that they would have to pay taxes. So I say, let's save the money and let real capitalism take us out of this rut. In 24 months, without a stimulus package, the American economy will be back on the upswing. With a stimulus bill, it might come back too but my guess is that it will get worse after all the roads and bridges are built and we are left with this enormous debt to pay back. I know that you are hanging your hat on Obama and I appreciate the hope that you have, but I think it will be very clear in 4 years that he can't deliver us to the land of milk and honey, only deeper in debt and a lot less safe.

"This includes the millions who have loss service sector jobs, those who are underemployed and doing anything and everything legal to keep food on the tables".

And you include felons as part of this group? Calling that socialism would be kind.

My opinion is that if money doesn't trickle down to the folks on the ground working w/people on the beat - an already overburdened system coupled with a new wave of folks - things are going to get Really bad. And I'm an optimist.

If there's not adequate funds to increase both Section 8 and offer improvements and the stabilization of already existing public housing units than we're at a big loss.

Plus the entire tax-credit system for housing, including affordable has to be seriously rethought. We haven't been able to figure out a formula for creating 0-30 percent MFI housing prior to the economies drop - now it's not just finding a formula, but how do we stop the bleeding so non-profits (housing providers, developers and homeless agencies) don't start dropping like flies. Cash forecasts don't look good and if you're a non-profit relying on the tax-credit system, it's even worse.

In Portland, it's my belief that there's a cautious optimism at City Hall and at the County around the idea that the Feds are going to save those impending realities. It's also my believe that that's not going to happen, at least at the level we need to be sustainable and consistent to sure up the levees.

If we're not being creative, people will die on our streets and it's that simple.

Roy

They paid their debt to society, have you?

A short list of being able to help on affordable housing and poverty.

• Obviously supporting the current document recording fee winding it's way though the process in Salem.

• A real estate transfer fee. I know this is not a popular one and seems counterintuitive w/the current state of the real estate market. But, if the proper regulations are being maintained by banks and lenders buying a home at a certain price shouldn't be hit to hard. A nominal fee for homes purchased at say, 350K and above could go to affordable housing. Plus, if and when the market rebounds, we would have a solid revenue stream for the future.

• Section 8 housing: Cut the red tape for private landlords to house Section 8 recipients. Close any loopholes that allow private landlords not to rent to poor folk. Create an army of outreach workers/advocates on the ground to help individuals navigate a wack system and work one on one w/landlords to expediate the voucher process.

• And I know this won't be popular, but look at alternative options for shifting Urban Renewal Area money from one district or region of a city to another to build more affordable housing. If one URAs costs are through the roof and another's is barely crawling - than there should be a formula created to channel that money on the ground to jump start projects to help poor and working people.

• Invest heavily into economic development attached to large systems in motion - 10-year plan to end homelessness, Section 8 folks, poor and working immigrants, etc., etc. Folks who are homeless and have a physical and mental abilities don't have any real options for employment, period. There's a whole lot of broken people out there who have the capacity to give everything they have or to contribute with a narrowly focused craft. Unless we think out of the box for these workers, it's a hard knock life.

-

Folks, this stimulus is not about evening out all social inequities. It's Keynesian economics, pump priming. When the income stream shuts down, you need to prime the pump. You put people to work in public works projects and building infrastructure. It's Obama's New Deal redux, only he's trying to head off the Great Depression before it gets as bad as the Great Depression. If that happens, then we will be equal, equally poor, and equally impoverished.

" Handing out money is counter-intuitive to what this country has sustained itself with since it's inception."--Evan Barrows

Maybe I am missing some subtle irony here, but what planet are you on? How much money does the Pentagon dole out every year? Like your computer? That comes from handed out money. Planes? Handed out money.

Or is this one of those definitions of capitalism that is true only after you eliminate 90% of what makes the US economy go?

"Roy - They paid their debt to society, have you"?

Yes

"Roy - Does it make society more or less safe if people who have served their time cannot make an honest living"?

Of course, but do it by supporting and building the businesses that may hire those folks. Meanwhile, focus first on our youth and other at risk folks to keep them from becoming felons.

By the way...one can be a felon or an ex offender, but never an "ex-felon" unless otherwise officially pardoned for their crime(s).

Every pig wants a place at the trough. Greed in action.

Piles of money and no change.

"Lack of money is not the problem: to keep a child in Head Start full-time, year-round cost about $22,600, as opposed to an average cost of $9,500 in a day care center.

And that’s the big failing of the stimulus bill. In area after area, it does not require any real change in return for vast piles of money.

Under the House version of the bill, Head Start would get an additional $2.1 billion, no strings attached. For education spending in general, states are to get tens of billions from Washington with Congress asking almost nothing in the way of reforms."

Read the whole story at:

• Head Start Falls Further Behind http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08besharov.html?th&emc=th * By DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV and DOUGLAS M. CALL The stimulus bill must not give more money to failing early education programs without demanding reforms. This will not help children; it will only cement the status quo.

mrfearless47,

Out of the entire post, that is your only thought?

JoAnn:

As a college prof (retired), I'm afraid I got so distracted by the error that it stopped me in my tracks.

But to your point, I agree with the sentiment that everyone should benefit from the stimulus package and that nothing should be done to preclude all the "others" from getting a piece of the action. But I echo the sentiments of others that infrastructure and green (to name a few) offer opportunities to everyone, not just the elite to benefit from the package.

I suppose I would have liked to have seen a bit more emphasis on job retraining so that the many who haven't been named as beneficiaries of this package would be able to share.

I don't see this package as exclusionary, nor do I see it as particularly inclusive. The goal is to get more money into the economy to stimulate its growth, get people back to work, get the housing market shored up in a healthy way, and to move some benefits from the few to the many. But, it seems to me that the package has to have some limits. We simply can't open the US Treasury wide and let the dollars flow. Ultimately that strategy will come back to bite everyone and I think that right now the balancing act is between too much and too little. I'm not sure I think the number floating around is "just right", but I can say that it is far better than what the Republicans want, which amounts to taxing the poor.

My few thoughts at the moment.

Jo Ann. When my son was 10 I brought him to several parts of Mexico with me. The poverty we saw there was eye opening for him. He quickly gave all of the money he had saved to folks who needed it more. Next, he wanted to distribute all of my money to them as well. It would not have gone very far, and would have only been a band aid for the real issues. My son was not very practical, but like you he has a good heart.

My point was that there is not going to be enough to fix every ill, and the concern for felons should be way way down on our list of priorities.

The truth is that "Trickle Down" is nearly the opposite of what really helps economies.

So true, but that's because it's the opposite of how the world works. The metaphor implies gravity. In human societies, though, the beginnings are less stratefied, moving more towards a classed society as it evolves. There is a natural, destructive tendency, for all resources to move upward. Trickle down implies that it is like shooting a hose into a second story window. Some water will inevitably hit the ground. It's not. It's like shooting the hose at the ground and waiting for water to pool in the second story window.

It's an IQ test. Can the masses see they're being ripped again? Tinkle Down economics is no different than a Polynesian tribal king taking a dump in public. It's about status.

According to the CBO, the stimulus bill will actually hurt the economy in the long run. However, there is the possibility it will stimulate illegal immigration. In addition to providing up to 300 thousand construction jobs for illegal aliens, the bill will bail out irresponsible states like California. This will allow them to avoid dealing with one of the primary reasons they have a budget deficit. That reason is the extensive and expensive social net they have extended to illegal immigrants. Obama's stimulus will stimulate illegal immigration

Hmmm,

My observation of these work sites in my 19 years in Oregon is that they don't represent all the folks who live in our community. Women, people of color, youth, ex-felons, immigrants & refugee's and others all need the same opportunities

Would these people of color you mention have to be of a certain hue? The missing immigrants you mention would wouldn't happen to be of a legal variety? Considering that I've watched illegal hiring of brown people slash construction wages and cut legal black people out of the pool some of this seems oddly directed.

I do not suggest that women are under-represented in construction, but I do wonder how much of that under-representation is self induced. When construction paid at 1980 level there was a paycheck inducement to do it, despite its nature, today not so much. Even when construction paid well most people went into something else even paying less, for a good reason - the nature of the work. Most of construction is quite physical and dirty, that doesn't work well for people, of whatever gender, that don't want that. There are some biological realities to consider, across the average men are stronger for their weight, that is an issue if you are not strong enough.

I will give you a concrete example, it is frequently required in my job to carry 90# bundles of shingles 20 feet up a ladder and move them up a roof slope too steep to stand on. If you cannot do that, whatever gender, why would you be hired to do it? This is a bit exceptional, but illustrative. Then ask yourself why you would want to do that?

As for the wealth end of it, there isn't much in infrastructure building that a small shop like mine can bid, just plain can't do it. But my small shop counts on people who work for the companies who can bid it to be able to afford my services. That isn't trickle down, that is paychecks paying for further employment. I know a car dealer who needs my services, he can't afford it because people aren't buying cars, some sold cars would really help my circumstances.

Jim, your rebuttal to my statement about hand-out money is interesting. So did the Bill Packard take Pentagon money to build the computers in his garage? (You should visit Silicon Valley and check out the Tech Museum sometime) Not that it was relevant to my point, which was simply that there is no substitute for the enterprising spirit of Americans. I don't see enterprising in the current equation. All I see are lobbyists with their hands out and every unfortunate, formerly disenfranchised soul in America are lining up to get their free money that will...what? Somehow lift them from poverty and set them up for future riches?

I would like to get your opinion on universal healthcare as it has been framed by the left. Would you care to give your take on that? Will nationalizing healthcare be good for the majority?

Sal pretty well answered the query as to building computers in their garage, leaving out that some of those parts for the oscillators also found genesis in the Pentagon.

As to nationalizing healthcare, this is hardly an issue on "the left" as you call it. The issue is single payer health insurance that guarantees everybody can get healthcare. The classic canard of "the right" is to examine England's system. This has two benefits for them. One, it concentrates on national healthcare instead of national health insurance, and two, it allows for ignorance of the French and Danish systems, just to name a couple.

So, my opinion on national healthcare is that it is a red herring. National single payer health insurance is the issue, and I am all for it. And I have yet to see one study that shows we (the people) would be the worse off for it. Or, I should say, one study based in reality, something studiously ignored by its opponents.

Evan - it seems that Republicans said the same thing back in the 30s.

And in case you're thinking about it, the Congressional Budget Office's study of returns on investment is here, in summary.