February 12, 2009 7:45 AM
Let's make a deal: House, Senate agree on $789 billion stimulus
The House and Senate agreed on $789 billion in spending and tax cuts for President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan.
Obama, who has campaigned energetically for the legislation, welcomed the agreement, saying it would "save or create more than 3.5 million jobs and get our economy back on track."The $500-per-worker credit for lower- and middle-income taxpayers that Obama outlined during his presidential campaign was scaled back to $400 during bargaining by the Democratic-controlled Congress and White House. Couples would receive $800 instead of $1,000. Over two years, that move would pump about $25 billion less into the economy than had been previously planned.
Officials estimated it would mean about $13 a week more in people's paychecks when withholding tables are adjusted in late spring. Critics say that's unlikely to do much to boost consumption.
Millions of people receiving Social Security benefits would get a one-time payment of $250 under the agreement, along with veterans receiving pensions, and poor people receiving Supplemental Security Income payments.
An additional $46 billion would go to transportation projects such as highway, bridge and mass transit construction; many lawmakers wanted more.
The House could vote on the bill as early as Thursday, though Friday seemed more likely. The Senate would follow, but its schedule is less certain.
The Obama plan offers a 60 percent subsidy to help unemployed people pay health insurance premiums under the COBRA program and divvies up $87 billion among the states to help them with their Medicaid costs for the next two years. It provides $19 billion to modernize health information technology systems, even though such funding will create few jobs right away
Will it work? Too much spending? Not enough to have an impact? How will some of the programs affect you personally?
February 5, 2009
10:32 AM
LetsThink writes:
Thank God that the Republicans are standing up against this deceptive bill.
The Democrats are revealing their true motive: larger government and more spending.
That strategy will destroy America.
February 5, 2009
10:36 AM
JW writes:
Well, looks like Obama is listening to economists, rather than lawyers, and radio and tv personallities.
If only Americans would do the same.
February 5, 2009
10:55 AM
JMH writes:
Thank God that the Democrats are trying to pass this bill.
The Republicans are revealing their true motive: to cause Obama to fail & trying to regain power.
That strategy will destroy America.
February 5, 2009
10:55 AM
am 760 writes:
Read this repubs and try to learn and quit being deceived.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/05-1
Quit being the suckers that PT barnum talked about.
February 5, 2009
11:24 AM
KW writes:
Commondreams? And you think everyone who doesn't believe as you are the ones being deceived?
Is there any possible way to revoke this mans voting card?
February 5, 2009
11:59 AM
am760 writes:
Kw,once again, if you can refute anything in the article, please do. otherwise STFU you lemon.
February 5, 2009
12:12 PM
am 760 writes:
Ever since the conservatives crucified the liberal Jesus, and before, these authoritarian reactionaries, driven by bestial fear, elitism, superstition, and greed have been intent on taking humanity back to the Stone Age, killing,stealing,hoarding,enslaving,lying,deceiving, and fouling the earth, while celebrating ignorance.
There's the repub party in a paragraph.
February 5, 2009
12:29 PM
sSASQUATCH writes:
"PASS IT NOW...BEFORE ANYONE CAN FIGURE OUT THIS LARCENY!"
Go to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) website, take their own numbers--AND THEN ASK YOURSELF WHY OBAMA PLANS TO SPEND ABOUT 29% OF THE MONEY BY THE END OF FISCAL 2010, WHEN WE NEED IT MOST, AND THE OTHER 71% AFTER FISCAL 2010 AND OUT INTO 2019! 2019??? Why is this PORKULUS back-end loaded and not front-end loaded? Why does the spending take place long after the economic recovery begins? Why all the fear mongering?
$20 billion for AMTRACK, $325 million for sexually transmitted diseases (condoms), $125 million for bees? ACORN? Etc., etc, etc?
What's the big hurry today? The money doesn't get spent until the later portion of the next decade and it gets spent on shovel-ready bullshit--pork.
It fails two "stimulus" criteria--(1) on what and (2) when? Its neither timely or targeted! Why the big rush to kijack the taxpayer's wallet?
February 5, 2009
12:49 PM
GOP Blameless? writes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elH2zbbeF64
Interesting stuff
February 5, 2009
12:51 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
UNDER WHICH OF 3 SHELLS IS THE WALNUT?
Slight of hand...very fast...quick...zig-zag...ying-yang...flim/flam...don't blink your eyes...razamataz...lightnin'...shake-'n-bake...in a heartbeat...shuck-'n-jive...kaboom...snake-oil...papaoumaumau...shazaaaam!
OK, UNDER WHAT SHELL IS THE WALNUT?
February 5, 2009
1:01 PM
Big_D writes:
What is the GOP playing with while the US burns? I guess if this doesn't pass we can just wait for the people in the unemployment line get PO'd and point them to their nearest Republican Representative and they can explain why we don't need stimulus. I think the GOP folks on this post have their jobs but no compassion for their fellow man.
February 5, 2009
1:12 PM
Shaggy writes:
Barry is such a dumb ass for not standing up to Pelosi and rest of the loony Liberals packing this thing full of pork.
I hope and pray the GOP will not vote for this stupid pet project bill that the only jobs it will create is fabricated Government jobs.
The real kicker is most of it won't be deployed until after we are ouit of this recession.
Barry wants to scare the hell out everyone to get it passed.
Don't buy into it.
btw, What has Barry ever ran in his life?
He can't even fill his cabinet let alone make decisions for America.
The American people are VASTLY opposed to this pork bill.
February 5, 2009
1:14 PM
Big_D writes:
DNC = We need our country back on its feet
GOP = They voted for Democrats, Let them eat cake
The GOP doesn’t get that this isn’t about them against us. This is all about us, all of us. Buying the GOP kool-aid from the people that have the money they stole will not keep your small business or large business open. The GOP millionaires in congress won’t hurt; it will hurt the people trying to keep their jobs.
February 5, 2009
1:14 PM
Michael writes:
When President Bush spoke in this manner about the need to defeat Islamic Jihadists after 9.11 he was called a "FEARMONGER".
I call President Obama the same now. "Irreversible" recession???? That means forever, without end, no going back, we are doomed, etc. If that ain't fearmongering I don't know what is.
February 5, 2009
1:16 PM
Janet writes:
A huge chunck of this taxpayer's money is going to pay off favors for getting Obama elected. That's BS bigtime. Thanks Republicans.
February 5, 2009
1:18 PM
Michael writes:
When President Bush spoke in this manner about the need to defeat Islamic Jihadists after 9.11 he was called a "FEARMONGER".
I call President Obama the same now. "Irreversible" recession???? That means forever, without end, no going back, we are doomed, etc. If that ain't fearmongering I don't know what is.
February 5, 2009
1:25 PM
Big_D writes:
Michael and Janet,
Have fun in the unemployment line coming soon to a job near you. Keep drinking that kool-aid but don’t be surprised when the other shoe falls. What do you bet you will probably blame Obama when your business goes poof. Obama is trying to save jobs and the GOP is so bent that executive compensation will be capped they are telling you anything they can make up. Go look at the pork the GOP required to pass the Bush 720 Billion bill then tell me with a straight face how much you trust your GOP politician friends and how blameless they are.
February 5, 2009
1:26 PM
Shaggy writes:
Barry is such a dumb ass for not standing up to Pelosi and rest of the loony Liberals packing this thing full of pork.
I hope and pray the GOP will not vote for this stupid pet project bill that the only jobs in large part it will create is fabricated Government jobs.
The real kicker is most of it won't be deployed until after we are out of this recession.
Barry wants to scare the hell out everyone to get it passed and his groupies are once again buying into his BS.
Don't buy into it.
btw, What has Barry ever ran in his life?
He can't even fill his cabinet let alone make decisions for America.
His inexperience and poor decision making process is very apparent.
The American people are VASTLY opposed to this pork bill.
STOP THIS STUPID STUPID PET PROJECT FROM PASSING.
February 5, 2009
1:30 PM
history buff writes:
After the Bushies attempted to dismantle government so they could prove their one point ideology that government is bad, how could they let government function and prove that they are full of baloney? If the stimulus bill works, the Republicans could be out of power for as long as the Whigs.
It looks to me that the Republicans want to keep Obama and the Democrats from succeeding. That way they might get back in power and can start giving money to CEO's to redecorate their offices for a mere $2,000,000, and to sell those $35 hamburgers to US troops, and all the other boondoggles they swindled out of the taxpayers.
Pass the damn bill and lets put America back to work.
February 5, 2009
1:33 PM
jill writes:
Michael, we have an actaul problem now, millions of people have lost their jobs, homes, healthcare, etc... because of GOP policies. No fear mongering needed, just ask your fellow american how they are doing.
but i wouldn't expect you or janet,a.k.a, shag, to understand.
February 5, 2009
1:36 PM
Big_D writes:
Remember the GOP said you are with us or against us and since we voted for Obama they are now against the US public.
February 5, 2009
1:37 PM
Shaggy writes:
"Obama: pass stimulus bill now - or face irreversible recession"
You mean you need to scare the hell out of everyone to get this passed or your Presidency will be irreversible.
Sorry Barry, the only people stupid enough to believe you are the stupid people who voted for you..buffoon.
February 5, 2009
1:39 PM
Michael writes:
Big_D:
The support for this bill is sinking faster in the polls than even President Bush did during the most violent fighting in Iraq. The American people see that it is an abomination of left-wing, pork-laden, special interest payback to the unions, to the enviros, to Move.On, to ACORN, to Planned Parenthood, and a host of other NON-STIMULUS, NON-RECOVERY associated items. It is DOA and unless Obama regroups, kicks Pelosi and the far-left out of the office, and red-lines this thing by at least $300B, it ain't getting out of the barn alive.
February 5, 2009
1:40 PM
JW writes:
"A huge chunck of this taxpayer's money is going to pay off favors for getting Obama elected."
How much Jannet? Which chunk...Janet? Who is getting paid off...Janet?
You dont know. Youre just repeating something you heard.
"When President Bush spoke in this manner about the need to defeat Islamic Jihadists after 9.11 he was called a "FEARMONGER". "
Not really. He had overwhelming support for a long time after 9/11.
"Fearmongering" really didnt start getting tossed around until Bush started saying we needed to do things like torture, and wiretap our citizens, and deprive people of due process, because "the terrorists are coming!"
"Barry is such a dumb ass for not standing up to Pelosi and rest of the loony Liberals packing this thing full of pork."
Packing this thing full of pork. Hmmm. So I assume that you mean there is more than say, 1% of this bill that is "Pork" right? If so, Id like to hear what you obviously already know: What pork is in the bill? There has to be a lot of it, because you say its packed full! Must be what, at LEAST $300 billion, right? I mean that would only be 33% of the bill (provided the bill ends up at $900 billion). I dont know that Id call that Packed full! But it would be alot. You can show that much pork, right Shaggy?
The reason I ask is because last time you posted a run down of the "Pork" in the bill, it added up to a bit over $2 billion, which is less than 1% of the bill. You cant call that "Packed full" of pork.
Again people, youre just buying what youre told. Youre not bothering to think for yourself, or do any research to verify what people are saying. Its pathetic.
And you can go ahead and listed to the lawyers in the GOP if you want. You can listen to the talking heads if you want. But ECONOMISTS, you know, the people who study the ECONOMY rather than LAW or TV RATINGS, they say we need this BADLY. These guys arent like the politicians you are so fond of letting make your decisions for you. Economists dont need your vote. They arent like the people you let tell you what to think on TV either. They dont need your ratings.
These are ECONOMISTS, and they JUST STUDY THE ECONOMY.
February 5, 2009
1:43 PM
Big_D writes:
The biggest dumbass is Bush. He had a surplus and a healthy economy when he started and he dropped this turd on “Barry.
The GOP sucks and is trying to make us suffer for the disaster they have made out of our economy and deficit. We need to get rid of the remaining GOP for the sake of our country.
February 5, 2009
1:46 PM
Michael writes:
If this bill is so great, why does the support of it from the American people sink LOWER everyday that we learn more about what is in this left-wing, pork-laden abomination of special interest election payback? Unless OBama redlines at least $300B out of this thing to all of Pelosi's pet left-wing groups, it is DOA.
If you hate Bush so much for the debt, for the spending, for the lack of oversight, for everything under the sun, then WHY....WHY do you think that MORE debt, MORE spending, MORE unaccountability will save us now???? I am not saying that some economic stimulus is not warranted, just not the bill in the manner written. It needs revision. Whenever anyone tells you that you have to BUY NOW OR ELSE, that is the first sign to take a breath and examine the details.
February 5, 2009
1:46 PM
Big_D writes:
Michael,
Mainly that is due to dumbasses like you that buy GOP propaganda hook line and sinker. If you lose your job because the economy collapses there will be no joy in an I told you so. Grow up and look outside your little box.
February 5, 2009
1:47 PM
JW writes:
"The American people see that it is an abomination of left-wing, pork-laden, special interest payback to the unions, to the enviros, to Move.On, to ACORN, to Planned Parenthood, and a host of other NON-STIMULUS, NON-RECOVERY associated items."
Same thing to you Michael, youre making these claims so surely you know amounts, right?
How much is going to Move.on?
How much to Acorn?
How much to Planned Parenthood?
How much to non-stumulus, non-recovery items AND WHAT ARE THOSE ITEMS?
You....dont....know.
Youre just repeating what you heard, because you want to belive it.
YOU are a walking advertizement for the effectiveness of MARKETING.
February 5, 2009
1:52 PM
JW writes:
" I am not saying that some economic stimulus is not warranted, just not the bill in the manner written"
What is wrong with it Michael? What SPECIFICALLY do you object to. And dont say "Pork". Give the line items of pork you obviously know about since you keep making that claim. Give me amounts.
Example: "$30 million for a project to..."
GIVE ME SPECIFICS, MICHAEL, since you OBVIOUSLY know specifics. I mean, if youre making these claims, and you DONT have specifics, well, then youre just regurgitating what youve been told, arent you? I mean, if you dont know what pork is in the bill, then why would you be telling us how bloated with pork it is?
February 5, 2009
1:56 PM
KW writes:
Michael - The folks on this thread defending the bill, along with reid, pelosi, etc..., can't seem to see the pork for the pigs.
Good luck though.
February 5, 2009
1:58 PM
JMH writes:
75% support this bill... to say it is losing support is BS!!!
38% support it "as is" another 37% SUPPORT it, but want changes... That is 75% support!
JW, you know what the "pork" is that these stooges are referring to? Anything they don't like... They just call it "pork" becasue "pork" sounds bad...
Basically if it isn't a tax cut for the top 1%, it is "pork" to these sheep!
February 5, 2009
2:02 PM
JW writes:
"Michael - The folks on this thread defending the bill, along with reid, pelosi, etc..., can't seem to see the pork for the pigs."
Clearly you can see the pork for the pigs KW, so please enlighten me,
Give me at least $10 billion in pork from this bill. Should be easy. Last reports were that the bill is upwards of $900 billion. Surely you can find $10 billion in pork. Thats only 1% of the bill KW. Should be nice and easy for a guy who clearly sees how loaded with pork this bill is.
February 5, 2009
2:06 PM
Shaggy writes:
Why are all you loons whining anyways?
You have enough votes to pass even if NO Republicans vote for it.
Why is it that the Democrats want some Republicans signatures on this pork invested pet project?
I'll answer for you, they know it is the worst pet project bill ever written and they know it won't stimulate the economy so they can come back and say the Republicans also supported it.
Bottom line, the Democrats don't need the GOP support, they just don't want to be alone when it fails because it will be devastating for them and Barry.
February 5, 2009
2:08 PM
KW writes:
"75% support this bill..." --jmh
Not "this" bill they don't. Why do you keep lying like that?
February 5, 2009
2:10 PM
Michael writes:
From Yahoo News: (Just ONE example of PORK. There are more but I am lucky enough to have a job, so I am going back to work.)
Obama’s decision to provide broad guidelines for the stimulus — “targeted, timely and temporary” — rather than issuing specific legislation, was done in deference to Hill lawmakers, especially the Democratic leaders that lord over the legislative branch.
But it’s hardly a secret that the president found unhelpful the House Democrats’ decision to slip funding for special groups into its version of his stimulus bill.
Funding to allow Medicaid programs to provide contraceptives as part of its family planning services to low-income recipients was the Republicans’ first easy mark for attacking the legislation.
“How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives — how does that stimulate the economy?” asked House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
February 5, 2009
2:19 PM
Michael writes:
From Yahoo News: (This is just ONE example of pork and special interst money in the bill, there are more.
Obama must suddenly yield turf to both Capitol Hill and outside interest groups who are trying to help. The results in both cases can be messy.
Obama’s decision to provide broad guidelines for the stimulus — “targeted, timely and temporary” — rather than issuing specific legislation, was done in deference to Hill lawmakers, especially the Democratic leaders that lord over the legislative branch.
But it’s hardly a secret that the president found unhelpful the House Democrats’ decision to slip funding for special groups into its version of his stimulus bill.
Funding to allow Medicaid programs to provide contraceptives as part of its family planning services to low-income recipients was the Republicans’ first easy mark for attacking the legislation.
“How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives — how does that stimulate the economy?” asked House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
February 5, 2009
2:21 PM
JW writes:
Thats pathetic Michael. First off, you dont even have an amount. Second, that was removed from the HOUSE bill. So youre now giving me an example of all the pork included in the Senate bill, by offering me pork that was REMOVED from the Congress' bill.
Yea, you know what youre talking about all right.
Again, if this bill is so "loaded with pork" one of you people screaming about it should be able to provide me with numbers.
If you know what youre talking about.
But you dont. Youre just a bunch of examples that marketing works.
February 5, 2009
2:27 PM
JMH writes:
Michael,
Contraceptives have already been taken out a few days ago, in fact almost a week ago and they weren't spending even 0.25% of this bill on that...
Try to keep up... OK?
Is that all you got? Really? JW is killing you guys, but it is fun watching you guys chase your tail now that you actually have to come up with some FACTS... LOL
P.S.
OK KW... 75% support this Stimulus Bill (WITH SOME CHANGES)... But please answer JW's question... Should be real easy to find some "pork" in this "pork" bill, right?
JW, LOL... You got them cornered now... But I can't wait to hear more of the desperate responses like Michael's, who is actually complaining about "pork" that was ALREADY taken out! HAHA...
I'm telling you, it is all "pork" to these guys... "pork" sounds bad, so they just repeat it like parrots... Basically if it isn't more tax cuts (that haven't worked in the past decade), they will just call it "pork"...
February 5, 2009
2:27 PM
JW writes:
"Not "this" bill they don't. Why do you keep lying like that?"
Why do you keep lying about the amount of pork in the bill?
February 5, 2009
2:33 PM
history buff writes:
"You have enough votes to pass even if NO Republicans vote for it."
True on one level. But under the arcane rules of the Senate, if the bill doesn't have 60 votes, there will be a procedural vote that allows any dissenting member to keep debate open. Then it takes 60 votes for cloture, which would allow the vote to go forward. So, if there is sustained opposition to the bill from the Republicans, the bill can be delayed by this process.
I think if it gets to that point, then the Democrats should let the Republicans risk public rebuke for their obstructionism. But Obama says he wants to work across party lines to prevent a divisive session. So, the few remaining moderate Republicans left have political sway at present, and Democrats who want to play the middle game also become power brokers.
We will see how far bi-partisan politics go. Other than the few moderates, Republicans are true believers in their ideology. It doesn't matter that time and time again their ideology has proven not to work. It is a matter of faith. They believe in something that has no visible proof. They are going to vote against anything that isn't trickle down economics, that rewards the rich who feel entitled to be made richer by the government while GNP falls like a rock thrown from Citigroup's new jet purchased with bailout money.
February 5, 2009
2:39 PM
Shaggy writes:
JW,
Are you saying there ISN'T pork in this bill that has absolutely nothing to do with creating jobs and stimulating the economy?
Well I am felling nice and post it for you beings you work for the man and can't do it on his dime.
Even though you should have already known how bad it stinks but again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
$44 million for construction, repair and improvements at US Department of Agriculture facilties
$209 million for work on deferred maintenance at Agricultural Research Service facilities
$245 million for maintaining and modernizing the IT system of the Farm Service Agency
$175 million to buy and restore floodplain easements for flood prevention
$50 million for “Watershed Rehabilitation”
$1.1 billion for rural community facilities direct loans
$2 billion for rural business and industry guaranteed loans
$2.7 billion for rural water and waste dispoal direct loans
$22.1 billion for rural housing insurance fund loans
$2.8 billion for loans to spur rural broadband
$150 million for emergency food assistance
$50 million for regional economic development commissions
$1 billion for “Periodic Censuses and Programs”
$350 million for State Broadband Data and Development Grants
$1.8 billion for Rural Broadband Deployment Grants
$1 billion for Rural Wireless Deployment Grants
$650 million for Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program
$100 million for “Scientific and Technical Research and Services” at the National Institute of Standards And Technology
$30 million for necessary expenses of the “Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership”
$300 million for a competitive construction grant program for research science buildings
$400 million for “habitat restoration and mitigation activities” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
$600 million for “accelerating satellite development and acquisition”
$140 million for “climate data modeling”
$3 billion for state and local law enforcement grants
$1 billion for “Community Oriented Policing Services”
$250 million for “accelerating the development of the tier 1 set of Earth science climate research missions recommended by the National Academies Decadal Survey.”
$50 million for repairs to NASA facilities from storm damage
$300 million for “Major Research Insrumentation program” (science)
$200 million for “academic research facilities modernization”
$100 million for “Education and Human Resources”
$400 million for “Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction”
$4.5 billion to make military facilities more energy efficient
$1.5 billion for Army Operation and Maintenance fund
$624 million for Navy Operation and Maintenance
$128 million for Marine Corps Operation and Maintenance
$1.23 billion for Air Force Operation and Maintenance
$454 million to “Defense Health Program”
$110 million for Army Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$62 million for Navy Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$45 million for Marine Corps Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$14 million for Air Force Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$302 million for National Guard Operation and Maintenance
$29 million for Air National Guard Operation and Maintenance
$350 million for military energy research and development programs
$2 billion for Army Corps of Engineers “Construction”
$250 million for “Mississippi River and Tributaries”
$2.2 billion for Army Corps “Operation and Maintenance”
$25 million for an Army Corps “Regulatory Program”
$126 million for Interior Department “water reclamation and reuse projects”
$80 million for “rural water projects”
$18.5 billion for “Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy” research in the Department of Energy. That money includes:
$2 billion for development of advanced batteries
$800 million of that is for biomass research and $400 million for geothermal technologies
$1 billion in grants to “institutional entities for energy sustainability and efficiency”
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants
$3.4 billion for state energy programs
$200 million for expenses to implement energy independence programs
$300 million for expenses to implement Energy efficient appliance rebate programs including the Energy Star program
$400 million for expenses to implement Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Infrastructure Grants to States and Local Governments
$1 billion for expenses necessary for advanced battery manufacturing
$4.5 billion to modernize the nation’s electricity grid
$1 billion for the Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee Program
$2.4 billion to demonstrate “carbon capture and sequestration technologies”
$400 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (Science)
$500 million for “Defense Environmental Cleanup”
$1 billion for construction and repair of border facilities and land ports of entry
$6 billion for energy efficiency projects on government buildings
$600 million to buy and lease government plug-in and alternative fuel vehicles
$426 million in small business loans
$100 million for “non-intrusive detection technology to be deployed at sea ports of entry
$150 million for repair and construction at land border ports of entry
$500 million for explosive detection systems for aviation security
$150 million for alteration or removal of obstructive bridges
$200 million for FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter program
$325 million for Interior Department road, bridge and trail repair projects
$300 million for road and bridge work in Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
$1.7 billion for “critical deferred maintenance” in the National Park System
$200 million to revitalize the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
$100 million for National Park Service Centennial Challenge programs
$200 million for repair of U.S. Geological Survey facilities
$500 million for repair and replacement of schools, jails, roads, bridges, housing and more for Bureau of Indian Affairs
$800 million for Superfund programs
$200 million for leaking underground storage tank cleanup
$8.4 billion in “State and Tribal Assistance Grants”
$650 million in “Capital Improvement and Maintenance” at the Agriculture Dept.
$850 million for “Wildland Fire Management”
$550 million for Indian Health facilties
$150 million for deferred maintenance at the Smithsonian museums
$50 million in grants to fund “arts projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support during the current economic downturn” through the National Endowment for the Arts
$1.2 billion in grants to states for youth summer jobs programs and other activities
$1 billion for states in dislocated worker employment and training activities
$500 million for the dislocated workers assistance national reserve
$80 million for the enforcement of worker protection laws and regulations related to infrastructure and unemployment insurance investments
$300 million for “construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of Job Corps Centers”
$250 million for public health centers
$1 billion for renovation and repair of health centers
$600 million for nurse, physician and dentist training
$462 million for renovation work at the Centers for Disease Control
$1.5 billion for “National Center for Research Resources”
$500 million for “Buildlings and Facilties” at the National Institutes of Health in suburban Washington, D.C.
$700 million for “comparative effectiveness research” on prescription drugs
$1 billion for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
$2 billion in Child Care and Development Block Grants for states
$1 billion for Head Start programs
$1.1 billion for Early Head Start programs
$100 million for Social Security research programs
$200 million for “Aging Services Programs”
$2 billion for “Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology”
$430 million for public health/social services emergency funds
$2.3 billion for the Centers for Disease Control for a variety of programs
$5.5 billion in targeted education grants
$5.5 billion in “education finance incentive grants”
$2 billion in “school improvement grants”
$13.6 billion for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
$250 million for statewide education data systems
$14 billion for school modernization, renovation and repair
$160 million for AmeriCorps grants
$400 million for the construction and costs to establish a new “National Computer Center” for the Social Security Administration
$500 million to improve processing of disability and retirement claims
$920 million for Army housing and child development centers
$350 million for Navy and Marine Corps housing and child development centers
$280 million in Air Force housing and child development centers
$3.75 billion in military hospital and surgery center construction
$140 million in Army National Guard construction projects
$70 million in Air National Guard construction projects
$100 million in Army Reserve construction projects
$30 million in Navy Reserve construction projects
$60 million in Air Force Reserve construction projects
$950 million for VA Medical Facilities
$50 million for repairs for military cemeteries
$120 million for a backup information management facility for the State Department
$98 million for National Cybersecurity Initiative
$3 billion for “Grants-in-Aid for Airports”
$300 million for Indian Reservation roads
$300 million for Amtrak capital needs
$800 million for national railroad assets or infrastructure repairs, upgrades
$5.4 billion in federal transit grants
$2 billion in infrastructure development for subways and commuter railways
$5 billion for public housing capital
$1 billion in competitive housing grants
$2.5 billion for energy efficiency upgrades in public housing
$500 million in Native American Housing Block Grants
$4.1 billion to help communities deal with foreclosed homes
$1.5 billion in homeless prevention activities
$79 billion in education funds for states
-----------------------------------------------
Now I am not saying many of these projects are not good projects and need funding but not NOW and not included in this bill.
That means they are PORK.
Do you understand?
February 5, 2009
2:41 PM
Michael writes:
Here are some select items from the bill:
1.$400 million for NASA scientists to conduct climate change research. How will this stimulate the economy? NASA already exists and the application is too limited and isolated.
2.$600 million for General Services Administration to replace older vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles. No cost/benefit study has been done to support that replacing older vehicles will accomplish anything but stimulate Detroit's auto sales.
3.$500 million for the Transportation Security Administration to install bomb detectors at airports. OK, so again, good idea but how does this stimulate the economy? It creates demand for a very specific and isolated piece of equipment made by very few companies. Not a big multiplier effect here.
In closing, "The Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 7 percent of infrastructure money would make its way into the economy by the end of the year, and only 38 percent would be spent by the end of the 2010 fiscal year." That is very far off if we need stimulus NOW. IMHO
February 5, 2009
2:43 PM
Michael writes:
"The Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 7 percent of infrastructure money would make its way into the economy by the end of this year, and only 38 percent would be spent by the end of the 2010 fiscal year." That is very far off if we need stimulus NOW. IMHO
February 5, 2009
2:45 PM
Shaggy writes:
"But Obama says he wants to work across party lines to prevent a divisive session."
This is a bunch of BS.
This is a Democratic bill and when the GOP votes against it he blames then for not being bipartisan.
What a crock!
I guess it is only bipartisan to Barry if the GOP bends over to the Dems.
I haven't seen ONE compromise from the Democrats, have you?
February 5, 2009
2:45 PM
JW writes:
It would be funny JMH, if it werent so scary.
KW isnt a complete moron, but judging by this youd think he was! Its the basic nature of the political beast. The majority of people, even people like KW who are otherwise smart, cant see the damn trees for the forest.
I mean, how do you explain people running around screaming something is true that they havent even tried to verify? "I know its true!" "How?" "Fuck if I know! I just know its true!"
How do you explain that when they are shown this fact, the just retreat into a hole and refuse to accept it. They cant get the proof, thats obvious, but why doesnt that make them THINK? Why does it just make the believe MORE strongly?
"Show me some proof of what you believe" "I cant" "then why do you think its true?" "Because it IS!"
Its weird, and its worrying because our country is in too bad shape for this idiocy, but this is a representative democracy, and even the dumbest SOB deserves to have their say.
People just arent made for this in general. Its too damn bad, but they will act against their own interests out of ideological need where this political thing is concerned about 90% of the time from what Ive seen. They just BELIEVE shit they want to believe. Reality has nada to do with it. Its pathetic, its scary, and it will probably be the end of this nation at some point, at least in the form our founders gave us. I just hope its not in my lifetime.
February 5, 2009
2:50 PM
KW writes:
Like I said Michael, they just can't (or refuse to) see it so I guess I'll have to spell it for them. Can we have a drum roll please...
Provisions of the bill:
$1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades.
$2 billion to help subsidize child care.
$400 million for research into global warming.
$2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere.
$650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.
$600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.
$75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking.
$21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration.
$2.25 billion for national parks. This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
$44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department.
$32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste.
$87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states.
$53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.
$13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes.
$20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment.
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
Another $750 million would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN – meaning cities and states are barred from receiving that money.
Most media outlets are reporting the cost of the package at $819 billion. However, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the interest on the debt generated by the bill’s spending will cost another $347.1 billion, making the total cost approximately $1.17 trillion.
Now JW, go ahead and defend away how all this "pork" is going to create an economic "stimulus" to help us get out of a recession.
I can hardly wait.
February 5, 2009
2:55 PM
Michael writes:
"People just arent made for this in general. Its too damn bad, but they will act against their own interests out of ideological need where this political thing is concerned about 90% of the time from what Ive seen. They just BELIEVE shit they want to believe. Reality has nada to do with it. Its pathetic, its scary, and it will probably be the end of this nation at some point, at least in the form our founders gave us. I just hope its not in my lifetime." - JW
Exactly my thought about liberals and many Democrats on the subject of Islamic Jihadism, the need to deal with Saddam Hussein & Sons and US national security over the last 8 years. Amazing how that works out...isn't it?
February 5, 2009
2:57 PM
KW writes:
Ooh, great response to JW everyone.
I guess you ought to be careful what you ask for JW.
February 5, 2009
3:09 PM
history buff writes:
"$175 million to buy and restore floodplain easements for flood prevention"
Republicans still don't care about the victims of Katrina, or the future victims of devastating hurricanes.
"$2.7 billion for rural water and waste dispoal direct loans"
Who needs clean water? Let them buy it in the store.
"$2.8 billion for loans to spur rural broadband"
Why should those bumpkins be brought into the 21st century?
"$150 million for emergency food assistance"
Let them die of hunger, especially their little brats. Let them learn a lesson.
"$430 million for public health/social services emergency funds"
Why should Republicans care about abused children being neglected because of state budget cuts? Let them learn a lessen.
"$650 million for Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program"
If you don't have a digital TV, listen to the radio. Especially to Rush. You will learn something.
"$400 million for “habitat restoration and mitigation activities” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration"
Who needs wildlife? Waste dumps are capitalistic. Cleaning up after humans in communistic.
"$600 million for “accelerating satellite development and acquisition”
Let the Chinese control outer space. That's where the Republicans have their money invested, anyway.
"$920 million for Army housing and child development centers
$350 million for Navy and Marine Corps housing and child development centers
$280 million in Air Force housing and child development centers
$3.75 billion in military hospital and surgery center construction
$140 million in Army National Guard construction projects
$70 million in Air National Guard construction projects
$100 million in Army Reserve construction projects
$30 million in Navy Reserve construction projects
$60 million in Air Force Reserve construction projects
$950 million for VA Medical Facilities
$50 million for repairs for military cemeteries
$120 million for a backup information management facility for the State Department
$98 million for National Cybersecurity Initiative"
Why should we pay for our men and women and their families in the armed services? They are just a bunch of slackers on the government dole.
"$850 million for “Wildland Fire Management”
Let our forests burn to the ground.
As to the rest, who cares if our population is homeless, uneducated, and that our country is defeated by the Chines and the Russians. Learn a lesson.
February 5, 2009
3:11 PM
JMH writes:
"$32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste.
$87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states.
$53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.
$13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes.
$20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment."
You call these things "pork"? Really?
The electrical grid is long overdue and would create a ton of jobs... in fact every single one of these projects is needed, long overdue and would create jobs... Sorry numbnuts, but this isn't pork, this is a major part of the stimulus package...
See I told you JW, they will just call it ALL "pork" if it wasn't a tax cut... like shaggy calling all the military projects "pork", energy projects "pork", etc, etc... Nevermind the fact that the tax cuts that the GOP want are what has been driving up the cost of the package...
Though I will agree a few things could go from the rest of your list, but if you do the math it doesn't come close to 1% of the total bill... The National Park park has already been cut out, the $650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion has been cut out since it has been delayed, & the $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts could go...
The rest is all needed, will create jobs & will "stimulate" the economy!
Maybe your guys should tell us what in your opinion ISN'T pork since it seems like you guys are just cutting and pasting the whole bill!
February 5, 2009
3:15 PM
JMH writes:
"Exactly my thought about liberals and many Democrats on the subject of Islamic Jihadism, the need to deal with Saddam Hussein & Sons and US national security over the last 8 years. Amazing how that works out...isn't it?" - Michael
Talk about "FEARMONGERING"... Kinda calling the kettle black with that retarded sh*t aint ya?
Ya... that whole Iraq invasion has worked out reaaaal well for us... Exactly what has it gotten us, but a big bill (one that dwarves this Stimulus Bill you guys are whinning about)?
I guess Stimulus for Iraq is good, but investing in our own country is bad? Morons...
February 5, 2009
3:16 PM
JW writes:
Oy. Shaggy, I really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on your list. I just started adding them up. But once I got down about 50 line items, I just jumped down to see the length of your list, and WOW, what wingnut site did you copy and past that from?
There was infrastructure spending in there. You really think thats pork? IE its someones "Pet project" and therefore "Wasteful Spending"??
Infrastructure spending doesnt CREATE JOBS?
And then there are the mortgage support items! MORTGAGES are the MAIN CAUSE OF OUR ECONOMIC problems you utter IDIOT. How the hell can that NOT be stimulus?
Ill take a look at your list when I get home and see what in there ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE to be called pork.
Michael,
So, Obama DIRECTLY spoke about your $600 million new efficient car "pork". Not only will it save the USA money FOR YEARS, but it does PROVIDE JOBS for the manufacturers who build them. How the hell is that not doing exactly what its supposed to, STIMULATING THE ECONOMY BY PROVIDING JOBS?
But...lets just call it pork, for the sake of argument.
$400+$600+$500 million=$1.5 Billion. That would be 0.0016666666666666666666666666666667, or, rounded, about 2 TENTHS of a percent of the total bill.
Wow. Thats a ton of pork. Lets just stop the whole entire bill.
Back to you Shaggy,
Real quick, tell me how the following from you list WILL NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY:
$44 million for construction, repair and improvements at US Department of Agriculture facilties
Construction jobs arent jobs I guess?
$209 million for work on deferred maintenance at Agricultural Research Service facilities
Hmm. Maintenance jobs arent...jobs?
$245 million for maintaining and modernizing the IT system of the Farm Service Agency
Same as above?
$175 million to buy and restore floodplain easements for flood prevention
There are no jobs in this process? (yes, obviously there are)
$50 million for “Watershed Rehabilitation”
Hehe, I suppose you dont need engineers and laborers for this?
$1.1 billion for rural community facilities direct loans
Oh, yea, there is nothing that stimulates the economy here. I mean, you give rural community facilities loans, they just...well...they just WHAT with those loans Shaggy? How is this Pork?
$2 billion for rural business and industry guaranteed loans
Business loans. Industry loans. Nope, no stumulus there! If youre a retard.
$2.7 billion for rural water and waste dispoal direct loans
PORK. (Gota give you ONE at least)
$22.1 billion for rural housing insurance fund loans
Hmmm. Lets see. What got us into this mess again? AHHH! THE HOUSING INDUSTRY!!!! Nope, surely no stimulus here
$2.8 billion for loans to spur rural broadband
Hehe. How could people in rural communities having broadband POSSIBLY stimulate the economy? Hell, how could putting broadband in possibly stimulate the economy?
Jobs? Do people need to be hired to do jobs that put broadband into rurual areas?
NOOOO! Couldnt be!
$150 million for emergency food assistance
Yea, feeding people sure as hell doesnt stimulate the economy. Accept that you have to buy the food, so farmers get paid. Oh! And you need to hire people to distribute the food! Hey!!!! there it is again! There are JOBS IN THIS PORK!!!!
You getting the picture here fuckwit?
$50 million for regional economic development commissions
Economic development! That CANT be stimulating for the ECONOMY! Its ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT!!!!
Still not getting the picture you utter fool?
$1 billion for “Periodic Censuses and Programs”
No one needs to be hired to run the census. No jobs here!
$350 million for State Broadband Data and Development Grants
Again, no jobs in broadband, right Shaggy?
And Im done. Thats basically everything up to this point. They ALL fund jobs or development. Thats not pork, dumbshit.
Try again.
$1.8 billion for Rural Broadband Deployment Grants
$1 billion for Rural Wireless Deployment Grants
$650 million for Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program
$100 million for “Scientific and Technical Research and Services” at the National Institute of Standards And Technology
$30 million for necessary expenses of the “Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership”
$300 million for a competitive construction grant program for research science buildings
$400 million for “habitat restoration and mitigation activities” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
$600 million for “accelerating satellite development and acquisition”
$140 million for “climate data modeling”
$3 billion for state and local law enforcement grants
$1 billion for “Community Oriented Policing Services”
$250 million for “accelerating the development of the tier 1 set of Earth science climate research missions recommended by the National Academies Decadal Survey.”
$50 million for repairs to NASA facilities from storm damage
$300 million for “Major Research Insrumentation program” (science)
$200 million for “academic research facilities modernization”
$100 million for “Education and Human Resources”
$400 million for “Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction”
$4.5 billion to make military facilities more energy efficient
$1.5 billion for Army Operation and Maintenance fund
$624 million for Navy Operation and Maintenance
$128 million for Marine Corps Operation and Maintenance
$1.23 billion for Air Force Operation and Maintenance
$454 million to “Defense Health Program”
$110 million for Army Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$62 million for Navy Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$45 million for Marine Corps Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$14 million for Air Force Reserve Operation and Maintenance
$302 million for National Guard Operation and Maintenance
$29 million for Air National Guard Operation and Maintenance
$350 million for military energy research and development programs
$2 billion for Army Corps of Engineers “Construction”
$250 million for “Mississippi River and Tributaries”
$2.2 billion for Army Corps “Operation and Maintenance”
$25 million for an Army Corps “Regulatory Program”
$126 million for Interior Department “water reclamation and reuse projects”
$80 million for “rural water projects”
$18.5 billion for “Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy” research in the Department of Energy. That money includes:
$2 billion for development of advanced batteries
$800 million of that is for biomass research and $400 million for geothermal technologies
$1 billion in grants to “institutional entities for energy sustainability and efficiency”
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants
$3.4 billion for state energy programs
$200 million for expenses to implement energy independence programs
$300 million for expenses to implement Energy efficient appliance rebate programs including the Energy Star program
$400 million for expenses to implement Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Infrastructure Grants to States and Local Governments
$1 billion for expenses necessary for advanced battery manufacturing
$4.5 billion to modernize the nation’s electricity grid
$1 billion for the Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee Program
$2.4 billion to demonstrate “carbon capture and sequestration technologies”
$400 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (Science)
$500 million for “Defense Environmental Cleanup”
$1 billion for construction and repair of border facilities and land ports of entry
$6 billion for energy efficiency projects on government buildings
$600 million to buy and lease government plug-in and alternative fuel vehicles
$426 million in small business loans
$100 million for “non-intrusive detection technology to be deployed at sea ports of entry
$150 million for repair and construction at land border ports of entry
$500 million for explosive detection systems for aviation security
$150 million for alteration or removal of obstructive bridges
$200 million for FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter program
$325 million for Interior Department road, bridge and trail repair projects
$300 million for road and bridge work in Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
$1.7 billion for “critical deferred maintenance” in the National Park System
$200 million to revitalize the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
$100 million for National Park Service Centennial Challenge programs
$200 million for repair of U.S. Geological Survey facilities
$500 million for repair and replacement of schools, jails, roads, bridges, housing and more for Bureau of Indian Affairs
$800 million for Superfund programs
$200 million for leaking underground storage tank cleanup
$8.4 billion in “State and Tribal Assistance Grants”
$650 million in “Capital Improvement and Maintenance” at the Agriculture Dept.
$850 million for “Wildland Fire Management”
$550 million for Indian Health facilties
$150 million for deferred maintenance at the Smithsonian museums
$50 million in grants to fund “arts projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support during the current economic downturn” through the National Endowment for the Arts
$1.2 billion in grants to states for youth summer jobs programs and other activities
$1 billion for states in dislocated worker employment and training activities
$500 million for the dislocated workers assistance national reserve
$80 million for the enforcement of worker protection laws and regulations related to infrastructure and unemployment insurance investments
$300 million for “construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of Job Corps Centers”
$250 million for public health centers
$1 billion for renovation and repair of health centers
$600 million for nurse, physician and dentist training
$462 million for renovation work at the Centers for Disease Control
$1.5 billion for “National Center for Research Resources”
$500 million for “Buildlings and Facilties” at the National Institutes of Health in suburban Washington, D.C.
$700 million for “comparative effectiveness research” on prescription drugs
$1 billion for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
$2 billion in Child Care and Development Block Grants for states
$1 billion for Head Start programs
$1.1 billion for Early Head Start programs
$100 million for Social Security research programs
$200 million for “Aging Services Programs”
$2 billion for “Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology”
$430 million for public health/social services emergency funds
$2.3 billion for the Centers for Disease Control for a variety of programs
$5.5 billion in targeted education grants
$5.5 billion in “education finance incentive grants”
$2 billion in “school improvement grants”
$13.6 billion for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
$250 million for statewide education data systems
$14 billion for school modernization, renovation and repair
$160 million for AmeriCorps grants
$400 million for the construction and costs to establish a new “National Computer Center” for the Social Security Administration
$500 million to improve processing of disability and retirement claims
$920 million for Army housing and child development centers
$350 million for Navy and Marine Corps housing and child development centers
$280 million in Air Force housing and child development centers
$3.75 billion in military hospital and surgery center construction
$140 million in Army National Guard construction projects
$70 million in Air National Guard construction projects
$100 million in Army Reserve construction projects
$30 million in Navy Reserve construction projects
$60 million in Air Force Reserve construction projects
$950 million for VA Medical Facilities
$50 million for repairs for military cemeteries
$120 million for a backup information management facility for the State Department
$98 million for National Cybersecurity Initiative
$3 billion for “Grants-in-Aid for Airports”
$300 million for Indian Reservation roads
$300 million for Amtrak capital needs
$800 million for national railroad assets or infrastructure repairs, upgrades
$5.4 billion in federal transit grants
$2 billion in infrastructure development for subways and commuter railways
$5 billion for public housing capital
$1 billion in competitive housing grants
$2.5 billion for energy efficiency upgrades in public housing
$500 million in Native American Housing Block Grants
$4.1 billion to help communities deal with foreclosed homes
$1.5 billion in homeless prevention activities
$79 billion in education funds for states
February 5, 2009
3:27 PM
Big_D writes:
Let's see if the government spends money it goes through our economy 7 or 8 times. Seems like every government expenditure domestically will pay back our economy 7 fold. Now I can see why the Republicans hate it. They like a system like Bush had: you spend the money on Iraq and it stays there. Thank GOD these morons have lost their hold on our government. Pass them by and make it work and shoot down every GOP piece of legislation from here on out and make the Whigs look like a popular party in comparison. Trying to explain the money multiplier and how economy works to a Republican is like yelling at the wind.
The GOP is an obstructionist POS that is a threat to our country. They hate their own country because they lost the election, period.
February 5, 2009
3:32 PM
JW writes:
"I guess you ought to be careful what you ask for JW."
Just dealt with shaggy, your turn.
"$1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades. "
And clearly doesnt EMPLOY ANYONE.
"$2 billion to help subsidize child care."
Lol. So, people who work need child care. Clearly this doesnt help those people to get to work. Clearly it doesnt employ child caregivers.
You guys do understand, if it provides jobs, its doing what a STIMULUS is supposed to do, right?
Because there are an awful lot of JOBS in your PORK.
"$400 million for research into global warming."
Ill give you this one.
"$2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere. "
Uh....fuckit. Ill give you this one too even though I think there are both future economic benefits AND jobs in this, and I think its pretty damn obvious, too.
"$650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion. "
yea, no products getting bought here.
"$600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments."
Already talked about this one. Again, there are an awful lot of future economic benefits and JOBS in your PORK.
"$75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking."
Well, the healtcare cost benefits and the added productivity of healthy people are clearly not an economic beneifit so...PORK!
"$21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration."
NO JOBS HERE! NO PURCHASING OF MATERIALS FROM BUSINESS! Pork (if youre retarded).
"$2.25 billion for national parks. This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee."
Well, lets investigate. But for now, I think it has to come off your "Pork" list because we dont even know what its for.
"$44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department. "
This was on Shaggy's list and again, NO JOBS HERE!
God you people just dont bother to read the stuff you post, do you?
"$32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste. "
LOL!!! You have GOT TO BE KIDDING ME? You really cannot see the jobs and economic benefits in this? ARE YOU RETARDED?
"$87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states."
Yes, paying doctors for providing medical services (and all their employees) obviously doest stimulate the economy.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
"$53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs. "
LOL! No jobs here!
"$13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes."
NO JOBS HERE!!!!
"$20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment."
This doesnt help companies at all. Right?
"$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts."
HOLY CRAP!!! You AcTUALLY FOUND SOME PORK!!!!
This actually is pork!!! GOOD ON YOU KW!!!! Im impressed!
"Another $750 million would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN – meaning cities and states are barred from receiving that money."
Ill just agree with this. Pork. I see jobs here though. But lets call it pork.
"Most media outlets are reporting the cost of the package at $819 billion. However, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the interest on the debt generated by the bill’s spending will cost another $347.1 billion, making the total cost approximately $1.17 trillion."
Agreed.
But your list of pork was pretty pathetic. I mean, there were an awful lot of JOBS IN YOUR PORK.
Again, you just dont know wtf your talking about. You scream about all the pork, then when I ask you for examples you go find some wingnut site instead of READING THE BILL YOURSELF so you would actually KNOW something about it. You post a bunch of "Pork" that will provide JOBS just like the bill is SUPPOSED TO DO!!!
idiot.
February 5, 2009
3:34 PM
am 760 writes:
Well done, JW, glad you have the time and intelligence to debunk this right wing BS.
When you ran on the Independent party as a fiscal conservative and social liberal(?), you'll get my vote.
Of course your probably eying the private sector where you could make more money.
I enjoy reading your posts, keep up the good work.
February 5, 2009
3:34 PM
Big_D writes:
JW,
They don't get it and they probably never will. Every domestic expenditure creates jobs and the money passes through our economy 7 to 8 times. This is why Clinton had a good economy and Bush will be remembered as an idiot.
February 5, 2009
3:36 PM
history buff writes:
"2.$600 million for General Services Administration to replace older vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles. No cost/benefit study has been done to support that replacing older vehicles will accomplish anything but stimulate Detroit's auto sales."
Not a big multiplier effect here? Not a big jump into new technology, say, like jet engines during WWII?
I know. Let the Chinese develop it.
February 5, 2009
3:40 PM
Big_D writes:
HB,
According to Shaggy those cars will magically appear without being manufactured and waste money. Nobody in the US is dependent on our auto industry are they?
February 5, 2009
3:41 PM
Heather writes:
Sounds like Obama is using the very same tactic he enjoyed accusing the Republicans with: "Fearmongering"
February 5, 2009
3:49 PM
KW writes:
I guess it's true, you can lead a horses arse to water but you still can't make him think.
Come on you clowns, nobody said they were all bad ideas. They just don't belong in the "stimulus" bill. Why can't you put down your Obama Defense System for once and quit pretending this bill is something other than a Christmas list being funded at our expense.
But not to worry, I still have faith in Obama. And no matter how much JMH tells me not to listen to Obama's promises because they're empty, I'm gonna hold out hope for some change from this administration.
From MSNBC:
"Many of these projects are worthy and benefit local communities,” he said. “But this emergency legislation must not be the vehicle for those aspirations. This must be a time when leaders in both parties put the urgent needs of our nation above our own narrow interests.” --Obama
Obama continued to defend the legislation in a round of network interviews this week, telling NBC's Matt Lauer:
"I am confident that by the time we actually have the final package on the floor that we are going to see substantial support. And people are going to say this is a serious effort. It has no earmarks. We’re going to be trimming up things that are not relevant to putting people back to work right now." --Obama
Lets just see if Obama is willing to put those pretty words into action.
February 5, 2009
3:53 PM
FRN4U writes:
No to the bailouts and stimulus. We need to start
over from the beginning...... without the WTO, federal reserve (counterfeit currency), United Nations,lawyers,sierra club,grandcanyontrust,FHA, Freddies,trilateralcommission,Amtrak,Federal Dept oEducation, and many other useless self-serving anti-american dupes.
February 5, 2009
3:59 PM
JMH writes:
"Hmmm bitch slapped again!" -shaggy
LOL!!! WOW!!!
You must have been the kid who when he was playing chess, would just turn over the board right before you were about to be put in check and then said "... you are lucky that happened, I had you right where I wanted you".
I mean Jesus Christ, JW just went line for line (you got some patience there JW... maybe you should get a job teaching mentally disabled kids.. wait... nevermind.. that is what you are doing on here everyday... haha)... and slapped down everything you called "pork" and you have the nerve to claim you know what you are talking about and you somehow got the better of him?
You obviously don't even know what "pork" is...
I listed maybe 3 things that could be considered pork (and were already taken out or probably will be soon), the rest of the projects & spending as JW and the rest of us just pointed out ALL CREATE JOBS, Manufacting, fix Housing issues, etc. and ALL would have an effect on stimulatuing the economy in a positive way...
... and you say "Bitch slapped again"? LOL...
Quite the strange little world you must live in? I bet even your imaginary friends don't like you... haha... WOW!
Didn't I say it JW, they would call it ALL pork if it wasn't a tax cut for the wealthy? Hell there are even GOP Senators trying to stand in the way of tax cuts for the middle class as we speak.
Sooo glad these morns have become irrelevant... soooo glad!
February 5, 2009
4:05 PM
Shaggy writes:
Jeebus loons,
Even many Democrats are saying this is a horrible bill full of pork for what it is suppose to be intended for.
Forgot, you are all far left cuckoos, not Democrats!
Ya know, the type that are mad at Barry for not immediately withdrawing the troops and closing club Gitmo.
anyhoo, like I said, the Democrats have enough votes to pass w/o the GOP if they think it is so popular...nuff said.
"According to Shaggy those cars will magically appear without being manufactured and waste money."---tiny-d
Do you want Government telling those car makers what to make?
Do you think we should bail these car makers out because they cannot compete in the free market because of Union Labor prices and then continue the practice?
Democrats are not bailing out the car companies but rather bailing out their pet Unions to so the Unions can help keep them in power.
It is one thing to bail out a company that is almost assured to bounce back but that is not the case here, these companies are destined to fail if they keep Union Labor and will continually need bailing out.
You guys just don't seem to able to grasp this easy FACT!
Heather,
Yes Barry is using scare tactics and his loony followers are eating it up.
February 5, 2009
4:21 PM
history buff writes:
FRN4U -- to what century are you trying to turn back the clock? As for me, I'm not too fancy about buying a blunder bust to shoot native savages.
February 5, 2009
4:30 PM
JW writes:
"They just don't belong in the "stimulus" bill."
I think this must be where we are getting cross ways.
What, in your opinion KW, DOES belong in a stimulus bill?
Clearly things that create jobs are not something you feel stimulates the economy. This is so...weird, Im at a loss to understand what you think DOES stimulate the economy.
Do you and Shaggy know what "Pork" is? Are we working with two different definitions? Or even three?
My definition of pork is spending attached to a bill that has nothing to do with that bill AND consititutes waste because it does nothing to help the USA. Things like a bridge which goes nowhere. Or peanut storage funding attached to a war funding bill or something. That I see as pork for sure. It doesnt serve a purpose that benefits the American people, and it has nothing to do with the purpose of the overall bill.
Do you think you can just call something "Pork" and make it "Pork"? Is there not a standard?
If this is a bill to stimulate the economy, then it seems that anything which stimulates the economy DOES belong in that bill. And it seems that if a portion of that bill does create jobs, or create future economic benefits AND jobs at the same time, it is indeed to the benefit of the USA. So...provided an initiative creates jobs, or has an economic benefit, it seems that it does indeed belong in this stimulus bill, and does NOT fit the definition of "Pork".
Where am I going wrong here KW?
February 5, 2009
4:40 PM
JW writes:
"Where am I going wrong here KW?"
Wait wait wait! I think I know!
And strangely enough, it was both Shaggy and JMH that told me the answer!
ITS NOT A TAX CUT!
Haha! Got it now. Oh thank god!!! If its not a tax cut, it doesnt belong and is pork because tax cuts are the only thing that stimulates the economy!!!
Seriously though KW, I would like to know what your definition of pork is, because it cannot be the same as mine.
February 5, 2009
4:50 PM
Larry Cutlow writes:
Heather. this time we're going to have a depression its not fear mongering either. Negative Gdp of 3.6% double digit unemployment.
interest rates are close to zero. Spiraling deflation.
But hey what the hell. The economy is fundamentally sound. Not to worry Right?
btw I think Obama needs to re evaluated afghanistan. Its a no win situation. Not sure what to do. But doubling down might be a mistake.
February 5, 2009
5:07 PM
history buff writes:
The Republicans want to fund projects ready to go. That isn't a whole lot of projects. The Democrats want to approve the funds so that states, cities, etc. know that there will be money if they go through the process and get their projects approved.
Anyone with common sense knows that there will be some cost just in making a proposal. But if no money is allocated, making a proposal may be considered too costly, meaning new projects won't be proposed, meaning there will be no stimulus money.
The Republicans are playing a cynical game of semantics that effectively shuts down the federal government's attempt to stimulate the economy.
Under the Republican view, the nation may go to hell in a hand basket, but at least we will be an ideologically pure nation.
February 5, 2009
5:15 PM
SockRayBlue writes:
The Industrial Revolution is over. Stop wasting time and revert back to agriculture so that we at least have something to eat.
February 5, 2009
5:22 PM
Larry cutlow writes:
Another thing. the Federal Budget spending on needed services like SS MC etc cost of living
and War is predicated on Economic Growth of 2% per annum.
A recession means Disaster. No mo money for retired republican Granpa so he can sit at home frothing at the mouth watching Fox news yelling go Git them terrist.
Gramps is out on the streets soon looking for dog food to eat. He HE
and the terrists are sitting there laughing watching America go bankrupt.
February 5, 2009
5:29 PM
Anonymous writes:
Rasmussen reports 2.4.09
Do you favor or oppose the economic recovery package proposed by Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats?
Favor 37%
Oppose 43%
Unsure 20%
February 5, 2009
5:36 PM
Jim Kirk writes:
oh well....
hey lets party....
anybody for war on Iran?
February 5, 2009
5:43 PM
FRN4U writes:
History Buff, There have been too many proven Federal failures---the largest being the Federal
Reserve System itself. Let us stay on one topic
to start---The Fed, a private Cartel. What do
you identify public-private partnerships as?
Would the partnership of Fed and Dept. of Treasury
be considered fascism?
How many years has Amtrak operated "in the hole,"
with taxpayer funding?
February 5, 2009
7:44 PM
Reality writes:
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/Gunkadink/lindseygraham.jpg
Ya see here. This is your typical LOSER republican
with no Ideas on how to help the economy. Hes on tv saying Dems are awol.
A southern hillbilly with no ideas except Bush tax cuts. Pubs are the party of Bad ideas and no ideas. This is whats left of the Gop bunch of dumb war mongering cable guys.
people still sniffing Bush/Cheney's underwear. So. Carolina will soon be walking without shoes.
February 5, 2009
10:23 PM
history buff writes:
ru4it
You got a little more wollop than I thought, eh bucko. But if you turn the clock back to the Jackson administration, the long standing issue of the national bank came up. Jackson led the effort to let the bank expire. The issue of local v. national power was alive then as now. The localists won, and we descended into the first great depression / recession / panic in our nation's history.
The first lesson I remember in economics was the presence of the invisible hand. Scary, scary, scary. Jacksonians like you may not like the FED, but if you try to kill it, it will kill you. The invisible hand, that is.
February 5, 2009
10:51 PM
Independent writes:
There is absolutely no justification for larding up the stimulus bill with pet project spending.
Interesting how the MSM has stopped reporting poll results - for the last two weeks, for reasons yet to be stated, the usual liberal media outlets were reporting almost hourly updates on the approval polls for the Messiah. Then the public gets wind of what is actually in this high caloric faux-stimulus bill and the approval ratings for both Obama and this legislation plummet.
And the MSM news coverage of the about face on the polling?
Nada.
Nothing.
As if it didn't happen.
And liberals still insist there is no bias or ulterior motives in what and when certain types of news is reported or not.
Now the fear mongering sets in because the democrat architects of this fatfest have been exposed. "We must move forward", "There is no time to waste", "Act now or else".
Why don't the democrats simply strip the bill of all non-stimulatory spending? Why continue to stand on principle and whine "We Won" as a reason to waste taxpayer money at a time when it is not affordable to spend?
Bipartisanship? It has become a euphemism that now means "capitulate to the winner". The real bipartisanship is being demonstrated by a minority of democrats and most republicans who recognize a bad bill when they see it.
And America knows it.
February 5, 2009
10:53 PM
Big_D writes:
Fear mongering like when they warned the Bush administration that Osama Bin Ladin might attack using civilian aircraft. Don't worry about a thing. Really don’t worry because in the end the Democrats will do the right thing regardless of how much the GOP wants our country to fail for four years.
February 6, 2009
6:20 AM
Ditto writes:
Last weekend I saw a headline on the home page of comcast that said. "Obama proposes mortgage stimulus". This is going to be the MO of the Obama adminstration, stimulus bill, mortgage stimulus, job stimulus, this stimulus, that stimulus. When anyone of these stimulus bills fails, which they will, the dems will come with another so called stimulus something or other. In 010 when the dems are in trouble in the mid term election, I predict they come up with buy the election stimulus bill.
For four years we heard approval ratings this or that, and last part of last year the stock market was the most important indicator or the economy. Now with this stimulus "payoff" bill both the approval rating( 37 % approval for the bill) and the stock market( look at how it’s reacting the this stimulus bill) are being ignored. The dem are the party that lives by the polls, that’s why we will be getting stimulus after stimulus bills throughout the Obama term.
Am760
If as you say Jesus is a liberal, then why are you liberals constantly trying to kick him and his Father out of your party, the government (now run by liberals) the schools (run by liberals) and most areas of this country. Oh I forgot you liberals now have “the one”.
February 6, 2009
7:43 AM
Obama is FDR writes:
1933 all over again 25% unemployment bank failures
soup kitchen lines.( January 2009 highest number of job losses in 34 years)
Until a great Dem took over and started Spending.
Fdr is back. Still one of the greatest presidents in history.
(January 20 2001 the inauguration of GWB
a day that will live in INFAMY)
February 6, 2009
7:58 AM
JW writes:
"There is absolutely no justification for larding up the stimulus bill with pet project spending."
Well, you seem pretty sure that there actually is a whole bunch of pork in that bill there "Independent". So Im gona have to ask you to provide some proof, just like the other idiots who "Think" therefore "Believe" there is a ton of pork in this bill.
I mean, when you hear something from a POLITICIANS mouth, WTF are you doing just believing it? WTF is wrong with you people?
Standard Republican Politician: "There is tons of Pork in this bill!"
Standard "Independent" fool: "There is? HEY EVERYBODY! There is tons of pork in this bill!"
Guy who ACTUALLY THINKS: "Really? Where is the pork? Which parts of the bill are pork? How much of the bill does this "pork" make up?"
Standard "Independent" fool: "I dont know! But I "know" its ALOT! Its LOADED WITH PORK!"
If any of you losers can provide me with $10 billion (1% of this bill) that actually IS pork (doesnt stimulate the economy by creating jobs or future economic benefits) then I will STFU and totally get behind your side of this.
Till then, you fuckwits need to stfu and get out of the way. Your ideology had center stage for the last 8 years, and look where its gotten us. Youre FAILURES, and we arent listening anymore. You are the PROBLEM, so get out of the way while we provide the SOLUTIONS.
"Now the fear mongering sets in because the democrat architects of this fatfest have been exposed. "We must move forward", "There is no time to waste", "Act now or else"."
Hey dummy, this is coming from ECONOMISTS. I didnt just "Believe" Obama when he said this. Im not you, I dont just "Believe" politicians of ANY PARTY. I went and saw that NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMISTS were saying that we need this bill RIGHT NOW, and AT LEAST AS BIG as it is RIGHT NOW. If we let you idiot "independent" Republican stooges strip it down it wont be enough to get the economy back on track.
Again chumpsky, NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMISTS.
You get your "beliefs" on this economic issue from Republicans politicians who are LAWYERS.
So Ill say it again, only Ill tell you why this time.
You are STUPID. You support policies that have so obviously FAILED that you have NO BUISINESS opening your mouth. You take your economic advice from lawyers, rather than economists. That isnt SMART, it is STUPID.
STFU, get out of the way, and let those of us who have a BRAIN fix YOUR MISTAKES.
February 6, 2009
8:05 AM
JW writes:
"If as you say Jesus is a liberal, then why are you liberals constantly trying to kick him and his Father out of your party, the government (now run by liberals) the schools (run by liberals) and most areas of this country."
What was it, "Render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's. Render unto God that which is God's."
Jesus knew religion was a seperate issue from Government. So did our founding fathers, which is why they said a person's religion is between God and that person, and had no business in Government.
Religious FREEDOM. You cannot push your religion on the rest of us without infringing on our religious freedom. Worship your religion to your hearts content. Just dont think I have to do the same. That means you cannot have it in my Representative government. That means your religion cannot be the basis for our societies laws.
Deal with it.
February 6, 2009
8:14 AM
JW writes:
BTW, this was my favorite example of "Pork" provided by idiots so far.
"$50 million for regional economic development commissions"
February 6, 2009
8:27 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
OBAMA'S HYSTERICAL RANTS CONTRADICT HIS PLANS:
If we don't have another second to waste, then why does the CBO data on its website reveal that only 29% of HR-1 gets spent before the end of fiscal 2010 (9/30) when we need it and the remaining 71% OF HR-1 gets spent all the way out into 2019, a decade from now, when we don't need it? This is CBO,data, not mine--check it out. This is a back-end loaded avalanche of pork that extends long into the future by a decade that is mow being peddled by Obama as being needed to address immediate problems.
This is nothing but fear mongering shuck-'n-jive.
Its a great plan, but only if your objective is to deliver the pork that will buy future elections.
February 6, 2009
8:36 AM
Big_D writes:
The GOP wants more of the same stuff that caused this problem. They just don't get that these upper class tax cut policies have proven to be failures. They are NOT helping our economy. We need infrastructure spending to get people to work NOW!!! It is time to put the losers of this last election to the side and start moving forward without them. It may be hard at first but the better we do the less GOP broken record of failed policy garbage we will have to deal with at the midterm elections.
February 6, 2009
8:44 AM
HowardsJonson writes:
Thats where Pubs need to come up with a BIG
spend NOW plan to ramp quickly.
But Mitch Mcconnel is a consevative. His constituents won't ok anything except WAR. too bad
NO MO money for bullets either. gotta quit afghanistan too.
February 6, 2009
8:49 AM
Independent writes:
Lawyers versus economists. JW can't admit that there are many economists that have gone on the record already that this bill will not stimulate the economy as touted. And he has deflected the obvious solution to the problem, which is Democratic politics as usual - lard up a bill with pet projects. It's there. Everyone knows it. It doesn't matter what percent of the total cost it represents. It is still billions of dollars of fat.
Take it out.
Create a bill that will accomplish the stated goals. That is the change we all are waiting for - that we VOTED for.
Defending the indefensible and promoting the same old politics is certain proof that nothing has changed. And the same old liberal bloggers are in lock step with the Democratic machine as they try to use fear and intimidation to ram a bad bill through.
Yeah Obama and the Demcorats won. Why should that be a back door rationale for LYING?
February 6, 2009
8:49 AM
Anonymous writes:
"This is nothing but fear mongering shuck-'n-jive.
Its a great plan, but only if your objective is to deliver the pork that will buy future elections."
Again, you mouth breathers still support obviously failed policies and should STFU. Youre like some idiot telling us how Communism is the best way to go. No. Communism FAILED. Well, your Republican "Dont tax and spend like drunks" FAILED.
You are part of the problem. STFU and get out of the way.
"If we do not move swiftly to sign [the act] into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe," he said. "This is not my assessment. This is not Nancy Pelosi's assessment. This is the assessment of the best economists in the country. This is the assessment of some of the former advisers of some of the same folks who are making these criticisms right now."
Straight from Obama's mouth. Hes not listening to LAWYERS with a conflict of interest because they need your vote. Hes listening to ECONOMISTS.
February 6, 2009
9:06 AM
Jim writes:
Paul Krugman is an economist. But his full time job is to whine and ratchet up anti-republican sentiment from his rickety pulpit in a failed bankrupt (in more ways than fiscal) biased news paper. This is the underpinning of the rationale to ram a fat-filled spending orgy down the throats of the taxpayers. We already have seen that Democrats don't pay their taxes.
The other stark reality is Obama's use of the term "irreversible" in describing his doomsday prediction for a recession. For anyone with a brain, even a partial brain like a fellow democrat, this term jumps out as blatantly false. There has never been an irreversible recession in our country's history. It is manipulation at its worst. It is a lie. The new president who promised to reform Washington and bring ethics back into politics is LYING to us in order to appease Pelosi and Reid who pull his puppet strings.
This is your democratic party.
February 6, 2009
9:11 AM
JMH writes:
Persoanlly, I think that if the GOP wants to keep up these f*cking games... then Obama should just go on TV and tell America that is exactly what is happening... in simple terms.
Stand up and say "America, we tried and tried to do something for you, but the losers in the GOP (whom apparently didn't get the memeo that you, the American people have voted them out of power) are doing NOTHING but standing in the way of teh cahnge and new ideas that you voted for! So sorry, but now we are ALL just gonna have to watch America bleed to death since these GOP members of Congress are intent on trying to obstruct EVERYTHING we are trying to do for you!"
Obama is a very popular president right now (65% approval ratings) and he has the "bully pulpit"... USE IT! Think we saw some of this last night, but he should address the nation DIRECTLY and make sure he points to exactly where the problem lies - with the GOP & their same ol' failed tactics!
Oh and if the GOP still tries to fillibuster everything this term, lets go to THEIR "playbook" and go "nucluear" in teh Senate on their sorry a$$es... and get rid of the fillerbuster. It worked for the GOP a few years back! F*CK IT, make them totally irrelevant!
Enough is enough with these F*CKING CLOWNS! Get bare knuckle and beat these b*tches down... They are un-American and they only care about trying to get back in power and "playing games" trying to prove they are "true-conservatives" who answer to no one but the extreme right wing and traitors like Rush Limp-bone...
Enough is enough! We voted for change and we want some fixes... 75% of the American public want a stimulus plan and want it now! Make sure Obama stands up and puts the heat on these losers! Maybe if the remaining GOP members of Congress don't care about America's future, maybe they will care about their CAREER's future?
Unfortunatly they need to realize that they wont get elected anymore by just catering to the super rich and extreme rightwing rednecks...
February 6, 2009
9:15 AM
Anonymous writes:
The economy winds through time in cycles. It goes up, it goes down. The only constant feature of our economy is change.
Why would any politician use the term irreversible to describe any aspect of the US economy? The answer is: "to scare people into voting with that politician."
A sad reality in today's debate. Jim hit it square between the eyes.
February 6, 2009
9:16 AM
Cyclic Pete writes:
The economy winds through time in cycles. It goes up, it goes down. The only constant feature of our economy is change.
Why would any politician use the term irreversible to describe any aspect of the US economy? The answer is: "to scare people into voting with that politician."
A sad reality in today's debate. Jim hit it square between the eyes.
February 6, 2009
9:20 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
I disagree with the term "irreversible", but the mandate from the American people is to take action. Unfortunately, to some in Congress, this is a chance to delay, drag their feet and in general just dick around. Get moving! Life rewards action, not intentions.
February 6, 2009
9:24 AM
JW writes:
"Paul Krugman is an economist."
A nobel prize winning economist, and NOT the only one saying this. Just the highest profile.
"But his full time job is to whine and ratchet up anti-republican sentiment from his rickety pulpit in a failed bankrupt (in more ways than fiscal) biased news paper."
This is the problem with being uneducated. You dont understand that information is just information. Ive seen idiots like you decry PDF's of budgetary info because they were downloaded from some site you thought was "biased", even though the EXACT same info could be had from wingnut sites. Education man, you should buy some.
"This is the underpinning of the rationale to ram a fat-filled spending orgy down the throats of the taxpayers."
Yet another Republican mouthpiece who can scream "PORK" till the end of time, but for some strange reason, cant provide EXAMPLES.
I mean, you idiots do realize this bill is like $900 BILLION. Right? That being the case, if it is full of pork as you claim, it should be EASY to provide $10 billion in examples of pork.
Yet not ONE of you morons can do it.
Becaue youre full of "Belief" rather than knowledge, which translates to being full of CRAP.
"The other stark reality is Obama's use of the term "irreversible" in describing his doomsday prediction for a recession. For anyone with a brain, even a partial brain like a fellow democrat, this term jumps out as blatantly false. There has never been an irreversible recession in our country's history. It is manipulation at its worst. It is a lie. The new president who promised to reform Washington and bring ethics back into politics is LYING to us in order to appease Pelosi and Reid who pull his puppet strings"
You know, youre right that its not irreversable. Its just going to be drawn out and PROTRACTED.
I find it funny as hell that you can be so indignant about this, but lies about wiretapping Americans and Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq, those are no biggie.
You got some SCREWED up priorities big guy.
February 6, 2009
9:29 AM
JW writes:
"The economy winds through time in cycles. It goes up, it goes down. The only constant feature of our economy is change.
Why would any politician use the term irreversible to describe any aspect of the US economy? The answer is: "to scare people into voting with that politician."
A sad reality in today's debate. Jim hit it square between the eyes."
Hey, you guys are right. Lets just concentrate on the way this message was delivered. Hell, he used the wrong word! Lets harp on that till the freaking end of time.
Because we dont have any REAL problems.
Still waiting on some examples of ACTUAL PORK from all you loosers who "Know its there."
February 6, 2009
9:33 AM
JMH writes:
When you NeoCons can point to just ONE economic success these last 8 years with your policies, maybe we will listen to you and take you seriously!
But you guys have nothing positive to point to... nothing but tax cuts for the wealthy and tons of pork being paid for by borrowing money... which have done NOTHING but crash this economy!
Your ideas have been proven a failure! PROVEN! Just look around... and you were voted out of office for 2 straight elections because of it! Why do you guys thing you have ANY credibility on this subject?
It's like going back to the same doctor that did a heart transplant on you when all you needed was a bunnon cut off! What makes you think the American public wants more of the tired crap you guys are selling! Obviously it wasn't all the NEW seats in Congress you guys got!
Your idiology of tax cuts, deficit spending and de-regulation has run this economy in the ground. GO F*CK yourselves and get out of the way! You guys ARE the problem! Hate to break it to you but you had your chance - almost a decade of total control and you BLEW it!
Please President Obama, address the nation and point straight at the GOP "leadership" in this country and tell the American people EXACTLY what is going on here and who is standing in the way of what WE voted for the last 2 elections! Put the heat on the obstuctors!
February 6, 2009
9:39 AM
Shaggy writes:
Paul Krugman writes for the NYT's OMG no wonder why JW has a slobbering love affair with him...hehehe
Does he also get his advice from Greenspan?
February 6, 2009
9:42 AM
JW writes:
"Lawyers versus economists. JW can't admit that there are many economists that have gone on the record already that this bill will not stimulate the economy as touted."
Here is one article,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013100132.html
And here is text from another...
WASHINGTON — Economists think the stimulus plan that the House of Representatives will vote on Wednesday, while far from perfect, will help stimulate the moribund U.S. economy.
There's no panacea for what ails the economy. A stimulus plan will work only in combination with other actions, such as more aid to the banking system to spark lending and boost consumer confidence, and the implementation of any plan will be as important as what's in it.
However, most leading economists who are experienced in public policy generally favor the stimulus plan that the House is considering because through it the government will step up spending at a time when private-sector spending has fallen off sharply.
Some economists are ideologically opposed to any such massive government plan. The Cato Institute, a libertarian research center, has organized a list of dozens of academic economists who oppose the plan, urging instead tax cuts and smaller government, in favor of free markets and lower taxes over big government activities. Cato will advertise its list in coming days. However, that isn't where the balance of expert opinion comes down today.
The House legislation would erect four pillars of economic stimulus. It would provide income support to the poor and recently unemployed, distribute aid to state governments, seek relatively quick employment gains through public works spending and aim to spark consumer and business spending through targeted tax cuts.
"I think it's a reasonably well-designed package," said Mark Zandi, the chief economist for forecaster Moody's Economy.com and a former adviser to the presidential campaign of Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain.
The key to the plan's success won't be its design, but its implementation, he cautioned, particularly the public works spending on roads, schools, ports and military bases.
"It runs the risk of turning into pork projects that are done more for political than economic reasons, but if it is well managed and run, it could" do much good, said Zandi, who's been a frequent expert witness before Congress as lawmakers drafted competing plans.
House Republicans have lampooned some modest spending provisions in the package that have little to do with stimulating the economy, but those measures account for only a small portion of the money.
Some critics warn that "Buy America" provisions directing road projects to use U.S.-made steel and concrete may raise costs to taxpayers. Jim Owens, the chief executive officer of Caterpillar Inc., whose company is the world's largest maker of bulldozers, told CNBC television on Monday that Buy America provisions would force him to fire workers because of increased project costs.
On Monday, Caterpillar, based in Peoria, Ill., announced that it would eliminate 20,000 jobs.
A related danger is that such nationalistic policies could encourage foreign governments to imitate them. That would hurt U.S. exporters such as Caterpillar and could further shrink global trade, one of the mistakes that nations made during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in an analysis released Monday and in congressional testimony Tuesday, said that the Democratic stimulus plan generally would get government money into the economy quickly, with 65 percent of it spent by October 2010.
The CBO, however, offered a frank warning that the deluge of money being made available for public works programs could overwhelm federal, state and local agencies. It said history suggested that there was a lag between when funding was authorized and when it was spent.
"Based on such experiences, CBO expects that federal agencies, along with states and other recipients of that funding, would find it difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to expend the added funds as quickly as they expend the resources provided for their ongoing programs," the agency said.
Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee on Monday, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve said that the provisions to aid state governments would help prevent a bad situation from turning worse.
"Aiding states will prevent them from taking actions to balance their budget — cutting spending and raising taxes — that will make the recession worse," said Alice Rivlin, a former Fed governor and a prominent economist with the center-left research center The Brookings Institution. Most state constitutions require budgets to be balanced.
Private-sector economists who support the stimulus plan say that it could be made better, and, yes, bigger.
"I would make the package bigger . . . increase the package to over $1 trillion," Zandi said.
One change, he said, could be to take the $7,500 tax credit being proposed for home purchases by first-time buyers and apply it to all home purchases, payable at closing. This would help reverse the deep slide in the national housing market.
Zandi also proposes a bigger payroll-tax holiday, which would provide temporary relief for workers and their employers, getting more cash into the economy.
February 6, 2009
9:56 AM
Shaggy writes:
Wait a minute, me bets Krugman also gets his advice from his fellow Liberal loon algore about the fabricated man made global warming hoax.
Can anyone say they respect algore with a straight face? hehehe
February 6, 2009
9:56 AM
Big_D writes:
Yes where are those records of economic success from the GOP years of control? We have a huge debt and a floundering economy the GOP left us with. We need change and making the Bush tax cut is a FAILURE of an idea and is just more of the same. Do we have to have our bridges collapsing for the GOP to give a care about our infrastructure? The GOP is a bad joke that just won’t change or go away. We need to help our economy and eliminate the GOP blockage from our system for good.
February 6, 2009
9:56 AM
JW writes:
"Paul Krugman writes for the NYT's OMG no wonder why JW has a slobbering love affair with him...hehehe
Does he also get his advice from Greenspan?"
Still waiting on a list of actual pork Shaggy.
Yes, I get my advice from Greenspan when possible (wish he would weigh in on this stimulus package), becuase Im educated and know that him being wrong on one thing doesnt change him being right for 30 years. It takes an uneducated slob with a reliance on ideology and a susceptibility to fallacious argument to do that.
And you dont understand wtf I just said, because youre are that uneducated slob.
And yes, I listen to Krugman. The guy has a nobel prize AND the majority of Economists are agreeing with him.
Ill help you out a bit though,
Cato insititute has a list of 200 economists (3 with nobel prizes) who disagree. You can pimp that minority till you are blue in the face Shaggy.
February 6, 2009
9:58 AM
Big_D writes:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=217693&title=clusterf#@k-to-the-poor-house
February 6, 2009
9:59 AM
KW writes:
This stimulus porkage is nothing more than lipstuck on a pig.
February 6, 2009
10:02 AM
Nancy D. writes:
There is soo much evidence of extraneous spending in this massive bill that it defies logic for partisans to demand proof. The presence of extraneous spending attached to critical bills is always the method congresspeople use to reward constituents, supporters, and help themselves get re-elected. Why would anyone question this reality?
Let's get the ball rolling. There is a bipartisan resistance to extraneous spending in dire economic times. Democrats need to get over their "win" and start to act responsibly. Obama is calling for action. He wants to move away from politics as usual. I interpret this as trimming this bill to target the money for economic growth and new jobs. He is telling fellow democrats to get rid of the lard. I hope they listen.
February 6, 2009
10:03 AM
Shaggy writes:
"Zandi also proposes a bigger payroll-tax holiday,"
OMG This is what I have saying for how long now?
Ohh but beings I said it it had no merits.
Me bets Zandi understands that a capital gains tax holiday would also help stimulate the economy too!
February 6, 2009
10:12 AM
JMH writes:
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in an analysis released Monday and in congressional testimony Tuesday, said that the Democratic stimulus plan generally would get government money into the economy quickly, with 65 percent of it spent by October 2010."
Hey Charlie Brown (ie. Bigfoot)... You want to quote the CBO now? Looks like they COMPLETED that report you so desperately were clinging to just last week! TOLD YOU!
LOL... Wrong again & caught lying again, Charlie Brown... In fact, are you NeoCons EVER right and can any of you ever make an arguement without spin and lies? Your idiology is a failue, accept it and let's move on... MmmmK?
P.S.
KW, don't pout becasue you got exposed by JW yesterday and you can't come up with more than 1% pork in this bill. But even after you were proven to be full of sh*t, you stioll wanna cry about "pork" huh? LOL... Loser
Good job exposing these clowns yesterday JW... but as Darth Vader said in "Empire" - "All too easy"!
February 6, 2009
10:14 AM
JW writes:
"This stimulus porkage is nothing more than lipstuck on a pig."
So you arent a total idiot KW. Im wondering if you can give me your definition of Pork because I think that is where we are getting cross ways.
"OMG This is what I have saying for how long now?
Ohh but beings I said it it had no merits."
BS Shaggy. Ive said that is a decent idea when you propose it.
"Me bets Zandi understands that a capital gains tax holiday would also help stimulate the economy too!"
This is the one I start calling you an idiot for. MY EDUCATED BET is that Zandi understands the relationship between no capital gains being available, and so no leverage from a capital gains tax cut.
I love the fact that because he agrees on one of your points, well then this guy is GREAT! But you sure as hell arent going to think his ideas about a BIGGER stimulus bill are great.
Economists with PhD's and actual experience are only smart when they agree with Shaggy, who has a high school degree and 30 years of experience running a glorified handyman business.
February 6, 2009
10:14 AM
KW writes:
Well now we know where big_d gets his "news" from. He's one of those that ranks Jon Stewart right up there with Brokaw as a go to source for factual reports.
I shoulda put money on it.
February 6, 2009
10:19 AM
JW writes:
"There is soo much evidence of extraneous spending in this massive bill that it defies logic for partisans to demand proof."
This is OUTSTANDING! Ive never heard something so fundamentally STUPID and disingenuous in my ENTIRE LIFE!
"There is so much evidence of pork that I cant provide you ANY, not a SINGLE TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE BILL, but I dont need to because only a partisan would ask for evidence I cant give."
IDIOT doesnt even start to cover this.
On the other hand, as stupid as that was, the rest of your post I actually agree with in part. Its just the "Belief" in pork without evidence that I think is stupid.
February 6, 2009
10:19 AM
Anonymous writes:
Is it me, or does jw sound an awful like jay in demanding proof of one's position while offering none of his own?
Wow.
February 6, 2009
10:20 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Uhm, Shaggy I am not sure that I understand how a capital gains tax holiday would help for several reasons. First off, since the stock markets, housing and the rest have all gone down in value, capital gains are largely irrelevant. Secondly, even if it suddenly became lucrative to invest everything in the stock market, that does not automatically translate into business investment, which translates into jobs.
I would rather see creating incentives to spur capital goods investment such as tax credits, accelerated depreciation and so forth.
What are your thoughts?
February 6, 2009
10:21 AM
JW writes:
"Well now we know where big_d gets his "news" from. He's one of those that ranks Jon Stewart right up there with Brokaw as a go to source for factual reports.
I shoulda put money on it."
You should tell me what your definition of pork is.
February 6, 2009
10:23 AM
Shaggy writes:
"(wish he would weigh in on this stimulus package)"
Please, he has caused enough devastation and has lost all credibility. Just go away Alan!
"(3 with nobel prizes)"
Like this award has any meaning anymore!
So do you worship algore, Yasser Arafat and Nelson Mandela.
"You can pimp that minority till you are blue in the face Shaggy."
ummm errr, you are the one who has a blue nose as a result from dive bombing it into the backside of the Democratic party.
"Well now we know where big_d gets his "news" from. He's one of those that ranks Jon Stewart right up there with Brokaw as a go to source for factual reports."
LoL. too funny and soo soo true!
Any bets he has a poster of algore pinned up in his bedroom?
February 6, 2009
10:33 AM
KW writes:
Your stuck on semantics JW. How about we just call the unnecessary dollars in the bill "pet projects."
Will that make you feel any better?
February 6, 2009
10:40 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
CBO: "OBAMA PLAN HARMFUL OVER LONGER-TERM"
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.
CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.
BOTTOM lINE: OBAMA PLAN = SHOVEL READY BULLSHIT!
February 6, 2009
10:48 AM
JW writes:
"Your stuck on semantics JW. How about we just call the unnecessary dollars in the bill "pet projects.""
Sorry, but this doesnt mean anything. Its completely arbitrary.
Thats why we are cross ways. You think "pork" is anything you dont like, which leaves us with the failed policies of the past, because the only thing you like is tax cuts.
This is an Economic Stimulus bill. Anything that stimulates the economy in that bill is automatically NOT PORK, regardless of whether or not YOU like it, or think it is some pet project.
Maybe you are a total idiot.
February 6, 2009
10:51 AM
JW writes:
BTW KW,
Comming to a common definition about the central issue in a discussion or argument isnt semantics, moron. It is absolutely CRITICAL to the productivity of that discussion. You CANNOT accomplish anything in a discussion about "Pork" if "Pork" means anything you want, and something finite to me.
Stay in school. You still have a lot to learn.
February 6, 2009
10:51 AM
history buff writes:
I think a better job needs to be done to explain what is in the bill. Most everyone I've heard comment, except for the right wing that wants to turn the clock back to the 19th century, agrees with spending money on internal improvements. Many of them think this is an area that could be increased.
The aid to the states is straight forward. States have to balance their budgets, and because of the contracting economy, state revenues are down, causing cuts in state budgets. Money going to states should not be overly specific. The states should decide where the money goes, though there are allocations for human services because they are state / federal in nature.
There is money for government purchases, which would support demand. I think the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles for the military is forward looking and will help the auto industry justify start up costs for a new technology. There is also money for areas that have been neglected, most of them for the human needs of our armed services and for scientific research. Of course, the right wing doesn't like science, but that is really an issue where they have lost big time.
Then there is just about everything else. I think there should be a question, does the expenditure create jobs or demand? If it does, it is good for the economy.
What really sucks is that the Neo-Cons and their Reaganomics myth have destroyed our economy. Once they got into power, they acted on their false assumptions to run our economy into the ground, doing things that Reagan only talked about. In a country that relies heavily on consumer spending for GNP, money was taken out of consumers' hands and put in the hands of a wealthy elite.
I hope the days of trickle down economics is dead, because we are facing a grim financial picture. The possibilities of a long term slump are very real unless we do something now. It will be hard for the Neo-Cons because their fantasy of small government is about to be crushed, but the invisible hand of the market is a lot bigger than their one note idea.
February 6, 2009
10:55 AM
JW writes:
Here is an example why it sucks to be uneducated.
"CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation,"
According to WHOM?
"said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing."
Hehe. Right. Its the $1 trillion in spending stimulus that will cause all this growth stunting debt...and the $10 trillion in debt WE ALREADY HAVE has nothing to do with it.
Ideology or knowledge. Your choice.
February 6, 2009
11:03 AM
KW writes:
No JW, that's not it at all. You want me to label something just so you can pick apart the definition of my label. This is a childish debate tactic. I'd rather discuss the inappropriate massive spending in the bill rather than try and put labels on it. You know, actually discuss the "issue" before us.
But you on the other hand...
February 6, 2009
11:05 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
ITS OFFICIAL...ITS OFFICIAL...ITS OFFICIAL:
The nonpartisan Congression Budget Office (CBO)--consisting of Democrats and Republicans--just concluded that the blizzard of Obama stimulus plans will SLOW and PENALIZE future economic growth.
Is that the HOPE and CHANGE for which you libdems voted? So what's the big rush, the hysterical urgency, all about?
February 6, 2009
11:08 AM
Shaggy writes:
Kids,
If you don't get an education you will never be able to amount to anything.
That is the ONLY way to succeed in life.
It simply is not possible to do anything w/o an advanced education.
Just take a look at Albert Einstein!
Then again, I guess some people need to get extra schooling in order to survive.
In Wyoming we call that special ed!
February 6, 2009
11:10 AM
JMH writes:
Charlie Brown...
So are you ready to ADMIT you were taken for a sucker AGAIN by the rightwing talking ponts when you posted last week, time and time again how almost none of this money was going to be spent until 2010... because the CBO said so in it's UN-COMPLETED report... even though I continuosly proved to you that you were quoting the wrong data.
Now you have been proven wrong again (just like I said) when they COMPLETED their report this week (65% will be spent by the end of 2009)... just curious if you are man enough to admit you were wrong? Or will you just post something else out of context?
Oh wait... I just scrolled up a few posts... Guess I found out my answer! LOL... exactly when do you grow up and admit you have been taken for a ride over and over again by right-wing radio and "FAUXnews"?
February 6, 2009
11:24 AM
KW writes:
The infrastructure spending proposed by the dems is only going to create jobs for people in the construction industry. But before getting excited for construction workers you need to understand infrastructure spending isn't about building homes.
People in home building construction have far different skill sets than do commercial construction workers. And its the same with highway crews. It isn't as if these workers and their skills are all interchangeable.
So on face value the sound of "infrastructure spending to create jobs" sounds good, but only a handful of the unemployed will actually receive job creation benefits from this spending. The unemployed carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc... will still be unemployed, and that is the very industry that's hit the hardest with unemployment right now.
BTW - What jobs will be created by the stimulus package for people who aren't in construction industry?
February 6, 2009
11:38 AM
jay writes:
"What jobs will be created by the stimulus package for people who aren't in construction industry?"
have you read anything about the proposed stimulus plans, kw?
shouldn't you already know this stuff if you're already doubting it's merits?
"You want me to label something just so you can pick apart the definition of my label. "
uh oh...sounds like someone is cornered again.
i can hear the music starting to play....
February 6, 2009
11:44 AM
Shaggy writes:
"The infrastructure spending proposed by the dems is only going to create jobs for people in the construction industry."
This makes me think it will be very profitable to Businesss who hire illegals.
It also is suppose to FABRICATE 600,000 more unneeded and unwarranted Government jobs.
I guess Barry was right, we all need to speak another Language.
How does one say good bye America in Swedish?
Damn, I'm even Swedish and Norwegian.
This bill stinks more and more it sits out floundering in the open.
Fuuny thing about it is Barry keeps on pressing forward with it knowing it sucks.
Dude, I have explained how cutting the capital gains tax would stimulate investors several times now.
Mitt Romney has also explained it.
Now if Greenspan came out and said it would work, we would have JW drooling over how good the idea is.
February 6, 2009
12:00 PM
KW writes:
OK, OK, I stand corrected. There will at least be some landscaping jobs created by this bill.
I believe I remember seeing something like $50 million for re-sodding the lawn in DC. They claim that lawn took a heck of a beating from Obama's enormous inauguration ceremony.
This I kid you not.
February 6, 2009
12:13 PM
Big_D writes:
I bet the recently unemployed people are not real happy that the GOP thinks they are a joke.
February 6, 2009
12:13 PM
JW writes:
"No JW, that's not it at all. You want me to label something just so you can pick apart the definition of my label."
Certainly not. I want to know what you consider PORK. You run around calling spending "Pork" all the time. So, what, to you, constitutes "Pork". Its not about picking apart YOUR definition. Its about understanding WHY you would call certain portions of this bill pork.
And of course, there is the idea that "Pork" has a traditional definition. If you have changed that definition, perhaps you should stop confusing everyone by calling spending pork when it isnt.
"This is a childish debate tactic."
No, a childish debate tactic is refusing to take a stand because youre afraid your aguments lack merrit, and accusing others of being childish in an attempt to hide that fact. A childish debate tactic is to label the discussion "Semantics" when it is about the definition of the central issue. A childish debate tactic, KW, is to put forth an argument then HIDE behind bs when it fails on its merrits. Or to call spending "Pork" when it doesnt fit the traditional definition of "pork" then say others are childish for pointing that out.
"I'd rather discuss the inappropriate massive spending in the bill rather than try and put labels on it. You know, actually discuss the "issue" before us."
Fair enough. So, now we are discussing inappropriate masive spending in the bill, rather than Pork. Fine. That issue has been cleared up. Now, can you go over your list of...ahem...Inappropriate massive spending...and tell me WHY it is inappropriate?
February 6, 2009
12:20 PM
JW writes:
Dude, I have explained how cutting the capital gains tax would stimulate investors several times now.
Mitt Romney has also explained it.
Now if Greenspan came out and said it would work, we would have JW drooling over how good the idea is."
But you wont, because Greenspan only pimps Republican talking points when they WORK.
Again, idiot, a tax rate cut on $0 taxes is...0.
Its a mark of your stupidity that you continue not to understand this. Of course, you still dont understand what strawman arguments are, so its not really a surprise.
"OK, OK, I stand corrected. There will at least be some landscaping jobs created by this bill.
I believe I remember seeing something like $50 million for re-sodding the lawn in DC. They claim that lawn took a heck of a beating from Obama's enormous inauguration ceremony.
This I kid you not."
I assume then, that this would be some of your "inappropriate massive spending"? How is this inappropriate? Should we let the lawns of our capital lie fallow like we are some third world country who cannot afford basic maintenance? I mean, seems needful if only for apperances when foreign dignitaries are in town. Its kind of hard to project the wealth and majesty of America when we cant even afford GRASS, dont you think?
And would this NOT provide some jobs? Would it not put money into landscaping and sod growing companies?
So, you disdain it, thats clear. Im just not sure how you quallify it as "inappropriate and massive spending".
February 6, 2009
12:24 PM
Vince Pietrobon writes:
The economy is badly in need of restructuring. To call this a recession is to not realize the full nature of what the economic activity is telling us. Bernake and the boys are at a loss. But, did you notice that some companies keep humming along, making a profit.
History tells us that the cyle will be 6 to 24 months. Since this is a deep cycle it will probably be 12 to 24 months. Since we are at least 8 months into it, why spend up to 10% (roughly) of our current debt on more debt?
Sure $50 Bil for roads is good. Did you ever notice how the politicians forget these need to be maintained until they start to fall down. Great!! $50 Bil in tax cuts would be good because not every biz can restructure at this time, or needs to.
But if you want to spend $800 billion more, why not put up seed money to re-start some basic industries, like textiles. We all wear clothes every day.
In the late 80's Japan bot much of Hawaii and considerable amounts of CA. After their economy collapsed, they sold it back. The next time, they bot the industries. What do you think China will buy? $800 bil without going for industrial might is senseless.
And for President Orwell, spending like a drunken sailor does not necessarily stimulate the economy. After 2 bushes, the Clintons, and Kerry, I wonder what they are teaching in them thar Ivy League Schools?
The Basic
February 6, 2009
12:34 PM
history buff writes:
"What jobs will be created by the stimulus package for people who aren't in construction industry?"
Let me see. If someone is employed, they will need to buy gas for their car, food and clothes for their family, rent or buy a home, possibly pay for day care or babysitter, go out to eat once in awhile, maybe go to a movie or to the miniature golf course, possibly go to a sports event, maybe even buy a new tv.
There is a component to aid states, who can keep teachers, social workers, bookkeepers, accountants, and can contract for services.
If these people are employed, they may buy houses, cars, household appliances, toys for the kids, take a trip to a ski resort or Wally World. They may have money to put in a 401(k) or IRA.
Then there will be people needed to market and sell goods and real estate, to invest money in the retirement accounts, to account for money at the bank.
If advertisers think consumers now have money to spend, they will create ads for newspaper and television, for goods such as computers, for fast food, for toys and sugary cereal.
It is called creating demand, little buddy. It is how our system used to work before the Neo-Cons came into power and drove our economy off a cliff. Supply side economics is voodoo economics.
Oh, and they can take their children to the dentist, to the doctor. Maybe they won't buy luxury goods, but hopefully it will stop the downward death spiral and apocalyptic death wish of the right wing and their fundamentalist constituents.
Nearly forgot, there will be help for unemployment, medicare and food stamps for those who don't have a job. And there is money for government purchases for computers, vehicles, and overhead.
The irony of this situation is that the Neo-Cons tried to destroy government in the name of smaller government, but their reckless actions will probably cause government to expand. Such is the fickle finger of fate.
February 6, 2009
12:36 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
RASMUSSEN: STIMULUS APPROVAL PLUNGES AGAIN TO JUST 37%, DISAPPROVAL SOARS TO 63%
Most American say that Obama's plan to PORK America totally sucks! This plunge and collapse was predicted by SASQUATCH right here only a few days ago--we are now kissing my projected 2:1 disapproval!!!!
America is on to this affirmative action, vacant, empty-suit.
February 6, 2009
12:37 PM
JW writes:
"Very little of these discussions addressed the principle underlying the stimulus bill. The idea is that when the private sector withdraws from the economy by cutting back on capital spending and laying off workers, it is up to the government to take up the slack, if necessary via deficit spending.
This isn't radical thinking. It's endorsed by, among others, Martin Feldstein, who was Ronald Reagan's chief economic advisor and is consistently voted by his peers as the Economist Least Likely to be Mistaken for a Democrat. Feldstein opposes most of the tax cuts favored by the GOP, especially business tax cuts. To be fair, he isn't entirely enamored of President Obama's proposal -- he thinks it should spend more on programs that will produce more short-term employment and less on open-ended programs.
Yet the plan before the Senate includes hundreds of billions of dollars in near-term programs and projects. There's $90 billion for school construction and renovation and educational grants and $79 billion for state educational programs, most of which would be spent within two years. Of the $27 billion for highway construction, most would be spent within four years.
The bill also appropriates billions for the kind of forward-looking projects we've neglected during the last two decades, such as broadband infrastructure, water and anti-pollution programs, and alternative energy research, which will produce long-term economic benefits for the entire country.
Is it possible to slip pork into a bill this massive? Well, duh. But pork is often in the eye of the beholder. House Republicans this week released a list of $19 billion in provisions they called "wasteful" (i.e., 2% of the total package). But the list includes numerous projects that many Americans would support and that would plainly stimulate our limping construction and manufacturing sectors. For example, the purchase of new computers and vehicles for federal agencies, the building of fire stations and other public facilities, and the upgrade of rail lines.
Is this the best the GOP can come up with? Or are Republicans just determined to undermine the recovery effort? It's hard to disagree with Obama's complaint that "modest differences" over the package are being inflated to stall the whole program."
This guy clearly gets it, and sees through the Republican's bs.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fi-hiltzik5-2009feb05,0,3254037.column
February 6, 2009
12:44 PM
JW writes:
This part is particularly good.
"That brings us to McConnell and his problem with "honeybee insurance." It turns out that the Senate minority leader took his cue from Neil Cavuto of Fox News, who has been carrying on about the topic for more than a week. Their campaign was joined Tuesday by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who stood on the floor of the chamber challenging "any member to come and explain what that provision was."
I'm no senator, but I'm pleased to inform Vitter that it is, in fact, a disaster insurance program for all livestock producers. Beekeepers obviously would be minor beneficiaries next to, say, cattle ranchers, so it's a tad bit dishonest to label the whole program "honeybee insurance."
The provision simply continues a program enacted by Congress last year, overriding a veto by President Bush. In other words, the Senate voted on it twice in 2008 -- once to enact and once to override.
Connoisseurs of political comedy will see the punch line coming: McConnell and Vitter voted yea both times.
So it turns out that McConnell isn't really against honeybees. He's only using them to pretend that he's got a principled objection to a stimulus plan aimed at pulling the country out of the most severe recession in decades.
The honeybees, and the rest of us, are merely collateral damage"
Hehe. So these guys are relying on failed policies of the last 8 years as if they were successful. They have nothing but "tax cuts" to offer, but have NO PROBLEM twisting provisions of the bill to lobby support against it, EVEN WHEN THEY VOTED FOR THOSE PROVISIONS MORE THAN ONCE IN THE PAST.
Amazing. Who is fearmongering? Obama, who is repeating dire warnings from Economists? Or Republicans, who are pimping the "Pork" scare of the century, AFTER THEY VOTE FOR IT LAST YEAR!
February 6, 2009
12:51 PM
KW writes:
I already redefined it for you JW. "Pet Projects." The exact words Obama and Biden both used to describe the kind of spending they would not allow to be in this bill. They may have forgotten about that but most of us have not.
Now it's time for you to put up JW. My challenge to you is to list all the short term spending in this bill you feel will accomplish the needed jump start our economy needs.
My bet is you won't be able to list much more than $100B. My question then will be why you so wholeheartedly support this spending plan when barely 10% of the total proposal will be dedicated to immediate recovery.
BTW - By short term I'm talking funds to be spent withing the first year. Tell you what, I'll even give you the first two years. I'm just a generous sort I guess.
February 6, 2009
12:52 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
RASMUSSEN--37%....RASMUSSEN--37%...RASMUSSEN--37%
America has not seen this much CHAOS since Pearl Harbour.
February 6, 2009
12:58 PM
Truth writes:
Sascrotch - You are utterly retarded. Please stop posting here.
February 6, 2009
1:13 PM
am 760 writes:
So typical that the repubs are now crying for fiscal responsiblity. Where the hell was the cry during the last 8 years when they ran up the biggest deficit in this countries history, after being given a surplus, from a dem, which was the first time in our history that had happened. A democrat, Clinton, balanced the budget, and insteady of applauding him for that, just because you've been so brainwashed to hate anything with a D behind it, you critisize. You freaking people have no brains and our pathetic.
Just saw how one of the repub senators said, "We have to fight like the tailiban, the insurgents." How out of touch are these right wing idiots. What would have happened if a dem said that during bush's tenure. F#@#@ing hypocrites and American haters.
February 6, 2009
1:27 PM
JW writes:
"I already redefined it for you JW. "Pet Projects.""
Hmm. Ok, so now we arent talking about "inappropriate massive spending" anymore. Now we are talking about "Pet projects".
Im hoping this is the last redefinition we need to go over.
That said, who's "Pet Project" is resodding the national mall?
Who's "Pet Project" is broadband for rural areas?
Who's "Pet Project" is the replacement of the government fleet of vehicles with more fuel efficient cars?
Who's "Pet Project" is my favorit from up above, the economic development funding?
"Now it's time for you to put up JW. My challenge to you is to list all the short term spending in this bill you feel will accomplish the needed jump start our economy needs."
The CBO has already listed the short term/longterm spending KW. You can read the report yourself, just fine. Besides, Ive never said it is JUST short term spending that is good about this. Ive been clear that the long term investment is also a huge reason to support this bill.
However, in the interest of some support for what you want;
"The letter, sent yesterday to Sen. Judd Gregg and copied to eight other leading legislators, estimates that the bill would stimulate the economy the most in 2010. By the end of that year, the analysis estimates, 1.3 to 3.9 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would be 0.7 to 2.1 percentage points lower than the 8.7 percent forecasted. And GDP would increase from 1.2 to 3.6 percentage points over a baseline forecast."
Its not the provisions youre asking for (again, go to the cbo), but it is pointing to the majority of the stimulus by 2010, and it shows numbers for the effect on unemployment and GDP. If you have ANY understanding of those numbers, you will see that according to the cbo, this will stimulate the economy quite a bit in the first two years, particularily in 2010.
"My bet is you won't be able to list much more than $100B. My question then will be why you so wholeheartedly support this spending plan when barely 10% of the total proposal will be dedicated to immediate recovery."
And I will point you to the economists again. Additionally, here is what the link to that entire article about the cbo projections;
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/stimulus/2009/02/05/cbo-stimulus-bill-could-meet-obamas-job-creation-goal-in-short-term.html
Ive posted several articles and links to articles ether BY or ABOUT economists who are speaking about why the stimulus is a good idea not JUST in the short term, but in the LONG TERM as well. ECONOMISTS KW. NOT LAWYERS.
All youve listed is POLITICIANS (LAWYERS) objecting to "Pork" which they previously voted FOR....TWICE. And YOU have claimed pork is in this bill. You should be able to back your claims.
All Ive claimed is that ECONOMISTS are supporting this bill. Unlike you, I RECOGNIZE MY LIMITATIONS. Im not an economist. I dont have the skills to rationally break apart this bill and say whether its good or bad. I have to rely on experts.
And youre in the same position. Youve just chosen political lawyers as your experts, and Ive chosen economists.
Anyway, the claims Ive made are that this bill is good because the majority of Economists say it is. Ive backed those claims with evidence.
You have claimed it is a pork laden pos, and have been completely UNABLE to back your claims.
February 6, 2009
1:32 PM
JW writes:
KW,
Here is a link to the cbo report on the senate bill. The second paragraph of the summary right at the beginning says outlays in the remainder of 09 would be $132 billion.
If you really want to know what all those line items are, they are probably discussed in more detail later in the report.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9977/hr1senate.pdf
February 6, 2009
1:43 PM
Shaggy writes:
"You have claimed it is a pork laden pos, and have been completely UNABLE to back your claims."
Tisk Tisk, looks like JW is still having a hard time understanding what a pork invested bill is even when we give exact examples.
"Anyway, the claims Ive made are that this bill is good because the majority of Economists say it is. Ive backed those claims with evidence."
Do you have a link stating MOST economists think this is a good and who are they or is this just more BS you pull out of your arse?
February 6, 2009
1:53 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Shaggy - I have not been on here much, as I've been busy lately, so forgive me if I missed your and Romney's symposium on capital gains taxes.
The tax though, in my experience largely relates after the fact. That is to say, that if you buy an applicable asset, such as a share of stock or a home, and it goes up in value, and you sell it, THEN a tax comes into play. Right now, most of those items have gone DOWN in value, hence talking about a tax on gains really does not apply.
The problem as I see it is twofold: Two thirds of spending is related to the consumer. Right now, the consumer is tapped out, they are largely fearing for thier jobs, and they are not making big purchases.
The other third of spending is mostly business and government spending. Right now, business is not making large purchases and gov't alone cannot pick up all of the slack.
The question now becomes, how to spur investment. If capital gians taxes were abated (as you suggest), I don't see how that would spur investment in equipment, vehicles and durable goods. Please elaborate.
February 6, 2009
1:57 PM
JW writes:
"Do you have a link stating MOST economists think this is a good and who are they or is this just more BS you pull out of your arse?"
Posted this morning.
"Tisk Tisk, looks like JW is still having a hard time understanding what a pork invested bill is even when we give exact examples."
You actually believe this dont you?
Again jackass, honeybee insurance that isnt honeybee insurance and was voted for by the very Republicans calling it pork...TWICE! Not the best example.
With the rest, your "Pork" has an awful lot of JOBS and ECONOMIC STIMULUS in it.
February 6, 2009
2:05 PM
LostinTX writes:
I now know why Liberal DEmocrats want to raise taxes, they don't pay them.
February 6, 2009
2:06 PM
LostinTX writes:
I now know why Liberal Democrats want to always raise taxes, they don't pay them.
February 6, 2009
2:07 PM
LostinTX writes:
I now know why Liberal Democrats want to always raise taxes, they don't pay them.
February 6, 2009
2:07 PM
LostinTX writes:
I now know why Liberal Democrats want to always raise taxes, they don't pay them.
February 6, 2009
2:26 PM
KW writes:
"Hmm. Ok, so now we arent talking about "inappropriate massive spending" anymore. Now we are talking about "Pet projects"." --jw
No. We're talking about inappropriate massive spending ON pet projects. As far as this bill is concerned, the two are one in the same.
Right now we have a huge deficit, wars in two countries and an economy in dire straits. Please, in your infinite wisdom, explain how buying a new fleet of vehicles, expanding broadband and re-sodding the lawn is going to jump start our economy?
The amount of vehicles they want to buy isn't going to save the auto industry. And please explain your love affair with "economic development funding." With that broad of a term the funds could be used for virtually anything.
"All Ive claimed is that ECONOMISTS are supporting this bill." --jw
Some yes, others are not. Are you only listening to the ones that agree with you. You claimed earlier that Krugman was a reputable source which truly makes me doubt your analysis is objective.
And here's my favorite part of the whole thing that doesn't seem to bother you fear mongering fearers the most:
"...or face an irreversible recession" --obama
I've been researching this one a lot. But I can't seem to find what part of our history has led Obama to declare this recession may become irreversible. Considering it's NEVER happened ever, it's obvious he's using fear mongering. Yet this blatant example doesn't phase you one bit.
BTW - I asked YOU to list the items. Not paste a link from someone else's research. Please try again. The reason I asked was to test your knowledge, not someone else's.
February 6, 2009
2:54 PM
jay writes:
polls? i have never relied on polls to prove my point.
that is just some neocon fantasy.
February 6, 2009
3:00 PM
am 760 writes:
Lostintx, you should applaud that. Your side hates our government and paying taxes.
I encourage people to go to http://www.whitehouse.gov and add your comments. Tell the dems to get a back bone, and stand up to these obstructionist repubs. Let them vote and when it fails, go on TV as JMH suggested, and tell the public that the GOP doesn't want to help the american people but just play politics. I have been writing them everyday.
February 6, 2009
3:02 PM
JW writes:
"No. We're talking about inappropriate massive spending ON pet projects. As far as this bill is concerned, the two are one in the same."
LOL. OK then, who's pet project is resodding the national mall and since it provides jobs how is it inappropriate massive spending.
Ill leave it at that since I havent goten an answer from you, whether these things are called pork, inappropriate massive spending, pet projects, or any combination of the three.
"Right now we have a huge deficit, wars in two countries and an economy in dire straits."
Yep. Dire straights. And whos fault is that KW? Why should we be following the plan of the same people that put us here? WTF makes you think you have ANY credibility regarding how we get OUT of the mess YOU got us into, especially since your FIX seems to be the same as what caused the problem in the FIRST PLACE?
"Please, in your infinite wisdom, explain how buying a new fleet of vehicles, expanding broadband and re-sodding the lawn is going to jump start our economy?"
At the BARE minimum, all three of those provide jobs, and all the spending associated with those jobs.
"The amount of vehicles they want to buy isn't going to save the auto industry."
No, but $600 million will make a nice sale, and keep some people in work. It doesnt have to save the industry, moron, its only ONE PART of the whole package.
"And please explain your love affair with "economic development funding." With that broad of a term the funds could be used for virtually anything."
Economic Development. It is FUNDING for ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Thats not broad. But it IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, which seems very appropriate for a ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL. Yes, it could be used for a broad array of initiatives designed to DEVELOP THE ECONOMY, but whatever is done with those funds woudl be focused to DEVELOP THE ECONOMY.
"Some yes, others are not."
The majority are.
"Are you only listening to the ones that agree with you."
No. I read the letter from the 200 that the Cato institute put out. They are calling for tax cuts. And they are the minority.
"You claimed earlier that Krugman was a reputable source which truly makes me doubt your analysis is objective."
Because you ignore ANYTHING from the NYT or anyone you can call "liberally biased". Its idiotic. I dont ignore everything from Fox. Data is data. Where it comes from doesnt automatically disquallify it. How its PRESENTED can, but who presents it doesnt automatically. KEEP GOING TO SCHOOL.
BTW, Krugman's analysis is based on statistical rundowns of how the economy responds in situations like this. That isnt "biased". His conclusions could be, but with the amount of agreement out of the economic communtiy, and even economists know for being conservative, Im going with it.
"I've been researching this one a lot. But I can't seem to find what part of our history has led Obama to declare this recession may become irreversible. Considering it's NEVER happened ever, it's obvious he's using fear mongering. Yet this blatant example doesn't phase you one bit."
Clearly, he was wrong that this is irreversible. But guess what chump...this IS a semantic debate. And I think we have bigger problems to face. I think we have better things to do than play political "Gotcha" games about wording of a single statement. Whether Obama mispoke or he purposefully tried to drum up fear, WE HAVE A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH.
You are WASTING MY TIME harping on that.
"BTW - I asked YOU to list the items. Not paste a link from someone else's research. Please try again. The reason I asked was to test your knowledge, not someone else's."
KW, I dont give a CRAP. I could ask you for the same info. What would it prove?
I didnt ask you for something you hadnt already CLAIMED TO KNOW. Ive NEVER CLAIMED to have a list. You HAVE claimed to know about Pork. There is a difference.
And agian, you can say that I dont know what Im talking about because I wont read the CBO and cut out the info you want. But I dont have to. I dont think I know enough about economics or fiscal policy to do anything other than cut that list out and make some low level comments about it. I cant tell you why its good or bad with any certainty. Neither can you. I rely on ECONOMISTS to do that, because that is their area of expertiese. Seems to me the guys you are relying on would be better for LEGAL ADVICE. They are telling you that all this stuff is pork, but even a guy like me, who can comment at low levels, can see the CREATE JOBS, at minimum.
I never claimed to know what all the spending was made up of. I straight up admitted that I was relying on experts in the field.
YOU claimed to know there was pork. YOu popped off OVER AND OVER AND OVER about how much pork there was. But you DIDNT know. You were just talking out your a$$. And you STILL are.
February 6, 2009
3:04 PM
303Centennial writes:
BO is failing -- his threats, intimidation and instilling fear isn't working either. His management style leaves a lot to be desired.
February 6, 2009
3:05 PM
303Centennial writes:
BO is failing -- his threats, intimidation and instilling fear isn't working either. His management style leaves a lot to be desired.
February 6, 2009
3:10 PM
303Centennial writes:
BO is failing -- his threats, intimidation and instilling fear isn't working either. His management style leaves a lot to be desired.
February 6, 2009
3:10 PM
JW writes:
"BTW - I asked YOU to list the items. Not paste a link from someone else's research. Please try again. The reason I asked was to test your knowledge, not someone else's."
Also, when I asked for a list of the pork in the bill, what did you do?
Posted a list from someone else's research.
You are so lame.
February 6, 2009
3:27 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
AMERICA ON "STIMULUS" POLL:
58%...PREFER TAXCUTS
22% ...PREFER SPENDING
BOTTOM LINE: OBAMA'S "PORKULUS" IS BACKASSWARDS!
RASMUSSEN--37% APPROVE, ON ITS WAY TO 25% APPROVAL! 61% DISAPPROVE!
SHOVEL-READY BULLSHIT FLUNKS THE TAXPAYER APPROVAL TEST!
February 6, 2009
3:28 PM
Shaggy writes:
"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear unity of purpose over conflict and discord."----Barry Hussein Soltero
""If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits.""----Barry Hussein Soltero
Another instance of Barry's hypocrisy.
Fear mongering the people to shove unpopular bill through.
Democratic payback time...bend over...no time for lube.
February 6, 2009
3:35 PM
Shaggy writes:
"tell the public that the GOP doesn't want to help the american people but just play politics."
The GOP is trying to save the people from paying out the nose for this Democratic inflated pork ridden bill
"I have been writing them everyday."
I am sure many ignorant loons do the same.
You do understand that the Democrats don't need a single Republican to vote right?
They just want them to support it so when it turns out to be a disaster they won't be the only ones blamed.
February 6, 2009
3:39 PM
Anonymous writes:
"Another instance of Barry's hypocrisy.
Fear mongering the people to shove unpopular bill through."
As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself. As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on.
And deflationary traps can go on for a long time. Japan experienced a “lost decade” of deflation and stagnation in the 1990s — and the only thing that let Japan escape from its trap was a global boom that boosted the nation’s exports. Who will rescue America from a similar trap now that the whole world is slumping at the same time?
Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won’t have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that’s why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective — to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts — are so destructive.
And Shaggy,
"Democratic payback time...bend over...no time for lube."
If anyone deserves this, its you. Didnt I tell you turnabout is fair play? Youve been so busy cheerleading the rape of this country's fiscal system for the last 8 years, its about time you got the other end of that particular stick.
I just hope the economy turns around faster than anyone expects to Obama can RAISE YOUR TAXES!
February 6, 2009
3:39 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
OBAMBO DROPS CHARGES AGAINST USS COLE TERRORISTS:
Muslim president of USA drops charges against Muslim terrorists of al-Qaeda who killed 16 American sailors on the USS Cole!
Free...you can go now...and now you can hook up with the other Muslim Gitmo terrorists soon to be set free by America's Muslim Hussein!
Can you connect the Muslim dots........?
February 6, 2009
3:47 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
DON'T BLAME ME...I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM!
February 6, 2009
3:48 PM
Anonymous writes:
Once a Muslim, always a Muslim.
February 6, 2009
3:49 PM
JW writes:
"You do understand that the Democrats don't need a single Republican to vote right?
They just want them to support it so when it turns out to be a disaster they won't be the only ones blamed."
Hey regulars! Anyone have a total on the number of times we have explained a filibuster to this idiot?
February 6, 2009
4:12 PM
KW writes:
JW - No, the sodding doesn't create more jobs. They already have a grounds crew at the capital.
Now you ask who got the economy where it is today? I'll tell you what, we can say the reps did it 6 of the last eight if we can also tag the dems for the last two. Fair enough?
But don't complain saying we can't follow the "failed plans" of the last 8 years because that's exactly what Obama is doing. He's leaving Bush's tax cuts in place, adding more tax cuts like the reps have been asking for, AND he's increasing spending far beyond what's been happening the last 8 years (no, the war costs are not part of the economic downturn so don't even go there).
He's also leaving Gitmo open for another year (or more), he's not pulling out of Iraq AND he's launched a new faith based program.
So far you're getting the complete opposite of what you voted for. We tried to warn you about political promises but none of you would listen. You should've taken it from us reps. We thought with Bush in place and a rep congress things would finally change but all they did was spend more money... like the dems and Obama are now in charge of. I just wish they didn't look so much like drunken sailors.
BTW - Wrong again. I researched 6 websites and cut/pasted what I considered to be the best examples to give you. You gave me a link and you probably didn't even read the whole report.
February 6, 2009
4:30 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
OBAMBA "PORKULUS" GETTING MAJOR TRIMMING!
COCKEYED-CROOKS CROWD CABINET...DROPS CHARGES AGAINST MUSLIM BROTHERS, AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS AND MURDERERS.
Easily the very worsat first-month in the history of the American presidency--did anyone really expect this unqualified, inexperienced, affirmative action/empty-suit to be smart?
47-months to go! What's the next disaster?
Don'r blame me...I didn't vote for him!
February 6, 2009
4:53 PM
Wizzies2 writes:
I think this Stimulus Bill is a joke and should not be used to pay the OBAMA people who got him elected. I don't trust the man, I don't like him...he is such a Moronic Fool. Since when did any "ROCK STAR" get elected to Presidency??? NEVER!!! Pelosi and Reid need to GO AWAY permantley!! I can say this because I didn't vote for the "MESSIAH" now what do you DEMS have to say for yourselfs??? It's not going to get any better you know....
February 6, 2009
4:55 PM
Nancy D. writes:
why don't democrats simply pull out the extraneous spending and offer up a trim, targeted stimulus package? What is preventing them from acting rationally?
February 6, 2009
5:32 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Democrats are still wrong on policy writes:
Democrats return to your so called roots. Its not too late.
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .
Thomas
Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas
Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas
Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas
Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas
Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas
Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas
Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas
Jefferson
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas
Jefferson
February 6, 2009
6:11 PM
Holly Chartier writes:
Just heard on the news that Andy Card, (You remember Andy? Bush's chief of staff?) is so upset that Obama and others in the Oval Office don't always wear coats. He wants Obama to show more "respect" for the office. It's a room!! This is what Andy is upset about, right now? OMG, am I hearing things? Is this real? Oh wait, I forgot, he worked in the BUSH oval office, where things like that were more important than people, jobs, health care, executive bonuses, I could go on. Yikes.
February 6, 2009
6:40 PM
JW writes:
"JW - No, the sodding doesn't create more jobs. They already have a grounds crew at the capital."
Oh for fux sake. KW, when they spend the $50 million, do you think it will go into the economy, or into the ether?
Do people have to grow sod? Does it INCRAESE demand over, say, NOT doing that resodding the grounds?
"Now you ask who got the economy where it is today? I'll tell you what, we can say the reps did it 6 of the last eight if we can also tag the dems for the last two. Fair enough?"
No. Why not? Because they only think Dems controlled was the congress. It was an even split in the Senate. And Bush was in the whitehouse with a veto pen he finally started using that could not be overridden. If this is really confusing you I think you should take that civics class jay is always telling you to take. What harm could it do? Worst case scenario you STILL dont understand how your OWN government works.
"But don't complain saying we can't follow the "failed plans" of the last 8 years because that's exactly what Obama is doing. He's leaving Bush's tax cuts in place, adding more tax cuts like the reps have been asking for, AND he's increasing spending far beyond what's been happening the last 8 years (no, the war costs are not part of the economic downturn so don't even go there)."
I hate to point out the obvious but apparently you need to have it pointed out...
If hes giving more tax cuts than Bush, and Spending more, then hes NOT doing the same thing as Bush.
Also, saying he is following the Bush plan requires being so dumb you cant think deeper than "Spending" or "Taxes". What did Bush spend on and what is Obama trying to spend on? Are they the same things? No. So how can he be following the same plan? Why is he giving tax cuts? Because the economy is in the crapper. This IS the same as Bush, but since that is the PROPER RESPONSE Im not sure why you actually think this is a bad thing. The difference will happen when (if) the economy rebounds. Bush's mistake was not giving tax cuts. It was keeping them in place and spending on a deficit during the economic upswing. Thats what saddled us with this debt.
"He's also leaving Gitmo open for another year (or more), he's not pulling out of Iraq AND he's launched a new faith based program."
Oh STFU. Youre an idiot. His faith based program has several differences from Bush's. He is in the process of shutting down Gitmo, and just because hes doing it SMARTLY, rather than doing it like an idiot, doesn't make your criticism valid. It makes it STUPID. And the same applies to Iraq. Take a damn debate class man, you sound like a retard because your arguments are WEAK.
"So far you're getting the complete opposite of what you voted for."
No, its pretty much what I expected, actually. It would have been nice if he could have raised taxes and paid down our debt, but its clearly not the time.
"We tried to warn you about political promises but none of you would listen."
LOL. Agian, WTF would we listen to failed ideological fools like you for? Youre STUPID.
" You should've taken it from us reps. We thought with Bush in place and a rep congress things would finally change but all they did was spend more money... like the dems and Obama are now in charge of. I just wish they didn't look so much like drunken sailors."
Yea, difference being that Bush did it during an economic boom, and Obama is doing it because he HAS to. You fuckwits had 8 years of Clinton and followed it up by electing the dumbest sob ever. Youre STUPID. The only reason people like you should EVER be allowed to make any decisions is because its a fundamental right! If you had Half a brain, youd let those of us who are smart make them for you.
And you want some proof? Lets look at the last 10 years if we had asked you what to do, and then done the opposite.
Should we impeach Clinton over a bj?
KW: Hell Yes!
Should we ignore Clinton's warnings about Al Qaeda?
KW: Who's Al Qaeda?
Should we attack Iraq?
KW: Hell yes?
Is it ok that we didnt get Bin Ladden?
KW: Its fine, he doesnt matter.
Is it ok to take troops out of Afghanistan?
KW: We won that war already! get em to Iraq!
Should we keep these tax cuts in place during this war when we can easily pay for it because the economy is good?
KW: Hell yes! Just slap it on the credit card!
Should we re-elect GWB?
KW: Clearly!
Should we Torture?
KW: Uh, duh! YES!
See KW, if we had done the OPPOSITE of what you wanted, we would be ALOT better off.
Youre an idiot.
And you believe in stupid crap.
"BTW - Wrong again. I researched 6 websites and cut/pasted what I considered to be the best examples to give you. You gave me a link and you probably didn't even read the whole report."
Dude, you really are dumb as shit. You called me out for not doing my own research on the bill and siting the CBO, idiot. However many websites you went to, you didnt do your own research. Its called HYPOCRISY numb nuts.
BTW, this is what, the fourth day in a row of me nailing you to a wall, and you STILL havent admitted being wrong once. You are a small, pathetic little man with a fragile ego.
February 6, 2009
7:00 PM
Big_D writes:
The debate is over and once again they were thrown a bone so they could pretend they won. At least this time they will cap executive compensation which is where Bush FUBARed.
February 6, 2009
7:17 PM
Big_D writes:
This stimulus package if it is concentrated in public work could generate as much as 6 trillion in to the US economy within a few years. The purchase of toxic debt by Bush was a fairly good idea but he didn’t execute it correctly, which is kind of sad since it was handled before. It’s in the history books. We need to keep this going because if we let our system fail our security will be in BIG danger then. I think I am taking another break from this negativity and think of bigger things. See ya next time I get sucked into the void of intelligence.
February 6, 2009
7:20 PM
Nannnncy Pelosi writes:
"If we don't pass this bill, America will lose 500 million jobs per month."
February 6, 2009
7:36 PM
JW writes:
Hogar, I like our founders too.
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .
Thomas
Jefferson
See, he supports the broadband expansion to rural America Pork!
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas
Jefferson
This works both ways. When you take taxes from working people in favor of giving tax cuts to those who make their money only off investment...
Additionally, as much as I like Jefferson, there is a fundamental flaw when utilizing this quote on today's world.
You don't make money in a vacuum.
We tend to think that people are entitled to all their earnings because they made it with just their hard work and smarts. The problem with this is that its not true. Try making the same return on hard work and smarts you get in America...in Somalia. You cannot do it. And why not? Because they dont have the system in place that we do. HERE, it is hard work and smarts that allow you to make a ton of return within the system. We have a fairly educated populace (though some of you do your best to prove otherwise), we have infrastructure, we have the rule of law. These things all require funding. Without them, you wont make as big a return.
And, since youve made your return, youve got an ethical responsibility to pass on that same opportunity to the next generation. I think with the current issues going on that it is pretty damn obvious we have, for the time being, failed.
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas
Jefferson
I just cant tell you how much better a position we would be in right now if this had happened over the last 8 years.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas
Jefferson
Now days its wasting the labor of the people IN THE FUTURE by giving them tax cuts today, and spending on deficit.
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas
Jefferson
I can agree with this to a point. Obviously there comes a point where government is too small to keep the systems in place which are necessary. Again, try Somalia.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas
Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas
Jefferson
Well, I like my gun, and its guaranteed in the constitution, but Id say the strongest reason today is self defense. You really cannot fight the tyranny of the government with a gun anymore.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas
Jefferson
True. Lets shoot everyone who voted for Bush more than once. The rest of us can give blood.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas
Jefferson
I agree. Every district with a representative that disagrees with the stimulus shouldnt get any, and they shouldnt have to pay any taxes on that spending in the future. Those of us in favor of the stimulus can pay for it.
Then we need to charge everyone who voted for Bush for the $6 trillion in debt he racked up with their approval.
Which means, Hogar, that you can write a check somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 times the one I write.
If youre gona espouse this stuff, you best be sure you dont end up biting the larger bullet.
February 6, 2009
7:45 PM
Iceman7 writes:
Shaggy,
Did you forget to snap the LID on the LOON bucket again? They are out and heading straight back to the Obama Barry flavored Kool Aid!
I keep telling them that it is bad stuff, but they won't listen...
February 6, 2009
10:57 PM
KW writes:
JW - You sure are long winded but you can't seem to break away from the very partisan hackery you claim not to possess.
You even go so far as to post quotes from me I've never uttered. You are the true epitome of a partisan hack so bent on believing you have wisdom and insight far above us minions that you'll lie in order to pretend to have an ounce of credibility.
Grow sod? You do really believe there aren't already enough sod farms to handle the simple resod of the capital? Are you that naive to believe in idiocies so unrealistically inane that this will somehow create jobs???
If this waste creates but only one job you'll still lay your soul as wager that this sort of wasteful spending warrants complete trust in an utter fool. A fool who has relinquished complete control of his own agenda to the likes of reid and pelosi and has no intention of regaining the power he was elected to exert.
Previously Obama and Biden have both stated repeatedly that NO pet projects will be allowed in this bill. Yet today Obama restated (and contradicted himself) by saying with this size of a stimulus bill, "you HAVE to expect a certain level of pet projects will be included."
How frickin' convenient for the clueless wonder. Especially since you blind followers won't question this contradiction ever once in your entire lifetime. You are truly blinded by your loyalty to a dis-proven theory of Utopian lifestyle that has been tried and failed many time over.
AND you still all supported this spineless figurehead wholeheartedly without ever questioning WHY everything he promised has been thrown out like a baby with the bath water.
"Never mind my promises, I didn't mean them anyway" --obama
This almost mirrors the 10 or so campaign promises he made to fools such as yourself who chose to believe his lying lunacy rather than accept the reality that he could never deliver on at least 95% of his campaign promises.
BTW - I notice you tend to completely ignore the Osame comparison I detailed earlier. But please do tell us of your inner most thoughts about how Obama has done one thing different than Bush has been doing for 8 years (other than cower to his parties leaders). And even more important, how increasing spending to an unprecedented level never seen in the history of the united states will somehow magically jump start our failing economy. A plan the CBO even states will do more harm than good to our economy in the long run.
Shall we just ignore the democrat dominated CBO simply because they contradict your asinine far left wing ideology??? Ain't gonna happen my career college student friend! Wisdom will prevail.
You have elected yourself an extremely more corrupt and idiotically weak McSame than the one you railed against the last two+ years saying HE would be the downfall of this country. And now look at what you've empowered. A man who's own promises have been completely reneged on and we're only mere two weeks into this 4+ year (and hopefully no longer) presidency.
Still, and understandably so, I would venture to guess you can still sleep sound at night knowing full well the destruction that lies ahead.
Simply because you now have Bush out of office and can claim victory (whatever that means) for your ideological misconceptions. It must be nice having your head stuck that far up Obama's arse that you can feel enough comfort to remain the smug and completely blinded fool that you've become, regardless of the cataclysmic and detrimental peril that awaits us if and when this fools idea of a bill passes.
Thanks for being such a caring, enlightend and intelligent voter!
/sarcasm
February 7, 2009
12:28 AM
Anonymous writes:
KW,
Ill give you the sod one. Dont even care anymore. I suppose it is possible that you could put $50 million into landscaping and not stimulate the economy whatsoever. Not sure how, but for the sake of argument its yours.
Congrats, youve just convinced me that $50 million out of $812 billion is pork. Clearly we should just throw the entire bill out.
BTW, here it is again. Im man enough to admit when Im wrong, and Im man enough to compromise for the sake of argument. You? Youre fragile. Youve NEVER admitted to being wrong that Ive seen and since youre human, well, its not because youve never been wrong. Its because youre pathetic.
As for his promise to leave out all pork, or pet projects, or whatever you call it today, Ive already said it was a stupid promise, because Pork is Pork to some and not to others. All you have to do is watch McCain call a ferry project pork one day, and a magnificent community saving project the next. Or check out McConnell voting for "honeybee insurance" not once but twice, then calling it pork yesterday. Even your ideologue buddies cant figure it out. Just watch the Daily Show from last night. Republicans AND Dems getting hit, but the footage of Republicans THEN and NOW is the most telling (The Dem footage just makes them look stupid, not hypocritical). One of them was foaming at the mouth about a $2 billion provision for the stimulus bill, and then they show him saying $12 billion just disappearing in Iraq is no biggie two years ago. Lame doesnt even START to cover it. They are saying this crap because YOU and people like you want to hear it, and will vote for them next election.
But back to Barak, there was going to be SOMETHING put into a bill at some point during his presidency, and he wasnt going to be able to veto the bill just based on that one item. Im not partisan about this. It was a stupid thing to promise. But Im also realistic about it, and know that rather than castigate him for going back on a promise he could not possibly have kept, Ill call him out for making the stupid promise. That was the mistake. It gives ideologues like yourself bs ammo.
And it cracks me up to hear you harp on this. Bush promised not to nation build, which I think is actually something he could have lived up to a bit easier, but I never heard you bitch about that. Bush's campaign promises actually made people believe he was better regarding the environment than Al Gore, who we can all agree is absolutely INSANE about protecting the environment. I just dont remember you getting this bent out of shape when Bush broke his campaign promises. Must be because you voted for him.
EVERY president breaks promises. Dem or Repub. Difference between you and I is that I dont bash one for doing it and not the other, I just acknowledge that its going to happen. I didnt bash Bush. I may point his broken promises out while you are bashing Clinton or Obama, but just to point out your stupidity. They all do it. If youre gona let the ones you vote for skate, you best let the rest, or youre just a double standard having idiot.
I dont bash Bush for what he promised to do and didnt. I bash that idiot for what he DID. So when I let Obama slide its not partisan, its CONSISTENT.
"AND you still all supported this spineless figurehead wholeheartedly without ever questioning WHY everything he promised has been thrown out like a baby with the bath water."
First, see the above. Second, you are one stupid MF'er. Every president YOU have EVER VOTED FOR has done the same thing. Double standard.
"But please do tell us of your inner most thoughts about how Obama has done one thing different than Bush has been doing for 8 years (other than cower to his parties leaders)"
Pretty sure I dealt with this in my last response to you.
"And even more important, how increasing spending to an unprecedented level never seen in the history of the united states will somehow magically jump start our failing economy."
Well you seemed to understand it fine when Reagan and Bush did it during economic slowdowns. So did I. Whats confusing you now? That D before Obama's name?
"Shall we just ignore the democrat dominated CBO simply because they contradict your asinine far left wing ideology??? Ain't gonna happen my career college student friend! Wisdom will prevail."
Hehe, Im not a career college student KW, Im just smarter than you. Ill have my masters just after I turn 35, and youre getting your batchelors in your freaking golden years. Maybe if you had been smart enough to get it at the same age as I am, your career would have been a bit more LUCRATIVE. You'd be sitting on the beach and golfing instead of going to school with people half your age.
And I guess you missed the news, bitch. They are gona approve this. Only $800 billion, but its going though.
Additionally, the CBO did say that this plan will spur the economy initially and then the resulting debt will slow the growth down. Now, I dont really need them to spell this out, but I guess you do...
The debt that will slow the economy, where is it from?
>$1 trillion- THIS BILL
They didnt bother to mention that the major drag will be the $10 trillion in current debt, but unless youre a total idiot, you know that it does represent over 10 times the debt this bill does, and thus a larger part of that economic drag. But that might be a bit complicated for you.
"You have elected yourself an extremely more corrupt and idiotically weak McSame than the one you railed against the last two+ years saying HE would be the downfall of this country. And now look at what you've empowered. A man who's own promises have been completely reneged on and we're only mere two weeks into this 4+ year (and hopefully no longer) presidency."
LOL. Again fuckwit, your double standard is showing. There has NEVER been a president who kept all his campaign promises that I know of. NEVER. Maybe Washington did. NEVER in modern history. Why are you harping on this one for the same things every president you ever voted for did? Its the same crap you jackasses did with lying. Clinton was the worst person in the world for lying about sex, but the Gipper was still the Gipper even though he lied about SELLING ARMS TO IRAN.
PARTISAN HACKERY.
Also, he cant have completely reneged on his promised only two weeks into his 4 year presidency. It will take time to renege on them all! Youre such a drama queen.
And more importantly, what does that have to do with fixing the economy? He doesnt want to just cut taxes? Again, that Ideology FAILED.
"Still, and understandably so, I would venture to guess you can still sleep sound at night knowing full well the destruction that lies ahead."
Look man, I just think he's doing the right thing, and Im basing that by what economists say. You think otherwise based on what lawyers say, er, well, what they say today anyway.
So Ok. WTF ever. But its kind of asinine to think I go to bed thinking "Awesome! The USA is OVER!" Im an American too dumbshit. I supported Bush for three years because I thought he was doing the right things. So whos partisan? Who's following an ideology based on partisan politics? Who's able to deal with being wrong? You have a lot of nerve saying IM the one who thinks hes so damn great. YOU ARE NEVER WRONG, even after rabidly supporting a party that has overseen the biggest economic collapse in history, and made damn sure we are at our absolute WEAKEST in terms of ability to deal with it.
But, again, as youre human, you are wrong sometimes. You just cant handle it. You must be made of PORCELAIN.
"Simply because you now have Bush out of office and can claim victory (whatever that means) for your ideological misconceptions."
This from the guy who's ideology took us from Clinton to where we are today. STFU Idiot. You have NO place to talk.
Sorry KW, again, you failed. Your ideology is a failure. The politicians you support FAILED. Your beliefs, when enacted in policy, HURT THIS NATION. I dont know what to tell you. Just look at my last post to you, its all there in plain English. If we had done the OPPOSITE of what you wanted, we would be WAY better off, and you cannot argue it without rank bs, or complete ignorance. If you had to chose to be a Republican hack, you should have stuck with GHWB brand Republican, rather than his son. That guy knew what he was doing.
So you can sit there and scream that the sky is falling, but time will tell with Obama.
With your ideology...time has already told.
FAILURE.
February 7, 2009
8:10 AM
me2 writes:
The real problem for the republicans (small caps) is that out there in flyover land, the people see government spending as money going into the economy at all levels. Not just money going in at the top for luxury goods.
Sodding the mall? Well that puts money in the pocket of the landscape companies which goes into fuel for the trucks, payroll, lunches, hair cuts, groceries for the workers.
Acorn? money for gas, wages, paper, supplies, all sold in America even if made in China.
You republicans want tax cuts, but the taxes are going into credit card debt and savings accounts, not into the economy. Once it goes there it is loaned out to business that need, surprise, customers, which they don't have because no money is moving.
Only people who understand this should post, that means anyone who lived through a boom and bust economy in a small town.
February 7, 2009
8:27 AM
The Facts writes:
All this time wasted arguing that the house and senate bill is loaded with extraneous spending. If democrats had conceded the point a week ago, that time could have been spent trimming the fat and offering up a bill that Americans would accept.
Instead they attacked their critics; they went on national TV warning that an "irreversible" recession was at hand; they threatened that if we did not back down we would "never recover" from this economic downturn; that 500 million americans would lose jobs next month......
All lies and fear mongering by the new democratic party where ethics and clean government were #1.
Well, we now know that the Messiah lied and that democratic bare knuckle politics is alive and well in DC.
When this bad bill fails, it will only be democrats that will be blamed.
February 7, 2009
9:03 AM
Shaggy writes:
I wonder where all the outcry is of where they are coming up with these numbers for all of these different projects?
They are moving so fast I know they are not doing thorough study.
They already overpaid the assets of thew last bailout by 78 BILLION, but I hear not a peep out of anyone. Why should we trust them with this?
I am not surprised that JW is not questioning this bill as it was written by Democrats.
If it were predominately written by Republicans, he dissecting it line by line foaming at the mouth bitching about every concept of it.
What a hypocrite!!!!!
Here we are making the BIGGEST transfer of money to the Government and they want to shove it through before the loaners, us, have a chance to look it over.
This thing stinks and is losing support very fast.
February 7, 2009
9:26 AM
KW writes:
Shaggy - It's no use. Those who love Obama (and most likely still suffering from BDS but no longer have an outlet) either cannot, or refuse to see anything wrong with this massive, wasteful spending bill whatsoever.
Even when you can finally pound one of the idiotic items into their head so far they can no longer deny it as inappropriate, they turn right around and squawk the lame excuse that it's only a small fragment and doesn't prove a thing.
It's just too bad they can't see the huge monster of waste each of these small fragments add up to.
February 7, 2009
9:50 AM
Shaggy writes:
I hear ya KW,
I get so fricking sick of the double standards of the left.
If Sarah said 500 Million people will lose their jobs monthly if it isn't passed, she would be non stop blasted in the "drive by media" but beings it was President errrr Princess Pelosi it isn't hardly even mentioned.
Barry has ZERO spine to stand up to Reid and Pelosi. Wimp!
He has ZERO desire to reach out to both sides.
He is exactly what we expected, a very Liberal partisian hack who is winging it as he goes and is controlled by the left. Empty suit!
He is a coward and I think this Country is in dire straights because terrorists see his weakness and know an attack right now would have grave consenquences for us.
Then we have this idiot broadcasting that this is the worst we have been in since the great depression and scaring people so his pay back bill will be passed.
Which is a lie, it was much worse under Carter.
Thank god we had Reagan to get us out of that mess by cutting taxes so people could afford to invest.
Instead we have a tax crazed Liberal trying to solve this crisis which we may never be able to recover form.
BTW, JW.
I am still waiting for you to post me the names of the top economists that are saying this will work.
All the economists I have heard talk about it says it will not work and could very well prolong the recession and cause massive INFLATION when all this money hits the market in 2-3 years when we are out of the recession.
February 7, 2009
9:51 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
TAXPAYERS WIN...PISSAWAY SLASHED TO ONLY $827 BILLION!!!
What a bargain--I'll take two. Let the socialist jamboree and celebration begin...break-out some bailo-out! Karl Marx would be proud.
Free money for everybody! WE ARE ALL RICH NOW.
February 7, 2009
10:08 AM
Chris writes:
Guys, I think that loons on the left consider money given to ACORN is necessary and stimulating for democratic voter rolls. Providing public dollars that can benefit illegal aliens is an urgent and necessary cost to the taxpayer.
You are absolutely correct Shag when you point out JWs selective behaviour in ignoring glaring problems with this bill because it was written solely by democrats. I was impressed with JWs passing comment that Obama "used the wrong word" (irreversible recession) when our president tried to scare us into ignoring a needed review of a bill that will spend more money than any other time in our history. To a partisan liberal, such fear mongering is OK.
Hypocrisy is a way of life for this zany sector of our population.
February 7, 2009
10:13 AM
KW writes:
Yes Shaggy, it's hard to believe how many people have forgotten the economy Reagan inherited was worse than things are right now for Obama. Yet somehow we weathered that storm without needing this sham of a stimulus package.
And yes again, had any Republican misspoke as pelosi did we'd never hear the end of it. My first thought when I heard her state we're losing "500 million jobs a month" was WOW!!! That amount of job losses would put the unemployment rate at over 125% by now. And I'm still not sure I buy the "misspoke" excuse either. These incredible exagerations by the leaders on the left seem to happen all too often. And everytime it's about critical matters when being accurate is vital to public perception of the situation. Oh well, truth (and accuracy) be damned I guess.
February 7, 2009
10:37 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
WASH POST GRAPHIC, BASED ON CBO DATA & ANALYSIS, OF OBAMA'S URGENT PISSAWAY:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html
PATHETIC...ITS NOTHING BUT PURE PORKULUS THAT EXTENDS ALL THE WAY OUT INTO 2019!!!
February 7, 2009
11:02 AM
JW writes:
"I am not surprised that JW is not questioning this bill as it was written by Democrats.
If it were predominately written by Republicans, he dissecting it line by line foaming at the mouth bitching about every concept of it.
What a hypocrite!!!!!"
Strawman.
"Shaggy - It's no use. Those who love Obama (and most likely still suffering from BDS but no longer have an outlet) either cannot, or refuse to see anything wrong with this massive, wasteful spending bill whatsoever."
Its got the support of some pretty damn smart people. Agian, you trust the lawyers with a conflict of interest and apparently, lack of memory. Ill trust the economists.
Also, this hasnt failed yet.
What you propose HAS.
This MIGHT be as bad as you freaks thing.
We KNOW your solutions are just the makings of more problems.
FAILURE. Its what youre good at.
"Even when you can finally pound one of the idiotic items into their head so far they can no longer deny it as inappropriate, they turn right around and squawk the lame excuse that it's only a small fragment and doesn't prove a thing."
The only reason you can pimp this type of stupidity is because you are unconvinced of the how dire the position we are in is, and how badly we need action. You can nitpick tiny little parts of the bill because you dont think its more important to get it passed than it is to worry about IMMATERIAL amounts.
And again, I find it laughable that you idiots STILL think youre right about everything and so we should listen to you.
What youre good at isnt fixing things. Its screwing them up. Youre good at FAILURE.
"Which is a lie, it was much worse under Carter."
By WHAT MEASURE? Partisan bias?
"Thank god we had Reagan to get us out of that mess by cutting taxes so people could afford to invest."
Dont forget the MASSIVE deficit spending. I know its inconvenient for your bs arguments, but it happened.
"All the economists I have heard talk about it says it will not work and could very well prolong the recession and cause massive INFLATION when all this money hits the market in 2-3 years when we are out of the recession."
So, basically you are telling me the ONLY economists you've listened to are from the Cato institute.
". I was impressed with JWs passing comment that Obama "used the wrong word" (irreversible recession) when our president tried to scare us into ignoring a needed review of a bill that will spend more money than any other time in our history. To a partisan liberal, such fear mongering is OK"
Strawman.
"Yes Shaggy, it's hard to believe how many people have forgotten the economy Reagan inherited was worse than things are right now for Obama."
BY WHAT MEASURE?
"And yes again, had any Republican misspoke as pelosi did we'd never hear the end of it."
Well, if youre talking about what I would do this is a strawman.
If youre talking about in general, of course! You idiots wont stfu about this from Dems. Should people not treat Republicans the same way you treat Dems?
Idiot.
The reason people would harp on any Republican for saying this is because they hear idiots like you harping on any Dem who says it. DUH.
I still think its funny that despite the how obviously wrong you idiots have been over the last 8 years, you still think youre right about EVERYTHING.
February 7, 2009
11:33 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
SEN. INHOFE: 93% PORK & ONLY 7% STIMULUS:
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), issued the following statement tonight after the announcement of a compromise on the Senate stimulus bill.
"While I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues to bring down the price tag of this bill, the fact is we still face a trillion dollar spending bill. Making it worse, the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation. Over the past few days I have fought to include more in the way of real stimulus through higher percentage of infrastructure and defense spending, while working to cut much of the typical government waste often found in a bill of this size. Yet Democrats have blocked these efforts.
"The good news tonight is that the American people are catching on to the fact that this is the largest spending bill in history and are becoming more and more vocal in their opposition. My offices in Oklahoma and Washington DC have been flooded with emails, phone calls and faxes overwhelmingly opposed to this trillion dollar legislation. They can rest assured that my vote remains an unwavering ‘no.'"
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
And lets not forget that over 70% gets spent when we don't need it--2011-2019!
February 7, 2009
11:46 AM
JW writes:
You know what else is funny about you idiots? Youre sitting here bitching about how Dems misspoke, and the inequity had a Republican done the same.
What would you guys have done had a Dem said they need to use the Taliban as a model for their political strategy?
You would be screaming TRAITOR for months, or years.
But a Repubican DID do that. He didnt misspeak either. He explained it in great detail.
Now, am I going to bash him for this and call him a traitor like you would had a Dem done this? No.
I understand what hes saying. He used the Taliban as his example because people know who they are, and that makes it easy for him to get his message across. Its not that hes a traitor.
But it IS a concrete and very obvious statement that he feels Republicans need to do everything they can to obstruct anything the Dems or the Obama admin put forward. He is going to adopt a "Taliban style insurgency" against the Dems.
Bi-Partisanship? Yea, you don't have any business bitching if the Dems refuse to work with Repubs, not just because of the last 8 years, but because Republicans have now come out LOUD AND CLEAR stating that they WILL NOT work with Dems, but will fight a political guerrilla war against them. Next time you hear some Repub talking about how they are getting the shaft because Dems wont work with them, KNOW you are being lied to.
February 7, 2009
12:41 PM
Shaggy writes:
"because Republicans have now come out LOUD AND CLEAR stating that they WILL NOT work with Dems,"
I guess if they are against a partisan written bill which the Democrats deliberately excluded the Republicans from helping to write, means they aren't willing to work with them in JW's world.
Didn't I read where you once called yourself a fiscal conservative? hehehe
Yet you don't seem to question how they arrived at the numbers.
You just want to point out the past because that is all you can argue as a partisan hackweed.
Heavens forbid you give Reagan kudos and condemn Carter.
Hypocrite!
btw,
Noone has made more gaffs than Biden, Barry, Reid and Pelosi!
Yet they are Democrats, so they get a free pass.
Idiot!
February 7, 2009
1:29 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
DO WE NEED A "NEW DEAL"?...DO Y-O-U NEED A TAX HIKE?
In order to pay for the NEW DEAL, Roosevelt raised the marginal tax rate on top incomes to 79% and then later he hiked it to 90%. This discouraged entrepreneurs from investing and creating new jobs and greater incomes--it prolonged the Great Deptession.
The NEW DEAL turned out to be a very BAD DEAL for America. We had 20% unemployment in mid-1939. it took WW II to dig us out of the ditch and jump start the economy.
February 7, 2009
1:51 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
OBAMA APPOINTS ALEX RODRIGUEZ AS SECRETARY OF SPORTS!
A-Rod earned it--he fits right in with the rest of Obama's cockeyed cabinet!
February 7, 2009
2:08 PM
KW writes:
"You can nitpick tiny little parts of the bill because you dont think its more important to get it passed than it is to worry about IMMATERIAL amounts." --jw
As I said in my earlier post JW, you basically look at each inappropriate item and then wail how the amount is so insignificant. What you fail to understand is when you add all those supposedly insignificant amounts together you have an hugely enormous amount of wasted money that is extremely significant.
With the current deficit level we already have it is extremely critical that we don't waste even one dollar. Let alone $20 million here or $50 million there.
February 7, 2009
2:43 PM
Shaggy writes:
One would think JW could understand that when all the wasteful expenditures are added up it is an enormous amount.
I always suspected that liberal professors were a large part of the willful ignorance in today's society among the left and now JW confirms that suspicion to be true.
February 7, 2009
7:00 PM
Chris writes:
I've just decided that JW is a strawman.
That explains all of his nonsense, and the continued denial of facts presented.
Liberal invincibility is a malignant form of self-hypnosis.
February 7, 2009
8:49 PM
Ben -hates radical liberals writes:
"OBAMA APPOINTS ALEX RODRIGUEZ AS SECRETARY OF SPORTS!" That made me chuckle.
oh and ,jw blows all hot air. He lacks common sense, typical with many "liberals".
February 7, 2009
11:08 PM
Anonymous writes:
"it took WW II to dig us out of the ditch and jump start the economy."
Wow thats it! I get it now War is the answer!!
We gots 2 wars and the economy is just booming
Sas has it all figured out. Ha HA HA
February 8, 2009
8:37 AM
Go to NumbersUSA.com writes:
Democrats risk spending all of their post election goodwill with American citizens with this fat infused unprecedented spending bill. The hyperbole is being recognized as misleading. Billions of dollars in line items in the bill are being revealed as non-stimulatory and inappropriate for this type of bill. The polls reflect a steady shift in approval for this bill as it stands.
What Mr. Obama does not make clear with his sky-is-falling predictions is that following the passage of this bill the unemployment rates will still climb, the credit crunch will still exist, and economic stimulation will be months or even years away as a result of the massive spending bill which does little according to many economists to correct these problems.
Rank and file taxpayers recognize the bums rush when they see it.
And the American worker is finding out that Democratic congress people are trying to remove the E-verify provision that would safeguard taxpayer spending for job creation from going to illegal alien workers.
That may be the final straw.
February 8, 2009
9:39 AM
jay writes:
can you smell that?
that's the unmistakeable stench of hypocrisy mixed with partisan hackery.
where were all of you deficit hawks when the republicans were setting records for deficit and pork spending?
i rememember...in 2001...when the rubs spent 1.35 TRILLION the country had 4% unemployment, 12.7% of its population in poverty, .48% forclosure rates and 17 million people relying on food stamps.
can someone explain why giving the rich tax cuts that will cost our grandchildren thousands was a good idea then, but spending 800 billion dollars now to fix the messes conservatives have made is a bad idea now that the country has 7.6% unemployment, nearly 20% of its population living in poverty, 1.2 % forclosure rates and 30 million folks living on food stamps.
gee...i guess if conservatives would have done a better job running the country we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, huh?
February 8, 2009
9:45 AM
Anonymous writes:
Here is the Republican plan
http: //news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090202/ap_on_go_ot/wartime_spending_oversight
"WASHINGTON – Waste and corruption that marred Iraq's reconstruction will be repeated in Afghanistan unless the U.S. transforms the unwieldy bureaucracy managing tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure projects, government watchdogs warned Monday.
The U.S. has devoted more than $30 billion to rebuilding Afghanistan. Yet despite the hard lessons learned in Iraq, where the U.S. has spent nearly $51 billion on reconstruction, the effort in Afghanistan is headed down the same path, the watchdogs told a new commission on wartime contracting Monday"
Now 30 billion is the same amount thats cut from states to help their budget. Gov Crist (R) Fla
on Tv saying States want their money back to keep from losing jobs.
"Overall, the Pentagon, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development have paid contractors more than $100 billion since 2003 for goods and services to support war operations and rebuilding projects in Iraq and Afghanistan"
Wow look at this Republican Failure. And its still going on
February 8, 2009
9:52 AM
Anonymous writes:
http: //www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar/individual
HELLO PUBS
can yew explain this mess?
"The War In Iraq Costs
$595,174,471,945"
February 8, 2009
10:04 AM
KW writes:
B,b,b,but the Republicans...
February 8, 2009
10:39 AM
KW writes:
From the New York Times today:
'Off the Bandwagon: Economists Against Big Fiscal Stimulus'
As the economics reporter Louis Uchitelle wrote on Wednesday, there seems to be broad consensus among usually head-butting economists that a fiscal stimulus is necessary.
But in response, some economists are speaking out.
*Greg Mankiw at Harvard has written about his skepticism regarding a huge stimulus package.
*David Backus at New York University has expressed similar concerns (via Professor Mankiw’s blog; Professor Mankiw also shared an e-mail message from a reader purporting to work at the Defense Department who, having witnessed government expansion in the form of the Department of Homeland Security, is suspicious of how quickly and efficiently taxpayer dollars could now be spent in the name of stimulus).
*Robert E. Lucas, a Nobel laureate at the University of Chicago, wrote that Fed policy (as opposed to, presumably, fiscal policy) is the best means for digging the country out of recession.
*Jonathan Bean at the Independent Institute and David R. Henderson at the Hoover Institution both looked at whether fiscal stimulus actually cured previous economic downturns, and by extension, whether it is likely to have any effect this time. Mr. Bean noted that many economists and historians now believe the New Deal — which some see as the model for extricating America from the current recession — actually prolonged the Great Depression. Mr. Henderson looked at studies done by President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to head the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, that showed that fiscal policy has had little effect in ending previous recessions.
*Arnold Kling at EconLog gives several reasons to opt for a small stimulus package rather than a large one.
*Tyler Cowen at George Mason University writes that the evidence on whether fiscal policy is effective is “inconclusive.”
*Reader Jeremy H. shared this list, put together by the House Republican leadership, of economists who are questioning the wisdom of a big stimulus package.
*Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and a Bloomberg News columnist, argues that “This year may establish a government-spending black hole with gravity strong enough to suck the U.S. economy over the event horizon.”
*The Nobel laureate and University of Chicago economics professor Gary Becker worries that increased government spending in the form of a gigantic stimulus package would “crowd out” private sector spending. He also says he believes that a recent report from Mr. Obama’s transition team economists may “overestimate the effects of this stimulus package on the economy, and that the same techniques would similarly overestimate the employment effects of other types of government spending and tax reduction policies.”
February 8, 2009
11:16 AM
Anonymous writes:
"Robert E. Lucas, a Nobel laureate at the University of Chicago, wrote that Fed policy (as opposed to, presumably, fiscal policy) is the best means for digging the country out of recession. "
How is monetary poicy going to work now? Its already Zeroed out. Cutting interest rates to negative numbers? ho ho hee haaa.
"Jonathan Bean at the Independent Institute ... that showed that fiscal policy has had little effect in ending previous recessions. "
Ya so why did Bush insist on Tax cuts the last time around? LOLOL
"The Nobel laureate and University of Chicago economics professor Gary Becker worries that increased government spending in the form of a gigantic stimulus package would “crowd out” private sector spending"
No crowding out here. Private sector is too busy laying off and cutting cap ex.
Larry summers was right about the cost of Iraq
hes right now. too
February 8, 2009
11:41 AM
Chris writes:
It is clear that democrats do not want to pass this massive spending bill light on stimulatory features, as attested to by numerous high profile economists, without republicans on board in large numbers. Their own confidence in the wisdom to make this an omnibus spending spree for all of the social projects that they feel are overdue is very low.
The American public knows this too. That's why the polls, which seem to be ignored unless they seem to paint support for democrats, are moving steadily downward in support of this strategy.
Democrats should pass this bill on their own. That way the American public will know with certainty if what was promised and then threatened would indeed occur.
My money is on further weeding out of social project spending and more attention to that which will stimulate the economy. The tone is getting more shrill as artificial deadlines loom.
The Obamanatlon is breaking a sweat. The sheeple he counted on are developing an opinion, and that is not what democrats wanted them to do.
Stay tuned.
February 8, 2009
11:59 AM
JW writes:
You know, for the last 8 years one of the main criticisms of Democrats that Republicans have been pushing is that they have no new ideas, and can only bash Repups.
My, how the tide has turned. A perfect 180, really.
Secondly, at the end of the Reagan era, we had a huge economic slowdown. The similarity to the end of the Bush area is almost perfect. The two quarter slow down which was exacerbated by 9/11 post Clinton just doesn't compare. In fact, that minimal slowdown post Clinton is a LOUD example of the benefits of NOT following Republican "dont tax and spend like mad" thinking, as it shows how easily cyclical slowdowns can be mitigated if the government isnt hogtied with MASSIVE DEBT when that slowdown occurs.
The idea that at any point Republicans have actually followed "Fiscal Conservatism" is a myth. The only time Republicans are in favor of tax AND spending cuts are when Dems are in charge. When Repubs are in charge, its cut taxes and spend like CRAZY on credit.
So we have now had TWO MAJOR examples of the failure of "Conservative" "dont tax and spend" ideology.
During that time we have also had a great example of fiscally conservative policy from Clinton, and the results were...different.
So, where the wingnuts on this blog get off with their "we are always right and Dems are always wrong" is quite puzzling to me. They have no real world examples of SUCCESS over a president's entire term. Republicans leave this nation loaded with debt in a stagnant economy every time they are in charge. EVERY TIME.
The one point of success Republicans can argue is Republican presidents pulling us out of trying economic times. The problem with their thinking is that this is what Obama is doing. Hes doing what Republicans did. Cutting taxes, and spending lots of cash. The wingnuts on this blog are simply confused by the fact that Obama is slamming it all, tax cuts and spending, into the first bill of his term, while Republicans slashed taxes and then spend at rates similar to what Obama will do, but they did it in separate bills over time, and wingnuts just didnt notice.
Anyway, they can keep screaming, keep pimping their failed policies, keep screaming that Obama is doing something different than Reagan or Bush did just because the spending is all known up front instead of dolled out over time and under the radar. They can keep screaming about how right they are despite a total lack of real world success, and an OBVIOUS track record of FAILURE. They can keep screaming about how right they are despite seriously crashing the greatest economy in the world EVERY TIME they are in charge. They can think the small, cyclical slowdown which was made worse by 9/11 that happened post Clinton is comparable to the DEEP, PROTRACTED slow downs post Reagan and Bush.
They arent in charge anymore. As right as they may think they are, they arent gona get what they want.
Which, if the past is any indicator, probably says good things for America's future.
February 8, 2009
12:05 PM
JW writes:
Personally I think Obama should just ask Dems to cut all of the spending that is slotted to be spent after 2010. That would cut this bill down to what, $500 billion, and most in tax cuts.
That way the wingnuts STFU, and he has two years to push through the rest of the spending over time, under the radar, and without these idiots knowing. Republicans have proven this works, time and again.
February 8, 2009
3:02 PM
Anonymous writes:
Good job jw. A little capitulation and personal innoculation against this bad bill. Now if you would only jettison the strawman arguing, people would take you a little seriously.
February 8, 2009
5:42 PM
Ben- Former Democrat writes:
"And the American worker is finding out that Democratic congress people are trying to remove the E-verify provision that would safeguard taxpayer spending for job creation from going to illegal alien workers.
That may be the final straw." Numbers USA
Yep, Democrats suck.
February 8, 2009
6:49 PM
Both Ways Bob writes:
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_story.aspx?storyid=104520
wow heres an intersting story.
Gm took a bailout
same priciple if you gave GM a corp tax cut.
Gm gets to keep more money .
And heres the result. More layoffs.
Gee maybe we should've let it totally fail.
February 9, 2009
5:44 AM
Both ways bob writes:
"And the American worker is finding out that Democratic congress people are trying to remove the E-verify provision that would safeguard taxpayer spending for job creation from going to illegal alien workers
hmm that is disappointing Ben. Tom Tancredo wasn't a bad guy after all.
Maybe he shouldve ran as a woman from Alaska
February 9, 2009
7:49 AM
ditto writes:
This stimulus bill is like two babysitter. They each take the child they are in charge of for a walk. During the walk they both come across a candy store.
The first babysitter gives her child one of her blank checks and let the child buy any type of candy and all they want. As they start to return home they child is throwing the candy he doesn’t like away. When they get home the babysitter tells the child to go up to his room and stay there with the bags full of candy. The babysitter goes down stair and calls her boyfriend. When the parents get home they see babysitter on the phone and no child in site. The babysitter then jumps up after see the parents and demands full payment from the candy, as well as her hourly wage so she can immediately leave. When the parents go up stair they see their child sitting, bloated with candy wrappers all around him still stuffing himself with candy. When the child see his parents he demands that they immediately take him back for more candy.
The second babysitter gives her child two dollars and tell the child to select carefully the candy they want. On the way home none of the candy is thrown out and the child limit’s the amount he eats. When they get home the child is told to go up stairs and clean his room, while the babysitter takes care of the candy. She puts the candy on a shelve in the kitchen. When the parents get home the babysitter shows them where the put the candy is and give the parents three dollars back, because she didn’t spend it all. Then all three go up stairs to see if the child been responsible in cleaning his room.
Which babysitter do you what working for you?
February 9, 2009
8:09 AM
JMH writes:
"The idea that at any point Republicans have actually followed "Fiscal Conservatism" is a myth. The only time Republicans are in favor of tax AND spending cuts are when Dems are in charge. When Repubs are in charge, its cut taxes and spend like CRAZY on credit." - JW
You hit the nail on the head with this quote... They don't care about spending at all, they just don't want like spending money if it is a Dem who is doing the spending!!!
I find it quite amusing that they had no problem re-building Iraq's intrafracture and dumping over 1 TRILLION dollars down that hole called "Iraq" but we SUGGEST spending (ie INVESTING) less money in AMERICA and these traitors cry like little girls!
Hey NEOCONS, it seems apparant that you tools will NEVER get it, but here are the facts...
Republicans have had complete control for almsot a decade now and this country is in the worst shape it has been in a long, long time! They were left with a SURPLUS and handed us the biggest defict in American history!
Sorry, but that alone means NONE of you f*cking morons have any clue what you are talking about, if you did, we wouldn't even be having this conversation would we?
But ya know what? I don't give a damn what you guys think... you are irrelevant. Cry and whine all you want, but we got teh bill, we will turn things around and your biggest FEAR will come true - Obama will get the credit!
Thank you all for standing in the way so all of America can see your true loyalites and priorities! Enjoy being nothing mor ethan a bunch of radicals - whining and crying on the sidelines!
Your failures have been exposed, thanks for not learning from them and proving once again to the American people that you guys have no new ideas, a bunch of bad ideas that don't work and you have NOTHING to offer America than attacks, lies and smears!
February 9, 2009
8:11 AM
Republican child writes:
we like this babysitter
the one who listens to the spoiled child who sez
theres a mushroom cloud in Iraq if mummy and daddy don't mortgage the house and buy guns and ammo. Then the spoiled child gets the money and keeps most of it to buy beer and sell the Guns to Iran.
muumy and daddy git foreclosed on. And little George blames faulty inteeligence.
February 9, 2009
8:37 AM
JMH writes:
Now I know why most Republicans are religious nuts as well... they don't need any proof to believe in something. But man are they blindly loyal... but easily lead by fairytales!
It seems that their economic policies (ie. Reagonomics - tax cuts for the wealthy and deficit spending) are the ONLY thing they will believe in. It seems that "trickle down economics" has become a religion onto itself! But it is nothing but fairytales!
Just like in religion, they don't need ONE shread of proof to belive in it - just blind faith. No one has seen any proof that any of this isn't just fairytales, there is not one physical bit of proof to prove any of it is real and there are just a bunch of outdated myths & dogma said over and over to brainwash the "faithful" that there is something there... any contradictions and myth's that are pointed out as BS are just dismissed as the ramblings of the "unbelievers".
Thus it is just like with the GOP economic beliefs - there is no proof that any of it works, there never has been any and there is alot of blah, blah" scare tactics and spin and lies broadcast by their "preachers" (ie. talk radio and FAUXNews) to keep the faithful in line. When the proof that their "faith" in this system isn't working they refuse to accept it and still bow down!
You can't reason with religious radicals and their blind faith, thus that seems to be a common characteristic with the NeoCon CULT and their belief in "Reagan-omincs"... it's all nothing but a belief in fairy tales and no matter how many realities are pointed out and myth busting is done, nothing will rip them from the comfort and faith in their religion!
This NeoCon religion even has a Devil (Obama & other Dems) and they have a hell (socialism) to go with their tired dogma of tax-cuts for the wealthy at any cost... They are the only guardians of light and truth in their minds - anyone who says different is out to get them! Pariniod delusions seem to work well with teh weak minded - it seems the GOP leadership understands this, so they must NEVER deviate form the "teachings" or lest the "belivers" may start to use their minds and question.
February 9, 2009
8:41 AM
Shaggy writes:
Anyone else notice how the Dumbocrats are now conveniently changing the language.
It used to be this plan would create anywhere between 2-4 Million new jobs.
That has now been changed to saving 2-4 Million jobs.
What a joke.
Just because the people who voted for Barry are stupid doesn't mean everyone is unable to see through their BS.
Once it gets passed, they will say it saved as many as 20-30 Million jobs so they can justify their pork.
February 9, 2009
8:56 AM
Anonymous writes:
That store is a common happening. Going out of business. checkers, sales associates losing their jobs. Now whats the republican plan for saving their jobs?
February 9, 2009
8:58 AM
Anonymous writes:
"Now I know why most Republicans are religious nuts as well" JMH
This exemplifies your stupidity JMH.
February 9, 2009
9:00 AM
JW writes:
Hey Shaggy,
How do you like the bipartisan support this bill has in the Senate?
February 9, 2009
9:07 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
WHERE IS THE STIMULUS?
!-29% of the monay gets spent in the next 2 years, 71% gets spent in 2011 to 2019, when we don't need it. where is the stimulus?
2-90% is pork and extensions of existing entitlement/welfare programs. Where is the stimulus?
3-The non-particsan CBO says it will slow economic and jobs growth in the years ahead by crowding out private investment. Where is the stimulus?
4- It increases debt that needs to get repaid by over $800 billion. Where is the stimulus?
Bottom Line: Its nothing but shovel-ready bullshit! 32% approval and still plunging!
February 9, 2009
9:13 AM
JMH writes:
Anonymous,
You really got me with that one! Wow... can't compete with that level of intellect! Must have took you an hour to come up with that zigger! LOL...
Looks like a hit a nerve though...
Blindly bow down to the ghost of Reagan and trickle down economics like a good little NeoCon cult member if you want, but the rest of us will think for ourselves and base our plans for this country in facts and reason - not fairytales!
February 9, 2009
9:25 AM
Here is the pub plan writes:
The republican plan for the economy
1. Crapping in their pants
2. Bitching about Birth Certificates
3. Bitching about Illegals
4. Bitching about spending in America
5. Hoping nobody notices the spending in Afghanistan and Iraq .
6. Hoping nobody notices how much Blackwater profiteered.
7. hoping everybody forgets torture in Gitmo.
February 9, 2009
9:40 AM
JMH writes:
Charlie Brown (ie. Sas)...
Thanks you for proving my point...
Still sticking to those lies from your "preachers" on AM radio huh? LOL...
The CBO report was finished and now it says exactly the opposite that you were claiming last week, but you are STILL gonna stick with the fairytales huh?
LOL...
Just a suggestion Charlie Brown, try to come up with somethuing you didn't just cut and paste form Rush Limp-bone's website... My 2 year old can "cut and paste"... But glad to see no matter how many times the proof is presented that the propagandists on AM radio will pull the football away (ie. LIE to you) you will still line up and try to kick it time and time again!
But you were that kid in kindergarten that would just try over and over trying to jam that square peg into the round hole huh? I wonder, if the teacher told you to try a different peg, did you just think she was showing you "liberal bias"...
Really, could you come across any more retarted?
BTW, the CBO report that you wanted to quote like gossple was FINISHED last week and it shows that 65% of this stimulus plan will be spent by the end of 2009! But I'm sure that gets in the way off your NeoCon religious dogma and your pariniod delusuions, so keep quoting the UNFINSHED report from over 2 weeks ago, if it makes you feel better... LOL
Keep kicking away Charlie Brown! You blockhead! LOL...
February 9, 2009
9:47 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
TAXPAYER RISK = $10 TRILLION & 90% OF MORTGAGES!
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.
The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged to provide up to $5.7 trillion more if needed. The total already tapped has decreased about 1 percent since November, mostly because foreign central banks are using fewer dollars in currency-exchange agreements called swaps. The Senate is to vote early this week on a stimulus package totaling at least $780 billion that President Barack Obama says is needed to avert a deeper recession. That measure would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Taxpayers are now being asked to take on some $10 trillion is risk to cover the pathetic asses of deadbeats, slackers, illegals and stubble-bums who got phony "loans" that they lied for and couldn't afford and had no intention of paying off. And now this same crowd is screaming for a bailout!
February 9, 2009
9:53 AM
Shaggy writes:
"How do you like the bipartisan support this bill has in the Senate?"----W
Uhmmm, I wouldn't call 3 maybes bipartisan support would you?
Or are you trying to be facetious?
I would love to see the cherry topping the Dems offered these 3 idiots to do along with their thievery of the American people.
This largest transfer of money to the Government in the history of the world is the Democrats pet project, not the Republicans.
The Republicans want to cut out everything that does not create jobs like 500 million for STD's Princess Pelosi inserted.
How do you like the bipartisan support the Democrats gave the Republicans in putting this package together?
February 9, 2009
10:07 AM
prima facie writes:
The Democrat plan for the economy:
1. Assume Americans aren't capable of solving their own problems without government intervention
2. Harp on three nuts who bitch about birth certificates
3. Pretend illegal immigration isn't a violation of U.S. law and a drain on the economy while harping on a handful of people who are overly concerned with the issue
4. Assume government spending -- on anything, without question -- will help America
5. Hope everybody notices the spending in Afghanistan and Iraq as if fixating on water under the bridge will accomplish anything
6. Hope anybody cares how much Blackwater profiteered
7. Hope anybody cares about torture in Gitmo
February 9, 2009
10:12 AM
Pubs are proving themselves Failures. writes:
Can you imagine if John McCain was president and lady fruitcake was VP?
McCain would be wandering about aimlessly looking for his dentures. His diapers would need changing by the hour as job numbers come out. Hed be on tv
trying to make more Bush tax cuts.
Lady fruitcake would be busy reading goat stories to Ben Bernake. calling dick cheney for advise.
February 9, 2009
10:15 AM
JMH writes:
OH NO... Charlie Brown and the rest of the NeoCon cult caught lying again!!!
They say only 37% support, new polls show 52% SUPPORT with ONLY 39% opposed... While support has slipped, you can probably blame this on the constant whinning and lying from the "republican noise machine!"
Exact quote from pollster: "The public often changes its mind about proposals made by a president or by Congress once the details are known. It's easy to express support for a bill when the goal is clearly stated but the details are not well known. Traditionally, the bigger the bill, the more there is in it that will eventually turn some voters off."
Also some other great tibits:
Only 18% are in the "NeoCon group" saying this wont help...
"Nearly half of those questioned in the CBS News poll, 45 percent, said the stimulus plan would shorten the recession, with 21 percent suggesting that the bill would significantly shorten the tough economic times. Eighteen percent indicated that the plan would do little to bring an earlier end to the recession."
Obama is STILL very popular...
"Sixty-two percent of those polled by CBS News approve of the way Obama is handling his duties. Obama's approval rating is 65 percent in the latest Gallup poll, and has been in the mid- to high 60s in the Gallup tracking poll for every day of his presidency."
Also it seems that the American public knows what is going on and can see the GOP for what it is...
"When broken down by party, congressional Democrats have an edge over their Republican counterparts. Forty-eight percent of those polled expressed a favorable view of Democrats in Congress, 16 points higher those who had a positive opinion of congressional Republicans."
...and they see who is playing games with this plan....
"Eighty-one percent told CBS interviewers that they think Obama is generally reaching out to congressional Republicans in an attempt at bipartisanship. But only four in 10 think that congressional Republicans are returning the favor, compared with 49 percent who believe that congressional Democrats are attempting to be bipartisan."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/stimulus.polls/
Keep it up NeoCons... Please keep it up... Only you radicals are buying your BS anymore! The MAJORITY of Americans are on Obama's side with this! You have lost this debate, expect more of this... If you have to "Spin" or "LIE" to make an argument, you can't win anymore. The American public has finally caught on to your tired and failed tactics!
Anyone want to bet now that the facts are out there and they are unfavorable and the opposite of all the BS these guys want you to believe these NeoCon cultists will rally around the "media bias" victimization whine. They always do!
But it really doesn't matter how much nonsense Charlie Brown "cuts and pastes" from far rightwing "media" or how much KW and shaggy whine on with no clue what they are talking about... the bill will pass and the GOP is on the sidelines STILL - battered and bruised!
Now they will definitly hope we "fail", because if we succeed in turning America around, the GOP is dead! It's already on life support and teh fact they obstructed this whole process will not be lost on the American public. They aren't scared into submittion by threats of "terrorists" anymore... they are paying attention to the facts now!
Unlike Charlie Brown (ie. Sas), they aren't gonna keep trying to line up and kick the same football Lucy (ie. the GOP) is holding up for them! Most of the American public learns from their mistakes, too bad it seems that 22% of the American public can't!
February 9, 2009
10:21 AM
Shaggy writes:
pub plan,
Do you not agree with the Constitution's requirements to become President or do you just think it is O.K. to violate the Constitution if it fits your personal agenda?
Do you believe it is O.K. not to enforce our Laws if it pertains to your personal agenda?
Idiot.
February 9, 2009
10:23 AM
JMH writes:
"Uhmmm, I wouldn't call 3 maybes bipartisan support would you?" - shaggy
Ummm YOU did exactly THAT just last week when you and the rest of the stooges called a few Dems in the house that opposed the bill - "bipartisan support against the bill". Do we need to find the quotes?
If that was "bipartisan support AGAINST the Bill", then this is "Bi-partisan support FOR the Bill"... Can't have it both ways... But maybe it was one of your split personalities that wrote that last week? LOL!
Never stop being a hypocrite though and hope no one notices... LOL... What a stooge...
February 9, 2009
10:25 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
PORKULUS..IF WE DON'T GET IT NOW, WE NEVER RECOVER:
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
hOW DO YOU LIKE THAT $650 MILLION FROM YOU TO PAY FOR THEIR DIGITAL TV? Suddenly watching TV has become a necessary welfare entitlement! These slackers and deadbeats should be out working and paying their own way, not waiting for you to pay for them to watch Oprah.
February 9, 2009
10:38 AM
JW writes:
"Uhmmm, I wouldn't call 3 maybes bipartisan support would you?
Or are you trying to be facetious?"
No, just wondering if you were going to be consistent.
For once.
Not surprised you arent. It cracks me up that when 11 Dems (2.5% of congress) voted against the bill, THAT was bipartisan. But three Repubs say they will vote for the bill (3% of the Senate) and you wouldnt call it bipartisan.
I on the other hand didnt call it bipartisan when the 11 Dems voted against the bill, and I dont think three Repubs voting for it represents bipartisan either.
"The Republicans want to cut out everything that does not create jobs like 500 million for STD's Princess Pelosi inserted.
How do you like the bipartisan support the Democrats gave the Republicans in putting this package together?"
From CNN,
"Senate Democrats have dropped two controversial spending programs in the Senate economic stimulus bill: $75 million dollars for anti-smoking programs, and $400 million for STD and HIV prevention.
Two Democratic leadership sources tell CNN they did it as a “symbolic gesture” to show Republicans they are listening to their objections."
I think its pretty ironic that you mention the STD part of the package in this little bit Shaggy.
Sighting a proposal that was removed by Dems at the request of Republicans in a show of bipartisan cooperation as an example of how Dems arent bipartisan. Youre a joke, failure boy.
"This largest transfer of money to the Government in the history of the world is the Democrats pet project, not the Republicans."
Yea, this is typical logic for you. The Repubs racked up over $5 trillion in new debt by spending MORE than that over the last 8 years, but under $1 tillion in spending is the largest in history.
Hell, even Reagan spent more than that BEFORE you take into account inflation.
Again, I think they ought to just remove all spending that happens after 2010. Then they can just put it though in multiple bills over the next two years. The results are exactly the same, but you idiots wont throw a hissy fit.
They wont though. Cant be seen to cave to the will of the people who put us in this situation in the first place.
AHHH politics.
February 9, 2009
10:41 AM
Shaggy writes:
Sas,
The Dumbs think watching t.v. is now a right and not a luxury.
I am sure they have sent high def t.v.s for the terrorists at club gitmo.
JMH, your still an idiot, what else is new?
February 9, 2009
10:42 AM
Ted Haggard writes:
Well Sas you do have some valid points. you can easily cut a billion from this or deferr it.
But I still think we need the 50 million for
national Endowment
Endowment is a good thing
February 9, 2009
10:46 AM
Rantings of a crazy NeoCon writes:
LOL...
Really?
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts - If I wanted art, I would look at the pictures painted on the cars in NASCAR. Those pictures on the side of milk cartons are nice too.
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program - Ya, F*CK all those children. Bunch of freeloaders!
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women - We are going back to the 19th Century guys... no matter how bad you guys try to stop it. It is OK to beat women... a battered and abused woman is a productive woman!
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants - Who needs Child-care? Put them to work! Instead of learning things they should be picking oranges!
$6 billion for university building projects - Keep americans dumb. Dumb Americans vote Republican. Besides, we Republicans have illegal immigrants to build stuff! There are no jobs to be had here!
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships - everyone isn't born with a silver spoon in their mouth? Who needs education anyway?
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24 - Job-training? What a waste! No jobs here either, even though it says something about "jobs". Just Liberal propaganda!
$1 billion for community-development block grants - Just more money to stupid things like "communities". How dare taxpayers demand that taxpayer money goes to communities? Maybe they are talking about Iraq communities, that would be OK!
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities” - No jobs to be had in fixing up neighborhoods, our gated communities are just fine, let the rest bite it!
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations” - If people watch TV, they aint working and all those converter boxes we will need will build themselves. Nothing good will come of this. The liberals will all just watch porn!
February 9, 2009
10:46 AM
Rantings of a crazy NeoCon writes:
LOL...
Really?
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts - If I wanted art, I would look at the pictures painted on the cars in NASCAR. Those pictures on the side of milk cartons are nice too.
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program - Ya, F*CK all those children. Bunch of freeloaders!
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women - We are going back to the 19th Century guys... no matter how bad you guys try to stop it. It is OK to beat women... a battered and abused woman is a productive woman!
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants - Who needs Child-care? Put them to work! Instead of learning things they should be picking oranges!
$6 billion for university building projects - Keep americans dumb. Dumb Americans vote Republican. Besides, we Republicans have illegal immigrants to build stuff! There are no jobs to be had here!
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships - everyone isn't born with a silver spoon in their mouth? Who needs education anyway?
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24 - Job-training? What a waste! No jobs here either, even though it says something about "jobs". Just Liberal propaganda!
$1 billion for community-development block grants - Just more money to stupid things like "communities". How dare taxpayers demand that taxpayer money goes to communities? Maybe they are talking about Iraq communities, that would be OK!
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities” - No jobs to be had in fixing up neighborhoods, our gated communities are just fine, let the rest bite it!
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations” - If people watch TV, they aint working and all those converter boxes we will need will build themselves. Nothing good will come of this. The liberals will all just watch porn!
February 9, 2009
10:51 AM
JMH writes:
"JMH, your still an idiot, what else is new?" - shaggy
LOL... WOW... You are on fire. LOL... you are soooo whitty. Can't keep up with you... must be a killer with the ladies... haha...
Don't pout because you got caught being a hypocrite AGAIN shaggy! What else is new? LOL...
February 9, 2009
10:51 AM
KW writes:
Lets not also forget the $88.6 million for new school buildings in Milwaukee. Even though the school board themselves say they have declining enrollment, 15 vacant schools and have no need to build any new ones.
JW - 11 Dems voted no in the house. In the senate, we have two Reps that are maybe considering voting for this spending bill, but so far "maybe" is all they are saying.
BTW - While the CBO report does say short term relief from this spending bill will help for 2009/2010, they also point out that in the long term the spending bill will "result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing."
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement from the CBO.
February 9, 2009
10:54 AM
BUSH writes:
"Do you not agree with the Constitution's requirements to become President or do you just think it is O.K. to violate the Constitution if it fits your personal agenda?
Do you believe it is O.K. not to enforce our Laws if it pertains to your personal agenda"
Contistution? Whats that? Never read it
Enforcing laws? whacha talking about?
February 9, 2009
11:00 AM
Shaggy writes:
Hey KW & Sas,
I have a Quiz for you:
Out of the following, which one has Barry refused to meet with.
A) Ahmadinejad
B) Chavez
C) Castro
D) Kim Jong-IL
E) Fox News
Barry likes to bitch about Rush and Hannity but he doesn't seem to have a problem with all the hateful loons who still have nothing to do except bash Bush and praise the messiah..
I am sure he set aside some money to bail out the failed Liberal stations which cannot survive on their own.
JMH, your still an idiot!
February 9, 2009
11:02 AM
JW writes:
KW,
Spin it how you like. Those Repubs did a bit more than say "maybe we will vote for it". And if you are going to call 2.5% of the congress enough to be "bipartisan" then 3% of the Senate should probably be labeled the same.
If you want to be consistent. If youre just looking to push your talking points, and will flip flop as much as needed to do so, then I guess youre right.
"BTW - While the CBO report does say short term relief from this spending bill will help for 2009/2010, they also point out that in the long term the spending bill will "result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.""
Yea, someone is spinning this as well. To say that this $800 billion or so will be the sole cause of "crowding out private investment" when you have $10 TRILLION in debt on the books already, well, its sort of like saying the .22 to the head killed the guy, even though the entire clip of .45's he was already shot with was going to do the job anyway. Yea, technically the .22 killed him, but he was dead before you pulled the trigger.
February 9, 2009
11:02 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
TARP-II COMES TOMORRPW!
TIM GEITHNER, SERIAL TAX DODGER AND EVADER, INTRODUCES YET ANOTHER $TRILLION IN HIS TARP-II, ON TOP OF TARP-I !!!
This crowd is pulling a Bernie Madoff on the American taxpayer.
TARPZILLA!
February 9, 2009
11:04 AM
JW writes:
KW,
"That's not exactly a ringing endorsement from the CBO. "
Cant ague with this. No one is giving this proposal a "Ringing endorsement".
There simply are NO good solutions to the problems you and your ilk have left us with.
February 9, 2009
11:06 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
TARP-II COMES TOMORROW!
TIM GEITHNER, SERIAL TAX DODGER AND EVADER, INTRODUCES YET ANOTHER $TRILLION IN HIS TARP-II, ON TOP OF TARP-I !!!
This crowd is pulling a Bernie Madoff Ponzi on the American taxpayer.
TARPZILLA!
February 9, 2009
11:12 AM
JMH writes:
LOL... All you got shaggy? Calling me an idiot?
You just got made to look like a total ass by JW, and you are upset with me?
You would think you would maybe reconsider pasrroting all your crazy NeocON TALKING POINTS ON HERE, SINCE IT HAS BEEN OBVIOUS YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND YOU CATCH A BEATING FROM QUITE A FEW REGULARS ON HERE EVERYDAY!
But I'm the idiot? LOL... Coming from you, it's pretty safe to say I'm quite intellegent. Thanks shaggy... you are a swell guy... I don't care if you are a self-hating cross-dresser... I'll ask JW and the rest to be nice to you! It's not nice to pick on the mentally challanged!
By the way, don't you have a wall to path or something, since you always talk about working, but never seem to be there!
February 9, 2009
11:18 AM
JW writes:
"ut of the following, which one has Barry refused to meet with.
A) Ahmadinejad
B) Chavez
C) Castro
D) Kim Jong-IL
E) Fox News"
LOL. Youre on a roll today Shaggy.
Obama went on Billy O, and Chris Wallace (Fox News Sunday).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352785,00.html
So, are you just trying to make sure you are proven absolutely wrong on EVERYTHING you say today? Cause thats the way this is headed.
February 9, 2009
11:25 AM
history buff writes:
New Gallop finds that American public is saying, Bravo Obama. Boo Congressional Republicans.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114202/Obama-Upper-Hand-Stimulus-Fight.aspx
February 9, 2009
11:33 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
$1,430 CHECK FOR EVERY HUMAN BEING ON PLANET EARTH!!!
bloomberg: "The $9.7 trillion in pledges would be enough to send a $1,430 check to every man, woman and child alive in the world. It’s 13 times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office data, and is almost enough to pay off every home mortgage loan in the U.S., calculated at $10.5 trillion by the Federal Reserve."
February 9, 2009
11:41 AM
history buff writes:
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .
Thomas
Jefferson -- Hogar
Sub-text for, all those people in New York, Boston and Philadelphia who voted for John Adams can go to you know where.
February 9, 2009
11:41 AM
Ben-Former Democrat writes:
More "change"
REGIME ALREADY GOING FOR PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS!
It's Started, Obama ready to take guns....
" Here they come, ready or not. Feel the water getting warmer?
Are you ready for the House Bill titled 'HR 45, Blair Holt Licensing and Record Act of 2009'.?
It will make it illegal to own a firearm unless it is registered with the database in Washington DC. As a gun owner you will have to be finger printed, you will be required to provide your DL#, SS#, you must maintain a valid address at all times, submit to mental and physical health
records being put on file, you will also be required to file any address changes and any ownership changes even if a private sale. Each update will cost $25 and if you fail to comply you will lose your right to own firearms. This bill and its language mirror almost completely one defeated last year in the House of Representatives by soon to be Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
Will we the citizenry be as lucky this time.
Pass this on to everyone who believes in strict Constitutionalism and remember that laws only apply to those who obey them. Criminals by definition and nature do not abide by laws. New laws and restrictions only apply to the law abiding citizen and are not written with the criminal in mind. With guns, it is not about having laws on the books to prosecute individuals, it is about taking
guns away from the people so that no one has them in the first place. One last item to note, when assuming power and creating a fascist state, Hitler was a proponent of strong gun laws because a disarmed populace was much easier to control than an armed one. The kings of old also outlawed weapons of any kind in any region that they conquered to fuel the ability of the citizens to uprise against them.
The Founding Fathers of this nation understood all of the above and because of this they included the second amendment in the constitution. In fact, they knew that at some point in every society's life span that the need for the population to arise came about. To this and they made the right to keep and bear arms against a tyranical state an absolute right that could not be revoked.
They did this because the first thing tyrants and despots do to remove a population's right to defend themselves When this is done, the tyrants have no problem with the destruction of society as we know it.
Send this on to all true patriots! Protect your Second Amendment!
The following is a summary of the bill as provided by the Congressional Research Service. If you read the whole bill, you'll find it will effectively preclude the ownership of ANY firearms by law-abiding people unless licensed by the Attorney General. How long do you think THAT would take??
Congressional Research Service Summary
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.
1/6/2009--Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 -
Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
Prohibits:
(1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
(2)a licensed manufacturor or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
" (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours;
(4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or
(5) keeping a loaded firearm, or any unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to:
(1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse;
(2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
(3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
Pleased be advised and pass this along:
House=Bill HR 45, Blair Holt Licensing and Record Act of 2009
Will, in my opinion, be the first of 2 or 3 steps toward confiscation of privately owned firearms.
you can follow the sequence as it already happened in Canada and the UK . First the government needs to register the guns so they will know where to find them.
February 9, 2009
11:45 AM
Shaggy writes:
JW,
I can't believe you are complaining about the lack of support from the GOP when it was the Democrats who shut them out in crafting it.
Yet you want to label me a hypocrite?
Yes, I know that Barry finally did an interview with O'Riley and Wallace when he realized it was necessary to further his campaign.
I should have listed Hannity instead of fox news.
JMH,
Yep, you are still an idiot.
February 9, 2009
11:52 AM
FreeToChoose writes:
Obama knows he's a superior salesman to ANY Republican currently on the scene, so he can call this whatever he wants and he'll get support for it...
but that doesn't mean he's right.
I recall Obama made a comment about McCain and change that referred to make-up on a swine... yet here we have Obama selling a plan for Congress to spend more money. Is that really "change" though??????
Sounds like more of the same to me...
February 9, 2009
11:53 AM
JW writes:
"I can't believe you are complaining about the lack of support from the GOP when it was the Democrats who shut them out in crafting it."
I wasnt. I was just pointing out your double standard. Thats it.
I expected no support from the GOP, and dont really care. Business as usual.
"I should have listed Hannity instead of fox news."
Show me where Obama has refused to meet with Hannity.
February 9, 2009
11:57 AM
FreeToChoose writes:
Is Congress spending a lot of money actually "change?"
What kind of change is it? Because it seems to me it's still Congress spending money on pet projects... you can strip the Rs and Ds from their names and the result is still the same:
more debt-financed spending.
February 9, 2009
12:00 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
NANCY PELOSI SAID:
"500 million Americans lose their jobs eveY month."
That's 60,000,000,000,000 a year, give or take a few zeros! That's a lot of people!
Pelosi ought to know...she wrote the pork bill!
February 9, 2009
12:03 PM
history buff writes:
67% APPROVE OF OBAMA
58% DISAPPROVE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS
SEE EARLIER POST ABOUT TODAY'S GALLUP POLL
I love to type in capitals. It reminds me of napalm in the morning.
February 9, 2009
12:05 PM
KW writes:
"Yea, someone is spinning this as well" --jw
The CBO is predominantly democrats so unless you're suggesting they're spinning their own reports, that statement from you is ludacris.
"There simply are NO good solutions to the problems you and your ilk have left us with." --jw
First of all to say there are "no good solutions" is nothing more than a partisan cop out you use in defense, because you know this is a sham of a bill and you have from the very start. But your stubbornness stands in the way of your intelligence so admitting this will never come to light. But then to actually make the statement "you and your ilk" is pure partisan hackery. That's just about as partisan as Obama when he likes to claim people will support the spending bill simply because they voted him (and change) into office. This is a statement he likes to throw at the reps in congress whenever they don't agree with him. He fails to understand "what" the people voted for, and that was true change not just any old change. The people voted for a change of policy, accountability from their leaders and transparency in spending, not just a change of personnel.
Another point I need to remind you (and Obama) is the only ones trying to "reach an agreement" on this bill ARE the dems. They have their own moderates who see this bill for what it is and are arguing amongst themselves, not with the reps. The reps were not including in the crafting of this legislation and their calls for a reduction in the wasteful spending has fallen on deaf ears. They have made it clearly known that without substantial changes they will not support this bill. Even if the dems do find 3 reps willing to jump on this band wagon you still need every dem senator to back it as well, including kennedy if he's conscious enough to cast a vote.
It will be very interesting to see how many dems will not vote on party lines tomorrow but rather stand for their own principles and for accountability in their own districts as well as in DC.
Like all in congress are suppose to do.
February 9, 2009
12:24 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
History Buff:
What exactly is your point? Are you saying that because Obama has a high approval rating that the stimulus bill is the best possible solution? They are two mutually exclusive arguments. One does not confirm the other.
Obama is a great salesman... and so, by the way, was Madoff...
and both have promised superior returns if you trust them with your money. That didn't make Madoff right and it doesn't make Obama right. If you would have taken a poll of Madoff's investors two years ago (or even six months ago) I bet his approval rating would have been waaaaaaay higher than Obama's!
February 9, 2009
12:28 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
History Buff:
What exactly is your point? Are you saying that because Obama has a high approval rating that the stimulus bill is the best possible solution? They are two mutually exclusive arguments. One does not confirm the other.
Obama is a great salesman... and so, by the way, was Madoff...
and both have promised superior returns if you trust them with your money. That didn't make Madoff right and it doesn't make Obama right. If you would have taken a poll of Madoff's investors two years ago (or even six months ago) I bet his approval rating would have been waaaaaaay higher than Obama's!
February 9, 2009
12:31 PM
JW writes:
"The CBO is predominantly democrats so unless you're suggesting they're spinning their own reports, that statement from you is ludacris."
What Im saying, KW, is that the idea that the debt from $800 billion in spending over 10 years is somehow the only "debt" that will stall the economy two years from now when we have $10 trillion in debt on the books NOW, is silly. Whether the CBO is predominantly Dem or Republican has nothing to do with the fact that the idea ITSELF is ridiculous. $10 trillion in debt on the books NOW has a much bigger drag on the economy than $800 billion in debt over the next 10 years, especially since the drag they are talking about starts in TWO years. Only $500 billion ($300 of that in tax cuts) will actually be on the books when the CBO says the economy will start to drag. So they are actualy saying that the debt from $300 billion in tax cuts and $200 billion in spending is a bigger drag than $10 trillion in debt. Or, they are just attributing the total drag on $10.5 trillion debt to the $.5 trillion that this bill will cause. However you say it, who ever says it, its spin.
You are free to agree with that argument from the CBO in order to think you are right that this bill is bad, but the idea that the debt from this bill is what will cause the drag on the economy when we already have 20 TIMES that amount of debt on the books...well, believe as you like.
"First of all to say there are "no good solutions" is nothing more than a partisan cop out you use in defense, because you know this is a sham of a bill and you have from the very start."
Well, you can say that, but I challenge you to give me a solution that does not involve some serious sacrifice, now and later. Tell me what "good" solution is on the table.
"But your stubbornness stands in the way of your intelligence so admitting this will never come to light."
Yea, well you can think that as well, but you stubbornly cling to an ideology that leaves us leveraged to the hilt in a stalled economy every time its implemented. EVERY TIME.
"But then to actually make the statement "you and your ilk" is pure partisan hackery"
Well, you and your ilk vote for the people who cut taxes and then drive up debt during good economic conditions. Happened under Reagan, under Bush1, and now under Bush 2. At the end of Reagan/Bush 1 we had a huge protracted recession. At the end of Bush 2 we have worse. There is just no way around this KW, no matter how stubbornly you refuse to deal with it.
"Another point I need to remind you (and Obama) is the only ones trying to "reach an agreement" on this bill ARE the dems."
Well, youre wrong period because there are three Reps who have been highly involved in crafting this Senate bill, and who will be voting for it.
But, even if there werent, what are you saying? That Republicans refuse to try and reach an agreement with Dems? Im not sure how that furthers any of your arguments.
Additionally, Ive already given examples of both Obama and Dems giving Republicans something they wanted. Deal with it.
"The reps were not including in the crafting of this legislation and their calls for a reduction in the wasteful spending has fallen on deaf ears."
Again, youre just wrong. The Dems and Obama have, in the real world, removed spending from the bills (both the house and senate) at the request of Republicans.
You can scream it isnt so till you pass out, but it did happen.
Dems did write the bill, but they have changed those bills at the request of Republicans. Its pretty clear they have been willing to compromise.
What have Republicans compromised on KW? The only ones I know of are the Three who are getting ready to vote for the Senate bill. The rest are just crying, and offering the same tired policies that got us here.
February 9, 2009
12:32 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Democrats are still wrong on policy writes:
JW,
Criticizing the failure of Bush to reign in the spending that occurred without a corresponding criticism for the even more egregious spending habits of the Democrats is just plain wrong. Bush and the Republicans were wrong to join the Democrats in their never ending thirst to spend money they have not earned. Obama and the Democrats are even more wrong to try to outspend the Republicans and completely shut them out of the process. Bush teamed up with Kennedy on no child left behind, and for that bipartisan piece of bloatware, the Republicans are now completely ignored. Republicans are generally partisan, but Democrats "raise" partisan behavior to new lows.
February 9, 2009
12:33 PM
Matt writes:
It looks like Democratic Senate Majority Harry Reid just blocked an Amendment to Obama's 1+ Trillion dollar spending package that would have required the use of E-Verify to make sure recipients of their handouts are American Citizens.
But Harry Reid is just following the liberal way of looking out for 'Undocumented Americans' over 'Actual Americans'.
February 9, 2009
12:37 PM
KW writes:
a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/february_2009/62_want_stimulus_plan_to_have_more_tax_cuts_less_spending">'62% Want Stimulus Plan to Have More Tax Cuts, Less Spending'
Monday, February 09, 2009
With the Senate poised to vote Tuesday on an $827-billion version of the economic recovery plan, 62% of U.S. voters want the plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending.
Just 14% would like to move in the opposite direction with more government spending and fewer tax cuts, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) would be happy to pass it pretty much as is, and five percent (5%) are not sure.
February 9, 2009
12:44 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
I love the arguments here that, when boiled down, come to:
The Republicans ruined the country with bad policies and huge deficits.
So we Democrats are going to run up bigger deficits with different expensive policies to solve those problems! Oh, and if you're a "conservative," you should just shut up because you were wrong over the last 8 years... it's OUR turn to spend a lot of money now.
February 9, 2009
12:46 PM
KW writes:
'62% Want Stimulus Plan to Have More Tax Cuts, Less Spending'
Monday, February 09, 2009
With the Senate poised to vote Tuesday on an $827-billion version of the economic recovery plan, 62% of U.S. voters want the plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending.
Just 14% would like to move in the opposite direction with more government spending and fewer tax cuts, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) would be happy to pass it pretty much as is, and five percent (5%) are not sure.
February 9, 2009
12:46 PM
JW writes:
"Criticizing the failure of Bush to reign in the spending that occurred without a corresponding criticism for the even more egregious spending habits of the Democrats is just plain wrong."
Hogar, Id agree with this if it were true, but it just isnt.
Reagan spent more than Obama is talking about BY FAR.
Bush 2 was even WORSE.
I understand that Obama has 10 years of spending in one bill, and that Reagan and Bush 2 spread it out, and that is confusing you. Im sorry about that. But being confused certainly doesnt make you right.
"Bush and the Republicans were wrong to join the Democrats in their never ending thirst to spend money they have not earned. "
Well, Id agree that the Dems in congress and the Senate over the last 8 years havent been good at all. But the fact is its been Republicans in the majority voting for these bills, and its been a Republican signing it all into law. That kind of means that it was the opposite of what you said; Dems joining up with Republicans in their never ending thirst to spend money they have not earned. You just need to man up and deal with that.
And again, this is the way it goes every time Republicans are in charge. The idea that Republicans are actually fiscally conservative is a myth, accept when they are in the minority. Then they want to stop anything Dems want to do, and they do it by whining about spending.
At the end of Republican administrations, we get an economic downturn that ends up being long and nasty because we are saddled with massive debt.
"Obama and the Democrats are even more wrong to try to outspend the Republicans and completely shut them out of the process."
I dont see how spending $800 billion over 10 years is trying to outspend Republicans who racked up over $5 trillion in debt in 8. The numbers just dont support your arguments Hogar.
And again, how have Republicans been completely shut out? Ive provided actual examples of Obama, Congressional Dems, and Senatorial Dems making concessions to Republicans.
There are no examples of Republicans making concessions in return, accept for the three in the Senate.
"Republicans are generally partisan, but Democrats "raise" partisan behavior to new lows."
What I just said COMPLETELY disproves that Hogar, whether or not you are willing to admit it. Additionally, youve got McCain on tv saying that Dems are behaving like they did for the last 8 years. If we take that as true it would mean that Dems are equally as bad. No matter how you cut it though, your idea that Dems are far worse is just not supported with anything real.
"Bush teamed up with Kennedy on no child left behind, and for that bipartisan piece of bloatware, the Republicans are now completely ignored."
True. One statement in your entire post was true.
February 9, 2009
12:58 PM
JW writes:
"The Republicans ruined the country with bad policies and huge deficits.
So we Democrats are going to run up bigger deficits with different expensive policies to solve those problems! Oh, and if you're a "conservative," you should just shut up because you were wrong over the last 8 years... it's OUR turn to spend a lot of money now"
No FTC, you just made a strawman argument because you dont understand the argument we are making.
Republicans have proven that deficit spending in order to stimulate a bad economy WORKS.
Obama is just keeping to that formula.
Hopefully he WONT keep to the Republican formula of deficit spending in a GOOD economy, because THAT is what leaves us here; In a bad economy already bogged down by massive debt.
And again, Obama has just confused you all by putting 10 years worth of spending in a single bill.
If he would just cut the spending in the bill for 2011 and later, you would all be ok with it. Then, hed have the next two years to get it all passed piece meal like Republicans do, and you wouldnt even notice. Same results, just less crying about it.
February 9, 2009
1:00 PM
history buff writes:
FTC - Squat?
What kind of argument is that? You don't like Obama. Madoff is a crook. Therefore, Obama is like Madoff. Brilliant!
At least the Senate bill tells you where the money is going, unlike the TARP bill you were rooting for not long ago.
Trickle down economics is dead!
February 9, 2009
1:08 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
AMERICA WANTS TAX CUTS, NOT PORK:
Public prefers 'worn out ideas' like tax cuts to pork spending
The public is just not getting the message if Rasmussen's most recent poll can be believed.
A whopping 62% of respondents think that the stimulus bill needs more tax cuts and less wasteful spending.
GIVE US TAX CUTS AND WE'LL BUY OUR OWN PORK!
February 9, 2009
1:08 PM
Shaggy writes:
"Show me where Obama has refused to meet with Hannity"----W
Obama said he would go on Hannity's show but as usual he flipped on that one too.
He went on O'Reilly's show because Bill also had a slobbering love affair with him.
Yes, that is right, you heard me right.
Hey Wolf,
Any inside scoop on White Wolf Media Group acquiring the News?
February 9, 2009
1:22 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
PORKULUS INCOMING---250:1 AGAINST!
Pelosi, Reid have "failed," Shuler (D-N.C.) says
Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C) has further ingratiated himself with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- not -- by declaring that Pelosi and Harry Reid "failed" the bipartisanship test on stimulus.
"In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way," Shuler said in Raleigh following an economic forum, according to the AP.
"We have to have everyone — Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration — saying 'We got something done that was efficient, stimulative and timely.'"
Here's the kicker: "I truly feel that's where maybe House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed."
Shuler, rumored to be mulling a '10 Senate run, was one of 11 House Democrats to vote "no" on the stimulus and was already deep in Pelosi's doghouse. Now he'll have to build a Harry Reid wing.
"Both sides, of the isle," said Schuler. "are recording e-mails, phone calls and faxes at 250-1 against this legislation..."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
250:1 against? 250 to 1? What does America think that this Porkulus is....the amnesty bill?
February 9, 2009
1:23 PM
KW writes:
"What Im saying, KW, is that the idea that the debt from $800 billion in spending over 10 years is somehow the only "debt" that will stall the economy two years from now when we have $10 trillion in debt on the books NOW, is silly. Whether the CBO is predominantly Dem or Republican has nothing to do with the fact that the idea ITSELF is ridiculous." --jw
So the CBO report is ridiculous... or just the parts you don't like about it?
"Tell me what "good" solution is on the table." --jw
On the table? None. The dems aren't interested in anything reasonable, just this overinflated spending bill they're salivating over. Oh sure, they worked real hard and found a measly $90B to cut from the $900B but that wasn't even a real attempt to do what is right. But you, well you're perfectly fine with that.
I'm just finally glad we don't ever have to listen to you whine about the deficit again. Because the tab for this spending bill party is driving up the deficit just as bad as anything you've ever complained about. And you still support it.
So if you ever complain about the deficit again you'd be a... how you say? Oh yes, hypocrite!
February 9, 2009
1:52 PM
Guy Fawkes writes:
The role of government is to let the common man prosper and reap the benefits of an educated and working populace. This cannot be done by mortgaging the future generations of their potential prosperity.
We cannot borrow our way out of this, it is how the whole mess started.
February 9, 2009
1:52 PM
JW writes:
"So the CBO report is ridiculous... or just the parts you don't like about it?"
The part that says the $0.5 trillion debt from this stimulus bill will be responsible for all the drag on our economy from 2011 on, when the total debt at that time will be in the range of $10.5 trillion. You do understand that the interest on $10 trillion is ALOT more than on $0.5 tillion, right? You do understand that paying off $10 trillion in principle takes $10 trillion, and paying off $0.5 trillion in principle takes $0.5 trillion, right? You do understand that a trillion is 1000 billion, right? And that 0.5 trillion is really 500 billion? So the debt we have now is 20 TIMES the debt we are going to create with this bill. You get that, right? So our current debt is probably responsible for about 95% of the drag on our economy that the CBO is talking about. You get that, right?
If you dont understand that now, youre not going to. Just say whatever you need to in order to feel good about yourself.
"Oh sure, they worked real hard and found a measly $90B to cut from the $900B but that wasn't even a real attempt to do what is right. But you, well you're perfectly fine with that."
LOL!! So when I say 1% of the bill is immaterial, you call me an idiot. "Its all important!" But when they cut 10% of the bill, its "measly" (immaterial).
Hehe. You make me laugh.
"I'm just finally glad we don't ever have to listen to you whine about the deficit again. Because the tab for this spending bill party is driving up the deficit just as bad as anything you've ever complained about. And you still support it."
Um, no. First this is deficit spending to stimulate a bad economy, not deficit spending in a booming economy. One is necessary, the other is the failed policy you and your ilk have given us with your voting habits, which leaves this country in dire straights every time its implemented.
Also, I think maybe you need some basic math classes. This bill totals about $800 billion. The debt we currently have, which I have been "whining" about, is $10 trillion (Over $5 trillion caused by Bush/Repubs). Uh, and a Trillion is 1000 Billion. So...uh, well, you either understand the difference or you dont...and Im betting you dont...
So, whatever. Youre right again! Deficit spending during good economic times is genius awesome policy! Over $5 trillion in debt in 8 years is less than $800 billion over 10!
"So if you ever complain about the deficit again you'd be a... how you say? Oh yes, hypocrite!"
Yep, youre right...AGAIN! Im just amazed at how right you are all the time! Its uncanny! And the way reality has no meaning to you...outstanding!
Finally KW, you said I was a hack for saying there are no good solutions. I thought you were going to give us a good one, since you seem to think its just an excuse and there are good ones available. So, again, why dont you give me a good policy.
And no, I dont need to hear you whine about this one again. Its clear you dont like it.
February 9, 2009
1:53 PM
Facts writes:
Remember the good old days when president Clinton left the GOP a good economy and a shrinking debt. The GOP have killed our economy and deficit with their plans and the GOP does not seem to want a plan other than SSDD.
February 9, 2009
2:08 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Questions about the stimulus bill:
Does it 'create' more jobs in the private sector or the public sector?
Do public sector jobs create more or less GDP per dollar spent than private sector jobs?
Is all deficit spending equally beneficial? Or, more specifically, what is the difference in economic impact between deficit spending on roads, education, transfer payments to states, tax cuts for individuals, tax cuts for corporations and tax credits for the poor?
Does the impact of deficit spending increase, decrease or stay the same as the deficit grows relative to GDP?
In addition to HOW the money is spent, does it matter WHEN the money is spent?
If the beneficiary of each dollar of "stimulus" spends it on something less productive than the taxed American (or, more likely, the lender) would have, then the net impact on growth will be negative... so then how much of this bill will be a net benefit to the economy?
February 9, 2009
2:28 PM
Facts writes:
Nobody can say if the stimulus bill will succeed but I can tell you that the GOP tax cut strategy has been failing for eight years straight.
February 9, 2009
2:33 PM
am 760 writes:
Corporate media spins messages as usual
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/09-4
February 9, 2009
2:40 PM
history buff writes:
Questions about how we got here.
Was it smart to cut taxes during war time? Has any other president and congress ever cut taxes during war time? Was the $2B that was lost by Cheney's company an efficient use of taxpayer money? Was the price of $35 per hamburger that Cheney's company charged the government to feed our troops a fair price?
And trying to do something to get us out of the Republican train wreck.
If the private sector is cutting jobs, should the government create paychecks while at the same time building roads, schools, and making government purchases for goods that are needed?
Is it better to let the momentum created by the Republican train wreck suck us into a downward spiral of unemployment, deflation and depression, or is it better to attempt to reduce the misery factor of our people and attempt to put America back to work?
Do the Republicans care at all about working people and the middle class? Do the Republicans have anything other than tax cuts to offer as a solution to anything?
February 9, 2009
2:46 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
How will this stimulus package help U.S. banks and households unwind their reliance on credit as massive deleveraging continues?
Aren't we simply making the same leveraging mistakes, only nationalizing them and socializing the costs?
At what amount will deficit spending reach a tipping point at which the additional leverage at the Federal level serves as a drag on the economy?
February 9, 2009
2:46 PM
JW writes:
"Nobody can say if the stimulus bill will succeed but I can tell you that the GOP tax cut strategy has been failing for eight years straight."
You know what the scariest damn thing Ive heard about this issue is?
There are people saying we shouldnt do it because we've already blown our rep in the world where credit is concerned, and if we dont just bite the bullet of a deflationary period AND raise taxes to start paying down our debt now...then we risk destroying our currency PERIOD.
If that is the case, then this stimulus wont do any good. Neither will any tax cuts. We will just be well and truly F%$KED for the next 20 years minimum. If that happens, its unlikely we will be a superpower ever again in any way other than "We have nukes!"
Anyway you cut it, the GOP has royally screwed this country by making us as financially weak as possible at the worst time possible. No one could have seen what business would do regarding the mortgage craziness (maybe the gist, but not the EXTENT) but the GOP should have known better than to rack up that much debt during the good times. The economy is cyclic, period.
February 9, 2009
2:46 PM
The investment nobody talks about writes:
The Republican plan
The War In Iraq Costs
$595,174,471,945"
with this RETURN
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/01/29/2009-01-29_saddams_hometown_unveils_statue_dedicate.html
No Jobs for americans here.except a statue of
the Bush shoe
February 9, 2009
2:57 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Democrats are much better at covering things writes:
JW,
I will try to put it another way. When the Republicans were 100% wrong in over spending under Bush, the Democrats gleefully joined in. That was bipartisan excessive spending. My memory tells me that the only thing the Democrats ever complained about was not enough spending. Now the Democrats think they have a mandate on uncontrolled spending, and most of the Republicans and some Democrats are resisting. Too little too late, but a couple of slices of bread beat no loaf at all.
I am not holding the Republicans up as some sort of model, just pointing out that Democrats never control spending, and Republicans only do it for partisan purposes. Not hardly a ringing endorsement.
February 9, 2009
2:59 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
HistoryBuff:
Nice.
Way to keep working the problem and not the solution.
But how does it make my questions [above] less relevant?
February 9, 2009
3:04 PM
am 760 writes:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/09-0
The hpocrisy of the right exposed some more.
February 9, 2009
3:18 PM
JW writes:
"I will try to put it another way. When the Republicans were 100% wrong in over spending under Bush, the Democrats gleefully joined in."
Well thats good. I dont think its accurate, but its good that youre trying again.
"My memory tells me that the only thing the Democrats ever complained about was not enough spending"
You seriously dont remember then complaining about the cost of Iraq? Cause I certainly remember YOU saying the same thing about Dems that Im saying about Repubs now: They can only complain, then have no new ideas, no solutions of their own.
"Now the Democrats think they have a mandate on uncontrolled spending, and most of the Republicans and some Democrats are resisting. Too little too late, but a couple of slices of bread beat no loaf at all."
Yea but the problem is that you seem to think there is a "one size fits all" fiscal policy where we control spending, cut taxes, and shrink government. Sorry buddy, it just aint reality.
Additionally, you seem to understand deficit spending to stimulate an economy when Republicans do it. Im confused as to why you dont get it when Dems do the same?
"I am not holding the Republicans up as some sort of model, just pointing out that Democrats never control spending, and Republicans only do it for partisan purposes. Not hardly a ringing endorsement."
WHEW!! You know, in marriage counseling they say not to use the word never, because its never true! And as an example; "Democrats never control spending" is simply not true, and Bill Clinton is a damn good example.
Since Reagan, hes the only one who left us with a strong economy.
February 9, 2009
3:19 PM
Anonymous writes:
Questions about the stimulus bill:
Does it 'create' more jobs in the private sector or the public sector?
Public to pick up the slack of lost 3million jobs in private sector. Mostly retail (due to loss of consumer spending)
Do public sector jobs create more or less GDP per dollar spent than private sector jobs?
Private does in general but is frozen due to inability to get loans (financial crisis)
Is all deficit spending equally beneficial? Or, more specifically, what is the difference in economic impact between deficit spending on roads, education, transfer payments to states, tax cuts for individuals, tax cuts for corporations and tax credits for the poor?
see moodys. bigger stimulation on spending at this time on infrastructure, food stamps and payroll tax cuts for poor.
Does the impact of deficit spending increase, decrease or stay the same as the deficit grows relative to GDP?
Deficit spending primes pump. will help to grow
13 trillion dollar economy. by bringing consumer confidence back. Steady paycheck stabilizes spending. Spending package is a fixed amount.
as GDP grows . Deficit spending proportionally drops. (but gubmint tends to increase yrly.
7.5% defense 4% entilements yrly . Bush budget
rates have been disaster)
In addition to HOW the money is spent, does it matter WHEN the money is spent? Yes it does
Was hoping Pubs would accelrate spending now.
The current package is slow. The crotchmaster is right about this.
If the beneficiary of each dollar of "stimulus" spends it on something less productive than the taxed American (or, more likely, the lender) would have, then the net impact on growth will be negative... so then how much of this bill will be a net benefit to the economy
At this time, gubmint is the employer of last resort. Private sector is failing. even with tax cuts or bailouts. they are cutting jobs.
you need both. direct gubmint spending and looser credit to get economy going.
February 9, 2009
3:31 PM
Anonymous writes:
Currently foreign countries are stimulating as much as 20% of gdp to get things going. The big estimate to get this going is a 2 trillion dollar package. Some economists say this is small.
Think of this as a big business with a working capital crisis. need to borrow enough working capital to get though lean times. You do not want to destroy capacity because the ramp up cannot be done quickly when the economy recovers
February 9, 2009
3:32 PM
JW writes:
Hogar,
You know what does it for me? Just look at the reaction of Dems after 9/11, and compare it to the behavior of Republicans now.
You can say its not the same, but in actual terms of a threat to our way of life? This economic threat is far bigger than some towel heads living in caves, if only because it threatens to kill our ability to protect ourselves from those towel heads, and I think it threatens that, and a whole lot more.
Anyway, 9/11 happens, and Dems just line up behind the president. It took two years before they started offering any real dissent, and by then it was becoming warranted.
These Republicans, most of them are RESPONSIBLE for the debt we have. And what are they doing about it? BICKERING. OBSTRUCTING. CRYING that they arent getting EVERYTHING THEY WANT.
Its pathetic. They way they are behaving right now is BAD for this country. Accept the three that are working with Dems. In the end, THEY are going to server the interests of all you whining about the size of this package far more than all the ones that bitch and moan and vote against it, because the three that worked with Dems actually did what you wanted, they trimmed out some of what you would have called PORK.
No doubt you will hate them for it.
February 9, 2009
3:40 PM
Enquiring minds want to know... writes:
Stop the presses here...!
JW's talking about quotes used in marriage counseling???
WTF?
You ready to tie the knot, or have you already and she's kicked you to the curb already?
My money is on the curb (so to speak)
February 9, 2009
3:47 PM
am 760 writes:
And who really are the bad guys.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/09
February 9, 2009
3:47 PM
JW writes:
Actually, its because I have an education. Psychology was the first degree I got.
Also, you lost your bet.
February 9, 2009
3:50 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Anonymous:
What do you mean by "Deficit spending primes pump" in response to the efficacy of deficit spending relative to GDP?
Wouldn't the efficacy of spending decrease as leverage increases since it alters the risk/reward ratio by taking on more risk?
And you don't really answer my question about whether or not the beneficiary of each stimulus dollar would be more or less productive than the taxpayer or, more likely, the lender would be with that dollar? Because if this is meant to "stimulate" the economy, then the recipient needs to be more productive. If this is a "economic relief" bill, then I guess you could lower the standard... but that's not the sales pitch I'm hearing.
February 9, 2009
4:01 PM
JW writes:
"Wouldn't the efficacy of spending decrease as leverage increases since it alters the risk/reward ratio by taking on more risk?"
Oh yes. Also increases interest payments. Which is why it sucks so INCREDIBLY much that we already have $10 trillion in debt.
Can you imagine if Bush/Repubs had just been balanced? I mean, even if they hadnt paid down a single dollar of the remaining debt during their tenure. If they had just broken even. Can you imagine?
Wed be talking about spending $800 billion, with only $4 trillion on the books. Hell, we could throw $2 Trillion at the problem, and still have $4 trillion LESS debt than we have right now!
This is why the Republican model of spend on deficit while the economy is booming is STUPID. STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID.
Anyway, since youre putting this in terms of a business, what do you do if your business is already leveraged like mad, but you have a shortfall of cash? Close shop? Or do you borrow again and try to make it through to Christmas?
Cause you know, closing shop on America isnt really an option.
February 9, 2009
4:03 PM
Anonymous writes:
commondreams is far left ran website.
i am very surprised someone would actually use that site for any information let alone believe it.
February 9, 2009
4:15 PM
William Walker writes:
Obama, in all the naivete he could apparently muster, allowed Reed and Pelosi to write this bill, despite Congress' horrible approval rating. In doing so, he not only abrogated his responsibility, but the American peoples' trust. This transparent attempt at rewarding Dem special interest groups will be an albatross for the new administration. He has readily hitched his wagon to the most unpopular Congress ever. And, simultaeneously, Obama has given the GOP their former voice of fiscal responsibility back. Can the great campaigner pull this out of the fire tonight? Doubt it.
February 9, 2009
4:16 PM
Anonymous writes:
"How will this stimulus package help U.S. banks and households unwind their reliance on credit as massive deleveraging continues?
Aren't we simply making the same leveraging mistakes, only nationalizing them and socializing the costs?"
I have to rely on Paul Krugman for this one. The indicators point to a massive deflation, falling wages, falling housing prices, unemployment, causing a cut back in the production of goods and services, all of it feeding into a downward spiral. He says the Keynesian thesis of government spending and more deficits may not be ideal, but they are comparatively better than letting the downward cycle suck is in.
My addition, at least there is a big difference between today and the 1930s. We don't have a brewing war in Europe and Asia that will eliminate trade. The WTO is concerned that the stimulus packages in the various nations, (we aren't the only nation pumping money into the economy), seem to prefer national industries at the expense of trade -- but it can't be as bad as it was in the 1930s. Can it?
"At what amount will deficit spending reach a tipping point at which the additional leverage at the Federal level serves as a drag on the economy?"
That is an unknown, but modern economics relies on data and mathematical models that may give us an indication when the private sector is bouncing back. There is a reason for the Department of Commerce.
February 9, 2009
4:19 PM
William Walker writes:
Obama, in all the naivete he could apparently muster, allowed Reed and Pelosi to write this bill, despite Congress' horrible approval rating. In doing so, he not only abrogated his responsibility, but the American peoples' trust. This transparent attempt at rewarding Dem special interest groups will be an albatross for the new administration. He has readily hitched his wagon to the most unpopular Congress ever. And, simultaeneously, Obama has given the GOP their former voice of fiscal responsibility back. Can the great campaigner pull this out of the fire tonight? Doubt it.
February 9, 2009
4:31 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Anon:
I appreciate your effort, but you'll need to rely on a less partisan economist than Paul Krugman. His integrity as an impartial evaluator really can't be argued with a straight face...
Even so, if what you say is true, he basically argues that shifting the leverage to the public sector to spend money to support prices will stop deflation. Yet, if the public sector can't spend the money more efficiently than the taxpayer or lender, then isn't this a deflationary bill anyway?
February 9, 2009
4:44 PM
JW writes:
"I appreciate your effort, but you'll need to rely on a less partisan economist than Paul Krugman."
I hate this intellectually lazy bs. Its just a way of saying, "I cant argue against him on the merits of his analysis, the invalidity of his data, or the incorrectness of his conclusions, so Ill call him a partisan."
Clearly hes not a very good economist, because hes won the nobel and works for the NYT. The nobel is useless because they gave one to Gore, and that invalidates every nobel before or after. And the NYT...hehe...the gray lady is nothing more than a liberal propaganda rag.
None of which says ANYTHING about the validity of his economic work.
February 9, 2009
4:45 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Democrats are much better at covering things writes:
JW,
I am so glad you brought up the hypocritical behavior of the Democrats. When the political winds were behind their back, the Democrats pretended to support the war. The minute things got tough, they bailed like rats fleeing a sinking ship. Bush was the only one who showed leadership in that theater, and now Iraq is such a success that you don't hear a peep out of the chicken little crowd. Won't it be interesting to see Obama embracing his Viet Nam, Afghanistan, which he supported. Of course I can fully count on the Democrats to blame Bush for all the future problems in Afghanistan, when they are largely intractable and almost unsolvable, which is why Bush did not invest a great deal in that rat hole.
The problems we are experiencing today result from fiscal dissipation, not spending on the Iraq war. The Democrats want to solve that problem with even more fiscal dissipation, because they are mad that the Republicans got to spend on their favorite brands of fiscal dissipation, while the Democrats have had to wait for 15 years to enjoy their favorite brands of fiscal dissipation.
So far Obama is making the same mistakes that Clinton made in 1992, and one can only hope that we have a reprise of 1994 in 2010.
February 9, 2009
4:47 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
So, JW, what growth rate will we need to achieve in a post-recession economy to create a rising standard of living with a deficit totaling 12% of GDP and the looming implicit debts attached to Social Security and Medicare threatening to inflate that number further?
At what point does deficit spending become a drag on the economy?
We're experiencing a massive deleveraging across the economic spectrum in the private sector that's crippling our economy, yet we seem to be compounding the mistake by leveraging up in the public sector... how does this make sense?
And you've pointed out that deficit spending has indeed [seemed to have] made sense in the past... but we went into this recession with a big deficit and record levels of private sector debt, so that changes the variables involved, doesn't it?
February 9, 2009
4:58 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Democrats are much better at covering things writes:
At least the Brits have a better handle on the truth of how we got here. Democans and Republicrats.
Clinton shares at least some of the blame for the current financial chaos. He beefed up the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to force mortgage lenders to relax their rules to allow more socially disadvantaged borrowers to qualify for home loans.
In 1999 Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which ensured a complete separation between commercial banks, which accept deposits, and investment banks, which invest and take risks. The move prompted the era of the superbank and primed the sub-prime pump. The year before the repeal sub-prime loans were just 5% of all mortgage lending. By the time the credit crunch blew up it was approaching 30%.
Clinton might have started the sub-prime ball rolling, but the Bush administration certainly did little to put the brakes on the vast amount of mortgage cash being lent to "Ninja" (No income, no job applicants) borrowers who could not afford them. Neither did he rein back Wall Street with regulation (although the government did pass the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the wake of the Enron scandal).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/26/road-ruin-recession-individuals-economy
February 9, 2009
5:10 PM
JW writes:
Ahhh THATS the Hogar that I know and hate!
Again, every time your boys are in charge we end up in a protracted recession saddled with MASSIVE debt. Spin that failure away, chump.
"So, JW, what growth rate will we need to achieve in a post-recession economy to create a rising standard of living with a deficit totaling 12% of GDP and the looming implicit debts attached to Social Security and Medicare threatening to inflate that number further?"
That is a DAMN good question. We have debt of about 77% of gdp now. I have no idea. Just hope we can do it. The interest alone is going to run somewhere in the neighborhood of $420 billion a year. That's 3% of GDP before we even START spending on govt or accounting for future deficits.
"At what point does deficit spending become a drag on the economy?"
When you start paying debt for no reason. It becomes a killer when you cannot afford to pay the interest.
"We're experiencing a massive deleveraging across the economic spectrum in the private sector that's crippling our economy, yet we seem to be compounding the mistake by leveraging up in the public sector... how does this make sense?"
Because the public sector is picking up the slack from the private sector. Our economy is predicated on consumption. Stop that, and its over. This "deleveraging" as you call it consists of writing off bad debt, which means taking a loss and that translates into losses for shareholders. They also do it by cutting operating costs, and that means layoffs. Then you have cutbacks on more discretionary things like travel. It all means less consumption in the overall economy. So, public sector spending to get us going again.
"And you've pointed out that deficit spending has indeed [seemed to have] made sense in the past... but we went into this recession with a big deficit and record levels of private sector debt, so that changes the variables involved, doesn't it?"
I assume it does, yet economists are saying this is the way to deal with it. And if you think Krugman is too partisan, the majority argree with him. They are doing similar things overseas for similar reasons. You can find ones who disagree, but Im going with the majority.
And again, what are the alternatives? Possibly I would listen if anyone had a rational alternative, but all we have is the same tired bs we got for the last 8 years, Tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts. WTF ever. Tax cuts are a part of this, but tax cuts as a cure all for any economic woe whatsoever? No, thanks.
Anyway, youre asking some good questions but I think you should be looking at Krugman, or some other economist if you dont trust him for your answers.
February 9, 2009
5:13 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
So, JW, what growth rate will we need to achieve in a post-recession economy to create a rising standard of living with a deficit totaling 12% of GDP and the looming implicit debts attached to Social Security and Medicare threatening to inflate that number further?
At what point does deficit spending become a drag on the economy?
We're experiencing a massive deleveraging across the economic spectrum in the private sector that's crippling our economy, yet we seem to be compounding the mistake by leveraging up in the public sector... how does this make sense?
And you've pointed out that deficit spending has indeed [seemed to have] made sense in the past... but we went into this recession with a big deficit and record levels of private sector debt, so that changes the variables involved, doesn't it?
February 9, 2009
5:20 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Democrats are much better at covering things writes:
At least I now know who the canary in the coal mine is. When we see Great Britain go over the cliff, then we need to pay closer attention. In the meantime, we need to tone down the 1929 rhetoric.
http://www.creditloan.com/blog/americans-debt-to-income-ratio-as-compared-with-other-countries/
February 9, 2009
5:29 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
JW,
Regarding Paul Krugman, I still threw in a counter-argument... which you ignored. Besides, the author admitted to "relying on" a clearly biased source without recognizing it as such, which is by far the lazier route.
And as for you sarcasm regarding the Nobel... I would say the credibility of the Nobel for Economics became suspect when the Nobel Laureautes who founded LTCB nearly brought this credit crisis about in the late 90s... and how did they do it? By relying on models that BADLY mis-calculated risk.
Ahem... a lesson we, as a nation, ignored.
Unfortunately, as we load up on more public debt to add on to our massive private sector debt, I'm getting a sinking feeling we haven't YET learned our lesson.
February 9, 2009
5:50 PM
JW writes:
"Regarding Paul Krugman, I still threw in a counter-argument... which you ignored. Besides, the author admitted to "relying on" a clearly biased source without recognizing it as such, which is by far the lazier route."
You threw out an actual counter argument to Krugman's work in what, 100 words? And you think thats a legitimate counter argument to his entire theory? I dont see any rebuttal to say, his statistical analysis. Or his historical data sets. Or the validity of comparing those data sets to todays economy.
Also, since when did arguments consist of questions? At some point, you have to take a STANCE. "I think this is the truth, because of this set of evidence."
Relying on experts in a field is GOOD POLICY. We cant all be PhD's in economics (Though some of us THINK we are). Discounting a respected economists theories, which happen to agree with the majority of economists, because you thin they are "partisan" is a crutch for someone who, again, cannot argue the merits of that theory based on actual knowledge of the data, the method, or the conclusions.
Dont get me wrong, I cant do it either. But then, Im not trying to. A person cannot know it all, and Im quite willing to go with the experts when Im not qualified to make a decision. Its better than relying on ideology, and bs criticisms about a persons political leanings rather than the validity of their arguments.
"And as for you sarcasm regarding the Nobel... I would say the credibility of the Nobel for Economics became suspect when the Nobel Laureautes who founded LTCB nearly brought this credit crisis about in the late 90s... and how did they do it? By relying on models that BADLY mis-calculated risk."
Yea thats a standard fallacious argument. One mistake means total lack of credibility, no matter how many times one is right. People are throwing this one around about Greenspan right now. Its quite popular.
"Unfortunately, as we load up on more public debt to add on to our massive private sector debt, I'm getting a sinking feeling we haven't YET learned our lesson."
Youre just now figuring this out? Ive been screaming about the public debt for four years.
But you people love your tax cuts...and your spending too. Everyone is happy, till the bill comes due.
February 9, 2009
5:52 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
JW,
I wasn't sure what you may have referenced when you said that a "majority" agree with Krugman in being in favor of this bill... so I googled: 'economists polls "stimulus"' for the past month. The very first article that popped up was a CBS story debunking this statement:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/28/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4759532.shtml
Clearly there is no simple consensus here...
February 9, 2009
5:54 PM
JW writes:
"Regarding Paul Krugman, I still threw in a counter-argument... which you ignored. Besides, the author admitted to "relying on" a clearly biased source without recognizing it as such, which is by far the lazier route."
You threw out an actual counter argument to Krugman's work in what, 100 words? And you think thats a legitimate counter argument to his entire theory? I dont see any rebuttal to say, his statistical analysis. Or his historical data sets. Or the validity of comparing those data sets to todays economy.
Also, since when did arguments consist of questions? At some point, you have to take a STANCE. "I think this is the truth, because of this set of evidence."
Relying on experts in a field is GOOD POLICY. We cant all be PhD's in economics (Though some of us THINK we are). Discounting a respected economists theories, which happen to agree with the majority of economists, because you thin they are "partisan" is a crutch for someone who, again, cannot argue the merits of that theory based on actual knowledge of the data, the method, or the conclusions.
Dont get me wrong, I cant do it either. But then, Im not trying to. A person cannot know it all, and Im quite willing to go with the experts when Im not qualified to make a decision. Its better than relying on ideology, and bs criticisms about a persons political leanings rather than the validity of their arguments.
"And as for you sarcasm regarding the Nobel... I would say the credibility of the Nobel for Economics became suspect when the Nobel Laureautes who founded LTCB nearly brought this credit crisis about in the late 90s... and how did they do it? By relying on models that BADLY mis-calculated risk."
Yea thats a standard fallacious argument. One mistake means total lack of credibility, no matter how many times one is right. People are throwing this one around about Greenspan right now. Its quite popular.
"Unfortunately, as we load up on more public debt to add on to our massive private sector debt, I'm getting a sinking feeling we haven't YET learned our lesson."
Youre just now figuring this out? Ive been screaming about the public debt for four years.
But you people love your tax cuts...and your spending too. Everyone is happy, till the bill comes due.
February 9, 2009
5:59 PM
history buff writes:
FTC
The Senate Bill creates private jobs through government contracts and government jobs where government regulation is expanded. Better roads and bridges, even better broadband, helps the private sector. That is how goods get to market. Better regulation of financial markets and securities help the private sector by building consumer confidence.
Public sector jobs create more GDP than the private sector when the private sector is shedding jobs at 500,000 per month. If public sector jobs increase consumer confidence, then they will stimulate the public sector.
At the present time, deficit spending on civic works is more beneficial than tax cuts to corporations and top bracket earners because corporations and individuals with disposable income are hoarding cash and paying down debt. They aren't spending or expanding capacity.
The relationship between deficit spending and GDP, and the timing of the spending, depends. No one knows for sure. We can only hope that with all the data we have today that we can make adjustments based on empirical measurement and not merely economic theories and ideology.
(Note, if we need to keep increasing public works because the private sector continues to contract, then we need ramp up time for projects to become shovel ready. Local and state governments and federal agencies need to know that there is money available if they are going to incur the cost of planning. If we knew with absolute certainty what tomorrow will bring, then we could rely on absolutes. In the real world, ideology isn't enough.)
At the present time, I don't see how we can rely on any significant spending by granting tax cuts to earners in the top brackets. We do know that people in the lower brackets don't have as much disposable income. They are more likely to spend it on basic necessities. I think your assumptions about beneficial spending are based more on ideology than empiricism.
February 9, 2009
6:08 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Democrats are changing the wrong things writes:
FreeToChoose,
Be careful, you are questioning the great JWOZ. And just like debate on so many issues, JWOZ and the rest of the Obamanators will shout you down. There is no debate on stimilus, there is no debate on global warming, the is no debate on anything. The Obamanators pronounce, and all the world must listen.
I hope enough Americans wake up before November 2010 and vote in some people who are willing to put the American taxpayer above political party and corporate greed.
February 9, 2009
6:22 PM
JW writes:
"Clearly there is no simple consensus here..."
Your story doesnt debunk my claim that the majority of economists are coming down on the side of the stimulus.
The whole article is written to make you think that there is some massive dissent among the economic community. They try to make you believe that there is a legitimate division in economic circles, rather than a minority and a majority. The just never come right out and say it, because it ISNT THE CASE. They infer.
Hell, I talked about the Cato institute group MYSELF in this very thread.
Your article simply points out some economists are against it.
Look what other countries are doing. They take their cues from the best and brightest too.
Economics isnt an exact science. There will be dissent among the ranks. But Im going with the majority, and right now that looks like the stimulus supporters.
If you can find me a definitive source that plainly shows otherwise, well then Ill look at changing my mind. Im not just going to stick with this position out of ideological adherence.
That said, in the absence of data providing a legitimate argument otherwise, Im going with Krugman.
February 9, 2009
6:37 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Democrats are changing the wrong things writes:
"Look what other countries are doing. They take their cues from the best and brightest too."
The best and the brightest have been having their way for the last 15 years, which is why the whole world economy is in trouble. These geniuses want to take your tax money so they can perform a giant experiment to prove just how smart they are. I say let them earn it before they spend it. The steal and spend model was debunked from 1917 to 1989. Stealing less does nothing to improve that model.
February 9, 2009
7:09 PM
JW writes:
"The best and the brightest have been having their way for the last 15 years, which is why the whole world economy is in trouble."
Yes, because smart people commit fraud, we shouldnt involve smart people in trying to fix the damage.
That makes TONS of sense Hogar.
Additionally, if you want to go with that type of thinking, be consistent! Apply it to politics too! The Republicans have been having their way for the last 8 years, which is why the whole US economy is in trouble. These geniuses want to fix everything with "tax cuts" yet again, so they can cater to their ideologue following. I say, let them take a back seat and give someone else a chance. The "tax cuts" fix everything model was debunked from 93-2001. Relying on what broke the system does nothing to fix it!
As for the shout you down, you dont have anything to say. At least FTC is asking good questions that make me pause and think about whether there is a better way or not. You just pimp standard Republican Ideology, and Ive heard it all before. You have no DATA, and Ive been telling you that for ages. You rely on a double standard, and cannot therefore be CONSISTENT. The stuff you hate about Dems you simply ignore in Repubs, and it just makes you sound stupid.
Sorry, just the way it goes.
Again, YOUR ideology, when put into practice by electing YOUR choice for public office, leaves us with a crashing economy strapped by massive debt EVERY TIME.
Deal with it man.
February 9, 2009
7:38 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Democrats, applauding tax dodgers and harassing citizens writes:
JW,
You simply ignore everything I say and spout a fiction created in your mind that loves to hate me.
I criticize Republicans whenever I see them do something that I consider wrong. I praise Democrats when they do right, after all a stopped clock is right twice each day. (Wow, Democrats are wrong more often than a stopped clock.)
You take my hyperbole and try to put it under a microscope to examine it. Do you do the same to what you hear from Stephen Colbert? ( I know he is a lot funnier than I am, but I at least have the sense to recognize hyperbole and humor when I see it.)
AS for the Bush tax cuts, there was nothing wrong with the tax cuts, after all he set records on how much the IRS stole from the American taxpayer. No the problem was not enough taxes, it was his and the crooks on both sides of the aisle who could not stop their psychotic spending. That was wrong and I will always say that. Now we have a President and Congress that are even more psychotic when it comes to spending, and quite frankly I hope they raise taxes while they are at it. But sadly, I think they actually learned something from "read my lips" Bush I.
February 9, 2009
8:14 PM
JW writes:
"You simply ignore everything I say and spout a fiction created in your mind that loves to hate me"
No Hogar, I watch you say stuff that relies on 100% ideology and ignores any pertinent data. Like this:
"Now we have a President and Congress that are even more psychotic when it comes to spending, and quite frankly I hope they raise taxes while they are at it."
You have no data to back this up. I have posted data that completely refutes it: $800 billion in this spending bill over 10 years vs. over $5 TRILLION in 8 years.
They dont even COMPARE. You say what your ideology tells you to, Dems are spend happy, worse than Republicans, even when the data makes you OBVIOUSLY wrong.
February 9, 2009
8:42 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) The IRS, stealing from Americans for 96 years writes:
JW,
Here is some data for you. Taken from the IRS
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html
In 2001 there were 34,430,949 income tax returns from those who earned less than $100,000 per year. They paid $1,828,842,048,000 in Federal personal income taxes. In 2006, there were 34,613,829 income tax returns from those who earned less than $100,000 per year. They paid $1,876,037,558,000 in Federal personal income taxes.
In 2001 there were 10,131,357 income tax returns from those who earned more than $100,000 per year. They paid $2,335,628,373,000 in Federal personal income taxes. In 2006, there were 14,509,725 income tax returns from those who earned more than $100,000 per year. They paid $3,827,373,838,000 in Federal personal income taxes.
So the vast majority of the underachievers paid almost the same amount in taxes over a six year period, while the so called rich tax dodgers increased their tax bill by almost $ 1.5 trillion.
It's a good thing that the underachievers are not growing in number, while the so called rich tax dodgers are.
But the underachievers don't think the rich are pulling their weight. Perhaps you could educate them on the fact that the only reason the government has any money to spend is they keep stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.
February 9, 2009
8:53 PM
Tilting At Windmills writes:
Awesome job, JW, but I do think you're wasting your time. You're using intellect against brainwashing. The bottom line is that the goose-stepping right-wingers don't care if the country has gone down the toilet, just as long as they win. Somehow they got the idea that life is just one big football game. BTW my favorite part of this whole thread was your quote of Jefferson. Tell me, where can I buy a gun and sign up to donate blood?
February 9, 2009
11:25 PM
Thunderwalker writes:
Ah yes, the collossal ignorance of the left. They bitch and moan (and rightly so) of GW Bush's spending crusade and yet for some odd reason, when BHO wants to quadruple that rate, it's all righteous.
Cite your precedence when proclaiming this pos bill as the way to spend one's way out of a recesssion. As we continue our inexplorable spiral downward turn to socialism, all of you truly brainwashed sycophants want to line up on your knees before your lord and god, BHO.
You pathetic patrons of hopelessness deserve what you get. Read "Atlas Shrugged", it will enlighten you if you have any lights on upstairs in your pea-brains.
February 9, 2009
11:27 PM
Thunderwalker writes:
Ah yes, the collossal ignorance of the left. They bitch and moan (and rightly so) of GW Bush's spending crusade and yet for some odd reason, when BHO wants to quadruple that rate, it's all righteous.
Cite your precedence when proclaiming this pos bill as the way to spend one's way out of a recesssion. As we continue our inexplorable spiral downward turn to socialism, all of you truly brainwashed sycophants want to line up on your knees before your lord and god, BHO.
You pathetic patrons of hopelessness deserve what you get. Read "Atlas Shrugged", it will enlighten you if you have any lights on upstairs in your pea-brains.
February 9, 2009
11:41 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
JW:
I ask so many questions because I want to see if any of these highly opinionated people out there actually know what they are talking about...
For example, one question I kept asking was concerning the economic benefit of each dollar of "stimulus" versus the economic benefit of allowing the dollar to stay in the hands of the taxpayer or lender. NOT ONE person even referenced the multiplier effect of Keynes or the work of Galbraith on the subject of government spending (which he believed was starved and therefore held unmet demand)... both these famous economists made lengthy arguments which claim that public sector spending has a tremendous net benefit on aggregate demand.
However, History Buff touts the benefits of spending on the public sector without an inkling of evidence to back it up... likewise, you tout Paul Krugman's opinion, but his opinions are based on the above economists' work. Still, you display a blind trust in his opinion? His Nobel was for work on "New Trade Theory"...
Also, there is an equal amount of economic theory that counters Keyenes' and Galbraith's claims regarding the benefits of public spending. Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman were two contemporary critics of Keynes and Galbraith (respectively), while economists like Lucas and Stigler have contributed much work that also show the inefficiencies in public sector spending... all Nobel laureates as well.
What REALLY ticks me off these days is that too many people confuse these conflicting economic theories with the current Republican-Democrat divide. While the Republicans may have talked like Austrian and Neo-classical Economists, they (all too often) governed like Keynesians. Yet it is Neo-classical Economic Theory that's getting the blame... and a form of new-Keynesian Economic Theory that's getting rolled out as the solution. Yikes.
THAT worries me.
Many people seem to be fooling themselves into believing the stimulus bill is absolutely necessary... even Larry Sumners, Obama's Chief Economic Advisor, once famously said that fiscal stimulus needs to be "timely, targeted and temporary" yet it appears he too has suspended belief for a time, as this current bill appears to be none of these!
I am admitedly skeptical of fiscal stimulus, and so far you and History Buff and the others out there have failed to relieve me of this skepticism... despite the fact that Krugman and some mysterious majority of economists are for it.
February 10, 2009
5:51 AM
ditto writes:
Obam’s health care plan is in the stimulus bill. Can one of you liberals tell why health is in a stimulus bill?
For those who care, this plan creates a National Coordinator of Health Information, who will have access to all U.S. citizens medical records. And the libs complained about phone tabs as an invasion of privacy.
For you seniors if you have a non life threatening health problem this health board will figure the cost of treating whatever is wrong, based on the statistics that tell’em long you’re going to live, if the cost vastly out weights the number of years you are going to live, they will deny treatment. This is called means testing.
This plan pit’s the health of the young against the old.
Welcome to Obama’s socialized medicine.
February 10, 2009
7:04 AM
I wanna do nothing writes:
We should sit back and relax
let the free markets work.
the illegals will go back to where they come from
no jobs here.
everything will be ok.
February 10, 2009
7:15 AM
wow writes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/26/road-ruin-recession-individuals-economy
what an interesting article
"George W Bush, former US president
Clinton might have started the sub-prime ball rolling, but the Bush administration certainly did little to put the brakes on the vast amount of mortgage cash being lent to "Ninja" (No income, no job applicants) borrowers who could not afford them. Neither did he rein back Wall Street with regulation (although the government did pass the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the wake of the Enron scandal).
Senator Phil Gramm
Former US senator from Texas, free market advocate with a PhD in economics who fought long and hard for financial deregulation. His work, encouraged by Clinton's administration, allowed the explosive growth of derivatives, including credit swaps"
Republicans mostly responsible for this mess.
February 10, 2009
9:30 AM
prima facie writes:
Can't we stop this partisan obstructionism and pull together? The Democrats won. That must mean they're always right ... doesn't it?
But let's heed the words of Barack Obama:
"More people will lose their homes and their health care." Oh, and how's that "hope over fear" thing working out?
“The plan is not perfect.” But at least we have hope that it will be.
To Republicans opposing his "stimulus": “The party now is over.” But he means that in a bipartisan way.
“All of us are going to have to make some sacrifices," while telling Democrats not to sacrifice and to reject GOP input that he (supposedly) sought.
February 10, 2009
9:45 AM
JMH writes:
"Do the Republicans care at all about working people and the middle class? Do the Republicans have anything other than tax cuts to offer as a solution to anything?" - History Buff
Ummm... the answer is NO!
They cry they want more tax cuts (nevermind this is part of the reason we are in this mess as JW has repeatedly pointed out), but when tax cuts are suggested for the middle class, well the GOP loses it's mind and actually calls it unfair...
As for "spending", the GOP cries about the cost of this investment in America (though they spend more investing in Iraq, and we get NOTHING out of that... OK, maybe some jobs were created in teh military...), but they want more "tax cuts". Are these people really that stupid? Whether you cut taxes or spend money, it is all still spending as far as teh government in concerned.
The bottom line is tax cuts wont help anyone without a job. Can't tax what they don't have! So this does NOTHING! We had nothing but tax cuts for teh rich under Bush and not one NET job created during this same period... pretty easy to see why we are where we are...
Cry all you want NeoCons, your idiology is a PROVEN failure and no one really cares what you guys think. If you had the answers, we wouldn't be having this discussion! You have NO CREDIBILITY on this issue...
This is where Obama made a mistake trying to bring the GOP into the fold - it made them THINK they are important. The American people already sent the message the last 2 ELECTIONS that we aint buying what they are selling anymore... No more "Mr. Nice Guy". Glad PRESIDENT OBAMA went on TV last night and made the GOP look like the clueless losers they are - with no NEW ideas, a bunch of OLD, tired ideas that don't work and that actually got us into this mess and they don't care one bit about the avergae American - even the stupid ones that "carry water" for them!
But glad to see that a member of the GOP ACTUALLY stood up and proudly said that they are taking cues from the TALIBAN insurgency... Glad to see that the GOP considers an insurgency against the American people a good thing! Can you just imangine if a Dem had said this? Liberal media my ass!
February 10, 2009
10:02 AM
Shaggy writes:
"Bank bailout skeptics send stocks skidding"
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/10/stocks-open-lower-ahead-government-economic-plans/
Looks like more and more people are seeing through this bill as a pet project spending bill that it is.
Stimulus my ass!!!
Pay back for those who elected the man cub is more like it!!!
The Dems just couldn't resist throwing everything including the kitchen sink into this biased bill because they know none of their pet projects would be able to pass on their own merits.
February 10, 2009
10:04 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
$3 TRILLION IOU & DJIA PLUNGES 300:
In just two days, 48 hours, taxpayers got bombed with about $3 trillion in debt and a monster IOU...and we don't even have few details of what's in either plan, who is accountable, who enforces oversight and where's the transparency! $3 trillion of shovel-ready bullshit!
Had enough? Don't blame me. I didn't vote for this affirmative action empty-suit!
February 10, 2009
10:10 AM
history buff writes:
"I am admitedly skeptical of fiscal stimulus, and so far you and History Buff and the others out there have failed to relieve me of this skepticism... despite the fact that Krugman and some mysterious majority of economists are for it."
That is because you are an ideologue. It is nice that you show you can cite generalized concepts from the pillars of publishing, but most of the work in economics today is empirical.
The WSJ journal has reported for months that investors are hoarding cash and paying down debt, businesses are hoarding cash and paying down debt, and the banks took the TARP money that you were cheering about and hoarded it instead of pushing it into the economy. I'm not going to keep explaining it to you why providing tax cuts to citizen tax payers with less disposable income is likely to stimulate the economy more than providing tax cuts to taxpayers with more disposable income. And if you don't believe that the loss of 500,000 jobs in the private sector is evidence that the economy is shrinking, and that government works can create jobs while the private sector is shrinking, that is your privilege in a free country.
And as far as mentioning the multiplier effect goes, I mentioned that in a post on 2/6/09 @ 12:34 pm. I don't have time to repeat everything for your benefit. I'm a busy man and my business deals with real people and real issues facing this economic crisis. I may not gather enough evidence in my work to make sweeping generalized theories about the state of the world economy, but I see a hell of a lot more about what is going down than most people.
February 10, 2009
10:30 AM
JW writes:
"I am admitedly skeptical of fiscal stimulus, and so far you and History Buff and the others out there have failed to relieve me of this skepticism... despite the fact that Krugman and some mysterious majority of economists are for it."
Well, Im not going to be as harsh as HB, but I havent "failed" at anything. Im not saying this is a sure bet. Its not. No one, to my knowledge, is saying this is a sure bet to solve our economic problems.
So you be skeptical. At least your reasons are decent, as opposed to these idiots who havent had a thought Rush didnt speak for 20 years.
"Many people seem to be fooling themselves into believing the stimulus bill is absolutely necessary... even Larry Sumners, Obama's Chief Economic Advisor, once famously said that fiscal stimulus needs to be "timely, targeted and temporary" yet it appears he too has suspended belief for a time, as this current bill appears to be none of these!"
I disagree. I think you are confused by the fact that this bill is "timely, targeted, and temporary" regarding initial stimulus, and ALSO has spending over the next 10 years designed to stimulate our economy IN THE LONG TERM by transforming it for the more competitive world we are going to face. Infrastructure reports for this country are not pretty. So spending there simply means our infrastructure will still be there in the future, which I think we can agree is a necessity to a stron economy. Education spending is LITERALLY an no brainer, as the data regarding the economic benefits of an educated populace is unambiguous. We arent doing so well on this in comparison to other countries, and it WILL bite us in the ass at some point if its not corrected. Green energy development has economic implications BEYOND just getting us off oil. The attempt itself will spawn new tech in other areas.
Those are targeted, and timely, but they arent temporary because they are investments in the competitiveness of this country FOR THE LONG HAUL.
Believe its necessary or dont. Im suporting it, because that long term stuff IS necessary as I see it, if we want to be competitive with India, China, and Europe going forward.
February 10, 2009
10:34 AM
JW writes:
"Had enough? Don't blame me. I didn't vote for this affirmative action empty-suit!"
STFU jackass. Ive had enough of YOU. YOU voted for BUSH TWICE, and YOU are part of the reason we are in this position, IDIOT.
Again, EVERY TIME you people's ideology is on display, you leave this country with an economic slowdown and record debt. Its time you accepted the failure that represents, and SHUT YOUR DAMN MOUTH.
This MAY work out to be a failure as well. IF that happens, feel free to comment. But as of NOW, the only KNOWN FAILURE is YOURS.
February 10, 2009
10:43 AM
JMH writes:
You retarted NeoCons realize that your GOP economic policies have driven this country into more than 10 TRILLION dollars in debt (after Clinton left you a surplus) right? Eveen befroe Obama was elected!
And we got nothing in return!
Now you want to cry about spending? Hypocrites! Where was all this "Fisical conservatism" just a few years ago?
Ohhh that's right, it was a Republican at the controls and they can do no wrong (even though the facts point to just the opposite)...
No wonder the GOP is now proud to use more "Taliban insurgency tactics" - it is safe to argue that the GOP has done more damage to the USA than the Taliban could have in 20 years! Traitors!
Your ideas are old, failures and don't work and you are all irrelevant as a result with the American public - Accept it!
February 10, 2009
11:15 AM
Just the Facts! writes:
When Clinton started his presidency in 1992, the national debt was at 4.6 trillion dollars, in the end of 2000 when he departed it ended at 5.7 trillion dollars, an increase of about 1.1 trillion dollars.
Then came Bush and immediately after his first year as president, the debt shot up to 6.2 trillion dollars and today stands at about 10.5 trillion dollars.
February 10, 2009
11:56 AM
Facts writes:
GOP in Congress, "MANBEARPIG!!! MANBEARPIG!!!"
February 10, 2009
12:24 PM
jay writes:
"conservatives" just keep digging themselves deeper into the enormous hole they find themselves in after 8 years of reigning over one of the least successful administrations and congresses in our nation's history.
if you can't (or won't) be part of the solution, at least do the rest of us a favor and stay out of the way.
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Feb. 7-8, 2009. N=806 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
"As you may know, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on a bill that would attempt to stimulate the economy by increasing federal government spending and cutting taxes at a total cost to the government of about eight hundred billion dollars. Based on what you have read or heard about this, do you favor or oppose the bill that the Senate is expected to vote on?"
Favor 54%
Oppose 45%
Unsure 1%
Gallup Poll. Feb. 6-7, 2009. N=1,018 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way each of the following has handled the government's efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill? How about [see below]?"
"President Barack Obama"
Approve 67%
Dissaprove 25%
Unsure 8%
"The Democrats in Congress"
Approve 48%
Disapprove 42%
Usure 10%
"The Republicans in Congress"
Approve 31%
Disapprove 58%
Unsure 11%
CBS News Poll. Feb. 2-4, 2009. N=864 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"Would you approve or disapprove of the federal government passing an economic stimulus bill costing more than 800 billion dollars in order to try to help the economy?"
Approve 51%
Disapprove 39%
Unsure 10%
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 4, 2009. N=1,012 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"As you may know, Congress is considering a new economic stimulus package of at least 800 billion dollars. Do you favor or oppose Congress passing this legislation?"
Favor 52%
Oppose 38%
Unsure 10%
February 10, 2009
12:35 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
STICK 'EM UP:
GEITHNER: 'WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT OUT DETAILS UNTIL WE GET IT RIGHT'...
DJIA down 400, thanks Tim!
February 10, 2009
12:52 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
$2 TRILLION IOU...$2 TRILLION DEBT ON TOP OF YESTERDAY'S $1 TRIL!
No transparency, no details, no accountability, no responsibility...just the bill.
Who are these imbeciles approving? Who are these morons. They have no idea what they are approving--the only thing they got is today's $2 trillion bill on top of yesterdays $1 trillion that rations their health care. That $3 trillion of DHUUUUU!
DJIA DOWN 400!
February 10, 2009
12:55 PM
cynical_one writes:
Hey SASQUATCH, since when does the DJIA have anything to do with the economy? I've seen the stock price of a company drop through the floor just because their profit did make what some analyst believed it should have. That's subjective.
February 10, 2009
12:58 PM
Bobby writes:
Looks like all the "hope" and "change" has turned into plain old fear mongering.
February 10, 2009
1:12 PM
me2 writes:
If you support this program and you have friends who have lost their jobs, get them to e-mail their Republican representatives to do the right thing. Poor Republican families need to get their Congressperson on this. Flood the offices with letters, calls, and e-mails, if they still have electricity.
I suspect that most of the people who hate this program have jobs that they think nothing can touch. They may be old enough for SS or pensions, without thinking that those can be hit also. I have noticed that the most venomous remarks about Obama come from men whose wives have jobs in the medical industry. The second group I hear are women who own small businesses that still have a loyal customer base and they can see no way for government funds coming into the economy effecting their business. It is a waste of time to explain that their customers money can be cut off any day if they lose their job.
February 10, 2009
1:16 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
"Hey SASQUATCH, since when does the DJIA have anything to do with the economy? I've seen the stock price of a company drop through the floor just because their profit did make what some analyst believed it should have. That's subjective."
THE EARNINGS WERE CORRECTLY ANTICIPATED BY INVESTORS AND FULLY DISCOUNTED IN THE PRICE. The EPS were already correctly priced into the stock. So when the EPS gets reported as correctly expected, the stock then often drops--its called "buy on the anticipation and sell on the news."
Obviously, the very bad $3 trillion news just reported over the past 48 hours was not anticipated; the DJIA never really had any surge It declined from depressed levels (last January was among the worst on record) and was not not at inflated levels. And that is even worse.
Class dismissed.
February 10, 2009
2:31 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
HistoryBuff:
What exactly makes me an idealogue?
Because I'm skeptical of the effects of fiscal stimulus? Because I've actually read papers and extensive texts by Keynes, Galbraith, Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Lucas and Stigler and formed my own opinion? That I actually have an informed opinion about fiscal stimulus and believe the case made by the Neo-classical/monetarist/Austrian schools to be stronger? There is plenty of evidence to suggest my skepticism is warranted.
AND, Larry Summers is actually a Milton Friedman acolyte and it is still somewhat mysterious to me as to why he is pushing a bill that is so lopsided on the spending side, but I've also been reading reports that say he had been lobbying within the administration for a reversal of the 1/3 tax cuts, 2/3 spending ratio... but has been overruled by the Krugman followers within the administration (including the top dog) as well as by powerful Congressional interests. Yes it's hearsay... but it is more in line with his public stance on such things than the current stimulus bill would suggest.
Also, noted deficit hawk Paul Volcker has been shut out of the formulation of the stimulus package as his council on economic recovery continues to be shoved aside for the moment. Mr Summers and Volcker have reportedly clashed over this and tensions appeared to be rising. Still, it appears Volcker may get more sway over revamping regulation... and that's a good thing.
The Bank plan rolled out today seems to be a lot like the TARP plan... there's a plan to spend a whole lot of money but very little idea about specifically how they'll spend it all. That scares me a little, but at least it targets the area of the economy that REALLY needs fixing. The net benefit is equally hard to quantify for the TARP and bailout funds, BUT the potential rewards can be huge... far outsripping the potential net benefits in public spending. A lot will hinge on Geithner's management of the funds, so the potential risks are also great.
February 10, 2009
3:05 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
EXPOSED: AN EMPTY-SUIT SEARCHING FOR A COAT HANGER
IN JUST 48 HOURS:
1-America was handed a $1 trillion pork package that spends oover 70% of the money in 2011 and beyond into 2019. Irrelevant, usuless and no stimulant.
2-Gets handed a $2 trillion TARP-II with no details, a very rough sketcchy-outline with no precise plan, accountability, transparency and no who, how, where and why. What is it that we are paying for and what constitutes success? Geithner rambled about a plan that is being made-up on the fly.
3-Obamba's "not ready for prime time" stumble, bumble, ramble and dysfunctional diatribe that gave 300 sentnce answers to questions when 5 sentices would have filled the bill. He had no command of the subjects in question. but he is a master of ramble, repeat and then ramble some more.
4- DJIA down 400 points. Disappointment and uncertainty remain, Wall Street is way ahead of Main Streat. The financial community knows shovel-ready bullshit that still looks like a $1,000 wedding cake to Main Street.
Forget about Obamba's doom, gloom and fear mongering--America is very justified in being very scared. World financial markets are terrorified.
February 10, 2009
3:41 PM
JMH writes:
Ya Charlie Brown, I just heard all that nonsense on Rush Limp-bone too...
Are you ever able to make an opinion by yourself or is your life so slow that you have nothing better to do than to read & listen to the same Right-wing propagandists that sold you the last 8 years of failure... and then you just "cut and paste" or "parrot" their BS and post it on here?
We, the American people support PRESIDENT OBAMA and his efforts to clean up the pile of sh*t you NeoCons left on our doorstep... You don't like it? You can always leave!
February 10, 2009
4:30 PM
GOPSUCKS writes:
Aren’t the Republican policies of cutting taxes for the upper class and deficit spending what caused this? Why keep repeating the failure the GOP is? With the track record as it stands I wouldn’t trust a Republican to take my order at McDonald’s.
February 10, 2009
4:44 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
JMH & GOPSUCKS:
Way to boil a complex economic crisis down to simple political ideological idiocy!
You wear your economic ignorance so proudly...
February 10, 2009
4:52 PM
Anonymous writes:
GOPSUCKS, kinda sums it up right there.
February 10, 2009
5:19 PM
GOPSUCKS writes:
FreeToLose,
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
-Albert Einstein
Sounds like the GOP to me.
February 10, 2009
5:23 PM
GOPSUCKS writes:
FreeToChoose,
Please explain to me in depth why you feel the economic plans of the GOP are successful and please give specific examples from the Bush policies and their end results not just your stupid-ass assumptions.
February 10, 2009
5:30 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) The IRS, stealing from Americans for 96 years writes:
GOPS,
In case you missed it the first time.
Here is some data for you. Taken from the IRS
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html
In 2001 there were 34,430,949 income tax returns from those who earned less than $100,000 per year. They paid $1,828,842,048,000 in Federal personal income taxes. In 2006, there were 34,613,829 income tax returns from those who earned less than $100,000 per year. They paid $1,876,037,558,000 in Federal personal income taxes.
In 2001 there were 10,131,357 income tax returns from those who earned more than $100,000 per year. They paid $2,335,628,373,000 in Federal personal income taxes. In 2006, there were 14,509,725 income tax returns from those who earned more than $100,000 per year. They paid $3,827,373,838,000 in Federal personal income taxes.
So the vast majority of the underachievers paid almost the same amount in taxes over a six year period, while the so called rich tax dodgers increased their tax bill by almost $ 1.5 trillion.
It's a good thing that the underachievers are not growing in number, while the so called rich tax dodgers are.
But the underachievers don't think the rich are pulling their weight. Perhaps you could educate them on the fact that the only reason the government has any money to spend is they keep stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.
February 10, 2009
7:51 PM
very impressive writes:
Lets see Arent you pubs
the ones who brag about flunking out of kindergarten but then being wealthy living in a gated community. bitching about taxes?
Yeah thats right you guys want to cut education
because its glorious being stupid.
February 10, 2009
8:01 PM
Dubya writes:
ME too I am veeery skeptical of this stimulus
because it sez here in my econ book that theres neo classical, classical economics and lots of others and I cant figgure out what the gov is doing.
nobody can answer my questions either. before I feel good about this. I wanna see the invisible hand first
February 11, 2009
7:10 AM
GOPSUCKS writes:
Gee those rich people left our country in great shape Hogar, NOT!!!
February 11, 2009
7:57 AM
DemsSUCK writes:
Thanks to pressure from Dems to give out bad loans to the losers who didn't have a pot to pee in in exchange for votes, Americans are paying the price.
February 11, 2009
8:00 AM
JW writes:
First off Hogar, Im not sure what your argument does to mitigate the fact that every time your boys are in charge, they leave this country in a protracted recession and held down by massive amounts of debt. EVERY TIME. They crash the economy EVERY TIME. And they make it worse by running up record debt...EVERY TIME.
EVERY TIME.
Secondly I followed your link and it became pretty obvious that you went there not looking to see what info there was and from that info form a conclusion, but with a conclusion already in mind, looking for information to support it. Think about that for a second. There is a very large difference, and it determines whether or not you learn something from that info or not.
Third, when I look at that data, Im pretty sure your arbitrary $100k threshold isnt the right one. It over simplifies the matter to the extreme.
And finally, the really rich, the ones that people bitch about not paying their fair share? They pay %15 on capital gains when they chose to generate some cash, and 15% on dividends. That is a tax rate FAR below the one I pay on income, and Im not pulling in Millions.
Funny story about this. I was at my parents for Thanksgiving and we were having a discussion about taxes and what not. She brought up a friend of ours who makes a ton of money in stocks. He ALWAYS votes Republican because he hates paying Capital gains, or any taxes whatsoever really. "He had to pay $600k in Capital Gains just to move his inestments!" She said. "Thats ridiculous".
So I brought out my calculator. If he paid $600k in capital gains, then he kept $3.4 MILLION. Yup. Id say paying $600k to keep a system running that allows you to make $3.4 million on nothing more than investment is a frickin BARGAIN. Try getting that kind of return on nothing more than investment in a place that DOESNT have our systems. You CANNOT DO IT.
But, he feels that his hard work and intelligence are the only contributors to making that gain, and so he thinks he should get it all. Dude does work hard, and he is smart, but again, try getting that return in Somalia off investmets you decide with hard work and intelligence. Not gona happen.
Anwya, Its completely self centered, egotistical, and unethical, but its what he thinks. Oh, its also WRONG. Again, you cant make that kind of return in Somalia because they dont tax their population to support a system that allows for gains like that.
The opportunity in this country is greater than anywhere in the world, and it is fouded on a few pillars that MUST be supported with taxes. The rule of law isnt free. Educated workers to run your economy and generate all that return arent free. Infrastructure, as we are finding out, is not free. Defense is not free. And without them...you arent makeing ANYTHING like you can here. And, they require taxes to keep those systems functioning.
So STFU and chip in to keep the system running. You have an etical responsibility to do so, because you have a responsibility to pass on the opportunity YOU were given by your parents to the next generation. Next time I see that MF'er, Ill probably tell him what a usless sack he really is. Im not going to have anywhere near the opportunity he had after graduating with his MBA when I graduate with mine. Im going to have to work WAY harder to generate the same return, and its MF'ers like him (and you Hogar)who caused it.
February 11, 2009
9:39 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
RATIONING HEALTH CARE:
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.
Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Hidden Provisions
If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.
The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).
Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”
More Scrutiny Needed
On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.
The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)
February 11, 2009
9:53 AM
Anonymous writes:
very interesting sas
but now that we be talking about seniors....
aint you the guys that wanted to privitize SS?
dow 14,000 to 7000. hows that retirement going?
cutting medicare benefits and ss soon to come too?
wow. And nobody talks about war spending. still increasing at 7.5 % /year.
btw your new rnc chairman is an affirmative action guy in an empty suit running from the FBI.
he be your boss now lolol
February 11, 2009
10:09 AM
Shaggy aka turning socialist one day at a time writes:
Looks like Barrys socialist spending take over will now REWARD the states with the highest unemployment and REWARD the states who can't run Schools and punish the States who actually work hard to keep unemployment low and the Schools running efficiently.
This is no surprise, that is exactly what Barry said he would do, punish those who work hard and prosper and reward those who are lazy and less ambitious.
What a flipping joke this biased, pork filled, pet project infested, spending bill is.
Nothing like throwing the kitchen sink in when they know NON of their pet projects work pass on their own merits.
February 11, 2009
10:25 AM
Citizen writes:
Barry and Dems will burn any amount of taxpayer money so as not to seem the failures they will ultimately be.
February 11, 2009
10:27 AM
FreeToChoose writes:
Hahahahahahaha...
I didn't ever say that the GOP plans were successful...
I DID argue that your analysis is woefully inadequate and terribly partisan.
Tax cuts for the rich DID NOT lead to the mis-pricing of risk in the credit markets... which appears to be the root cause of our current recession... so go ahead and keep beating that political dead horse. It may be politically correct, but it is analytically incorrect.
I'll also add that current politically attractive claims that the "free market failed us" fly in the face of ample evidence that the pricing of risk in the consumer mortgage and secondary credit markets was highly distorted by government policies at the Fed, in Congress and in the Executive Branch.
Alan Greenspan and, to a lesser extent Ben Bernanke, miscalculated the inflation risk in residential real estate prices (and commodity prices) because they were so focused on wage inflation. Or, more generally, they miscalculated the amount of risk they were adding to the financial system by pricing credit so low.
Federal government policies likely contributed to the distortion of the price of risk include, but are not limited to: the increased influence of Congress over Fannie and Freddie policy which led to weaker lending standards and mark-to-market accounting rules.
On the other hand, insufficient regulation of the appraisal industry, insufficient oversight in the credit swaps markets and insufficient oversight of the money market industry certainly aided the price distortions by limiting and/or distorting information.
February 11, 2009
10:33 AM
FreeToChoose writes:
Hahahahahahaha...
I didn't ever say that the GOP plans were successful...
I DID argue that your analysis is woefully inadequate and terribly partisan.
Tax cuts for the rich DID NOT lead to the mis-pricing of risk in the credit markets... which appears to be the root cause of our current recession... so go ahead and keep beating that political dead horse. It may be politically correct, but it is analytically incorrect.
I'll also add that current politically attractive claims that the "free market failed us" fly in the face of ample evidence that the pricing of risk in the consumer mortgage and secondary credit markets was highly distorted by government policies at the Fed, in Congress and in the Executive Branch.
Alan Greenspan and, to a lesser extent Ben Bernanke, miscalculated the inflation risk in residential real estate prices (and commodity prices) because they were so focused on wage inflation. Or, more generally, they miscalculated the amount of risk they were adding to the financial system by pricing credit so low.
Federal government policies likely contributed to the distortion of the price of risk include, but are not limited to: the increased influence of Congress over Fannie and Freddie policy which led to weaker lending standards and mark-to-market accounting rules.
On the other hand, insufficient regulation of the appraisal industry, insufficient oversight in the credit swaps markets and insufficient oversight of the money market industry certainly aided the price distortions by limiting and/or distorting information.
February 11, 2009
10:46 AM
FreeToChoose writes:
Hahahahahahaha...
I didn't ever say that the GOP plans were successful...
I DID argue that your analysis is woefully inadequate and terribly partisan.
Tax cuts for the rich DID NOT lead to the mis-pricing of risk in the credit markets... which appears to be the root cause of our current recession... so go ahead and keep beating that political dead horse. It may be politically correct, but it is analytically incorrect.
I'll also add that current politically attractive claims that the "free market failed us" fly in the face of ample evidence that the pricing of risk in the consumer mortgage and secondary credit markets was highly distorted by government policies at the Fed, in Congress and in the Executive Branch.
Alan Greenspan and, to a lesser extent Ben Bernanke, miscalculated the inflation risk in residential real estate prices (and commodity prices) because they were so focused on wage inflation. Or, more generally, they miscalculated the amount of risk they were adding to the financial system by pricing credit so low.
Federal government policies likely contributed to the distortion of the price of risk include, but are not limited to: the increased influence of Congress over Fannie and Freddie policy which led to weaker lending standards and mark-to-market accounting rules.
On the other hand, insufficient regulation of the appraisal industry, insufficient oversight in the credit swaps markets and insufficient oversight of the money market industry certainly aided the price distortions by limiting and/or distorting information.
February 11, 2009
11:11 AM
FreeToChoose writes:
Another concept tainted by the GOP over the last eight years is that of free-markets.
Neo-classical Economists, in general, do not call for a completely lassaiz-faire approach with no government oversight. Free-markets REQUIRE government to establish well defined property rights and transparant markets, which mean powerful oversight and enforcement arms are necessary. Clearly the government dropped the ball recently in providing oversight and enforcement... that does not negate the value of free-markets.
Neo-classical economists, however, do object to government choosing how to allocate scarce resources... and so the government-created distortions in the price mechanism that led to this bubble are not part of the neo-classical tradition. They're part of the Keynesian-Galbraith progressive tradition. Yet it is the GOP's nominal association with many neo-classical theories that has discredited "free-market" economics???
If you strip away labels and look at the policies you'll find very little evidence that "free-markets" led to this recession. But it has become an easy political punch-line anyway.
February 11, 2009
11:14 AM
James Everitt writes:
In 48 hours we will be delivering to the conferees a list of everyone who has emailed their Members of Congress in support of the Pickens Plan elements of H.R. 1. So it's important you email your Members of Congress today!
Please vote for final passage of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and please support inclusion in that bill of the House DOE grant program, which is critically important to helping wind and solar energy grow through the economic downturn.
I also urge you to support enactment of a strong national renewable electricity standard that meets President Obama's goal of securing 25% renewable electricity by the year 2025.
We can, and need to, do more. What's missing is the other part of the Pickens Plan - natural gas used as a vehicle fuel. If we switch just 350,000 of the 6.5 million heavy trucks running on the nation's Interstate Highways to domestic natural gas from imported diesel, we could cut our oil imports by over five percent.
In December alone that would have kept nearly $1 billion from being shipped off shore. Congress needs to go further to achieve that goal and to get more vehicles on the road that use clean and domestic natural gas.
In the meantime, I hope you will join me in supporting the wind components of the Pickens Plan that are part of H.R. 1 - which need to be kept intact - and urge you to support future measures that would get more natural gas trucks on our roads.
P. S. Savings bonds could be help in economic crisis!
While Washington tries to "fix" the banking and Wall Street mess created by subprime "gotcha" adjustable rate mortgages defaulting en masse, many of us are looking for a safer place to put at least some of our retirement, college funds, etc.
And we also want our country to become more energy-independent and our crumbling infrastructure repaired. But with things as they are, how can we accomplish these three objectives? A new form of U.S. Treasury savings bonds could be the answer.
Without U.S. saving bonds, we wouldn't have been able to supply our troops and allies like we did in World War II. If the U.S. Treasury issued energy independence and infrastructure savings bonds that paid an interest rate about 3 percent greater than the annualized FED rate adjusted for inflation, only be redeemable on their anniversary date(s), and what they pay is not taxed when they are redeemed at maturity, all three of these objectives can be achieved without any increase in taxes — especially if these funds were only employed as 1-to-2 matching funds.
Such bonds could increase employment enough to even reduce our taxes. Pass this idea on to your friends and then the politicians.
In 48 hours we will be delivering to the conferees a list of everyone who has emailed their Members of Congress in support of the Pickens Plan elements of H.R. 1. So it's important you email your Members of Congress today!
Renew_America_Bonds.pdf, 553 KB
Discussion link: Funding Energy Independence?
Video Link: "Energy Independence US Treasury Savings Bonds"
February 11, 2009
11:24 AM
FreeToChoose writes:
Another concept tainted by the GOP over the last eight years is that of free-markets.
Neo-classical Economists, in general, do not call for a completely lassaiz-faire approach with no government oversight. Free-markets REQUIRE government to establish well defined property rights and transparant markets, which mean powerful oversight and enforcement arms are necessary. Clearly the government dropped the ball recently in providing oversight and enforcement... that does not negate the value of free-markets.
Neo-classical economists, however, do object to government choosing how to allocate scarce resources... and so the government-created distortions in the price mechanism that led to this bubble are not part of the neo-classical tradition. They're part of the Keynesian-Galbraith progressive tradition. Yet it is the GOP's nominal association with many neo-classical theories that has discredited "free-market" economics???
If you strip away labels and look at the policies you'll find very little evidence that "free-markets" led to this recession. But it has become an easy political punch-line anyway.
February 11, 2009
11:50 AM
GOPSUCKS writes:
So according to the GOP this is not their fault. What a shocker! Next how the GOP cutting banking oversight isn't at fault for the banking crisis in 3..2..1...
The GOP left banks to oversee themselves and it failed and they let the Oil companies dictate energy policy and their profits skyrocketed at all of our expense.
No pattern here just a continuous stream of things that "just happened" to the GOP.
Well I will accept that the GOP will not accept any responsibility for their blatant failures and say they are just unlucky.
I still don't want those unlucky bastards touching my government they must be cursed.
February 11, 2009
12:04 PM
Matt writes:
Obama's Keynesian Economic strategy won't work - says the Cato Institute.
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/alternate_version.html
The Big Lie from Obama is:
"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
February 11, 2009
12:25 PM
Shaggy aka turning Socialist one bill at a time. writes:
Nice link Matt,
Make sure you deliver that to JW who thinks all the economists say we need this huge government spending spree.
February 11, 2009
12:29 PM
benn writes:
lol - the Cato institute
February 11, 2009
12:34 PM
JMH writes:
Freetochoose,
I don't think anyone is attacking capitalism (ie. free markets), but capitalism without regulations is what is needed... I think you are doing exactly what you are complaining about when you say we are just being partisain... do you think we advocate complete socialism? While I do think some things should be socialized, I agree in most instances the Free Market with regulations is the way to go. Maybe you are implying that idea is "socialism"? I'm not sure...
But you can't escape the FACT that the Congress was dominated buy the GOP for the 12 of the last 14 years (they write the laws) and the WH was also occupied by the GOP for the last 8 (thus vetoing anything it didn't like these last two years)...
Also other NeoCon economic theories that DID have a major effect on the economy - such as tax cuts for the super-rich in a time of a military occupation (call it a war if that makes you feel like Iraq was legitimate), the outsourcing of millions well paying jobs, the offshoring of companies to avoid paying taxes (in fact most cases of corporate welfare), yelling alot... but doing absolutly nothing about the illegal immigration problem of undercutting wages of the lower skilled workers in this country (though I will admit that both parties are to blame for this - the GOP wanted cheap labor, the Dems wanted VOTES), the de-regulation of everything, the blind faith that the free-markets & Wall Street will always take care of itself and doesn't need any oversight (which would be true if it wasn't for those little things called - human nature & greed), un-fair trade agreements that have KILLED the whole manufacturing base in this country (granted Clinton signed NAFTA, but the GOP controlled Congress and had this baby and made quite a few other "Frankensteins" after), the GOP doing NOTHING about health care that is strangling businesses big and small, etc, etc.
Sorry, you may not like the fact that we know who is responsible for this mess, and call it partisan attacks if that makes you feel better, but we KNOW the truth and I think you do to...
That being said, if there were more "real conservatives" like yourself in the GOP (that IMO has become nothing but a semi-religious cult now... driven by fear, blind idoliogy regardless of the realty, major religious influence and a certainty of rightousness, regardless of the facts or results)... I don't think we whould be having half these problems...
The fact we are attacking the partisan hacks who want more of the same from the GOP doesn't mean I am "ignorant" of free markets, it means in G. W. Bush's words - "...can't get fooled again"!
But Obama is 100% right when he says that private businesses have been so crippled by this economic downturn that the government is the only one left to try and turn some things around - and if some of the things WE (teh majority of Americans right now) believe in - universal health care, a complete rebuilding of our energy policies and inversting in this country (not Iraq among others) can be achieved as well with this package.. all the better.
If some of these things don't work, I'll be for trying to re-do them too... but to listen to these NeoCons on here constantly attack everything after the mess they left us will not go unanswered! If this doesn't work feel free to complain and try to change it... but he NeoCons had their chance and it failed. Time to try something new!
I personally knew G. W. Bush would have been the worst thing to happen to this country and was willing to say so, but I didn't start the attacks and complaining until he proved me right. Is it too much to see what Obama's plan will actually do before we go nuts? The problem is some of these guys want this all to fail so their "team" can be back in power, regardless of the results! It's nothing but a game to these morons!
Maybe, it's just me, but I wouldn't take driving lessons from someone that has crashed every car they have ever had... Why would I take economic advice from a party that has crashed the economy almost every chance they have had?
February 11, 2009
12:51 PM
Anonymous writes:
"Nice link Matt,
Make sure you deliver that to JW who thinks all the economists say we need this huge government spending spree."
Standard idiocy. Shaggy, I posted the cato institute economists dissent on this topic DAYS AGO.
And please spin away the fact that EVERY TIME your boys are in charge, this nation is left with a protracted recession and staggering debt. EVERY TIME.
Here is some fun for you revisionists (Hogar especially) who think A) Dems are more partisan than Repubs and B) This spending is the biggest govt give away ever (see GWB's $1.3 TRILLION tax cut, which he then went on to spend the money anyway, in debt).
The Senate's passage Tuesday of the economic recovery package followed a now-familiar 30 year pattern. The Democratic President Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton before him in 1993, faced a monolithic wall of GOP opposition to his economic program. But Republicans Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George W. Bush 20 years later enjoyed substantial Democratic support for their dangerously irresponsible and regressive tax cuts that as predicted drained the federal treasury. Now as then, for Republicans the road to economic stimulus is a one-way street.
After being blanked in the House, President Obama picked up a whopping three Republican votes in the Senate one day after his first presidential press conference. (At this point, prospects for any gains on the final bill emerging from the House and Senate conference seem dubious.) But while his quixotic quest to reach across the aisle may have come up empty for now, Obama can take some comfort from Bill Clinton's experience in 1993. After all, Clinton's package of stimulus programs and upper-income bracket tax increases not only preceded a record economic expansion, it happened to get no Republican votes in either house of Congress.
As the New York Times noted at the time:
"Historians believe that no other important legislation, at least since World War II, has been enacted without at least one vote in either house from each major party."
Inheriting massive budget deficits and unemployment topping 7% from Bush the Elder, Clinton's $496 billion program was nonetheless opposed by every single member of the GOP, as well as defectors from his own party. As the Times recounted, it took a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Al Gore to earn victory:
An identical version of the $496 billion deficit-cutting measure was approved Thursday night by the House, 218 to 216. The Senate was divided 50 to 50 before Mr. Gore voted. Since tie votes in the House mean defeat, the bill would have failed if even one representative or one senator who voted with the President had switched sides.
Texas Republican Phil Gramm (yes, that Phil Gramm) predicted, "I believe hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs...I believe Bill Clinton will be one of those people." Foreshadowing Barack Obama 16 years later, President Clinton responded, "This was not easy, but real change is never easy," adding, "We have laid a foundation for a renewal of the American dream." As it turned out, of course, Clinton was right and Gramm, as always, was wrong. (Alas, as Bill Kristol reminded Americans last week, all-out Republican stonewalling of Clinton's initiatives hardly ended at taxes.)
But while Bill Clinton could count on a unified, rejectionist front from Republicans, neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush was similarly subjected to scorched-earth opposition from Democrats. The numbers tell the tale.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan swept to power promising to cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget. And in 1981, he delivered on the first part of that promise. With substantial support from Democrats in the House and Senate, Reagan easily won the battle to enact the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, lauded by the hagiographers of the right as the largest tax cut in American history:
The House then completed the formality of giving final passage to the Administration bill by a vote of 323 to 107. Shortly before the House voted, the Reagan forces rolled to an 89-to-11 victory in the Senate. There, 37 Democrats voted with 52 Republicans for the bill.
In what might serve as an important lesson for the new Obama administration, Tip O'Neill acknowledged the political impact on Democrats of the Republican marketing machine's efforts to sell the three-year, 25% reduction in taxes:
This morning, House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. uttered what sounded like a forecast of defeat. He told reporters that President Reagan's televised Monday night speech on taxes had touched off "a telephone blitz like this nation has never seen."
That, the Massachusetts Democrat said, and a Republican "nationwide advertising blitz" had exerted "a devastating effect" on the Democrats. "Once there is slippage, it is hard to hold," Mr. O'Neill added.
Alas, Democratic forecasts of unending sea of red ink came to pass. While Reagan kept his second pledge to boost the Pentagon's budget, his third promise to balance the budget went disastrously off the rails. With record-setting annual budget deficits running into the hundreds of billions of dollars, Reagan was forced to raise taxes twice (an inconvenient truth ignored by those same hagiographers). And it was the mounting Reagan debt that led to the breaking of George H.W. Bush's "no new taxes" promise and the subsequent Clinton deficit-reduction program.
Of course, Democratic acquiescence to Republican fiscal irresponsibility was repeated two decades later with President Bush's son.
Unlike the 7.6% unemployment rate and $1.2 trillion deficit Barack Obama inherited, George W. Bush arrived at the White House with a federal budget surplus and joblessness at 4.2% - and no mandate. But as every sentient being outside of the mainstream media will recall, Bush promised to slash taxes for the wealthiest Americans, including an end to the estate tax. And despite his loss of the popular vote to Al Gore and facing a 50-50 Senate, President Bush and his team made clear there would be no search for common ground with Democrats in pursuit of the 10-year, $1.6 trillion package.
And yet that spring, some Democrats supported it just the same. With only minor changes (the tax cuts were not permanent, the estate tax was lowered and not eliminated), the 2001 Bush tax cuts passed both houses of Congress with substantial numbers of Democrats voting in favor. While the House backed the original $1.6 trillion, the Senate (where Bush faced the opposition of John McCain and soon-be-ex Republican Jim Jeffords) initially voted for "only" a $1.2 trillion. Ultimately, the compromise conference bill came in $1.35 trillion and brought numerous Democrats along for the ride:
The bill passed the House by a vote of 240 to 154, with 28 Democrats and an independent joining all Republicans in voting yes. The Senate then passed it by a vote of 58 to 33. Twelve Democrats joined 46 Republicans in support of the bill in the Senate.
The rest, as they say, is history.
And so it goes. When its come to economic recovery legislation, Democrats extend a hand, Republicans tell them to talk to it.
February 11, 2009
1:32 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
JW:
There's a gap in your logic.
When you state that "Obama is 100% right when he says that private businesses have been so crippled by this economic downturn that the government is the only one left to try and turn some things around," you're not addressing the root cause of the recession. You're just treating the symptoms.
The mis-pricing of risk only encouraged a trend that had been in place for a couple of decades: that global consumers were spending more than they could afford. Easy money, lax credit rules encouraged by Congress and a complicit Wall Street stoked that trend in the U.S. until it bubbled and burst. We won't be out of this until all of the bad assets are properly repriced by the markets and risk is once again properly priced by lenders. Except by borrowing and spending trillions to prop up bad assets and to re-inflate demand, we are once again impeding the price mechanism and increasing our exposure to credit risks.
In short, by creating a credit bubble at the Federal level, we're just shifting where the credit risk lies instead of mitigating that risk. By nationalizing the risk, we are once again falling into the same trap that investors fell into when they bought all the securitized mortgage paper: that if we diversify the risk, then we lower the risk. But that's a false assumuption!
February 11, 2009
2:03 PM
JW writes:
"When you state that "Obama is 100% right when he says that private businesses have been so crippled by this economic downturn that the government is the only one left to try and turn some things around," you're not addressing the root cause of the recession. You're just treating the symptoms."
When the hell did I say this? Oh, JMH said it.
And I agree with it. And I agree with what you say as well. But, if you understand your free market theory (which Im guessing you do) you understand that the symptoms are what need treating. The root causes should already be dealt with.
"The mis-pricing of risk only encouraged a trend that had been in place for a couple of decades: that global consumers were spending more than they could afford. "
Yea, I think its more an issue of just issuing too much debt. Wether risk associated with that debt was correctly priced or not, it was just too much debt. Yes, I know, if that risk had been correctly priced you would have never issued the debt in the first place, because it would have been too expensive to do so. But the fact is, fradulent lending info and irrational exhuberance (thanks Greenie!) caused that. People inflated their incomes to whatever was needed, knowing they could flip the house anyway. They took loans they wouldnt be able to afford when they reset in a few years banking on selling the property. The risk on each issuance of debt was true according to the info given. But banks ignored the amount of debt being generated because they were getting huge gains. Stock holders were loving it. And it worked like a charm for what, 7 years? The fact that it was all generated on bad info didnt matter.
This wasnt about government. This was about the private sector issuing debt based on fraud, and they kept doing it way after they new it was fraud, resulting in too much debt. When the prices couldnt keep going up becaue there was no more debt to issue...mark to market.
According to free market theory, that shouldnt happen again, whether we regulate or not.
"We won't be out of this until all of the bad assets are properly repriced by the markets and risk is once again properly priced by lenders. Except by borrowing and spending trillions to prop up bad assets and to re-inflate demand, we are once again impeding the price mechanism and increasing our exposure to credit risks."
I disagree in principle based on the fact that these businesses that took a bath, according to free market theory, should be more stringent on their lending standards going forward. It appears they are. We need to keep the flow of commerce running, AND follow good business practices.
"that if we diversify the risk, then we lower the risk. But that's a false assumuption!"
No. Its statistically sound. When you predicate that risk on fradulent info, and consequentially dont correctly assess the true level of risk it doesnt matter. The theory is true, but when you diversify 100% risk of failure its still 100% risk of failure. Spread out 50% and you are limiting how much any one investor will get bashed, and spreading it to people who are willingly buying that security, and therefore SHOULD be able to afford the risk.
February 11, 2009
2:30 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
JW,
Sorry I confused you with JMH...
as for the diversification of risk, you clearly base your assumptions on a normal distribution curve, but risk doesn't behave that way!
Try reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "Black Swan" to understand the false assumption that risk behaves in a statistically normative way... such assumptions are why the Black-Scholes model works in theory and not in practice and why their computer models brought down LTCB and nearly the entire financial system in the 90s (yet their model is still taught in business schools today). Such assumptions are another reason why the mortgage-backed security market imploded. And just such assumptions are another reason why the banks are in such a bad state right now!
How are nation evaluates and deals with risk is at the heart of this crisis. Yet we are dealing with it by further mis-diagnosing and mis-managing risk!
Beautiful...
February 11, 2009
3:35 PM
JW writes:
"as for the diversification of risk, you clearly base your assumptions on a normal distribution curve, but risk doesn't behave that way!"
I dont care what the distrobution curve is, if you spread it to those willing to buy it on the free market, you lessen the risk overall because those who buy it can afford it. IE, its no longer in the hands of people for whom that risk represents HIGH risk. It is now in the hands of people for whom that risk represents LOW risk.
For the most part, according to Greenspan, this has worked.
It was the credit default swaps that failed. Trillions of dollars of mortgage backed securities insured by billions.
"Try reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "Black Swan" to understand the false assumption that risk behaves in a statistically normative way... such assumptions are why the Black-Scholes model works in theory and not in practice and why their computer models brought down LTCB and nearly the entire financial system in the 90s (yet their model is still taught in business schools today). Such assumptions are another reason why the mortgage-backed security market imploded. And just such assumptions are another reason why the banks are in such a bad state right now!"
When I have time. Im in the middle of an M&A project at the moment, the final stages of a marketing project, and about to embark on a freaking Supply Chain Management project. After that I get to start on a business plan. And thats just school.
As for these risk models working in theory but not in practice, we dont have anything perfect.
"How are nation evaluates and deals with risk is at the heart of this crisis. Yet we are dealing with it by further mis-diagnosing and mis-managing risk!"
Yea, I dont agree with you. If we do what you want, we simply wont have an economy to risk. The engine will shut down, and getting it started back up will take a freaking decade.
February 11, 2009
6:05 PM
Ben- Former Democrat writes:
January 21
1. Outgoing President George W. Bush quietly boards his helicopter and leaves for Texas , commenting only: "Today is not about me. Today is a historical day for our nation and people."
Eight years ago yesterday:
1. Outgoing President Bill Clinton schedules two separate radio addresses to the nation, and organizes a public farewell speech/ rally in downtown Washington D.C. scheduled to directly conflict with incoming President Bush's inauguration ceremony.
Yesterday:
2. President Bush leaves office without issuing a single Presidential pardon, only granting a commutation of sentence to two former border patrol agents convicted of shooting a convicted drug smuggler. He does not grant any type of clemency to Scooter Libby or any other former political aide, ally, or business partner.
Eight years ago yesterday:
2. President Clinton issues 140 pardons and several commutations of sentence on his final day in office.
Included in these are: billionaire financier, convicted tax evader, and leading Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich; Whitewater scandal figure Susan McDougal; Congressional Post Office Scandal figure and former Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski; convicted bank fraud, sexual assault and child porn perpetrator and former Democratic Congressman Melvin Reynolds; and convicted drug felon Roger Clinton, the President's half-brother.
Yesterday:
3. The Bush daughters leave gift baskets in the White House bedrooms for the Obama daughters, containing flowers, candy, stuffed animals, DVD's and CD's, and heartfelt notes of encouragement and advice for the young girls on how to prepare for their new lives in the White House.
Eight years ago Yesterday:
3. Clinton and Gore staffers rip computer wires and electrical outlets from the White House walls, stuff piles of notebook papers into the White House toilets, systematically remove the letter "W" from every computer key-pad in the entire White House, and damage several thousand dollars worth of furniture in the White House master bedroom.
Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"
Headlines Today:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $170 million"
"Obama Spends $170 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"
February 12, 2009
6:07 AM
ditto writes:
Obama said on Nightline Tuesday night, “CEO’s, who use tax payer money will show restraint.” Question. When is Obama and Congress, who use tax payer money going to show restraint? This is like Democrats and taxes, Do as I say not as I Do.
February 12, 2009
8:39 AM
KW writes:
"The $500-per-worker credit for lower- and middle-income taxpayers that Obama outlined during his presidential campaign was scaled back to $400 during bargaining by the Democratic-controlled Congress and White House."
Great. Out of all the needless spending in this spending bill, they chose to scale back one of the few direct benefits to the taxpayers rather than from one of their many pet projects.
February 12, 2009
8:41 AM
Iceman7 writes:
Ben,
Great summary contrasting the behavior of W with that of the democrats along with the media loons.
George W. Bush has been and will always be a class.
Ice
February 12, 2009
10:15 AM
history buff writes:
The usury interest rate in Colorado is 45%. The FED rate is at virtual zero. Isn't it about time that usury be modified?
February 12, 2009
10:17 AM
JMH writes:
"George W. Bush has been and will always be a class." - Ice
A "class" what?
Class CLOWN?
February 12, 2009
11:11 AM
KW writes:
Mark - We should be able to vote on what "kind" of major impact we think this spending bill will have on the economy.
Can you fix that, it might pep us up some.
February 12, 2009
11:24 AM
am 760 writes:
Headline today:
Repubs have destroyed the american economy under the lead of bush and his fellow neo cons cronies. Repub senators and congress did or said nothing to correct situation over last 8 years.
Headline today:
Obama and dems tackle mess left by 8 years of repub deregulation, no accountablity and greed.
The dems have done more to tackle this problem in 2 weeks than the entire repub/bush admin. did in 8 years.
Reality to Ben, Reality to Ben, please check in once in awhile.
February 12, 2009
11:42 AM
KW writes:
am760 - What did we tell you about posting these ridiculous articles here from common(wet)dreams?
February 12, 2009
12:12 PM
am 760 writes:
KW, as I have said many times before, IF YOU CAN REFUTE ANYTHING IN THE ARTICLES I POST, PLEASE DO, OTHERWISE STFU.
Instead of just using your typical outdated talking points you get from rush and the gop, try to actual find faults in the articles, point them out, and I will reply. All you do though is whine about commondreams which only uses articles by several different authors, some even conservatives. But because the truth hurts, you label it as biased. Get a life moron.
February 12, 2009
12:48 PM
KW writes:
More to the point radioboy, first you will need to offer something more substantial than your own illiterate diatribe before I can "refute" anything. Your previous post is nothing more than concrete evidence that you are in dire need of major psychiatric help.
Not to worry though, I'm pretty sure there's something in the spending bill to help you cover the costs. Hence the reason for your blind support no doubt.
February 12, 2009
1:40 PM
Shaggy writes:
radioboy,
Do you know who the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee is and his role in persuading banks to loan out sub prime loans?
Careful now, he is on tape saying freddy and franny were stable when the Republicans were asking for tougher regulations on them for the risky loans they were handing out.
Give me a specific that leads YOU to believe the economy is all Bush's fault, not one of your left nut sources.
I'll be anxiously awaiting your inteligent response.
February 12, 2009
1:45 PM
iceman7 writes:
JMH,
I left myself open to that one.
"George W. Bush has been and will always be a class."
I meant to say.
"George W. Bush has been and will always be a class ACT." -
He is a person of character and integrity not a union stooge, Narcissist, lying partisan hack such as your beloved Hussein.
Hope that clears things up.
Ice
February 12, 2009
1:51 PM
Truth writes:
KW/AM - both of you are acting like retards.
Shaggy, why don't you and officer O'Dell go and enjoy a nice spitroast with Audra?
February 12, 2009
2:35 PM
Bush and phil gram made this mess writes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/26/road-ruin-recession-individuals-economy
"George W Bush, former US president
Clinton might have started the sub-prime ball rolling, but the Bush administration certainly did little to put the brakes on the vast amount of mortgage cash being lent to "Ninja" (No income, no job applicants) borrowers who could not afford them. Neither did he rein back Wall Street with regulation (although the government did pass the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the wake of the Enron scandal).
Senator Phil Gramm
Former US senator from Texas, free market advocate with a PhD in economics who fought long and hard for financial deregulation. His work, encouraged by Clinton's administration, allowed the explosive growth of derivatives, including credit swaps"
Republicans mostly responsible for this mess.
February 12, 2009
3:00 PM
Shaggy writes:
"Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire abruptly withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary today, citing "irresolvable conflicts" with President Barack Obama's handling of the economic stimulus and 2010 census."
About time Republicans stand up against this porkulus bill.
February 12, 2009
3:01 PM
Iceman7 writes:
Another on bites the dust...
Ain't going to comprise me-self for the great one....
"Senator Gregg Statement on His Withdrawal for Consideration of U.S. Commerce Secretary
Sen. Gregg stated, “I want to thank the President for nominating me to serve in his Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. This was a great honor, and I had felt that I could bring some views and ideas that would assist him in governing during this difficult time. I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle.
“However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy."
February 12, 2009
3:10 PM
Shaggy writes:
LoL Ice,
Beat ya to it:)
It is true, great minds think alike:)
February 12, 2009
3:51 PM
Truth writes:
"great minds think alike"...ROFLMAO!
Unfortunately, you two 'tards think alike as well. Why don't you go find a room, or at least a nice bathroom stall?
February 12, 2009
4:04 PM
JMH writes:
"George W. Bush has been and will always be a class ACT." -
He is a person of character and integrity not a union stooge, Narcissist, lying partisan hack such as your beloved Hussein.
Hope that clears things up." - ICE
Sure it clears things up... It clearly shows you are out of your f*cking mind and must have been under a rock these last 8 years... LOL
Oh and by the way, Gregg is "cutting and running" on a job he LOBBIED for because he figured out that by leaving his Senante seat, it would probably go to a Dem in 2010 and he also wants to be able to help the GOP get in the way of the White House attempts to fix the problems of under counting minorities in inner cities (which tend to vote Dem) in the 2010 Census.
The Congressional Black Caucus and a group representing Latino elected officials had raised questions about Gregg, noting that as chairman of the Senate panel overseeing the Census Bureau budget he frequently sought to cut funds that they believe led to an undercount of minorities.
February 12, 2009
4:05 PM
JW writes:
LOL. So Sen Gregg, when offered a position of power where he could actually have a chance at changing things to what he would consider "his way" decided to quit because he couldnt have things "ALL his way"?
This is the kind of thing that will get you thrown out of the circles of power FOREVER. This is the kind of crap that Sr. Executives laugh at.
If you disagree, and are given an oportunity to get some "skin in the game" and DONT, then you are a WORTHLESS crybaby, whatever spin you put on it.
In the end, Gregg just didnt have the sack, or the arguments for his points and couldnt affect the outcome. Blame that on Obama all you want, its Gregg's lack of potency.
"They wouldnt do what I wanted" just isnt an excuse if you are offered a position in the inner circle. If your arguments are good enough, if you are good enough at your job, you will be able to change some minds. If not...
You quit and cry on the national news.
And since the wingnuts are all stirred up today;
Spin away the FACT that every time your boys are in charge, they leave this nation in an economic slowdown made worse by record debt.
EVERY TIME.
February 12, 2009
4:16 PM
am 760 writes:
Bush and phil grams post sums it up. Clinton may have got the ball rolling, which was wrong, but the deregulation, no accountability repubs let the mess continue and never did anything to reverse it.
So that is why most of the blame for this crisis falls on the repubs. Clinton was wrong in doing what he did, but it was the continuation of an idiotic policy that lead us to where we are now.
8 years of no regulations and accountability from the repubs, but just like your hero bush, they have done nothing wrong, they have made no mistakes, they are in fact perfect angels with no faults what so ever.
Now obama is addressing this problem, but he is evil for trying to clean up the mess left to him, lol. I get such good laughs from the rights fantasy world they live in.
KW, just like i offered shag, you want to meet up sometime and call me radioboy to my face, just let me know when and where.
February 12, 2009
4:28 PM
Shaggy writes:
Thanks for looking out for the people Gregg.
Leave it to a Republican to put the people ahead of personal gain, something that is unheard of in the Democratic party.
Wish more had the kahunas to stand up for the fraud and corruption in Barry's administration and his porkulus bill.
February 12, 2009
4:34 PM
GOPSUCKS writes:
Republicans don't take responsibility for anything. They think they last 8 years was a coincidence or bad luck. I say we just agree with them that the GOP is cursed and stay away from anything GOP for a few decades.
February 12, 2009
4:38 PM
Shaggy writes:
"KW, just like i offered shag, you want to meet up sometime and call me radioboy to my face, just let me know when and where."
Look at what you call yourself for christ sakes dip.
I wish you could see us laughing at you when you act tough radio boy, you remind me of Barney Fife.
It is no surprise you refuse to answer my question @1:40.
February 12, 2009
4:42 PM
GOPSUCKS writes:
Unregulated business led to the great depression, the GOP follows that path and our economy collapses and it is just “bad luck”.
The Bush administration is warned about Bin Laden, in writing, planning to attack with civilian aircraft and they do and it is just “bad luck”.
Bush Sr. avoids invading Bagdad because he says it will be a quagmire his son does invade Bagdad and now we are footing the bill and it is just “bad luck”.
It reminds me of about every story from every loser how they didn’t do the right thing and they suffer the consequences and it is just “bad luck”.
February 12, 2009
4:48 PM
Iceman7 writes:
Shaggy.
It was only by a minute.
But we be there!
It seems that JMH and JW are related.
They post meaningless opinionated long winded typical loon stuff.
Oh sorry JW, I meant to include educated. That must make the other half JMH the Dunce.
Ice
February 12, 2009
4:50 PM
am 760 writes:
shag, I don't respond to you anymore since you are brainless dolt, who only can repeat what rush and faux tells you. Your a waste of my time, like most righties on this site. So in the future, don't be getting all excited about me responding to you.
Have to laugh again though,as your are completely insane by saying repubs put the people first.
Your party just wanted to crush the stimulus package that would benefit ordinary working class americans. It was okay giving stimulus to the banks though with no accountability. But trying to create jobs by improving americas infrastructure, no thats wrong.
Yeah those bankers and CEO's are the real working class people of america. Man you are stupid and guillable. Sad that we let people like you call yourself an american. Does Wyoming actually have public education or are you all home schooled.
Keep up with the name calling though,i.e. radioboy, it so fits your 3rd grade mentality and personality.
February 12, 2009
5:21 PM
KW writes:
"I wish you could see us laughing at you when you act tough radio boy, you remind me of Barney Fife." --shaggy
Yo Shaggy, give me a heads up before you post something that funny next time. It was a great visual but I just spit Coke all over my keyboard and monitor.
Good thing there weren't any sharp objects nearby for me to fall on.
BTW - radio, ahem... "Mr am760," was that a threat or did you want to by me a beer?
February 12, 2009
5:35 PM
Iceman7 writes:
KW,
I have couple of points and some questions regarding our current congressional leadership and the “Stimulus” bill. Let me know if you concur.
First a couple of words that our Dem congress and the great one keep using over and over again, Stimulus and Investments.
It used to be that when spending bills passed through Congress. They would be called Spending Bills!
But this is no longer the right word.. Our leadership now wants to sugar coat these bills and call them Stimulusesssess….
Stimulus still = Government Spending.
Secondly since when does the government Invest tax payer monies that generate dividends or investment growth? Whenever we hear the word invest from a politician, we should always raise the antenna and think taxation.
Investment still = Taxation.
To the 800+ billion dollar Spending Bill; what is the rush to pass this partisan bill? We are talking about over one trillion dollars in spending over the projected 10 year life. What we hear most is that this bill is intended to put America back to work. Jump start the economy we hear. What is in the bill that will generate jobs and what kind of jobs are we talking about? If we listen to the Dems and media rhetoric, we hear Infrastructure project jobs. The need to repair bridges, schools, buildings, enhance power grids. I don’t see these being jobs that will come to market soon. Arent these typically union jobs?
To the point on rushing the “Spending” Bill through. Could it be that TARP is working? Money is once again flowing back into the markets. What would happen if no bill is passed and the economy starts getting back on track? Would Bush be given credit? We would not want that to happen would we? Even at the expense of the un-employed?
Just some observation especially since the markets seemed to be recovering up until Turbo Taxes Geithner rose to the occasion.
Ice
February 12, 2009
5:55 PM
Ben-Former Democrat writes:
I have a question. Why is President Obama and Democratic leadership stripping out E-verify (99.5 success rate) from this new stimulus package? Democrats are letting this expire( even sabotaging it) and putting illegal aliens and special interest pandering in front of American citizens. Call your Senators people.
Disgraceful. Democrat.
February 12, 2009
6:04 PM
Ben- Another American Patriot writes:
With all the hardships Americans workers and companies are facing it is inconceivable, but our elected elite are actually behind closed doors working to assure that illegal workers and foreign companies share in the bailout!! Here are just a few of the outrages:
Illegal Aliens The Senate rejected Senator Sessions' Amendment to require the federal contractors use E-Verify, which would prevent jobs going to illegal workers. According to a study by Robert Rector 300,000 new construction jobs alone would go to illegal aliens without E-Verify.
H-1B Visas Senators Chuck Grassley and Bernie Sanders introduced an amendment that would stop new jobs from going to temporary foreign H1B workers. It passed, but was then watered down to allow companies to hire the foreign workers if they simply jump through a few loopholes.
Radical Open Borders Groups The stimulus bill provides over 250 million dollars directly and up to 5 billion dollars in tax exemption to approved "Community Development" institutions. Approved institutions include La Raza and ACORN. No one can be certain how much these organizations will be getting but I guarantee it will be a handsome sum considering their own lobbyists and left wing bureaucrats will be dividing it up.
Brazil General Motors which has already received $13.4 billion in taxpayer bailout money and asking for more just announced it will take $1 billion of TARP funds and invest it in Brazil!
Foreign Goods In the Senate version of the Stimulus package the "Buy American" clause was watered down to apply only to a few goods like steel. The majority of the stimulus money can now go overseas.
President Obama and his left wing pals are demanding an immediate vote on this massive spending bill claiming Americans will suffer even further if we don't get it passed. Then they fight every effort to put tools in place that will assure these trillions of dollars will be available for foreign companies and foreign workers. Where is the transparency?
The Left is demanding a quick vote so Americans will never hear what goodies they have buried inside this monstrosity. They don't want to expose it to the light of day-they know if they are forced to defend this bill on the national stage they will lose all credibility. Hypocrisy is at an all time high.
February 12, 2009
6:48 PM
Arizona messakin writes:
E-verify (99.5 success rate) from this new stimulus package? Democrats are letting this expire( even sabotaging it) and putting illegal aliens and special interest pandering in front of American citizens. Call your Senators people
This time i agree with U ben
But I gotta call John McCain
February 12, 2009
7:28 PM
JW writes:
Wow, wingnuts in force, and all of you acting like the last 8 years of your ideology on parade were a resounding success.
The day you idiots explain why we should listen to you even though your failed ideology leaves us with a crashed economy and massive debt to make it worse EVERY TIME...Ill start taking you seriously again.
Till then, your just a bunch of idiots supporting failure as if it were a good thing.
February 13, 2009
7:52 AM
Chris writes:
Obama lied to us. There is no change in the way things are being done in politics. He is poised to sign the biggest pork platter in history because he wants to scare everyone into believing an emergency stimulus bill to an omnibus spending bill is something new and different in Washington. It's not. Same old crap from the same old crap party.
"Do what we say and not what we do" is the real message behind the empty platitudes about higher ethical standards and transparency in his administration. That means his political appointees will likely not have any felony convictions recently in order to "serve" the people. Other than that, anything goes.
The royal sheen is wiping off fast. I suspect there will be no real republican support for this terrible spending bill. Let the democraps own this one on their own.
February 13, 2009
8:18 AM
Anonymous writes:
Obama and the Democrats are way over their heads.
February 13, 2009
8:30 AM
Shaggy writes:
I will be willing to bet not ONE Senator voting on this porkulus bill has even read it in it's entirety.
The bill was not even available for them as late as at least 9:00 p.m. last night and probably much later and they are suppose to vote at 7:00a.m. this morning.
Why do the Democrats want to rush this bill through before the people get to read it?
Where is all this transparency Barry keeps telling us about?
Oh and here is another kicker, Harry Reid added another porkulus project at the 11th hour when no one was around. An 8 billion Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas rail.
All these idiots are loading in their personal pet projects that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy but rather to get re-elected.
If you aren't mad you aren't paying attention!!!!
More proof Democrats SUCK!!!!
The American people are royally getting screwed.
I so so so hope that one of the three Republicans does the right thing and votes against this massacre.
The Democrats have totally gone wild on a spending spree with our money.
February 13, 2009
8:31 AM
Tomas Payne writes:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/stimulus_individuals/index.htm
actually this is not bad.
Temporary credit for home buyers: The bill increases the size of an existing temporary and refundable first-time home buyer credit to $8,000, up from $7,500
Temporary deduction for car buyers: The bill would let those who buy a new car, light vehicle, recreational vehicle or motorcycle in 2009 deduct state and local sales taxes as well as any excise tax charged in the purchase. The deduction would be available to those earning less than $125,000
Making Work Pay Credit: The bill provides a $400 credit per worker and a $800 credit per dual-earner couple. The full credit would be paid to people making $75,000 or less
Break for higher income families: The bill includes a one-year provision to protect middle- and upper-middle-income families from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax
New temporary college credit: The bill introduces the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which would be in effect for 2009 and 2010. It expands the existing Hope Scholarship tax credit and would be worth as much as $2,500 for higher education expenses, up from $1,800 currently
Much better helping americans instead of pouring dollars into Iraq and afghanistan. Much better
February 13, 2009
8:42 AM
JW writes:
"If you aren't mad you aren't paying attention!!!!
More proof Democrats SUCK!!!!
The American people are royally getting screwed.
I so so so hope that one of the three Republicans does the right thing and votes against this massacre.
The Democrats have totally gone wild on a spending spree with our money."
But they arent spending anywhere NEAR what Republicans did Shaggy. They arent screwing us anywhere NEAR what Republicans do Shaggy.
When you can explain why we should want people in charge who leave us with a crashed economy and record debt EVERY TIME they run things, then you'll have something to say. Till then, no matter how bad you say Dems are, they are still better than the alternative Republicans have given us EVERY TIME.
The best place for Republicans is as an effective minority, at least until they get away from the policies that run our economy into the ground and leave us with record debt, which they do, EVERY TIME.
February 13, 2009
9:01 AM
Shaggy writes:
Your so full of shit JW you can't see past your blind partisian hackery.
This is the BIGGEST transfer of the peoples money to the Government in the WORLDS history dumbass.
You have no clue as to what your saying.
SOCIALISM!!!
At least you agree that this bill is more of a Democratic pet project bill and most of it has nothing to do with stimulating the economy.
I will agree that Bush made many mistakes and one is not recognizing the meltdown of the Mortgage companies largely caused by the Democrats thinking everyone should own a home regardless if they could afford it or not.But to blame it all on Bush is just biased BS coming from a biased BS'er.
Anyways I hope Reid little midnight stuffing of it is enough to get one of the three Republicans to vote against it.
Don't you agree they are trying to fast track this before the people even get a chance to find out what is in it?
Transparency my ass!
What a liar!
February 13, 2009
9:16 AM
JW writes:
"Your so full of shit JW you can't see past your blind partisian hackery."
End of Reagan/Bush 1: Protracted economic slowdown, record debt.
End of Bush 2: Well, same thing.
End of Clinton: Lower debt, surplus in budget, BLIP of a slowdown even when made worse by 9/11.
"This is the BIGGEST transfer of the peoples money to the Government in the WORLDS history dumbass."
No, its not. Bush did worse. FAR WORSE. So did Reagan. They just did it in many bills rather than one. Youre dumb enough not to get that, presumably because one requires addition.
"You have no clue as to what your saying.
SOCIALISM!!!"
ONE of us has no clue what we are saying, but its not me.
"I will agree that Bush made many mistakes and one is not recognizing the meltdown of the Mortgage companies largely caused by the Democrats thinking everyone should own a home regardless if they could afford it or not.But to blame it all on Bush is just biased BS coming from a biased BS'er."
Im not blaming the melt down on Bush. But the economy is cyclic. A slowdown was going to happen. Bush made sure it would be as bad as possible by loading us up with debt. Same as Reagan and Bush Sr. Same as Republicans ALWAYS do when they are in charge.
ALWAYS.
EVERY TIME.
You cant bs your way out of this fuckwit.
"Don't you agree they are trying to fast track this before the people even get a chance to find out what is in it?"
Yes, but I dont agree that is their primary motivation. I think they are doing it not to hide it from you Shaggy, but because they believe its necessary to do it fast to help the economy.
Anyway, youre just a failure pimp.
February 13, 2009
9:24 AM
Shaggy writes:
What no blog on Sen. Judd Gregg stepping down after Barry pulled his control of the census under from him and re-routed it to Emanuel so the Democrats can falsify it?
btw, that is the first time in U.S. history that the Commerce Secretary was stripped of that authority.
Rigged Politics at it's best.
Transparency you can believe in.
Barry is a habitual liar who is just winging it as he goes.
No wonder why Gregg stepped down from a six figure income, he actually has morals and a conscious.
February 13, 2009
9:32 AM
Jim writes:
well shaggy
both parties have said the economy needs help. Both parties. Soooo. lets here the pub plan...
to make up for 3 million jobs lost.
the silence is deafening.
February 13, 2009
9:33 AM
GOPSUCKS writes:
The largest shift of wealth in history happened during Bush's Presidency and that wealth went primarily to people we should not be enriching.
Here is an article from a very conservative publication on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110902573_pf.html
GOP supporters live on denial of how bad Bush harmed our country. He killed more Americans than the terrorists and our economy was killed to boot. I have a hard time thinking he was that stupid but the only other option is that he was on the terrorist’s side.
February 13, 2009
9:43 AM
JW writes:
"No wonder why Gregg stepped down from a six figure income, he actually has morals and a conscious."
Im just glad he did. Clearly, as we have seen since Reagan, we dont need Republicans in position of actual power. Obama is doing the right thing attempting to include Republicans, but they do need to be kept on a short leash, or they will....
Crash the economy and leave us smothered in record debt...
Like the ALWAYS DO.
EVERY TIME.
February 13, 2009
9:46 AM
Shaggy writes:
But but Bush.
Why in the hell are you so stuck on the past instead of the future.
I was totally against the last Bush stimulus and made it clear and if a Republican were President right now pushing this porkulus bill I would just as mad.
You aren't though because it is the Democrats pushing for it.
You are a Parisian hack.
"I think they are doing it not to hide it from you Shaggy, but because they believe its necessary to do it fast to help the economy."
Yea right, most of this has NOTHING to do with immediate relief dumbass. Most of it will not occur for two to three years and beyond.
This is suppose to be an emergency economy recovery package yet the Democrats have thrown everything including the kitchen sink in there and you want to wonder in the past and blame Republicans.
How about standing up against all the sludge in this bill that has nothing to do with emergency aid?
You won't because you are a partisan hack!
Jim,
Anything and everything that has nothing to do with immediate economy aid needs to go..NO?
February 13, 2009
9:53 AM
KW writes:
tomas - Just a few clarifications:
"Temporary credit for home buyers: The bill increases the size of an existing temporary and refundable first-time home buyer credit to $8,000, up from $7,500"
$500 whole extra dollars when you buy a $200000 home? Sweeeet! That would be great... for fist time home buyers that is. What about the rest of us who aren't first time buyers? Sucks to be us, huh?
"Temporary deduction for car buyers: The bill would let those who buy a new car, light vehicle, recreational vehicle or motorcycle in 2009 deduct state and local sales taxes as well as any excise tax charged in the purchase. The deduction would be available to those earning less than $125,000"
When Bush allowed a special tax deduction for purchases of business equipment (trucks, hummers, etc...) weighing over 6000lbs gvw the left screamed about the gas guzzlers an dBush's stupidity. But rec vehicles are now OK for tax breaks? Even if we let that slide, this still only helps people who can already afford to buy a new car or RV. What about the rest (and majority) of Americans? Oh well, sucks to be us again I guess.
"aking Work Pay Credit: The bill provides a $400 credit per worker and a $800 credit per dual-earner couple. The full credit would be paid to people making $75,000 or less"
Bush sent each of us an actual check for $600. And you all squawked back then. I guess $400 from Obama makes more since to you for some reason. Lets see how you feel if/when Obama lets the middle class tax cuts from Bush expire in 2010 and whielyou may be getting $400 from Obama's right hand, his left hand will be wanting and extra $1000 back on 4/15.
"Much better helping Americans instead of pouring dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan. Much better"
That's a lovely thought. But we are STILL engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and STILL spending $$billions there. "Instead" was a very naive choice of words.
"actually this is not bad."
Not yet, it still must be signed for it to become "bad." When this bill is signed by Obama it will constitute the most amount of money ever wasted by a president in the first 30 days of taking office.
But come to think of it, I guess this is change from the norm. Too bad it doesn't represent any sort of change that the American voters who put him in office were hoping for.
February 13, 2009
9:54 AM
Anonymous writes:
"But but Bush.
Why in the hell are you so stuck on the past instead of the future."
OH MY F'ING GOD!!!! That has to be the funniest, most obvious example of hypocrisy EVER.
"Yea right, most of this has NOTHING to do with immediate relief dumbass. Most of it will not occur for two to three years and beyond."
Yes, those would be the provisions to keep our economy competitive in the FUTURE.
Something Im not surprised you dont understand Shaggy, because your ideology CRASHES THE ECONOMY EVERY TIME. Republicans dont look to the future competitiveness of the economy like Obama does because they know what is coming. FAILURE, EVERY TIME. They dont need to look ahead. Protracted economic slowdown and massive debt. EVERY TIME.
"How about standing up against all the sludge in this bill that has nothing to do with emergency aid?"
All of the spending and tax cuts for the next two years are aimed at economic recovery. After that they start spending on things that will keep the economy competitive. Agian, not something Republicans are familiar with. They dont worry about being competitive in the future because they KNOW it wont happen. Economic slowdown, protracted, hampered by massive debt. EVERY TIME.
Failure pimp Shaggy.
February 13, 2009
10:11 AM
Shaggy writes:
Your an idiot stooge.
What part of "most of this bill has nothing to do with the economy are you having problems understanding?"
btw,
Barry ws trying to act like he was including Republicans but when he found out how the Democrats can use the census in their favor he stripped Gregg of that power.
Partisan my ass.
Anyways, you are a partisian stooge who will make excuse after excuse for the Democrats so is a waste of time trying to educate you.
February 13, 2009
10:13 AM
KW writes:
"Here is an article from a very conservative publication on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/" --sucks
While WaPo isn't another NYT, they aren't all that far behind. It must really "suck" to be so out of touch with reality like the folks who make idiotic statements like this.
You aren't any relation to radioboy, are you?
February 13, 2009
10:21 AM
JW writes:
You guys are GREAT!
I think you are litterally the canary in a coal mine.
You freaked out during the Clinton admin, and things were AWESOME.
You loved Reagan, Bush, and Bush 2, and look what happened!
So, if KW and Shaggy are freaking out, looks good for a long time!
If Shaggy and KW are telling us how great everything is, look for 5 years of good economy, followed by 3-6 of "THIS TOTALLY SUCKS!"
"What part of "most of this bill has nothing to do with the economy are you having problems understanding?""
I understand your statement very well. I also understand what causes you to say it; slackjawed stupidity.
"It must really "suck" to be so out of touch with reality like the folks who make idiotic statements like this."
This, from a guy who religiously supports policies that crash our economy and leave us saddled with massive debt EVERY TIME.
February 13, 2009
10:27 AM
am 760 writes:
KW, perfect example. You can't read the article and refute it, you can just whine about where it came from. If it doesn't come with the stamped approval of rush and faux, its not credible. You might want to notice that the commondreams articles I post are usually written by people who are experts in the area they are commenting on. You know they have credibility, check the bottom of the articles, it give there credentials. Im no expert in many or these areas, but I can certainly read and post articles by people who are.
Let the repubs continue to obstruct and be the party of no. Just that many more seats they will lose next election. Keep up the good work there, neo cons, your to stupid and out of touch to even realize your digging yourself a further hole to dig out of.
And KW, take it how ever you want, just don't soil yourself.
February 13, 2009
10:39 AM
am 760 writes:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/13
Here you go KW, article written by a Nobel prize winning economist. But you probably know more than him, so please refute.
February 13, 2009
11:05 AM
KW writes:
"KW, perfect example. You can't read the article and refute it, you can just whine about where it came from" --radioboy
Not whining about the where the article came from at all their my furry frequency friend. Just pointing out the blind stupidity of the statement that preceded the link.
I've also stated this many time but apparently one more time is needed for you.
1) If your link is to any far left whacked out website (commondreams, great example, thanks!) I won't waste my time reading that drivel. I've visited that and many other such sites enough to know lies and deceit first hand.
2) Krugman may be smart but that doesn't make him intelligent. His ideology overrides any iota of intelligence he has when it comes to reporting factual information on any economic or political issue. He's far left, proud of it and will write anything in support of the far left liberal agenda.
Like you, he just can't help it. It's who he is.
February 13, 2009
11:20 AM
Ben writes:
Common Dreams... Too Funny.
Didn't Jimmy Carter and Algore win a Nobel "prize" too? lol
February 13, 2009
11:22 AM
JW writes:
But KW, you arent a PhD in economics, so you cant really refute the merrits of his academic arguments.
And, you are still supporting policies which have left us with stagnant economies and massive debt EVERY TIME they are implemented in the REAL WORLD.
You can bash Krugman's theories with your layman BS all you want, but the jury is still out on his conclusions.
The story is in on yours, and that story is one of FAILURE...EVERY SINGLE TIME.
February 13, 2009
12:20 PM
RushRules writes:
You want to see the pork? Here's the list:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021209/content/01125109.guest.html
February 13, 2009
1:13 PM
Anonymous writes:
KW, just like I thought, too stupid, arrogant and close minded to consider anything thats not endorsed by rush or faux. Learning involves reading, you should try it some time.
BTW, what are rushs creditials? Did he even go to college, does he have any expertise in anything other than being a talk radio host? You guys sure give him a lot of credit, when he doesn't even have any creditials when it comes to the economy, polices, etc... He is just a person who spouts his opinion and you all treat it as gosepel. As far as I know he has no degree in anything.
Your just an ignorant tool that the gop loves. No common sense or actual intelligence, just talking points, and voting against your own best interests.
And as usual no refuting my article because you can't.
JW, have you ever read, "Debunking Greenspan". I heard thom hartmann talking about it the other night. He said he would post a link to it on his website.
February 13, 2009
2:00 PM
am 760 writes:
JW, that book was called, "Greenspan Fraud: How Two Decades of His Policies Have Underminded the Global Economy". Its written by Ravi Batra who is a Professor of Economics at SMU. You can check it out on amazon.com.
Just wondering if you had read it and what your thoughts were on it, since you hold greenspan up so highly.
February 13, 2009
2:02 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Nothing quite like wasting the rest of the world's savings on bad US consumer debt, then doubling down to gobble up even more with US federal debt... great to see we're getting to the root of the problem!
Start the printing presses!
February 13, 2009
3:10 PM
RushRules writes:
Anonymous, you are confusing education with intelligence.
Don't.
There are a whole lot of over-educated, stupid people out there. Don't be one of them.
February 13, 2009
3:52 PM
KW writes:
Is "Rush" the only thing you neo-dems can respond with? Give it a rest already. There were conservatives loooooooong before talk radio. Hell, even before radio itself. So please try and use you minds if you wish to engage here. It would be so much more enlightening to debate some people with at least a tad of reasoning skills.
If all you can do is yell RUSH, RUSH, RUSH then slapping you around loses some of it's innate quality.
February 14, 2009
2:33 PM
Thunderwalker writes:
Well, if insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, then welcome to the age of insanity.
As much bitching as people did about GWB spending too much money, suddenly, BHO doubles down and it's regarded as brilliant. Talk about inconsistent.
February 14, 2009
11:19 PM
Still think greenspan did a good job. writes:
"Just wondering if you had read it and what your thoughts were on it, since you hold greenspan up so highly"
In all fairness Greenspan did say that he thought the bush tax cuts were excessive. Eventhough he went along with it. He thought they wouldve been repealed as soon as the economy got better. Today hes at a loss to explain the bubble he created in the housing market and insists that he could not have done much at the fed to controll this.
February 15, 2009
6:03 AM
Anonymous writes:
Now we know why the pubs won't come to center.
They are afraid of the right in a primary fight.
The few thats left in congress represent the Bush types. Can't reason with them
"And a big part of the answer is structural. The underlying explanation for the failure of bipartisanship is our flawed primary system. It sounds strange, but few Republicans fear being beaten by a Democrat; they come mostly from deeply red areas and have high odds of surviving a general election. The real fear is an upset in a Republican primary, as conservative Utah Rep. Chris Cannon suffered last year when he ventured too close to the center on immigration.
The American primary system, now about 100 years old, is disturbingly antidemocratic. It disenfranchises independents, who make up about a third of the electorate and aren't allowed to vote in most party primaries. It pushes candidates in both parties to the extremes,"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/184771/page/2
This was the root of John McCain Failing in the end
February 15, 2009
7:31 AM
ditto writes:
Here my stimulus deal. I would a m 760 and j m h to send me a check for 1000 dollars every month for the rest of my life. If both of you agree, we will work out the arrangements.
February 16, 2009
8:48 AM
Dems are Losers Still writes:
The late night talk shows pick up on it first. Then the sheeple start to change the channels to the news programs and realize that the porkulus bill is not just a punchline on their favorite fluff tv station.
More and more regular folks are doing the math and realizing that $13 dollars a week is insulting. Most of these folks start to track the spending and are becoming aware of the dead end special interest reward system spoils that they thought the Messiah was going to CHANGE.
And then the chickens set out on their return trip home.
That roosting is going to be a roasting.
February 16, 2009
10:40 AM
gop sucks writes:
Kw thinks he's getting the upper hand now by using the word neo dem, what a moron. You know whats pathetic is the gop. They simple have no new ideas so they just copy, copy, copy or try the same things you have for the past 50 years. The dems elect a black president, so now the gop elects its first black leader.
The dems label the new gop neo cons, and now kw, hears someone on the right use neo dems and he thinks he so smart and it somehow applies.
And liberal media, lol. the only reason the stimulus package rating went from over 60% to around 50% is because for the last 2 weeks the gop corporate media put on repubs at a rate of 2 to 1 to argue this. If you can't see this, your freaking stupid.
February 16, 2009
10:59 AM
Painfully obvious writes:
its true. Gop is now a radical fringe group
collection of nutcases
Thats why they're voting soo off base and out of touch with the center. Gop won't exist as a national party much longer.
February 16, 2009
2:03 PM
Democrats sux writes:
"They simple have no new ideas"
And you think tax and spend is new for the Democrats?
"The dems elect a black president"
Barry is just as much white as he is black.
BTW, Most major economists and several of the Democrats admit that many parts of this bill has nothing to do with "stimulating" the economy.
We can't simply can't throw money at the recession and think it is going to take off.
BTW2, The Democrats are the ones who are winging it as they go, even tax cheat Geitner, now the head of the IRS, admits he doesn't know how they are going to handle the money and if it will even work and the stock market reflects the immaturity and insecurity in the WH.
February 16, 2009
2:21 PM
whatever writes:
The stock market doesn't reflect a thing, except how much money the rich have to play with. Its a playground for the rich who have nothing better to do with their money.
Look at job employment, foreclosures, etc... if you want to know how the economy is doing. All of these are at record lows thanks to 8 years of failed gop polices. Thanks sheeple.