Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDetermined to pass something in the way of a stimulus package, Senate Democrats on Friday bartered away key elements of the more robust plan approved by the House.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and his caucus colleagues got what is being called a "bipartisan agreement." But this is not a case of less being more.
The Senate's $780 billion plan is still a budget buster.
It's just not focused on spending as much of the money as the House sought to on renewing the economy.
In order to get the votes of two Republican (Maine's Susan Collins and Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter) and perhaps another (Mainer Olympia Snowe) that were needed to undermine the threat of a GOP filibuster, Reid surrendered $86 billion in proposed stimulus spending. In doing so, the Democrats agreed to cut not just fat but bone, and to warp the focus and intent of the legislation.
The Senate plan is dramatically more weighted than the House bill toward tax cuts (which account for more than 40 percent of the overall cost of the package). This is despite the fact that there is a growing consensus -- among even conservative economists and policy makers -- that tax cuts will do little or nothing to stimulate job creation in a country that lost almost 600,000 positions in January alone. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy, no liberal, said Friday of countries that opt for tax cuts rather than stimulus: The approach "will bring them nothing" in the way of economic regeneration.
The Senate's increased emphasis on tax cuts comes at the expense of the aggressive spending in key areas that might actually get a stalled economy moving.
Spending for school construction that would actually have put people to work -- while at the same time investing in the future -- has been slashed. (Almost $20 billion slated for school construction is gone.)
Money for Superfund cleanup, Head Start and Early Start child care, energy efficiency initiatives and historic preservation projects -- all of which create or maintain existing jobs -- has been cut.
Supplemental transportation funding has been hacked.
The House's proposal to help unemployed Americans maintain their health benefits has been chopped down.
Axed, as well, has been $90 million that was to have been allocated to plan for and manage a potential flu pandemic that economists and public health experts worry could shutter remaining businesses, bring the economy to a complete standstill and throw the country into a deep depression.
The bottom line is that, under the Senate plan:
* States will get less aid.
* Schools will get less help.
* Job creation programs will be less well funded.
* Preparations to combat potential public health disasters -- which could put the final nail in the economy's coffin -- will not be made.
In every sense, the Senate plan moves in the wrong direction.
At a time when smart economists are saying that a bigger, bolder stimulus plan is needed, Senate Democrats and a few moderate Republicans have agreed to a smaller, weaker initiative.
And Republicans are still delaying passage. It could be Sunday, even Monday, before a vote is taken. And who knows what more will be lost -- in time and stimulus spending before President Obama signs a bill.
These are the fruits of bipartisan fantasies and the compromises that follow upon them. President Obama, who should have been on television addressing the nation and doing everything in his power to rally support for a sufficient stimulus plan, will be lucky if he gets anything by the President's Day deadline he set. (Even after the Senate measure passes, a difficult process of reconciling the very different House and Senate bills must take place. Then there will be more votes before any legislation gets to the president's desk.)
The White House still wants to advance this measure, as do Senate Democratic leaders. And, considering the urgency of the moment, they are probably right to try to do something. But if the final "stimulus package" proves to be insufficient to jump start the economy -- and if what is left of public confidence in the prospect of turnaround collapses as a result -- this Friday night compromise will be remembered with pained regret.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
<i>row, row, row your boat......</i>
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 12:08am
Who doesn't love the repugs acting like this is somebody else's problem?
How delicious.
So, new-con posters, when are we going to see a call for accountability on BOTH sides? Don't worry, I already know the answer (never).
Same goes for the democrats.
Hey FZ! Just got outta work about an hour and a half ago, how are you doing this fine evening?
Posted by TexasFlood at 02/07/2009 @ 12:09am
"And Republicans are still delaying passage. If could be Sunday, even Monday, before a vote is taken. And who knows what more will be lost -- in time and stimulus spending before President Obama signs a bill."
Those durn republicans and their never spending money!
Wait a minute! That's all they do! And yet, they're calling themselves conservatives...
What the deuce?
So many contradictions, my brain is exploding : (
Posted by TexasFlood at 02/07/2009 @ 12:10am
well,
(REGARDLESS OF WHO CAUSED THIS £’∞§ΆING MESS)
it may be more prudent to ask the borrowry for fewer ‘DIGITS!, thus lowering the risk that an ultraman size debt will scare aware the last of the fiat franchisers.
we just might squiggle through (pump, pump, pump!)
if it's not enough,
PRINT SOME MORE.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 12:13am
Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaange!
Posted by TexasFlood at 02/07/2009 @ 12:14am
hi tex.
actually, your brain is imploding, being squished from too much simulus. (the "t"s out on purpose)
simulus.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 12:19am
plus ηa Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaange!,
plus c'est la mκme chose.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 12:21am
egad! blacksploitation is back:
Fresh This Spring!
Harmony Pictures Proudly Releases:
BROTHER RAY GUNN,
Starring Barry O as the ultrasuave, Ray Gunn, private eye and ladies man.
Watch as Ray saves the universe by making none of the people happy none of the time.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 12:27am
hope that wasn't too risquι....
anyhoo, best of luck to us all. some of us participated in this house of cards, but ultimately on a miniscule level.
the ones who farted the winds of debt to send it all a-tumblin' will squirm away with big houses full of empty lives while we folk buy clearance pasta.
maybe obama wants to truly heal the festering wound that the duopoly has cleaved into america's political liver.
and i wish him luck.
tax cuts are slow and we need velocity.
but who's gonna tame the inflation.
the less debt, the better, but something's gotta get this stupid rubber band motor wound so that we don't fall into the sinkhole of deflation, like homer when he fell into 3-D.
alas, the banks can't fail........
alas.
give the money to the poorest of folks. they are the ones who've got to spend it.
after all, they've got nothing.
times like these make me especially nervous about fiat money. (oh, well. barter -- it's cleaner.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 12:38am
It's a Stimulacrum.
Posted by koroviev at 02/07/2009 @ 01:13am
Well, if the bill doesn't work...
Keep in mind to write to the Federal Citizen Information Center of Pueblo, Colorado for the new pamphlet....
The Federal Govt.'s Guide for Money Free Americans
Posted by koroviev at 02/07/2009 @ 01:51am
actually,
it's almost free money americans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 02:15am
stimuless
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 02:15am
let them eat steamyoulust!
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/02/
madame-defarge-watch-pay-disparity-in.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 02:21am
I now pronounce the Obama Administration over.
This bill is horrible. Will do literally nothing.
McCain won the election, right?
Posted by neaguy at 02/07/2009 @ 07:42am
"Much of the new spending would be for victims of the recession, in the form of unemployment compensation, health care and food stamps" per most news sourses!
You stupid crazy republicans, neoconservatives, and conservative Christians that voted AGAINST Obamanation calling him a MARXIST-SCOCIALIST are just out of your minds!
Look at all the jobs he is creating if you want to be hired by the government and have your income limited because the government took over your business! You should be grateful to live in Baja-Europe! Just ask the British how wonderful this kind of society is!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 08:09am
You know the worst thing is that while the nation is going down the toilet and the Undemocrats were passing their "politicians pork dream" Obamanation had a dumb look on his face and was reading to 2nd graders in a Washington D.C. charter school and he did not even stop reading to them!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 08:17am
Why did the news media rely on vacuous male and female announcers to pronounce professional evaluation of the bill? The bill is, was, easy to read, boring as hell, but easy to read why didn't any of the so called experts in the media read the thing and give out fair evaluations. Why were professional economist frozen out? I don't mean clowns like Larry Kudlow and his crew of idiot apostles, but true professionals.Why were people like Sheila Bair, whose original idea about home mortgages would have stopped some of the home foreclosure hemorrhage, shut out? An example: the media is now excited that aid to education has been cut and ATV trails have been cut. I'm not even going to try to deal with the stupidity of the education cut, but here in Northern Maine the only economy is snow sled trails since they shipped all our shoe plants to China. O. K. maybe I will take a shot at education cuts, they only hurt poor areas. White Plains New York doesn't need education help they got 350 billion in tarp money, and they were going to buy a corporate private jet from France until they got caught. Senator Claire McCaskill is right "They are idiots!". Poor people don't pay taxes????? Really???? Has anyone checked the Clinton tax on gasoline and fuel oil? how about FICA and all regressive sales taxes? If people own an "out house" they usually pay real estate taxes. When did we become so stupid as to believe these casino economists? Why do we keep electing them over and over again? The multi billionairs have lost millions. Awe damn that is so frigging sad. People in my area are burning their furniture to stay warm
Posted by julien38 at 02/07/2009 @ 09:05am
Look, Mr Nichols and the "pure progressives" (neaguy for one) aside...
this was a pretty big defeat for the Repubs.
Their base wanted NO bill, nothing...knew they'd have to take something, but hoped to cut a lot more than just $120 Billion (which will get added back in the regular appropriations).
Their talking heads have been telling them that it's "socialism" and "the most massive government power grab in human history" (see RIO/comanche) and the GOP Senators (like McCain) told them that they'd fight "tooth and nail to get a REAL stimulus bill". AND they were told that "Rasmussen says the public hates the bill".
But the passage of this proves that all that was...just talk. That aside from being able to "trim the edges" (and it is) with some blue dog Dem help...
the Repubs are essentially helpless.
Think about it...if they wouldn't filibuster "socialism" (what their base was told it was)....what WILL they filibuster???
Mr Nichols will get his additional spending later, but with less fuss in the normal appropriations bill.
This weekend? The GOP just got shown who won the election...and it wasn't them or their base.
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2009 @ 09:49am
Too much is at stake to allow the Republican minority in the Senate to continue the mess they created before they were twice defeated.
It's time to end their veto power by filibuster.
The stimulus fight is only the first event, with more to come.
The Democratic leadership should adopt the nuclear option. End the filibuster once and for all, at least until 2011. It's not in the Constitution, only in the Senate rules repeatedly adopted.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
Posted by Bkinfo at 02/07/2009 @ 09:56am
What a disgrace those Republicans are all their agenda was in all of this was to show the "new" guy (Obama) just who he was dealing with!!! There was no concern for the folks suffering out here it was all about them and their own personal agenda. Why they don't rename the party The Tax Cut Party I don't know as that's all they want and talk about. They have absolutely no intention of working with Obama apart from maybe one or two, it's just payback time for them and they will be seen for what they really are out and out obstructionists!! I hope Obama has learnt something from this that you can't turn frogs into Princes and he should follow his own agenda.
Posted by Caj at 02/07/2009 @ 11:12am
This is despite the fact that there is a growing consensus -- among even conservative economists and policy makers -- that tax cuts will do little or nothing to stimulate job creation in a country that lost almost 600,000 positions in January alone...
Really? Maybe consesus on the left...but everywhere else tax cuts have worked everytime ..
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/07/2009 @ 11:27am
End the role of the filibuster. Can be terminated by a majority vote in the Senate.
end supermajority rule!
Posted by hkaplan at 02/07/2009 @ 11:30am
Mask,
"GOP just got shown who won the election...and it wasn't them or their base.
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2009 @ 09:49am "
True...which is why no GOP votes in the House...
and ...
what...
..3 New England GOP votes in the Senate?(the bastion of conservatives that NE is known for:))
That is bipartisan?..Please..
This is a DEM bill and an OBama plan...anyone who has even run a lemonade stand knows this is not a stimulus bill or even close..it is,
....Old boy Mask,
..a....
"Great Leap Forward"
...towards the the S word, all here can deny, but in practice,all here want is more and more control over revenues(resourcses, IE., other peoples cash)...
Second nine tee time...bye.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/07/2009 @ 11:34am
I am more or less at appalled at this article... just as I'm irritated by much of the liberal press of late.
With all this talk of economic stimulus... with which we must physically repair the damage done to the US economy and of the entire world by a rogue economic ideology... it is obvious that we need a great deal of capitol infusion to make up for the loss of imaginary money that investors 'made' over the last decade...
But the economic 'fact' that is abjectly absent from the writings and soliloquies of the progressive left is as clear as it is disconcerting.
Our sense of 'emotional stimulus'... which is a crucial ingredient of any flourishing economy... is astringently absent from our analyses and even more... actually retarded by our fertile cynicism so easily triggered after eight years of Bush's headstrong ways.
Hope, belief, trust, and positive imagination are absolutely crucial to our recovery... and our change of direction as a Nation... and it is incumbent upon each and every one of us... as patriots... to do our part.
So what's it gonna be...?
A cynic's paradise... or the realization of a difficult but attainable dream?
Our critical attempts at correction and direction change... as well as our behavior modifications... need to be approached with a brighter tone and with more positive speculations... in order to glean the splendid results we all crave.
We can do it!
Posted by ttr at 02/07/2009 @ 11:36am
Nichols, I'm worried about you. The daily struggle against the terrible injustice in the world is taking its toll on you. I suggest you take a night off. Perhaps you should go see the new Che movie. A light hearted bio of a true revolutionary. It will relax you, and give you strength to rage against the machine next week.
Posted by sntauri at 02/07/2009 @ 11:36am
So there are only 3 moderate repubs?
And if the new con repub blood sucking ticks fade into a dried up pore-- what would really be lost? REALLY. Does our nation really need an unbridled self-destructive alter-ego, an animus, an id bent on wildly disregarding our nations higher self-- the counter to what we are: our constitution, "We the people", growing our core middle class, building global relationships via our generosity and good will? What if that which opposed us had no power to misdirect, mislead, sway us into disrepute? Would we become stronger or weaker?
Wouldn't we then become arrogant?
And if so-- has that arrogance been made visible by new con repubs sucking it right out of our nations pores?
Is that the new con repub blood sucking ticks' true purpose in existing at all! To reveal to us the truth of what we do not want to become...!
Then they are a gift to us. They have become so generous in their sucking that they now reveal what it is we need to know not to be.
That is why new con repubs are here.
They have a purpose.
Think last scene in "Unbreakable".
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 11:38am
Really? Maybe consesus on the left...but everywhere else tax cuts have worked everytime ..
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/07/2009 @ 11:27am
You're right. We've been cutting taxes for three decades, and the economy's in fine shape now!
Posted by richcarl at 02/07/2009 @ 11:38am
Tax Cuts............didn't BO promise tax cuts to the middle class? Lots of folks loved the idea.
Tax Cuts can be stimulative - depending on where they are made.
Has anyone studied the "tax cuts," - or has the conclusion been drawn that they will just go the rich?
Government spending under control of government isn't always fair - and is often corrupt.
Relief in the hands of actual taxpayers of this Country at their disposal has merit, and shouldn't be dismissed so readily.
Posted by OneVote at 02/07/2009 @ 11:39am
When this thing goes to conference, is there any reason that Pelosi can't just appoint Democrats?
Posted by cumchu at 02/07/2009 @ 11:47am
The fact is Tax cuts will do nothing for the unemployed or those millions yet to join that group. We still have a few points to go to equal Reagans 10% but I'm certain it will happen. The Republicans again show their colors when they went after extending unemployment benefits and of all things food stamps. I've said it before and I'll say it again there are two things these compassionate consevatives lack. one is compassion and the other is any evidence of conservativism. In the eyes of Republicans if you make less than $250,000 a year you don't exist or at least don't matter; and that is the majority of America. How in the world do these guys get elected? Because the voters are dumber than they are and buy into a few buzz words??
Posted by ROinReno at 02/07/2009 @ 12:00pm
All of you republican nincompoops make me sick. As long as you are doing well financially, then to hell with everyone else is your philosophy. Get out of the way and let Obama and the democrats run things for awhile. The country's already in the ditch, thanks to you guys. After 8 years of GB stupidity, at last a president with brains and a willingness to help the nation not just a few greedy idiots. You people are irrelevent, so just GO AWAY!
Posted by undca at 02/07/2009 @ 12:13pm
The Democrats are compromising our children's future away by compromising with the same old right wing tax cut policies that helped get us into this mess. Reagan is dead and now I wish he, his legacy and the GOP would go away.
Posted by lltrix at 02/07/2009 @ 12:31pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/07/2009 @ 11:34am
MAASCH, answer a few easy questions...all based on what you read or heard from Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News roundtable, the Web, whatever.
1. Was the stimulus bill "socialism" and a "huge transfer of wealth to the government"?
2. Did "Rasmussen say the public was turning against it...growing more and more unpopular"?
3. Did McCain and Mitch McConnell and whoever tell you they would "fight tooth and nail to stop this terrible bill" and "try to get a REAL stimulus bill"?
if 1 and 2 and 3 were true....then
4. Why didn't the GOP Senators FILIBUSTER this terrible, awful, capitalism-destroying legislation????
Or is something not adding up????
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2009 @ 12:46pm
have your income limited because the government took over your business! -RIO
I know one way to prevent govt takeover....don't take money from the taxpayers.
------
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2009 @ 12:46pm
Too bad it is not something important, like a Rhode Island judgeship. That would be worthy of a filibuster.
----
Who is going to watch over all of this stimulus? Anybody? Or is this going to be a repeat of the Bush "gotta have it now" bailout of the risk takers?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/07/2009 @ 12:58pm
Posted by crabwalk at 02/07/2009 @ 12:58pm
Interesting, isn't it?
Straight out of the box (Obama's Inauguration), the GOP started in on the stimulus bill...."worst thing in American history"..."socialism"..."going to destroy capitalism"...AND "Rasmussen says the public HATES it"...
Seems a perfect storm for the Democrats and a GOLDEN opportunity for Repubs to filibuster the thing, prove they're still in the game, solidify their base, and (if Rasmussen was RIGHT) win huge popular support and embarass Obama in his first 100 days.
Win-win-win for the Repubs.
IF....the right-wing talking points were true, that is!!!
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2009 @ 1:05pm
The real shame here is that the "Stimulus Bill" which should have been called the "Jobs Bill" has been successfully neutered by the pugs. The American people by and large relate the word "Stimulus" with Viagra.. Not to mention that it will never work anyway.
The "Job's Bill" would have to be at least three times larger, in the neighborhood of 3 Trillion dollars to have any lasting and productive effect. Obama should have been bold as brass and proposed a cosmic expenditure. I believe that he thinks that the more conservative approach of feeding the American people this reality one bite at a time is best. Wrong! That strategy allows the necons to pick pick pick. And the American people will soon tire of continued "Stimulus Packages".
It is a formula for failure. We need to Nationalize all the Banks until they are operating in a sane way again. We need to learn something from the Japanese. They tried this and spent 6 Trillion dollars, mostly on infrastructure and in retrospect realized that more expenditure on social programs provided more bang for the buck. We need to roll back the Reagan Tax Cuts and restablish a strong middle class. We need to push the Employee Free Choice Act!
We elected a good president. But not yet a great president. We need to expand his vision and let him know we have his back. So that he has the confidence and determination to take the bold steps necessary to turn this country around.
Posted by chaoszen at 02/07/2009 @ 1:27pm
All of you republican nincompoops make me sick. As long as you are doing well financially, then to hell with everyone else is your philosophy. Get out of the way and let Obama and the democrats run things for awhile. The country's already in the ditch, thanks to you guys. After 8 years of GB stupidity, at last a president with brains and a willingness to help the nation not just a few greedy idiots. You people are irrelevent, so just GO AWAY!
Posted by undca at 02/07/2009 @ 12:13pm |
I'll second that motion for sure...they have had their day in the sun and Obama is running the show now he needs to learn when dealing with the Repubs in future that you can't change frogs into Prince's.
Posted by Caj at 02/07/2009 @ 2:06pm
I thought deficits didn't matter anymore, just like the Russians once Ronnie destroyed the evil empire.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 02/07/2009 @ 3:12pm
Listened to old John McCain in the senate, still worshipping at the alter of Alzheimer Reagan. God I'm glad I didn't vote for him.
Posted by julien38 at 02/07/2009 @ 3:24pm
"Really? Maybe consesus on the left...but everywhere else tax cuts have worked everytime .."
uh, hello? we already tried that back in 2001. 1.4 trillion in tax cuts. now, we have a higher unempolyent rate, higher foreclosure rate, 3 x the amount of people on food stamps, WAY higher debt, WAY higher trade deficit, two unnecessary wars, the list goes on.......conservative economic philosophy is wrong-headed. that is a fact, and the evidence is everywhere around us.
and when obama proposes a bill that costs 500 billion dollars LESS, republicans are upset??
maasch, your ideas have failed. your "movement" lies in ruins. your president, the worst in history. and you still continue to espouse precisely the same ideas which haven't worked.
what was it someone said about stupidity? trying the same failed ideas over and over?
tax cuts don't work, and that is precisely what the GOP wants, nothing but tax cuts.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 3:43pm
MASK<
Try this for starters..
"CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul Stephen Dinan (Contact) Wednesday, February 4, 2009
President Barack Obama speaks to the House Democratic Issues Conference on Thursday in Williamsburg. Associated Press
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.
The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.
But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.
The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.
con't.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/07/2009 @ 3:43pm
the current GOP in the senate is the most brazenly stupid and corrupt that i have ever seen in my entire 50+ years. did anyone see that one senator actually describe how high you could stack one trillion $1 dollar bills? and far around the earth they would go? holy sh*t that guy is stupid.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 3:47pm
con'.
CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.
CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.
The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.
CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.
MASK..
1,2,3 are about correct....
4. I am not a policy maker..but I can see when I am being fooled, and this bill is not much of a stimulus...its just all debt.. cuased by the same problem in the first place...too much spending.
..my guess, would be the Repubs do not have the votes for anything ...and would be seen a obstructionists by MSM and the left...so...make a stink where you can and then vote no.
I especialy love Obeys money for his son in National Parks...real job creator and stimulant.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/07/2009 @ 3:52pm
note: republicans outnumbered democrats 2 to 1 in media appearances over the last two weeks.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 3:53pm
"It is a formula for failure. We need to Nationalize all the Banks until they are operating in a sane way again. We need to learn something from the Japanese. They tried this and spent 6 Trillion dollars, mostly on infrastructure and in retrospect realized that more expenditure on social programs provided more bang for the buck. We need to roll back the Reagan Tax Cuts and restablish a strong middle class. We need to push the Employee Free Choice Act! "
Comrande Chao...
We did learn from the Japanese...the guys ALGORE wanted to copy...they have been stagnant for 10 years with no growth abnywhere...and sinking..
We learned what not to do from them..
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/07/2009 @ 3:57pm
You people are irrelevent, so just GO AWAY!
Posted by undca at 02/07/2009
We are going away..and many are taking their capital with them...and placing it in nice safe places away from the loons like you...
we are putting it right next to all the Hollywood libs, the senate libs, the Clintons, Kemnedy,..and all the rest of those limosine libs who have great ideas on socialism....
say, I wonder when Sean Penn keeps his cash...I bet in ain't in California...
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/07/2009 @ 4:01pm
"We are going away..and many are taking their capital with them...and placing it in nice safe places away from the loons like you..."
thanks for reminding us why we are in a recession.
"they have been stagnant for 10 years with no growth abnywhere...and sinking.."
this is a total lie! first off, they have the second largest economy in the world. second, they grew between 2 and 4% from 2003 - 2007.
the reason they are now sinking is obvious.....and it has nothing to do with al gore.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 4:06pm
"say, I wonder when Sean Penn keeps his cash"
we know he pays exorbitant property taxes, living in Ross of course. as well as exorbitant income taxes.
where he invests his earnings is his choice.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 4:09pm
"We are going away..and many are taking their capital with them...and placing it in nice safe places away from the loons like you..."
where are you going? according to you, all other western nations are socialistic.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 4:17pm
NOW they listen to the CBO?
What makes now different than 2005?
January 31, 2005
"The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half � 48 percent � of this $539 billion in increased costs.[1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs
A growing number of studies from highly respected institutions and economists have concluded that the negative effect on long-term growth of the increased deficits that the tax cuts are generating is likely to cancel out � and quite possibly to outweigh � any positive effects on long-term growth from reductions in marginal tax rates and other tax incentives in the 2001 and 2003 tax-cut packages. Stated simply, the tax cuts are more likely to reduce long-term growth than to increase it
CBO projects that federal revenues will be lower as a share of the economy in 2005 than in all years of the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/07/2009 @ 4:27pm
Sean Penn
Hugo Chavez
Bill Ayers
BJ Honeycutt
These are the people running the USA.
Beware.
But, Phred Thomspon and Toby Keith are O'Tay!
Posted by crabwalk at 02/07/2009 @ 4:36pm
so republicans don't want to increase funds for food stamps?
how do they intend to make sure these people are fed?
and what is more important: feeding the hungry, or quibbling about how strong our economic "growth" will be in 4 years?
i really think that republicans are simply cruel and heartless.
trillion dollar wars? fine. food stamps? nah!
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 4:40pm
New con repubs use tax cuts like placeboes. They perform an hypnosis type effect by repeating their vacuous and contradictory ideology over and over again until their dumbed down base drool in sync to their ever slowly drained heartbeat. New con repub blood sucking ticks bloated with no bid war energy and health insurance profiteering have to be immediately extracted-- not media contracted. Their only purpose is as a glaring warning-- a skull and bones signpost next to quicksand; a road sign stating entering Alabama; a dingy bobbing up and down ringing out for all to avoid.
Yes, find in new con repub advice, itself a warning, a ringing endorsement where our basest natures descend to and how they'd transform us into more of them--- incubating new con repub blood sucking ticks.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 4:50pm
How about More Humor, Less Gloating.....
The Silver Lining...
February 7, 2009 Posted by John (Hinderaker) at 3:05 PM
...of President Obama's first two and a half weeks in office is that they have provided many opportunities for humor. Today someone actually called our radio show to complain that what the Democrats are doing seriously threatens our country, and we shouldn't be laughing at them. True, perhaps, but humorlessness is a bad quality in a talk radio show (just ask the folks at Air America, if it still exists).
No one is better at finding the humor amid the wreckage of sound public policy than Mark Steyn; his latest is a masterpiece of the genre. You need to read it all, but I can't resist these two excerpts. First, the latent connection between two stories in the news:
Appearing on The Rush Limbaugh Show last week, I got a little muddled over two adjoining newspaper clippings--one on the stimulus, the other on those octuplets in California--and for a brief moment the two stories converged. Everyone's hammering that mom--she's divorced, unemployed, living in a small house with parents who have a million bucks' worth of debt, and she's already got six kids. So she has in vitro fertilization to have eight more. But isn't that exactly what the Feds have done? Last fall, they gave birth to an $850 billion bailout they couldn't afford and didn't have enough time to keep an eye on, and now four months later they're going to do it all over again, but this time they want trillionuplets. Barney and Nancy represent the in vitro fertilization of the federal budget.
And Mark has words of sympathy for high-ranking Democrats who don't want to pay their taxes:
(to be continued)
Posted by Happy at 02/07/2009 @ 4:59pm
And Mark has words of sympathy for high-ranking Democrats who don't want to pay their taxes:
The bloated non-stimulus and the under-taxed nominees are part of the same story. I'm with Tom Daschle: I understand why he had no desire to toss another six-figure sum into the great sucking maw of the federal treasury. Who knows better than a senator who's voted for every tax increase to cross his desk that all this dough is entirely wasted? Tom and Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel and all the rest are right: They can do more good with the money than the United States government can. I only wish they followed the logic of their behavior and recognized that what works for them would also work for every other citizen.
Mark notes that we're past the point where anyone still thinks Barack Obama can walk on water, but "he should at least be able to paddle in it." Obama better start paddling pretty soon, because his canoe is heading for a waterfall.
Posted by Happy at 02/07/2009 @ 5:01pm
" Last fall, they gave birth to an $850 billion bailout they couldn't afford and didn't have enough time to keep an eye on, and now four months later they're going to do it all over again"
there's only one itsy-bitsy little difference between last fall's bailout, and this one: we're actually thinking about workers and families this time.
and as for bush's "stimulus": that was a giant tax rebate, which did nothing. obama's stimulus is more than that. that's patently obvious.
now, if you want to do nothing, and just ride through the ensuing collapse, then just say so. but if you want to provide some relief to workers and families, then we need to agree on a number. most experts say the number needs to be much higher than obama's plan.
so, in effect, obama HAS been bipartisan (exactly what the repubs want). and still, it isn't enough. repubs want even more, and are actually ( i kid you not) prancing around COMPLAINING that we're spending too much (as opposed to iraq and afghan, which were totally cool; as opposed to bush's 2001 1.4 trillion dollar cut, totally cool).
republicans are the most vile, most inept, most vulgar, most sinister, and most cruel people in our country.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 5:10pm
Less is More, the HAPPY Bill:
In the spirit of accepting Barack Obama as my POTUS, and given the unending parade of Dems' aversion to paying taxes (?in order to `stimulate' themselves?), perhaps we should all DO as they DO (ignoring what they say (after getting exposed), I have come up with a personal Stimulus Proposal and I'd like the blog pits' feedback.
Now, So, my proposal is for me, and any others in similar `predicment', to:
Under report rental incomes - Hat tip to my role model Charlie Rangel who brilliantly chose to ignore such from his offshore getaway.
Under report Self-employment NOT reflected in any payers' 1099s - Credit for this is to none other than the current Numeral Uno of the IRS.....This is a guaranteed winner for all self-employed!
Think, think........oh, well, nobody is giving me free car & chauffer, trips to New Zealand, or even season tickets to the Texans....guess I just can't figure out a way to benefit the Daschle way....drat!
Now, listen up, we have a ways to go until April 15, and let's all pay close attention to new tax-reduction `techniques' that our tax-avoiding Dem leadership will share with us dumass taxpayers!
Posted by Happy at 02/07/2009 @ 5:19pm
Cato institute Ad in NYTs bulk warning;
"More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's 'lost decade' in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today," the ad says. "Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."
The Cato ad has 203 signatories, including three recent Nobel Prize winners.
We talked to one of the Nobel winners, Edward Prescott of Arizona State University, who won in 2004, about Obama's plan.
"I agree with his wants, but just because you want something, that doesn't make it happen," Prescott said. "I guess he thinks that everything can be solved by people's goodwill and good actions coming from Washington, D.C."
Prescott advocates for a permanent reductions of the income tax or, failing that, nothing.
"I hope Obama succeeds, but benign neglect is a good policy," he said.
Sure there are a FEW notable leftist economist that think otherwise but they are in the MINORITY just like Obamanaiton and the Undemocrats who are selling the U.S.A. down the river!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 5:19pm
It is intresting the way Obamanation and the Undemocrats are trying to stuff their "special intrest only" pork bill down the throats of the nation is through their newly found FAITH BASED INITIATIVE PORKULUS PLAN and the I WON nya nya nya nya nya rationale!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 5:27pm
Ha,
Why can't you understand that semi-bloated new con repub blood sucking ticks will raise unholy hell if you trot a giant sack of life sustaining blood in front of them and tell them it's for others-- that they can't stimulate themselves on it. God will they whine and beg and squeal and howl and growl-- why, it's a giant bag of blood for our bleeding nation, but do new con repub blood sucking ticks care? Of course not, it's all about them filling their own blood sucking bloated bellies. That's all it's ever about; how they suck!
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 5:28pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 5:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You I was just wondering what happened to you and all your Poll-dancing! How is that going these days?
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 5:37pm
"Sure there are a FEW notable leftist economist that think otherwise but they are in the MINORITY just like Obamanaiton and the Undemocrats who are selling the U.S.A. down the river!"
uh, excuse me shit for brains, but BUSH caused the mess in which currently are mired. not obama.
second, i didn't hear any of your "nobel prize economists" mention anything about iraq or afghanistan being "too expensive for the taxpayer." but when obama proposes a stimulus plan that doesn't just include across the board tax cuts (though the current GOP "alternative" does), then all of these economists become deeply concerned for obama's sanity, and the sudden need for "fiscal conservativism."
comanche, your movement is over.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 5:40pm
Who says Repubs can't be a credible Populist! Contact your DC guys/gals and push for approval of HR 735!
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The "Rangel Rule" [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Rep. John Carter, a Texas Republican, sent out a press release earlier today about his innovative new bill:
"Rangel Rule"
All U.S. taxpayers would enjoy the same immunity from IRS penalties and interest as House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Obama Administration Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, if a bill introduced today by Congressman John Carter (R-TX) becomes law.
Carter, a former longtime Texas judge, today introduced the Rangel Rule Act of 2009, HR 735, which would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from charging penalties and interest on back taxes against U.S. citizens. Under the proposed law, any taxpayer who wrote "Rangel Rule" on their return when paying back taxes would be immune from penalties and interest.
01/28 06:13 PM
Posted by Happy at 02/07/2009 @ 5:44pm
Co-am,
?
You mean polls about how hsuB/cHeney still suck big time?
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm
Or how dems are smacking new con repubs about- polls?
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm
____VS_____
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm
Or Obama's polling better than any entering president and he did not even have to let terrorist bomb us to up his poll numbers...
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 5:50pm
but BUSH caused the mess in which currently are mired. not obama.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 5:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Support your LIE by furnishing us with the bills legislated by a Republican majority controlled congress signed by Bush that were banking and financial services bill that caused this recession?
You can not support your LIES can you?
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 5:50pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 5:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Haven't you heard, Bush is no longer President, and neither is Clinton! Funny how your only comments on the Porkulus special intrest bill is only rhethoric unsupported by polls that have always been your mainstay?!?!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 5:54pm
comanche, your movement is over.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 5:40pm
I don't think his movements are all that controllable....
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 5:55pm
<b>Obama better get one thing straight, the Republicans are out to destroy him even if it means destroying the economy ...</b>
Tax cuts do nothing except drain the coffers for worthwhile programs, while increasing the wealth gap. We still have two ongoing wars we haven't yet paid for ... Every war the US has been in it has paid for with higher taxes ... the Republicans cut taxes for these wars!
<b>There is NO compromise with dangerous and toxic ideology. It can only destroy progress. </b>
Posted by mmckinl at 02/07/2009 @ 5:57pm
Under the proposed law, any taxpayer who wrote "Rangel Rule" on their return when paying back taxes would be immune from penalties and interest. Posted by Happy at 02/07/2009 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Or he could call it the Rangel-Dashule-Geithner-Jefferson stimulus tax bill which would close one eye to all U.S.currency keep stored in your freezer!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 6:10pm
Haven't you heard, Bush is no longer President,
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 5:54pm
But haven't you heard -- hsuB will always be remembered -- as the WORST US Pres Admin -- FOREVER.
BTW:
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____Oppose____Unsure
_____52_______38_______10
********
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2009. N=1,027 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).
"How do you think Obama's economic stimulus plan would affect the nation's economy -- would it make it a lot better, make it a little better, not affect it, or make it worse?" Options rotated
Lot Better_Little Better_Not Affect_Worse _Unsure
___17______47_______15______17______4
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 6:12pm
But haven't you heard -- hsuB will always be remembered -- as the WORST US Pres Admin -- FOREVER
No, Jimminey Peanutman Carter RULES! He retired that title and remains undefeated!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 6:15pm
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.
Guess you just have to pick the right polls to give Obamanation and the Undemocrats any credulence at all on their bill!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 6:18pm
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Index for Saturday shows that 37% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing as President. Twenty-three percent (23%) of voters Strongly Disapprove to give Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +14
Looks like Obamanation is in "freefall"!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 6:22pm
"Everyone's hammering that mom--she's divorced, unemployed, living in a small house with parents who have a million bucks' worth of debt, and she's already got six kids. So she has in vitro fertilization to have eight more."
according to DARIN, she is selfless.
God Bless her.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/07/2009 @ 7:01pm
" "Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.""
nobody agrees with the above statement at the current moment.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 7:05pm
Guess she should have visited an abortion doctor much like the kind Obama favors women to have access to even worldwide unlike that mean old Bush!
There is NO doubt that abortionist are all about killing babies anyway they can!!!
A doctor's license was revoked Friday in the case of a teenager who planned to have an abortion but instead gave birth to a baby she says was killed when clinic staffers put it into a plastic bag and threw it in the trash.
The doctor, Pierre Jean-Jacques Renelique, also is the subject of a criminal investigation. Renelique was not present when the baby was born, but the Florida Medical Board upheld Department of Health allegations that he falsified medical records, inappropriately delegated tasks to unlicensed personnel and committed malpractice.
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 7:08pm
How about if we put "Iraq" in front of the name of the bill?
Would you cons go for it then?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/07/2009 @ 7:09pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 7:08pm
Barak Hussein Obama was in the office when it happened!
Unlike Frist, who did his work from the Senate floor.
Hi Rio,
BOO!
Posted by crabwalk at 02/07/2009 @ 7:12pm
nobody agrees with the above statement at the current moment.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 7:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Oh yes they do! Try 203 economist including 3 nobel prize winners, or do you just ignore them over your economic expert opinion?
By the way how is that proof that you did not LIE about Bush causing the recession coming? Have you got your list of legislation he signed? Oh yea, that was the Undemocrats in congress that put forth all the financial services and banking regulations that caused all this wasn't it? Intresting how you continue to LIE LIE LIE with NO PROOF!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 7:14pm
A "stimulus" bill as put forth by the Demopublicans is not about stimulating anything except their political libido. The only constituency they serve are the lobbyists who own them. And as long as we keep electing 'em into office, we deserve to bend over and kiss our asses goodbye each and every time.
Posted by Greytdog at 02/07/2009 @ 7:30pm
"Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."
nobody agrees with the above statement at the current moment.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 7:05pm
Except other new con repub blood sucking ticks.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 7:31pm
Except other new con repub blood sucking ticks.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 7:31pm
Also except those countries that know better than yours , as is obvious, how to exploit the free market to benefit the middle class. In other words it is not the system that is at fault but some of the donkeys who were fiddling with the levers:
http://tinyurl.com/b9onmr
Posted by lrjones4 at 02/07/2009 @ 7:51pm
I disagree that this "stimulus" should be supported as gutted by the "moderate" Republicans and Democrats.
What has been taken out or gutted-- head start, support to state governments, and much else -- is at the heart of what working people and ordinary middle class people need from this measure. Which is less like saving the existing system, and more like being saved from it, and protected from it wherever possible.
Today this is just another bit of tax cut magic (minus much of the "middle class" tax cut), which will produce recovery by putting giants sums in the hands of billionaires.
Those like Dianne Feinstein who are tempted to oppose it in this wretched form should be encouraged, not warned against rocking the boat. The Republicans are being allowed to use the threat of filibuster as effectively as the Southern Democrats used to do against civil rights when I was a boy.
If Obama has any fight in him, he will hit the road for the program as it was (which actually had oodles of garbage for the rich but at least had significant elements of reenforcing and broadening the "safety net" for everybody else).
Being willing to accept anything means ending up with nothing. This scam should be fought and voted against.
The stimulus we had before, such as it was, has been betrayed and killed dead.
Sooner or later, some people are going to have to stand and fight for our interests. Why not now? Fred Feldman
Posted by ffeldman at 02/07/2009 @ 8:04pm
But haven't you heard -- hsuB will always be remembered -- as the WORST US Pres Admin -- FOREVER
No, Jimminey Peanutman Carter RULES! He retired that title and remains undefeated!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 6:15pm
You are way WAY Wrong.
hsuB's poor numbers are way worse than Nixon's even. And way way way worse than Jimmy's will ever be.
The Raygun fantasy still outdoes Bill's by a generation of hype. But that will change.
hsuB's worst president in US history will stick forever.
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 9-11, 2009. N=1,031 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history -- as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor?
Pres_Outstand/Above Ave__Ave__Below Ave/Poo
G W. Bush____17________23________59
R. Nixon_____15________32________48
GHW Bush___ 28________49________21
G. Ford_____ 23________58________ 11
R. Raygun____64________26________ 9
______________ VS _____________
J. Carter_____26________39________29
B. Clinton____50________29________20
BH Obama* __ 75 ________21_________4
*only a slight est. exs. (ha)
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 8:20pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/07/2009 @ 6:18pm
Okay, RIO, I'll try with you...
if that Rasmussen poll is right?
Why didn't the GOP in the Senate even TRY to filibuster the bill and gain all that big public support for trying to stop it??!?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2009 @ 8:39pm
Why didn't the GOP in the Senate even TRY to filibuster the bill...
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2009 @ 8:39pm
Because the new con repub poll numbers are dropping like dead blood sucking ticks in a soapy tub of tick poison.
Whilst dem poll numbers are inching up.
And even if Obama's poll numbers inch down by 10 points-- they'd still be considered high.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 8:46pm
digby sums up conservativism quite well:
"California is in deep trouble. The state's bond rating is now the worst of all 50 states. They are furloughing workers. The place is coming apart at the seams.
And why? Because the anti-tax zealots have achieved their goal -- a government that is held hostage to conservatives whether in the minority or the majority ---conservatives who will ensure that the government can never function in a way that gives the citizens confidence that it can actually work.
It's useful to think a little bit about that as we see the federal government likewise rigged, and increasingly dysfunctional. Conservatives masquerading as centrists having veto power when the government needs to raise revenue or spend it on anything that might make government seem like a useful institution for anything other than war, prisons and (sometimes) police, is a recipe for chaos."
look, if you have an anti-tax philosophy, at least have the courage to admit its consequences, and stop blaming democrats. that's cowardice.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 8:53pm
I think the question is-- why isn't Obama breaking the new con repub blood sucking ticks last grasping old spindly legs as they take yet another unnecessary draw on our life.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 8:58pm
greenwald made a very good point last night on bill moyers's show:
"If you go back and look at the way in which Obama was praised for the last two months, almost entirely by the media, will almost always be based on this idea that he's not an ideologue that he's not in concert with the liberals and the leftists in his party. That's the great accomplishment in the eyes of the media; a president could possibly aspire to.
And the reason for that is because in their eyes, what liberalism or the leftist ideology that they're scorning, are not things about policy making per se, or even approaches to foreign policy. It's the idea that the prevailing consensus among our political elite is corrupted and needs to be radically changed. And so, what I think they are most afraid of is having the anger of the American people start to affect what happens within their system. What they want more than anything else, is to exclude those external influences."
the conservatives on this forum like to think that their views are moderate, mainstream, conventional or even populist (see: maasch), but they aren't. the last two elections are all the evidence we need of that. obama ran on a platform of rejecting almost everything that bush embodied, and he won decisively. and the congress won decisively in 2006 and 2008.
conservativism is over. the american people rejected it. and the only reason why the republicans are winning the stimulus debate is because they have dominated the airwaves with propaganda.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 9:05pm
maasch, comanche, rio, liberty, et al, are now (officially) fringe thinkers. we are becoming a socialist country (wisely) and the reagan + bush years will be widely remembered as the dark ages of our country.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 9:07pm
greenwald again:
": I think the idea of street demonstrations is probably the most stigmatized idea in our political process. There were huge marches, for instance, prior to the Iraq war, against the war. There were hundreds of thousands of people, millions of people throughout Europe marching in the streets against the war.
And yet, the media virtually excluded those demonstrations from the narrative, because they're threatening, and because they're considered to be the act of unserious radicals and people who are on the fringe, and I think that in some sense, that's reflective of the fact that that level of agitation is probably the most threatening to the people who have a vested in having the system continue unchanged."
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 9:17pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 8:46pm
Actually, most of my comments are in reference to what the right-wing bloggers and their puppeteers, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. have been telling us...
that it's "socialism" and "Rasmussen has a majority of the public opposing it".
Well gee...if THAT's true, and the Repubs won't filibuster THAT....what the hell good are they, my conservative friends?
You think they're "keeping their powder dry" to filibuster a bill promising $30 million in free toothbrushes or a judge to sit on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals or something?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2009 @ 9:22pm
This is a farce. Concessions are part and parcel of the democratic process- unfortunately only one side seems to make all of the concessions. Obama should not violate his principles in the name of seeking continuity/unanimity. The president has the right to reject the bill before him. Here's to hoping he doesn't capitulate.
Posted by Kouts at 02/07/2009 @ 9:27pm
Time to eliminate the filibuster rule so that the majority can get its bills through and be accountable for them. Or are the Dems looking for an excuse not to deliver the "change" promised?
Posted by fragen at 02/07/2009 @ 9:33pm
<i>Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 7:05pm </i>
That's actually not true. Of the economists who saw the current disaster coming, there are two schools. One says that we should be spending at full speed, the other says that doing so could be disastrous. This does mean that there's probably not much middle ground, but also that this divide should be discussed and treated as legitimate. Should we stalemate while doing so? No, but having a rational discussion rather than assuming that the other side is just made up of "blood-suckers" is probably a good idea.
<i>Posted by ffeldman at 02/07/2009 @ 8:04pm </i>
If you don't mind me asking...do you enjoy writing about pleasure and the good life, act in favor of a US branch of Solidarity, or neither of the above?
Posted by Thrawn at 02/07/2009 @ 9:42pm
thrawn, it is true, sorry. i wasn't disputing the need, or lack thereof, of a stimulus package, but of the need to cut more taxes and reduce the influence of govnt.
as i said, and i stand by this, no serious economist believes that cutting taxes even further, and reducing government, is going to stimulate the economy at this point.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 9:47pm
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2009 @ 9:22pm
I kinda take it for granted that new con repubs tend to pull it out their ass on most everything.
Perhaps Newt G made an impression? Since Obama bested Billary and Bill C handed Newt G a downer or two? Fear is a new con repub tendency. Always waiting to be squashed like bloated blood sucking ticks.
Maybe it's not a Gingrich thing. I get the distinct impression new con repubs don't remember anything very accurately... The whole blood flow thing not getting up past their ass, maybe?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 9:58pm
<i>Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 9:47pm </i>
I think there is a valid argument to be made (one I've alluded to before) that compounding debt onto debt is not a particularly good solution to debt. That could imply two things. First, that a massive stimulus spending package could be bad (which you're not dealing with, so I'm not raising). Second, and this is the more relevant part, it might imply that to the extent that CURRENT government spending is ALSO just compounding debt, THAT'S a problem too. That's where the diminishing-government-spending argument could be made. Yes, in response to a point I know you'll make, don't do it the dumb way; don't cut spending where spending is important, but don't assume that all status quo spending is good. I doubt that you do assume this, but still, I'm saying that this provides a reasonable foundation for suggesting that government spending should in at least SOME ways be diminished rather than increased.
Posted by Thrawn at 02/07/2009 @ 10:04pm
definitely a discussion worth watching:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02062009/watch.html
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 10:04pm
"Friday, when his travel plans were announced, White House officials also stepped up their effort to localize the problem. As new unemployment figures came out, the administration used geographically specific language to describe them. Gibbs said the number of jobs lost in January -- 598,000 -- was "the equivalent of losing every job in the state of Maine." (It was no coincidence that the state he chose is home to two Republican senators who were central to negotiations on the bipartisan compromise.)"
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 10:10pm
we deserve to bend over and kiss our asses goodbye each and every time.
Posted by Greytdog at 02/07/2009 @ 7:30pm
well, at least the american voter is flexible.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:14pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 02/07/2009 @ 7:51pm
how can a "free" market be a system?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:18pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 9:58pm |
How's that for a horrifying possibility for our Right-wing friends...
Obama is smarter than Bill Clinton!!!
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2009 @ 10:28pm
Ok, lets say you have a house worth 300k. 250K in equity, 30k in other debt too. Then your job bites it. You need to retool, take a class for a different job and fix an impacted tooth. It'll cost 50k to do that and stay afloat. That's almost a quarter of all your assets but do you take out a loan even though you're already in debt?
Can I hear a dem collective-- Duuuh. Or is that a "DOH"?
New con repubs will say take the equity loan only if you take it from them as a big middle man no bid off the top cut, if not through them for some kind of a profit, then no. Because you don't really need it that much, plus you'll be in too much debt-- why not buy their gun and rob a bank they're competing with...
Ahhh, new con repubs, ya jus' gots to luv'em.... not to squatch them like blood sucking ticks.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 10:29pm
again,
a great chart on the multiplier effects of various stimuli:
http://i307.photobucket.com/
albums/nn312/Paul_H_Rosenberg/Zindi-tbl-2-expanded.jpg
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:30pm
ticks are really hard to squash.
"Don't try to squash a tick. Ticks have very hard backs, and it is difficult to squash them without the right tweezers. More importantly, the spirochete that causes diseases will hibernate for great periods of time inside of the tick, specifically in its intestines. When the tick feeds on fresh blood, it triggers an considerable increase in spirochetes. They then move to the salivary glands to enter a new host. Squashing the tick spreads spirochetes everywhere."
http://www.wikihow.com/Kill-a-Tick
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:34pm
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.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/
la-fi-hiltzik5-2009feb05,0,2141955.column?track=rss
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:37pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:30pm
Are you saying it's a scientific kinda thing where it can actually be calculated that tax cuts aren't as effective?
Well there you have it!
New con repubs don't believe in science--
DOH!
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 10:40pm
BRAINS!!!! BRAINS!!!!
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/02/
david-sirota-obamas-team-of-zombies.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:41pm
it was 116 in melbourne today.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:44pm
I think many governments of emerging nations actually have a much better central banking system than the United States. They realized the risks of excessive leverage, excessive dependance on real estate lending and so they took much more prudent actions. Many developing countries also built up large reserves and are in a better position to meet this crisis than they were a decade ago.
But some will face very difficult times, potentially defaults. Some of these countries are suffering from having paid too much attention to what has gone on in the United States.
joe stiglitz.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:47pm
so, the best way to get out of a debt-fuelled collapse is to encourage borrowing.
hmmmmm.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:51pm
Please Raise My Taxes
By REED HASTINGS (CEO, netflix)
Published: February 5, 2009
Los Gatos, Calif.
I'M the chief executive of a publicly traded company and, like my peers, I'm very highly paid. The difference between salaries like mine and those of average Americans creates a lot of tension, and I'd like to offer a suggestion. President Obama should celebrate our success, rather than trying to shame us or cap our pay. But he should also take half of our huge earnings in taxes, instead of the current one-third.
Then, the next time a chief executive earns an eye-popping amount of money, we can cheer that half of it is going to pay for our soldiers, schools and security. Higher taxes on huge pay days can finance opportunity for the next generation of Americans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06hastings.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:58pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:34pm
It was a lot easier to get rid of ticks when I smoked. Yes my dogs really really trusted me.
Now I treat my yard with various stuff depending on the season-- plus tick/flea baths for my dogs.
Now if only the nation can just trust Obama enough, maybe we have a fighting chance against the new con repub tick horde... but then there's always the bathtub!
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 11:01pm
Now if only the nation can just trust Obama enough,
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 11:01pm
read the above zombie link.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 11:06pm
Ottawa denies knowledge of Sarah the Canadian'
STEPHEN THORNE
The Canadian Press
February 6, 2009 at 2:35 PM EST
OTTAWA -- The federal government has "no knowledge" that a Canadian took part in the 2002 torture and interrogation of a suspected terrorist in Morocco, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Friday.
The lawyer for Binyam Mohamed, a British national who was arrested in Pakistan and is now at the U.S. detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, says his client refused to talk to his American interrogators before a woman calling herself "Sarah the Canadian" stepped in.
Mr. Mohamed's diary says the woman told him the Americans were getting ready to torture him if he didn't co-operate. The woman -- whom Mr. Mohamed says he never believed was Canadian -- left and the Briton says he was tortured.
<<<>>>
no comment.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 11:16pm
Obama. Just another spineless Democrat. Don't blame me I voted for Cynthia Mckinney.
Posted by carh8tr at 02/07/2009 @ 11:38pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/07/2009 @ 8:20pm
Really kind of a dumb post...it's still too soon to judge Bush...history might well vindicate him...but good to see that Reagan's numbers are holding up well after 2 decades and likely will stay up...I imagine most of Carter's approval comes from his charitable work AFTER his presidency...and to put Obama's numbers up after 2 weeks is just stupid...even so, unless he completely screws it up, people will always put him on a pedestal for one reason only...the color of his skin
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 12:27am
people will always put him on a pedestal for one reason only...the color of his skin
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 12:27
That is all that got him into the black-white house,eh?
All the rest, his congeniality, his intelligence, his ability to grasp complex situations, his ability to put together one of the most organized campaigns ever, his ability to raise more money than anybody ever in a campaign, his desire to actually attempt bi-partisanship, reaching constitutional law...
That all "pales" when compared to his 1/2 African heritage, eh USC?
But it is us libs that are racist.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2009 @ 12:42am
"teaching"
Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2009 @ 12:44am
Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2009 @ 12:42am
not racist at all, just reality... people will always jusdge him as better than he was simply because the color of his skin...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 12:48am
Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2009 @ 12:42am
not racist at all, just reality... people will always jusdge him as better than he was simply because the color of his skin...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 12:48am
aside from that...running a great campaign doesn't mean he'll be a great or even good president...history will judge that...and again likely more favorable than he deserves simply because he was the first black president and broke through that barrier...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 12:55am
" "Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.""
nobody agrees with the above statement at the current moment.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 7:05pm
Actually, most economists do agree with that...Japan is planning on dropping capital gains taxes for foreign investors in order to...wait for it...attract investment and increase growth...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 01:08am
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 12:27am |
The only way history will vindicate Bush is if the Cons succeed in rewriting history like they did with Reagan..
Posted by chaoszen at 02/08/2009 @ 01:08am
We'll see...it took a few decades to realize how good Truman was..and even longer to realize that FDR wasn't as good as originally thought...history is a patient judge...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 01:20am
Actually, most economists do agree with that.. Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 01:08am
Most economists agree that Japan is an entirely different economic model. What the japanese did discover however was that a greater investment in social programs provided more bang for the buck than the over the top investment in physical infrastructure that they tried.
We need to roll back the Reagan Tax Cuts here for starters. And increase the capital gains tax. That would provide an incentive to corporations to reinvest in the business instead of pulling money out and investing in exotic instruments like hedge funds and derivatives. A stable and sustainable economy results with modest growth (3 or 4%). A strong middle class returns and we won't have these bubble and bust rollercoaster rides that only benefit the rich.
Posted by chaoszen at 02/08/2009 @ 01:24am
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 11:06pm
Well there's that not needing to let terrorist bomb us in order to force a trusting nature thing-- I'd rather avoid...
That's if you all don't mind?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/08/2009 @ 01:26am
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 01:20am
No one but readers of the National Review or Limbaugh Republicans think that about FDR. In other words, the koolaid chugging lunatics.
Posted by chaoszen at 02/08/2009 @ 01:28am
Really kind of a dumb post...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 12:27am
Yep, keep telling yourself that. Delusional new con repubs are no surprise to anyone that's paying attention. I'm sure as new con repubs continue to lose and lose and keep saying wait, please wait-- history will change just like it did for poor sad hapless grandpa Raygun.... What's hsuB's excuse going to be-- his dry drunkeness?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/08/2009 @ 01:37am
"Actually, most economists do agree with that"
NO THEY DON'T!
you get more return on the dollar through SPENDING, and not tax cuts.
in fact, try 0.57 cents more.
"it's still too soon to judge Bush...history might well vindicate him"
(quote of the week)
Posted by darladoon at 02/08/2009 @ 01:39am
No one but readers of the National Review or Limbaugh Republicans think that about FDR. In other words, the koolaid chugging lunatics.
Posted by chaoszen at 02/08/2009
lemmeguess...you still think Hawley-Smoot and all that gov't spending helped end the Depression...instead of making it worse...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 01:43am
spending helped end the Depression...instead of making it worse...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 01:43am
It sure helps me! I always make more.
You? Not so sure.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/08/2009 @ 02:06am
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 01:43am
lemmeguess.. you think the only reason the depression ended was because we entered the war? And apparently you don't know that Hoover and his repug buds were responsible for Hawley-Smoot. If Hoover had taken the steps that FDR took early on, the Depression would have been a lot less severe. And FDR's policies helped create a strong and vibrant middle class for years after the war ended.
Posted by chaoszen at 02/08/2009 @ 02:07am
Posted by chaoszen at 02/08/2009 @ 02:07am
Apparently you aren't aware of the studies showing that FDR's policies prolonged the Depression by about 7 years...
and speaking of protectionism...who was it that was advocating it as part of his stimulus bill???
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 02:17am
<i>Posted by chaoszen at 02/08/2009 @ 02:07am </i>
So...it's worth noting that the Hawley-Smoot angle of policy was not the opposite kind of policy that FDR did, but was simply a weaker version. So, in order for your position to make sense, you have to believe that the tariff had the bad effects it did because it just wasn't enough... This seems intuitively problematic.
Also, there are numbers to suggest that FDR's policies were not as beneficial as many have claimed. For instance, unless my memory is incorrect, unemployment numbers were still in the double-digits several years into FDR's administration. The Depression certainly wasn't coming to an end on the eve of the war; if evidence makes one thing clear, it's that. Plus, having government-run industries doesn't make those industries better, which is important because the better the industries, the better the economy to which they contribute.
So yes...there is still very legitimate debate on the long-term impact of FDR's New Deal policies.
<i>Posted by chaoszen at 02/08/2009 @ 01:24am </i>
This is only partially responsive. The big argument made was that higher taxation rates discourage businesses from investing in country X if they can get a better deal from country Y instead. Since investments are an important part of the economy, that's a pretty significant consideration.
And yes...the incentive effects from extremely high taxation are just correct; if I get less bang for my extra buck, I'm less likely to work the extra hours, which puts less money into the economy. That's a big part of why there is a point at which you can decrease taxes and continue getting higher revenue. It's not myth, it's math + rational incentives.
Posted by Thrawn at 02/08/2009 @ 02:24am
By the way, completely unrelated but interesting trivia...anyone know when the federal government started funding public schools? It wasn't in the late 20th century; it was actually back in the 1700's. The Ordinance of 1785, which provided for the division and scouting of federal land, included a provision that one specific parcel of each lot would be sold and the proceeds would fund a public school for that lot (I'm using the words loosely here). Just thought it was an interesting note for those who may have thought the government's funding of public schools was a recent phenomenon...
Posted by Thrawn at 02/08/2009 @ 02:27am
how can a "free" market be a system?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2009 @ 10:18pm
Depends how you define a system I guess but the alternate economic "system" is "pure" Keynesianism. That of course is not socialism (but is about who owns the means of production and the financial institutions) as some imagine. Obama at his most extreme is not a socialist but a Keynesian.
Australia, which in the 1960s had a private sector labour force that was about 60%, unionised and had state ownership of banks and transport systems, telecommunications and power generation as well as research establishments (eg CSIRO) and a fully regulated economy, including exceptionally high tariff protection of all its industries. It was a drab dreary place with a relatively poor, static middle class and a few very wealthy familieswhere businesses were mostly run by generations of wealthy families.
Deregulation has allowed the creation of a new relatively wealthy middle class that has been able to create and build new businesses. That alone means the brightest and best, rather than those privileged by birth have been able to not only to improve their own lot but also help build a robust innovative economy. Most tariffs have been completely removed (auto manufacturing tariffs are down to 10% and will be 5% in 2010). There are no state owned banks or telecommunication enterprises and few publicly owned power generation and transport facilities.
Private sector unionism is now at about 17%.
The following article refers to our PM who regards himself as the anointed saviour of the world's financial system. It has been suggested by his staff that Obama will soon be seeking his advice on how to save not only the world's financial system but also heal all its other ills:
http://tinyurl.com/ckxbmj
Posted by lrjones4 at 02/08/2009 @ 02:27am
Correction "...That of course is not socialism (which is about who owns the means of production and the financial institutions)..."
Posted by lrjones4 at 02/08/2009 @ 02:32am
i'd like to dedicate this song to bubblicious greenspan, robbin' rubin, big benny, and of course, the good folks down in wallyworld:
up, up and away!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akEgsZSfhg&fmt=18
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 02:36am
even so, unless he completely screws it up, people will always put him on a pedestal for one reason only...the color of his skin
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 12:27am
kinda like what they've done with
ADAMS, John 1797-1801 JEFFERSON, Thomas 1801-09 ADAMS, John Q. 1825-29 JOHNSON, Andrew 1865-69 ARTHUR, Chester 1881-85 JOHNSON, Lyndon 1963-69 BUCHANAN, James 1857-61 KENNEDY, John F. 1961-63 BUSH, George 1989-93 LINCOLN, Abraham 1861-65 BUSH, George 2001- MADISON, James 1809-17 CARTER, Jimmy 1977-81 MCKINLEY, William 1897-1901 CLEVELAND, Grover 1885-89, 1893-97 MONROE, James 1817-25 CLINTON, William 1993-2001 NIXON, Richard 1969-74 COOLIDGE, Calvin 1923-29 PIERCE, Franklin 1853-57 EISENHOWER, Dwight 1953-61 POLK, James 1845-49 FILLMORE, Millard 1850-53 REAGAN, Ronald 1981-89 FORD, Gerald 1974-77 ROOSEVELT, Franklin 1933-45 GARFIELD, James 1881 ROOSEVELT, Theodore 1901-09 GRANT, Ulysses S. 1869-77 TAFT, William 1909-13 HARDING, William 1921-23 TAYLOR, Zachary 1849-50 HARRISON, Benjamin 1889-93 TRUMAN, Harry 1945-53 HARRISON, William Henry 1841 TYLER, John 1841-45 HAYES, Rutherford 1877-81 VAN BUREN, Martin 1837-41 HOOVER, Herbert 1929-33 WASHINGTON, George 1789-97 JACKSON, Andrew 1829-37 WILSON, Woodrow 1913-21
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 02:46am
The Depression certainly wasn't coming to an end on the eve of the war; if evidence makes one thing clear, it's that. Plus, having government-run industries doesn't make those industries better, which is important because the better the industries, the better the economy to which they contribute.
Posted by Thrawn at 02/08/2009 @ 02:24am
"It seems to demonstrate that periods of industrial activity in technical syntheses of principles, data, free energy and energy as "matter," find highest employment by the fear-amassed credits of warfare. Therefore the assumption approaches fact that war promotes the major technical advances of civilization... What has not been clear is that the potential of this emergency-born technology has always accrued to human's prewar individual initiatives taken in a humble but irrepressible progression of assumptions, measurements, deductions, and codifications of pure science."
~http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 02:53am
This is only partially responsive. The big argument made was that higher taxation rates discourage businesses from investing in country X if they can get a better deal from country Y instead.
but taxes are only a small part of why a business chooses to locate somewhere. this question has many parallels in terms of environmental and labour standards. how far to the bottom do you wish to race?
Since investments are an important part of the economy, that's a pretty significant consideration.
indeed. but so is the air. and if your taxes are so low that the payer is ultimately causing more damage than the revenue recieved (citibank, for ex. heheh), than you've misimproved things.
And yes...the incentive effects from extremely high taxation are just correct; if I get less bang for my extra buck, I'm less likely to work the extra hours, which puts less money into the economy.
so a banker dude making, say, $5,000,000 a year will only work 30 hours a week 'cause he's only gonna take home $2,500,000? are they going to shorten the nba season? will bruce springsteen now longer produce wretched music?
That's a big part of why there is a point at which you can decrease taxes and continue getting higher revenue.
and there's a point at which you can decrease taxes and decrease revenue.
It's not myth, it's math + rational incentives.
humans? rational?. thrawn, put down that bong.
up, up and away in my beautiful ballooooooooooon!
Posted by Thrawn at 02/08/2009 @ 02:24am
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 03:05am
By the way, completely unrelated but interesting trivia...anyone know when the federal government started funding public schools? It wasn't in the late 20th century; it was actually back in the 1700's. The Ordinance of 1785, which provided for the division and scouting of federal land, included a provision that one specific parcel of each lot would be sold and the proceeds would fund a public school for that lot (I'm using the words loosely here). Just thought it was an interesting note for those who may have thought the government's funding of public schools was a recent phenomenon...
Posted by Thrawn at 02/08/2009 @ 02:27am
yep.
did you know that back then, all men were even created equal?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 03:07am
thrawn went off topic,
thrawn went off topic,
nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyaaaaaaaah
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 03:08am
go lions!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 03:08am
Depends how you define a system I guess but the alternate economic "system" is "pure" Keynesianism.
Posted by lrjones4 at 02/08/2009 @ 02:27am
nope. there's lots of other things you can do.
have you thought that australia's post social experiment fiat growth might have something to do with how hot it is today?
freedom is great,
as long as you remove the dumb.
UP, UP AND AWAY IN MY BEEEEYOUUUTEEEFULLL BALLLLOOOOONNNN!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 03:13am
"The Things to do are: the things that need doing, that you see need to be done, and that no one else seems to see need to be done. Then you will conceive your own way of doing that which needs to be done -- that no one else has told you to do or how to do it. This will bring out the real you that often gets buried inside a character that has acquired a superficial array of behaviors induced or imposed by others on the individual."
bucky.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 03:21am
have you thought that australia's post social experiment fiat growth might have something to do with how hot it is today?
freedom is great,
as long as you remove the dumb.
UP, UP AND AWAY IN MY BEEEEYOUUUTEEEFULLL BALLLLOOOOONNNN!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 03:13am
10.55pm Sunday sitting at the computer and have got my sweater on. Was pretty cold earlier in the evening when I went for my constitutional jog. But that's Victoria and Melbourne for you.
This has been a terrible last few days in which up to 100 people have lost their lives in fire storms across the state. Far from having anything to do with economics this is nature's way, Australian style, for at least the last 40,000years as far as those who read that span of history can tell us, of regenerating Aussie forests. Certainly breaks the seeds open and aids rapid germination.
Our last bad fire in which 47 perished was Ash Wednesday Feb 1983. The really big one before that was summer 1939 when virtually the whole of the state seemed to be on fire (so I am told- well before my time) and in which 71 died.
The mistake many, who perished this time, made was to try and outrun the fire in their cars. They got trapped by "on fire" eucalyptus trees "exploding" and crashing on to the road thus trapping them.
These fires because of the volatile nature of the gum trees are crown fires that can leap miles in minutes.
Incidentally until the last few weeks this has been similar to the cooler summers we have been having for thefew decades. This heat spell was more like the sort of days I remember in the 60s as a child when the street asphalt melted on to the soles of your feet or shoes if you could afford them. (That was before deregulation and cheap shoes from China).
Posted by lrjones4 at 02/08/2009 @ 06:56am
Posted by lrjones4 at 02/08/2009 @ 06:56am
Curious, lr.....how's Medicare down under?
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2009 @ 07:56am
so a banker dude making, say, $5,000,000 a year will only work 30 hours a week 'cause he's only gonna take home $2,500,000? are they going to shorten the nba season? will bruce springsteen now longer produce wretched music?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 03:05am
Don't kknow about the NBA...but my wife and i know the exact tax rate where it no longer makes sense for me to work...that I will leave leave my job to take care of "home"...and then there will be 4 people out of jobs...me, the nanny, the housekeeper, and the yard guy...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 09:02am
note: republicans outnumbered democrats 2 to 1 in media appearances over the last two weeks.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2009 @ 3:53pm
Well that proves the MSM loves Obama!
----
go lions!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 03:08am
Did you notice that the Smart Fellers on the sports shows hired Matt Millen as an "expert commentator"?
Kind of like putting Santorum on on election night.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2009 @ 09:03am
Typical Republican BS! More tax cuts that don't benefit anyone and less public words projects to create jobs. But, I realize these public works projects put a lot of construction workers to work and a lot of them are union. The Republican's are breaking the back of the middle class by getting rid of a lot of these jobs. The country is not going to recover until people make a decent living again. But, sadly to many workers are more worried about their damned guns and 2nd amendment rights than they are a job or the economy.
Posted by ganddw42 at 02/08/2009 @ 09:15am
Well, the cons got EVERYTHING they wanted in regards to tax/trade policy the last 8 years.
Where are we?
Worst economy since at least 1974, if not 1928.
Shall we continue doing the same thing expecting different results?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2009 @ 09:18am
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 09:02am
why not do what the rest of the Patriots are threatening to do...leave?
JOMAMMA hates unions so much he may move to Germany. hehe,
Iraq has very low tax rates. They also need people that understand economics. And , it is as peaceful as California.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2009 @ 09:24am
even so, unless he completely screws it up, people will always put him on a pedestal for one reason only...the color of his skin
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 12:27am
Do you think the same of the guy named Steele?
"Steele gave one of his first interviews to Essence magazine, a publication for black women. And he said Sunday that he has instructed the RNC to add all major black news media outlets to its press release list.
His victory, he says, "had nothing to do with race." "
Nope, nothing to do with race, at all. merely coincidence.
maybe the reason Obama is "failing" is because he wasn't wearing a tie and jacket.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2009 @ 09:41am
Curious, lr.....how's Medicare down under?
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2009 @ 07:56am
Don't know and still haven't opted out of it into a private fund. When I or mine get sick I may be in a better position to tell you. If you read from the following you will know more about it than I do :
http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/
Posted by lrjones4 at 02/08/2009 @ 09:43am
"The Cato ad has 203 signatories, including three recent Nobel Prize winners. "_RIOKORESH
WOW, now you guys are listening to the CBO and Nobel winners?
I remember Krugman coming out against Bush, he was derided as a nobel liberal.
"Economists, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill and 450 economists, including ten Nobel prize laureates, who contacted Bush in 2003, opposed the 2003 tax cuts on the grounds that they would fail as a growth stimulus, increase inequality and worsen the budget outlook considerably"
Over 450 economists signed the statement, including the following ten Nobel Prize Laureates, not all of whom were specialized in tax or fiscal policy:[3]
* George Akerlof, University of California Berkeley * Kenneth J. Arrow, Stanford University * Lawrence R. Klein University of Pennsylvania * Daniel L. McFadden University of California Berkeley * Franco Modigliani Massachusetts Institute of Technology * Douglass C. North Washington University * Paul A. Samuelson Massachusetts Institute of Technology * William F. Sharpe Stanford University * Robert M. Solow Massachusetts Institute of Technology * Joseph Stiglitz Columbia University
http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Economists%27_statement_opposing_the_Bush_tax_cuts
SO RIO, I see your 203 and raise you 450.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2009 @ 09:53am
I would like to know what exactly was so great about Reagan. People keep referring to him as if he were some kind of God; a lot of the things we see happening now are due to his influence and carried on by Bush. Oh yes Reagonomics have been great for this country...not!!!
Posted by Caj at 02/08/2009 @ 10:01am
What I want to know is:
how many jobs did the cons here create with their tax cuts of 2003?
Last I looked the US had shed millions of jobs, NOT created them.
----
unpaid (unconstitutional) taxes
[Republican Congressional candidate Dan Mansell from Selma thinks he doesn't have to pay his taxes.
"Congressional candidate Danny E. Mansell owes the federal government more than $220,000 in unpaid taxes, according to tax liens filed at the Johnston County Clerk of Court office." [Fayetteville Observer, 10/17/2006]
[Monday 30 April 2007
a recent GAO inquiry reveals that about 113,800 contractors working for a variety of federal agencies, including the Pentagon and the General Services Administration, have built up $7.7 billion in unpaid taxes.
Since much of what the federal contractors owe the IRS arises from withholding taxes for employees, said the GAO, they actually gain a competitive advantage over other contractors from not paying. That results from the tax-delinquent contractors having more money readily available so they can post lower bids for federal work, the GAO inquiry revealed.
!!!!The White House's Office of Management and Budget projects the federal budget will be balanced within five years through a robust US economy!!!!
]
Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2009 @ 10:19am
and then there will be 4 people out of jobs...me, the nanny, the housekeeper, and the yard guy... Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 09:02am
green cards, please.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 10:20am
I would like to know what exactly was so great about Reagan.
Posted by Caj at 02/08/2009 @ 10:01
If you have to ask then I have to assume you were too young or you missed the entire 80s..
Here are some hints:
Maliase, Cardigan sweaters, America must sit in cold houses, Arab embargoes, Iran hostages after Carter invited Kohmenni to Iran, 20% unemployment, 20% interest rates, 20% inflation rates,..
Start there.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/08/2009 @ 10:28am
Don't kknow about the NBA...but my wife and i know the exact tax rate where it no longer makes sense for me to work..
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 09:02am
wouildn't want to pay for any wars, Ώnow would you?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 10:46am
Raygun had movie star charisma, er well he was an actor, reminded people of their grandpa if they were white or from the south, he even had the old head shake thing down, he slept a lot and took lots of vacations which reassured us all that everything was going well, he made a lot of money for rich people, he freed the mentally ill, freed some trapped union workers too, gave hungry kids new vegetable groups, explained pollution in a way that solved the problem, adorably forgot if he knew anything about the Iran/Contra snafu-- but said he was sorry about it and we loved that, and he nailed down that 'take down this wall' scene, and did I mentioned he made a lot of money for rich people, then he did get a lot of more unemployed jobs at a better cost, he made a lot of money for rich people, oh said that, yeah the rich people were so appreciative that they even gave him a place to live and stuff and to forget about all that hard work he had to do, yeah he did a lot to be loved by so many...
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/08/2009 @ 11:12am
Oops, forgot to mention Raygun also won the war against the aliens from outer space, but that's a secret so forget I mentioned it or....
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/08/2009 @ 11:15am
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/08/2009 @ 11:12am
Wow...talk about revisionist...delusional is more like it...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 11:24am
wouildn't want to pay for any wars, Ώnow would you?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 10:46am
Very good FZ...when you can't argue the point, bring up something totally unrelated to the topic at hand...you're like Rain Man...You should have just said "KMart sucks, yeah, KMart sucks!" and you would have been more pertinent...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 11:29am
JOMAMMA hates unions so much he may move to Germany...
Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2009 @ 09:24am
CRABBY,
We have noticed that JOMAMMA expreses himself in a series of slogans that he mindlessly barks out on cue, like a dog that pitifully imitates its master. In other words, JOMAMMA does not express himself via concepts or arguments that his primitive, methane-and-trace-gas-bomb (i.e, "fart") auto-damaged cerebrum cannot piece together. And JOMAMMA's new slogan? It is sure to be along these lines:
USA OUT OF NORTH AMERICA!
HAND IT OVER TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA'S POLITBURO AND THEN STAY THE COURSE!
NO SHOTS FIRED PLEASE AND STAY CALM!
This is the endgame for that other keynote slogan "better dead than red" for the grunting CroMag rightwing primitive with an instinctual lust for soul-crushing, in-your-face authoritarianism.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/08/2009 @ 11:32am
Wow...talk about revisionist...delusional is more like it...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 11:24am
Glad you liked it. New con repubs can sure dish it out, but...
The big dif is that everyone knows my tongue is firmly in cheek , er: one of the ones located on my head... unlike the location of new con repubs.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/08/2009 @ 11:43am
Dark clouds on the horizon, boomers. Do you know where your Baby Bummer is?
The Clusterbunnies are watching!
Posted by Sorelish at 02/08/2009 @ 11:50am
REAGAN!?!??!?!?!??
talk to hwush about reagan's economic genius.
UP, UP AND AWAY!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 12:20pm
Did you notice that the Smart Fellers on the sports shows hired Matt Millen as an "expert commentator"? Kind of like putting Santorum on on election night.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2009 @ 09:03am
millen?!?!?!??!?!
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
<<<>>>
washing away the Santorum is a better idea.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 12:22pm
ah, usc1, feeling a little guilt.
YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE TROOPS!
"china, china, please lend us one more hit.
promise we'll pay you tomorrow."
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 12:25pm
mainline injection of rubber stimulus!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 12:26pm
reagan's secret?
iran and iraq -- "fuel" both sides. killllllll.
OIL'S CHEAP!
America prospers!
Millions die!
Reagan!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 12:28pm
More Humor, Less Filling!
Culture of Corruption II
What happened to Obama's promise to clean up Washington?
Sunday, February 08, 2009
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
When...Democrats spoke of a "culture of corruption" in Washington, few realized they were making a promise...
..."There was a huge scientific breakthrough today," said Jay Leno. "Researchers say they are very close to finding someone from Obama's Cabinet who's actually paid their taxes."...referring to...Tom Daschle...and Timothy Geithner, who was confirmed as treasury secretary despite his failure to pay payroll taxes for four years.
...Nancy Killefer withdrew hers as chief compliance officer when it was revealed that the District of Columbia had placed a lien on her Wesley Heights mansion for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax for a household employee.
Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif, the nominee for secretary of labor, apparently violated House rules by failing to disclose she was an officer of a group lobbying Congress.
Eric Holder was confirmed as attorney general despite having circumvented Justice Department rules...to obtain a pardon for fugitive financier Marc Rich...
...Bill Richardson withdrew as the nominee for secretary of commerce when it was disclosed that the FBI was investigating him in connection with a "pay-to-play" scandal.
...Obama...wanted to name Penny Pritzker, his campaign finance chairman, to the commerce post, but feared...scrutiny to her role in the subprime mortgage crisis...
The most recent candidate...is Ron Sims, chosen Monday to be deputy secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As King County (Seattle) executive, Mr. Sims was fined $124,000 for "blatant" violations of Washington state's public records act for failure to.....
Posted by Happy at 02/08/2009 @ 12:45pm
Happy,
Glad to see everything has changed for the" better".
More change like this and public might start to think about change...
....again.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/08/2009 @ 1:04pm
Glad to see everything has changed for the" better".
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/08/2009 @ 1:04pm
Yes, "everything has changed for the" better"" for the better Americans that numbered 53% on Nov. 4th!
As part of the Don't-Want-It-To-Be-Better-the-Magic Way, we're resigned to cry in our sorrow....except when Rush is on loan to us from God!
Posted by Happy at 02/08/2009 @ 1:32pm
Posted by Happy at 02/08/2009 @ 1:32pm
Need to update this---
"...about the state of our country and the general lack of respect toward authority and of course, ObamaDS!
In another culture, say Palestine or Gaza.....HAPPY would be breeding future suicide bombers!"----Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/26/2008 @ 11:45am
There, that's better.
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2009 @ 1:57pm
THE MUMMY RETURNS The last Presidential election made it abundantly clear that Sen. McCain is not a nice man"and can be very nasty! He can totally disregard the truth in favor of expediency. After he lost, in the initial search for a post-election role and penance, he took a trip with Sen. Linsey Graham to Chicago to meet with Obama. If there was an initial uncertainty about whether or not to mend his ways remained, it evaporated decisively in favor of his old ways during the past days of Senate debate about the stimulus economic recovery package although Obama has sought to make him an ally. During the Presidential campaign, McCain,s former biographer Elizabeth Drew, in Politico, September 17/08, questioned his honesty and told us that he is not a principled man. Now water has returned to its level. He cannot bear to see the stimulus package he sought to sabotage succeed with the vote of three Republicans: in his view, "this is not bi-partisanship." McCain was prepared, however, to include in his bi-partisan resume his co-sponorship of an immigration bill most Republicans failed to support. Ever since Obama took office, McCain seemed determined to be an obstacle on the big and urgent issues facing the nation. In doing so, he has once again aligned himself with extremists of his party. We are seeing again vintage McCain"erratic, belligerent, confrontational, intemperate and not sufficiently reflective. The Mummy has returned!
Posted by drsam8 at 02/08/2009 @ 2:01pm
There, that's better.
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2009 @ 1:57pm
I've seen you repost that a few times....guess you're running on empty (of thoughts) & just blabbering. I don't even know your point(s) or care to remember the context of my original posts.
Posted by Happy at 02/08/2009 @ 2:05pm
<b>The Economic Stimulus Package as Presently Constituted Won't Work<b>
817 Billion Dollars, split 58% spending, 42% tax cuts is a Blown Show. We don't have unlimited do-overs. Our creditors aren't going to put up with our stupidity forever. We have this golden opportunity to rescue the Middle-Class and end the National Debt. Either we get this turned around: 1 Trillion Dollars, 80% spending, 20% tax cuts, 50% of the 80% ($400 Billion) spent on converting America to an entirely Green Economy -or- we descend to being a Second Rate Nation. Wake-up! We're running out of options. 'Politics as Usual' are destroying our Nation. The Oil Economy has to be put down, or it will put America down. Garner the political will to save us now, or go down in history as the constituency that drove the final nail (I do mean crucifixion) into a once free and proud Nation.
P.S. I have an excellent addition to the stimulus package. It will create jobs, improve communications and transparency in government and magnitudinally improve cyber-security within our infrastructure. Convert every computer in the Federal system (including the misbegottenly crash-prone Congressional web-servers) over to Linux, Open BSD, or another, most appropriate for the application, form of Unix. The only systems that should be immune to the first wave of this conversion should be systems we are strategically or tactically dependent upon for National security. As the bulk of these are already Linux computers or clusters, this shouldn't impact the process in any significant manner.
Posted by Fathom at 02/08/2009 @ 2:28pm
I will gladly reiterate- wake up and stop this insane argument and inaction. This is the real thing. We can't afford to have stupid insane arguments. Hey repubs, supply side fails to do a damn thing in this situation, and tax cuts are the definition of insanity- doing the asme thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Simple fact- there is only one real option left- Government spending on stimulus. Last tax cut was about 75% savings. Good for individuals, not a stimulus. The fed is down to effectively a zero percent interest, and in fact investment professional spent several days last month paying more than a dollar for one dollar's worth of Treasury bills. We are rapidly heading into deflation. No one will have jobs if we keep this up.
Mindless Repubs like Pence, Flake, McConnell and Graham are gioing to join McCain and finish destroying our country and people.
Its time to run over them and do what we need to do. Enough of the phony bipartsisanship that takes us down the tubes. Its too serious to play games. We need to get moving.
Posted by larrys at 02/08/2009 @ 3:07pm
Posted by Happy at 02/08/2009 @ 2:05pm
The context was an attack on the President.
When it was a President you LIKED...you cared about "respect for authority" and "Derangement Syndromes"...
now?
Not so much.
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2009 @ 4:30pm
YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE TROOPS!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2009 @ 12:25pm
Barking up the wrong tree once again...have always supported the troops...my guess is that between my wife and me we have contributed much more than most...and in the words of my (former special forces) friend..."The only thing that pisses us off is when someone says that they died for nothing. That cheapens everything we do."
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 4:45pm
"...wake up and stop this insane argument and inaction..."
Posted by larrys at 02/08/2009 @ 3:07pm
yeah, because we have to do SOMETHING despite the CBO statement that the recession will likely end in 2nd half of 2009 if we do nothing...AND the stimulus will likely hurt the economy long-term...
Posted by usc1 at 02/08/2009 @ 4:51pm
now?
Not so much.
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2009 @ 4:30pm
IF Obama is attacked, by shoes or something more deadly, I would authorize whatever it takes....including nuking....even if the attacker is black or Muslim!
Posted by Happy at 02/08/2009 @ 4:57pm
As if programmed like a zombie, JOMAMMA voted for George W Loser twice; that is, once after the 9-11 security failure and after the "like attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor" vanity invasion of Iraq that has dealt further burdens onto America and Americans.
But wait, there is more: JOMAMMA has also banged on, moaning and boo-hooing like a dissed cheerleader to whoever will listen, that George W Loser was NOT what JOMAMMA mysteriously calls a "true conservative".
The Clinton economy generated 23 million new jobs acorss 8 years, about 2.6 million per year.Even before 2008, the Bush-directed economy was generating far fewer jobs and barely keeping apce with population growth. As noted in the business press (below), 2008 witnessed the most US job losses since the end of WWII on W Loser's watch.
So, we must ask JOMAMMA:
How many jobs axed would reserect George W Loser to the status of a conservaFreak in your estimation? 5 million? 10 million?
How many lost quagmires abroad, and at the same time, would have restored Loser to the con's pantheon? How many 9-11s?
Please be expansive in your answers that are certain to reveal a vast amount about today's AmeriHaters.
"2008 Job Losses Probably Worst Since 1945
By Shobhana Chandra
Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy probably lost more jobs in 2008 than in any year since the end of World War II as firings rippled from homebuilders and automakers to banks and retailers, a government report may show this week.
Payrolls fell 500,000 in December, bringing last year's decline to 2.4 million, the most since 1945, according to the median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News ahead of Labor Department figures due Jan. 9. The unemployment rate likely jumped to the highest level since 1993."
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/08/2009 @ 5:19pm
Political pet projects are the order of the day for this ridiculous bill. If there was true incentive targeted at creating jobs and not just protecting political interests, we'd have a bill that was supported by the American public. Hey, one out of three Americans support these piece of sh*t bills out of both of the house and senate.
Cut out the pork from both sides of the aisle, provide some tax cuts to businesses, and spend money on infrastructure this year, not three years from now.
Barack Obama thinks Pelosi and Reid are his allies. Not hardly. Those two crafted their bills without little consideration to what Obama asked for from them.
Keep it up and the conservatives will win back seats and a majority. You know what else will help preserve democrat majorities? How about a cabinet and senior staff that pays their taxes is not beholden to some interest group from his/her lobbying days.
Posted by jdflorida at 02/08/2009 @ 5:47pm
THANK GOD THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE KEEPING THE DEMS IN CHECK. WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF SOCIALISM. DON'T FORGET THAT OBAMA STATED HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN DRAWN TO MARXISM AND MARXIST PROFESSORS (FROM HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY). HIS SOCIAL PLANS WILL BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY. THIS BILL SHOULD JUST CONCENTRATE ON IMMEDIATE TAX RELIEF IN THE FORM OF PAYROLL TAXES (FORGET REBATES OR FREE MONEY TO THOSE WHO DO NOT WORK -AKA ACORN PROPAGANDA) AND IMMEDIATE JOBS CREATION. ANY DEMOCRATIC PORK SPENDING SHOULD GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES AS APPLICABLE. THE ONLY REASON THIS BILL IS SO FULL OF PORK IS THAT THE DEMS KNOW THAT THEY WILL NOT GET APPROVAL OTHERWISE.
ANY LEADER WHO TELLS US THIS SPENDING MUST BE DONE IMMEDIATELY OR WILL LEAD TO A CATASTROPHE IS SIMPLY TRYING TO USE SCARE TACTICS ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. WE ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING BACK THE $37,000.00 IT WILL COST FOR EACH AMERICAN MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD WELL INTO THE NEXT 3 GENERATIONS!!! NO ONE WOULD RUSH BUYING A HOUSE OR CAR WHEN SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY IN OUR PRIVATE LIVES; THIS IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT AND THE AMOUNT NEEDS TO BE TRIMMED IN HALF.
Posted by FranF. at 02/08/2009 @ 6:07pm
Obama, with a 70% approval rating, jettisons the details of this bill to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who have a 9% approval rating. If that isn't bungled inexperience, I don't know what is. I'm actually stunned, because I thought at least Obama would be the shrewd and savvy political animal he appeared to be on the campaign trail. Letting Pelosi write this bill is a stunning blunder, and for what? To appease a tremendously unpopular woman. Beyond belief......
Posted by sub at 02/08/2009 @ 7:07pm
IF Obama is attacked, by shoes or something more deadly, I would authorize whatever it takes....including nuking....even if the attacker is black or Muslim!
Posted by Happy at 02/08/2009 @ 4:57pm
Are you saying that you are authorizing an attack on Obama with whatever- a nuke, by an attacker even if they're black or Muslim-- or are you authorizing an attack on the attacker, even if the attacker is black or Muslim?
One's illegal to spout... might want to clarify.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/08/2009 @ 7:22pm
It's better to have NO stimulus package than to spend $780 billion on a plan that won't stimulate.
Let's hope the House and the President reject the Senate's compromise.
Shift the focus off Main Street, put it all on Wall Street, blame the Republicans in the meantime, and try again in a month or two when the patient is almost dead. Again, blame the Republican obstructionists.
Posted by debbieqd at 02/08/2009 @ 7:23pm
Queen Pelosi betrayed Obama and the country by killing any chance of a bi-partisan stimulous bill and turning it into the biggest fatest pork laden special interest payback bill in U.S. history. That the Senate democrats are desparate to get 2 or 3 Republicans to sign onto this pig by shedding close some tens of billions of dollars of pork doesn't makes it a stimiulous bill and doesn't make it bi-partisan. Instead of going on a partisan rampage, trying to make it seem like the Republicans even matter, Obama should apologize for letting this pig past the House and start over with a real bi-partisan stimulous bill. Otherwise he should just have the dems pass the pig, take full responsibility, and stop whining. He's the President for God's sake!
Posted by valwayne at 02/08/2009 @ 7:33pm
Posted by sub at 02/08/2009 @ 7:07pm
You're way off. Congresses numbers have gone up. Notably dems and Pelosi's. True, no where near Obama's, but a hell of a lot better than the new con repubs. I already posted the links to the congressional numbers way up above. It's the new con repubs that are in jeopardy of being thrown under the bus.
Daily Kos poll conducted by Research 2000. N=2,400 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.
"Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Nancy Pelosi?"
Favorable/Unfavorable_____40/39
%%%%%%%
Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by FD. Jan. 21-24, 2009. N=800 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
"Now, please tell me if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the following national public figures. If you haven't heard of them, just tell me and we'll move on. Nancy Pelosi."
Favorable/Unfavorable_____35/35
%%%%%%%%%%
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Jan. 12-15, 2009. N=1,245 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. RV = registered voters
"Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi." Wording in 2006: ". . . Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi"
Favorable/Unfavorable____39/37
%%%%%%%
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Nov. 7-9, 2008. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi." 11/06 & earlier: "...House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi"
Favorable/Unfavorable____42/41
http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm#Pelosi
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/08/2009 @ 7:39pm
Ok lets look at the new con repubs:
Daily Kos poll conducted by Research 2000. N=2,400 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.
"Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Mitch McConnell?"
Favorable/Unfavorable_____23/48
VVVVVVVVVVV
The Harris Poll. Oct. 5-8, 2007. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"How would you rate the job Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"
Excellent/Pretty Good___Only Fair/Poor
________21_____________51
KKKKKKKKKK
Daily Kos poll conducted by Research 2000. N=2,400 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.
"Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of John Boehner?"
Favorable/Unfavorable_______19/53
VVVVVVVVVVVV
The Harris Poll. Oct. 5-8, 2007. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"How would you rate the job House Minority Leader John Boehner is doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?" Prior to 2007: "...House Majority Leader John Boehner...."
Excellent/Pretty Good_____Only Fair/Poor
________16_______________52
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/08/2009 @ 7:49pm
Link to Senate Stimulus Bill (Full Text):
http://tinyurl.com/ad548c
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/08/2009 @ 7:59pm
About two thirds of gross domestic product comes from consumption. Why would anybody believe that tax cuts that leave more money in consumers' hands would not increase consumption?
On the other hand, increases in government spending should cause consumers to expect higher taxes in the future. That means they need to save more money now to pay for higher taxes that are coming.
Posted by lornejn at 02/08/2009 @ 8:00pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/08/2009 @ 10:28am
"I would like to know what exactly was so great about Reagan.
Posted by Caj at 02/08/2009 @ 10:01
If you have to ask then I have to assume you were too young or you missed the entire 80s..
Here are some hints:
Maliase, Cardigan sweaters, America must sit in cold houses, Arab embargoes, Iran hostages after Carter invited Kohmenni to Iran, 20% unemployment, 20% interest rates, 20% inflation rates,..
Start there."
There are two types of people in America today. Those who remember what the Carter years were like, and those who are about to find out.
Posted by pontificus at 02/08/2009 @ 8:13pm
Speaking of Carter, it appears that the naivete of The Zero is right on schedule. When he went hat in hand to talk to the Iranians without any preconditions, they said 'hold on, sucker; first you've got to apologize for everything your country has done wrong'. Then, the Russians pretty much did the same thing. Who wants to bet where the first Carter-style international relations disaster will be?
Posted by pontificus at 02/08/2009 @ 8:16pm
Posted by pontificus at 02/08/2009 @ 8:13pm
So, Reagan's greatest asset...was how bad Carter was?
Sure you want to run with that, PONTI???
LOL
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2009 @ 8:18pm
and those who are about to find out.-------Posted by pontificus at 02/08/2009 @ 8:13pm
Seems it IS ditto-heads and Rush hoping the country (not just "Obama's socialism") fails.
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2009 @ 8:22pm
The strategy of the GOP is to taint Obama with the failed policies on which Republicans choked the nation's economy. Democrats in the House should now choke the Republicans with what the country needs and not compromise one wit.
Posted by afrothetics at 02/08/2009 @ 8:30pm
Posted by afrothetics at 02/08/2009 @ 8:30pm
"The strategy of the GOP is to taint Obama with the failed policies on which Republicans choked the nation's economy."
Hmmm...care to do a little research on the CRA?
" Democrats in the House should now choke the Republicans with what the country needs and not compromise one wit."
That's 'whit', my intellectually elite friend. And they shouldn't compromise on what, spending trillions of dollars to pay off special interest groups? Quite a platform you've got for recovery there. And if, as The Zero says, spending is all that's needed, regardless of what it's actually spent on, why not just pay 10 million people $50,000 per year to dig holes, and another 10 million people to $50,000 per year to fill them in? That would solve our employment problem right there, would it not, so long as we're willing to spend the $1 trillion per year that The Zero says is necessary?
Posted by pontificus at 02/08/2009 @ 10:23pm
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2009 @ 8:22pm
"Seems it IS ditto-heads and Rush hoping the country (not just "Obama's socialism") fails."
I think the term 'hoping' is a little inappropriate here, MASK. If a man steps off a cliff with nothing but his faith and stupidity to sustain him against the force of gravity, I don't 'hope' that he falls. I simply observe that stupidity is little proof against the force of nature, and make my predictions accordingly. Not that I expect you to learn anything from the fall, MASK, in this context I have not doubt that you'll always find that gravity is a conservative conspiracy.
Posted by pontificus at 02/08/2009 @ 10:29pm
February 06, 2009
"I Won" Isn't Going to Close the Deal
By Rich Lowry
Faith-based economy policy?
Barack Obama...settled on his central argument for the stimulus bill: I won.
That Obama is reduced to this crude appeal is a symptom of the intellectual collapse of the case for his stimulus bill, a congressional spendfest untethered from its stated goal of providing a rapid "jolt" to the economy.
As far as political arguments go, "I won" has its power - provided it's made on behalf of an agenda ratified by the American electorate. But Obama didn't campaign on a sprawling, nearly $1 trillion new spending plan.
If he had pledged in October to double federal domestic discretionary spending in a matter of weeks - including increasing the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts by a third, spending hundreds of millions more on federal buildings and throwing tens of billions on every traditional liberal priority from job training to Pell Grants - he'd have been hard-pressed to win at all.
The president should read the transcript of the third presidential debate. He claimed his program represented "a net spending cut." He called himself "a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches." He added, "We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don't work."
Now, no president can adhere to every jot and tittle from his campaign, but the "I won" argument only works if the campaign program matches the governing program.
Obama himself seems confused on what exactly "I won" means. In a meeting with Republicans, he brandished "I won" as a defense of his version of tax relief. But he later used "I won" to push back against an excessive reliance on tax cuts, claiming that it had been repudiated...
Posted by Happy at 02/08/2009 @ 10:56pm
....claiming that it had been repudiated during the campaign even though he talked every day on the trail of cutting taxes for "95 percent of working people" and never once mentioned a commitment to extreme deficit spending.
Obama has to make a case for the bill on the merits, a surpassingly difficult forensic task....
The bill came out of the House...would spend more in 2011 alone than in this year, and more in 2012 and beyond than in this year. Why far-off spending priorities have to be set in a rush now is something no one can explain - except that congressional Democrats want to toss bulging sacks of cash out the door.
Obama writes that the bill "is more than a prescription for short-term spending - it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity." Fine. A long-term strategy deserves long-term deliberation, the hearings and other processes meant to exercise a check on legislating in a panic.
The Congressional Budget Office notes that "large fiscal stimulus is rarely attempted" and its effects "are very uncertain." The bill is basically a $1 trillion bet on an utterly unproven theory - that scattershot government spending is a magic elixir for an economy in the grips of a financial crisis.
When Barack Obama ran last year, he didn't say he'd engage in faith-based economy policy on a grand scale. He didn't say he'd toss aside the normal processes of governing. He didn't say he'd quickly act to add waste to the federal budget. And he didn't say he'd try to brush away criticism with the mere assertion of his victory.
On the stimulus, when Obama says "I won," he's out of better arguments.
© 2009 by King Features Syndicate
===================================
Where, oh, where, is The One you folks ran tingles up the legs worshipping??
Posted by Happy at 02/08/2009 @ 11:04pm
New con repubs always freak when the idea is to invest in America. They hate America. New con repubs want to keep sucking the life's blood out of our nation without contributing a thing. Any benefit they derive from being in our great nation is pearls to swine. They're mostly chickenhawks like the hsuB/cHeney admin, cowards sending others to die for their profiteering corporations. New con repubs mantra is little government - strong individualism, but it's a lie like most things they pull out of their ass. That's why their ideology and misspeak is so in goosestepping sync. If they were individualist they wouldn't be repeating the same Rump Limppaw shit over and over again. But it's the corporations that set the price to gouge and profiteer without 'We the people' regulation. That's the whole idea, to keep the middle income people weak and exposed for greedy corporations. Corporations strong - people weak. Governmental spending on health care, schools, infrastructure, energy, will then force the profiteering corporations to lose big time. Naturally their stooges are hitting the airwaves, blogging, msm, whining and raising holy hell. They fear losing their new con repub blood sucking tick clamp on our nation. Fuck'em. If our nation is to survive we need to burn the new con blood sucking tick off. Our nation needs to put massive spending into education, universal healthcare, infrastructure, alternative energy. It's 'WE THE PEOPLE' damn it-- not 'we the corporations'.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/09/2009 @ 12:04am
The Resolution Trust of 1988-1995 can remind us to press for the best deal.The trust set up eqiuty partnerships with private parties capitalized by blocks of commercial property which the administration had confiscated from more than 300 S&Ls.Net revenues were split 50-50citizen with invester.That was TOO much to the investor.
Posted by worker-bee at 02/09/2009 @ 12:19am
Low interest loans to qualified homebuyers may be better because it cuts out the invester in the middle.
Posted by worker-bee at 02/09/2009 @ 12:21am
If lower taxes was the trick we'd be doing great. We lowered the taxes and now we're fucked.
Big business/ corporations, the rich -- need to kick in.
For those that their greed has become so great that they can't contribute-- they have become the epitome of the anti-American.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/09/2009 @ 12:28am
Wow. Quoting the incredibly shallow and inept Ruch Lowery as your source, Repub? Really? He who specializes in not engaging in real critical thinking? Now you should bring in the one and only Chalres Krauthammer. Why would we listen to all the blowhards who have been wrong all decade?
Oh, and the CBO says if we do nothing we will see recovery in late 2009? Read again. What cave have you been living in? Real estate is still tanking, unemployment is shooting towards 9% and then double digits, and we are shedding jobs faster than a horse shoes flies in the hot sun. We have put interest rates at effectively zero but still have no investment, and banks won't lend to each other becaiuse they know how toxic the crap they have bought and sold actually is. And we are okay doing nothing?
I would say that all of you who feel that way should spend a few hours at an unemployment line and then a soup kitchen. Your attitude makes me very afraid for the Republic.
Posted by larrys at 02/09/2009 @ 12:29am
I agree...not one more inch of compromise...these greedy, apathetic traitors should be consigned to the dustbin of history...pure obstructionist WMD...Weapons of Mass Distraction...Americans voted to change the direction of this Nation, now let's do it...Take back our Democracy...by massive civil disobedience if necessary...We must stop these horrible Wars...in Iraq and Afghanistan Now...they will only perpetuate this cycle of Violence and Bloodshed...stop listening to the Generals...they live for War...Let's wage Peace!
Posted by sscoop4 at 02/09/2009 @ 01:35am
I don't know why Obama actually caved at all. He should have passed the bill he wanted, without bowing to the Republicans. Everyone knows not a man jack of them will vote for it in the last act. What's Obama trying to do? Give them a chance? They had their chance for twelve years, and we the people are we the impoverished for it. Why let the Republicans dictate to him what goes in his recovery package? He should either require a vote on the real thing and expect it to pass, or let the Republicans filibuster it so that they can be shown up for the money-grubbing thieves and hypocrites they are. Now, after twelve years, the Republicans care a hoot about those who aren't rich? I don't think so. Even if they did, it's too little, too late. Why are the Democrats still kissing up to them instead of forcing the change they were voted in for?
Posted by Kristev at 02/09/2009 @ 02:14am
Posted by pontificus at 02/08/2009 @ 10:29pm
No, PONTI, I think it's exactly appropriate.
IF you guys were patriots and not partisans, you'd be saying "Well, I hope it works...but I don't think such a stimulus bill will...but for the sake of the country, I hope it does."
What you say is "It WILL fail...we WILL drive over that cliff...it WILL be a disaster" (and if more than a bit honest) "and Democrats will pay for it in 2010 and 2012!!"
and that's a "hope"...not a "prediction"....and everybody sees it as that.
Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 07:25am
<i>Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 07:25am </i>
Um...gramatically, "X will happen, and Y group will pay for it"...is the DEFINITION of a prediction. It states what the speaker believes will take place in the future.
While one could at most argue that "The Democrats will pay for it" is also layered with a level of hope, it seems like the most you could construe there is him saying "WHEN this fails, I have hope and confidence that the people will repudiate it and not bring these guys back."
The sentiment you describe is still nowhere to be found.
Posted by Thrawn at 02/09/2009 @ 08:33am
In response to the below article by Krugman, I sent the following altered song lyrics. Sincere apologies to Leadbelly. Theo
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html
Postpartisanship Blues (with apologies to Leadbelly)
Me and my wife went all over town And everywhere we went Senators turned us down Lord, it's a Postpartisan town It's a Postpartisan town I got the Postpartisan blues Gonna spread the news all around
Well, me and my wife we were standing upstairs Heard the politicans say'n I don't want no poor folks up here Lord, in a Postpartisan town Uhm, Postpartisan town I got the Postpartisan blues Gonna spread the news all around
Home of the brave, land of the free I don't wanna be mistreated in the land of the greed Lord, it's a Postpartisan town Uhm, the Postpartisan town I got the Postpartisan blues Gonna spread the news all around
Well, them rich folks in Washington they know how To throw man a dollar just to see him bow Lord, it's a Postpartisan town Uhm, the Postpartisan town I got the Postpartisan blues Gonna spread the news all around
I tell all the poor folks to listen to me Don't try to find a friend in Washington, DC 'Cause it's a Postpartisan town Uhm, the Postpartisan town I got the Postpartisan blues Gonna spread the news all around
Posted by theo51 at 02/09/2009 @ 09:25am
Posted by Thrawn at 02/09/2009 @ 08:33am
And where do you glean any semblance of PONTI hoping that he is WRONG...and that the country's situation DOES improve despite his misgivings?
Nowhere.
Because that would mean that his ideological dogma would be wrong and his partisan political agenda (and/or the party that represents it) would not benefit from such an improvement.
Or put it this way, IF PONTI only cared about restoring the Republican Party to power, and cared nothing about what that would mean to the nation in order to achieve that...
how would he sound different from "this" PONTI???
Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 09:26am
WHAT WOULD HATERS LIKE SJSHITMAK, JOMAMMARY & PONTIFECES SAY IF EX-VP AL GORE HAD MADE GHOULISH PUBLIC PREDICTIONS ABOUT TERROR ATTACKS IN FEB 2001?
Of course, Cheney has expertise in what it means to fail the USA.
Raw Story, 5-Feb-09
(F)ormer vice president Dick Cheney defended the Bush administration's use of torture and warrantless surveillance and suggested that unless the Obama administration maintains these policies, it risks a new "9/11-type event" that could "involve the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people."
"This argument is setting us up for the future," asserted MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Wednesday evening. "If there is another attack, there's a reason to keep pushing this legacy so that there will be a political blowback against Barack Obama, so the country wouldn't rally around him they way they rallied around Bush and Cheney after 9/11."
Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald, who had previously written about the Cheney interview in his blog at Salon, agreed with Maddow: "That's what's so nefarious. It's setting the groundwork if there is another terrorist attack."
..."There's really no more effective weapon for a government to keep a citizenry in submission to whatever it wants than keeping the fear level as high as possible," replied Greenwald..."What they're really saying," noted Greenwald, "is, During our administration, we allowed one catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil -- but don't worry, because we only allowed one.'"
In contrast, then-president Bill Clinton Bill Clinton didn't use any of the Bush-Cheney methods following the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and and yet, stated Greenwald, "for the next eight years of the Clinton presidency -- to use the jargon -- he kept us safe.'"
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/09/2009 @ 10:00am
<i>Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 09:26am </i>
So your position is now that he'd rather be screwed than be wrong? If you're gonna claim THAT level of irrationality, you should probably have more than the speculative material you've got thus far.
And how would Ponti sound different? At least 2 ways:
1) Actually express hope that the policy falls, rather than explicitly repudiating such hope
2) To the extent that he predicts, predict not utter cataclysm but just failure to improve or improve substantially. Why? He wouldn't want utter cataclysm because he'd be part of it.
You've given yourself a difficult job here. The motive you're attributing to Ponti is one that not only would require him to DESIRE suffering along with the whole nation, but also a hope that his statements explicitly contradict. Does he want the Republican Party back? Yeah, probably. At all costs, even if it means the country suffers miserably first? Don't think so.
Posted by Thrawn at 02/09/2009 @ 10:14am
Posted by Thrawn at 02/09/2009 @ 10:14am
First of all, trying to debate the meaning, purpose and motives of the ramblings of a lunatic is an excercise in futility.
Secondly, it suggests a willingness to place oneself in the rather awkward position of being identified as a lunatic themselves.
Thirdly, it endangers a neutral third party like myself of being guilty of the first two offenses.
Just a bad idea all around. I would say.. :D
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 11:01am
Posted by Thrawn at 02/09/2009 @ 10:14am
Why not? The man clearly doesn't think on his own. His posts are near verbatim Rush Limbaugh talking points.
Limbaugh isn't worried about a deeper recession or depression. He's got millions, likely gold deposits and overseas accounts. And he "wins" regardless, because he'll merely claim any upturn in the economy ISN'T Obama and the Dems' actions, but "the natural business cycle" (thus EATING his predictions of doom).
But the rank-n-file ditto-head doesn't really think like that, merely parrots back the talking point.
If PONTI loses his job, will he blame Bush....or allow Limbaugh to create a scenario by which it's "Obama's fault" (though a mere month in office)?
If the economy improves, will he credit Obama....or claim "it was a meaningless bill" (thus contradicting his doom predictions AND his statements on how "meaningful" the bill would be to the negative)?
In both case, I think the former, not the latter.
And if things get worse, and the fortunes of the Republican Party for 2010 and 2012 improve....will PONTI gleefully post here on how "Dems are doomed in the midterms"..."Obama has no chance of being re-elected"...
or feel bad for the country and those suffering?
Again...I say the former, not the latter.
Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 11:02am
BTW, slight errot on re-reading...obviously reverse "former" and "latter" on the first two scenarios.
PONTI would take the partisan route over any other route.
Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 11:05am
Limbaugh isn't worried about a deeper recession or depression. He's got millions, likely gold deposits and overseas accounts. And he "wins" regardless, because he'll merely claim any upturn in the economy ISN'T Obama and the Dems' actions, but "the natural business cycle" (thus EATING his predictions of doom). Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 11:02am
You hit on an important Limbaugh/Cheney maxim there. Cheney is going around saying that we will be attacked again by terrorists if Obama ignores his (Cheney's) policies. Most everyone who pays attention knows that sooner or later the likelihood of another terrorist attack on the U.S. is fairly high no matter what our policies are. So Cheney is betting the odds because by the policies he instituted the risk of a terrorist attack has increased due to those same policies!
So he weighted the odds in his favour. Now he spreads a prediction based on probability, and waits. Diabolical. If there is another attack the pugs can point to it and say, "See, look at what Obama and the Democrats allowed to happen!"
If it doesn't happen, nothing lost. If it does happen, Jackpot! The same sort of stacked deck setup applies to Limbaugh and the economy.
So who came first? The Limbaugh or the Egg?
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 11:33am
These games within games do not go unnoticed by many in government. But at the very least these sorts of tactics do effect current political action by the party in power. In other words Obama would want to cover his ass on this by maybe not removing some aspects of the patriot act for instance. Or FISA. Or withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and so forth. So the right wins something regardless.
Same with the economy. There are people who are paid big money to sit in think tanks and mull over all the aspects of this evil game of chess and determine what the next move is. We the people just dangle on a string at the whim of a bunch of sociopaths who care nothing about real issues. They only care about who wins the game.
Take that to bed with you and see how well you sleep..
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 11:47am
If you want to find a real Terrorist, just look under the bed. Cheney makes Osama look like a rank amatuer.
We are looking for terrorists in far flung places like Pakistan. Or Iran. When we have some of the worst examples right under our feet! Typical I suppose. If you want to hide something, hide it in plain sight.
Please, will someone wake up? Some of us have already rubbed the crusty out of our eyes and got showered and dressed. We are ready to head out the door. But everyone else is still sleeping. We put the coffee on, can't you smell it? WAKE UP!
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 12:08pm
What you say is "It WILL fail...we WILL drive over that cliff...it WILL be a disaster" (and if more than a bit honest) "and Democrats will pay for it in 2010 and 2012!!"
and that's a "hope"...not a "prediction"....and everybody sees it as that.
Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 07:25am
Whats the difference between the hope and the prediction here?
The hope is based on just that...hope.
where as prediction is based on evidenced experience of the past...
and the past is riddled with proof, evidence and data galore in any direction one looks.
evidence of failures.
1. Spending more than you take is going to end up bad..
2. People are better spenders of their own money thana monolithic central govt complete with comittees deciding where to spend other peoples money..
3. Huge govt spending, did NEW DEAL delay recovery.
4. Govt spending made up mostly of welfare and wealth transfer payment do not stimulate economic growth or create jobs..it just spends more with no return..
5.Govt spending is not investment.. investments by private capital produces wealth..govt spending eats wealth.
ERGO,
The stimulus bill will fail to lift the US out of its current economic problem is not a wish for the country to fail, but rather it is stating the belief based on evidence of failures using same "stimulus" modelin the past, the data shows the program under way will fail...is a prediction.
we all hope the country does well, but many know the economic plan proposed make that reality an impossibilty...except those who believe in govt running everything..they don't have to create the wealth to pay for their plans...they just take it..the other side that makes predictions of failure know based on what it takes to create the wealth in the first place.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/09/2009 @ 12:21pm
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 11:33am
Of course. On national security, they (the Right) try to set up a "win-win" scenario.
If we are attacked again, they blame Obama for "closing Gitmo" and "eliminating 'intensive interrogation' and NSA wiretaps" and "not finishing the job in Iraq" (though they also tell us we've already "won" there).
Of course that flies in the face of their "9/11 wasn't Bush's fault...it was Clinton's" excuse, since it means Obama gets the same pass, right?
If we aren't attacked, "even after" 8 years of Obama as President....they expect us to "forget" everything they said, as they say "Well, it ONLY didn't happen because of what BUSH did to protect us...despite Obama's attempt to undermine that!"
Same as bin Laden being captured or his body found....if it happened 7 years from now, they'd credit Dubya for "laying the groundwork".
Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 12:21pm
Tax cuts are a waste of money and are not a stimulus. Shift the money to infrastructure spending!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/09/2009 @ 12:34pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/09/2009 @ 12:21pm
Exactly right, Jomamma, as usual.
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 12:35pm
who believe in govt running everything.. Posted by YourJomamma at 02/09/2009 @ 12:21pm
Hmmm. We live in a representative democracy last time I checked. The government in a representative democracy is supposed to represent the will of the people. So the people are the government..
At least in theory. And probably in practice. Although not perfect, we are the government. If we are not then we do not live in a democracy.
So why do morons like you not believe in we the people, "the government" running everything? Is not that the essence of a democracy and not some alien entity?
Why do you not believe in the people through a representative democracy running what is theirs to run?
The people are the Government. If they are not then we live in a delusion...
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 12:40pm
WAKE UP!
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 12:08pm
But what if new con repubs are really blood sucking 'old hag' ticks?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/09/2009 @ 12:40pm
More on new con repub 'old hag' blood sucking ticks:
http://tinyurl.com/cq5sj
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/09/2009 @ 12:44pm
If you do not believe that you and the rest of us are not a government, then you are not an American. If you believe that we the people cannot govern ourselves then you must believe that someone or no one else can.
In that case you would either be a fascist or an anarchist. Or something..
But not an American. So if you don't believe that we govern ourselves and are not the government then what do you believe?
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 09:26am
"Because that would mean that his ideological dogma would be wrong and his partisan political agenda (and/or the party that represents it) would not benefit from such an improvement."
MASK, your narcissism is a never-ending source of amusement to me. First off, let me state, that my knowledge of how wealth is created in this country comes from bitter experience with a smattering of formal political education gleaned from people like Madison and Jefferson and their mentors. My beliefs are grounded in empiricism, not dogma. The fact that you consistently and willfully fail to grasp in your own dogma is that government does not create wealth, it expends it, and that every dollar the government takes from the private sector is a dollar that will be used much less productively than it should.
You, in contrast, are the perfect realization of the dogmatic leftist partisan Democrat to be found as the underpinning of the Democratic Party. You claim to be a strong believer in America, but when presented with quotes from the Founding Fathers that directly contradict your beliefs, you simply ignore them. You have stated many times that raising taxes on 'the rich' does not cost anyone anything, thereby exposing the ludicrous belief that wealth can be created from nothing. Frequently, you exhibit the same kind of Little League partisan mentality so plainly demonstrable when you state that you cannot think of a single thing that George Bush did right, nor anything that you can give him credit for, and that some sort of nirvana will be achieved when the Democrats are in power.
A psychologist would have a field day with your habits of projecting your own psyche on those, such as myself, who disagree with you.
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 12:56pm
that government does not create wealth, it expends it, and that every dollar the government takes from the private sector is a dollar that will be used much less productively than it should. Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 12:56pm
In this country the government is the people. Or at least it is supposed to be. So how can the government be accused of not creating wealth? Are you saying that we the people do not create wealth? That my friend is bullshit. In a democracy there is no private sector. That is an illusion created by the greedy and debased. We are all in the same boat in a democracy. What you call and want to separate as the "private sector" is only an excuse to separate yourself from the system that gave you life in the first place. The commons. And then like a thief in the night you want to renig on your democratic obligation to pay your fair share of the use of the commons.
Those who make intense use of the commons and then do not wish to pay for the priviledge of profiting from it are nothing but a parasite on the backs of those that made it possible for them to succeed in the first place.
Very Undemocratic..
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 1:20pm
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 12:40pm
"The people are the Government. If they are not then we live in a delusion..."
Speak for yourself, dude. There are some of us who know that a government which owns everything is not a 'democracy' but a state with an awful lot of slaves, like North Korea or Cuba. As Jefferson said, 'that government governs best which governs least'. Of course I know you lefty folks don't believe in this, since you invariably favor as a matter of principle the expansion of government and government power at the expense of personal liberty, but please don't assume that the rest of us share your statist indoctrination.
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 1:21pm
PONTIFECES to MASK:
"You, in contrast, are the perfect realization of the dogmatic leftist partisan Democrat to be found as the underpinning of the Democratic Party."
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 12:56pm
Even more luaghable than PONTI's usual half-assed drivel that makes naked his complete and utter lack of worldy experience beyond the apartment above his parents's garage.
When I first started posting here, most people assumed MASK was a Republican. In fact, he is Clinton Democrat, a centrist, and MASK's positions havce been unswervingly consistent across years. When he dumps on the Repugnants over the invasion of Iraq, for example, he is simply channelling the vast majority of Amrica's appraisal of the matter after 5+ years of noe-Clown driven disaster. Efforts to present MASK as the other lobe of Eugene Debs's brain, after MASK has compiled the clear and cionsitent recrod that he has, speak to the monolithic and unqualified stupidity of a bubble creature like PONTI.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/09/2009 @ 1:22pm
James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA www.bushleagueofnations.com [for FREE download of entire $25.95 book]
We have the advantage of knowing what to expect from Neanderthals in the Republican Party. They are thus "reliable."
As for our Democratic leaders, especially those in the U.S. Senate, we trust them at our peril.
True progressive transformation of our nation must be driven from the grassroots up, not from the top down by corporate-business-as-usual career politicians.
Electing Obama was the easy part. The real work begins today, and again tomorrow, and again each new day.
We must stay engaged, take names, and never give up. Let's redouble our efforts.
We must keep our friends close, our enemy closer, and our Democratic leaders closest.
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA "The Bush League of Nations" http://www.bushleagueofnations.com [for FREE download of entire $25.95 book]
Posted by jswanson at 02/09/2009 @ 1:34pm
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/09/2009 @ 1:22pm
There are many flavors of stupid, 'Phil', and MASK is just one of them. You and your crevice are another, although admittedly of a much lower order.
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 1:35pm
5.Govt spending is not investment.. investments by private capital produces wealth..govt spending eats wealth.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/09/2009 @ 12:21pm
What logic via manure new con repubs use.
They do not even accept the premise that 'We the people' invested in ourselves as 'individuals' is what created our great nation!
Corporations didn't fight for our freedom. They never do. They however-- always attempt to profit from our hard work, blood and misery.
The only thing that exists in the new con repub blood sucking tick world, other than their own bloated fat asses-- is their blood sucking tick corporation. They worship blood sucking corporations.
In their view, 'We the people' only exist to let their blood sucking corporations feed on us; same with them. It's all take no give. It's incomprehensible for them to understand that 'We the people' spending on us as individuals within the 'We the people' become wealthier via our investment in our education, healthcare, renewable energy, infrastructure.
When 'We the people' help those of us in need, 'We the people' become stronger, prosper.
However, when the blood sucking corporations prosper, it's call profiteering. With the strong tick lobby, money is channeled one way, and that's up and not around to make 'We the people' stronger-- only to make 'Them the new con blood sucking corporations' stronger.
The tick-trickle down does not work because the new con repub blood sucking ticks have been sucking-- sucking more than they've ever sucked before and thus one would think then that everything would be getting better for everyone.
NOT.
It's gotten worse.
The new con repub blood sucking ticks have failed to drain our nation into complete submission.
It's time to burn the ticks off.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/09/2009 @ 1:39pm
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 1:35pm
A characteristically superb comeback, PONTI. But just be sure you make the trip to Langley, VA and flag down whoever is in charge to let them know that Valerie Plame was overt and a known paper pusher. The CIA has deluded itself on the matter. So, it is up to you to take a manly stand: Set them straight with your vast forensic wisdom and reams of supporting doucmentation from NRO whose pundit-puppets know the agency's internal record far better than the agency itself.
After that, perhaps you can regale the spooks with your further sagacity as you explain why you supported Saddam Hitler and Pol Pot before -- naturally -- you opposed them, spot-on to the cue from your master's voice.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/09/2009 @ 1:43pm
Speak for yourself, dude. There are some of us who know that a government which owns everything is not a 'democracy' but a state with an awful lot of slaves, like North Korea or Cuba. Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 1:21pm
A government which is represented by the will of the people through the power of each individual to vote their conscience is a democracy. This goes way over your head apparently. DUDE, we are the government! If we the people own everthing through the power of a true consensus then we are the ultimate democracy! Comparing us to the likes of North Korea or Cuba is just so much unrelated crap.
Did your poor mother drop you on your head when you were little?
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 1:44pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/09/2009 @ 1:39pm
Hey shubby, if you hate corporations so much, why don't you go start your own business somewhere? What are you doing now, sitting in a job bank or lazing in some government sinecure, stewing in your own juices? Perhaps you inhabit a mailroom somewhere?
Lots of people start and run their own business, although they are mainly, through force of experience in such pursuits, turned into Republicans once they get an idea of how the world really works. I, for one, will be the first to welcome you to the Republican Party once you get some experience in what wealth is and how it is created, and how the government wastes what private citizens create.
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 1:44pm
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 12:56pm
Again, thanks for admitting it, PONTI.
I feel sorry for you (if you DO have a molecule of conscious) that over the next 4, hopefully 8 years, you might wake up in the middle of the night KNOWING that you are hoping the country will fail...just to prove your ideology...Limbaugh...and yourself right.
That's almost worthy of pity....almost.
Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 1:48pm
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 1:44pm
"If we the people own everthing through the power of a true consensus then we are the ultimate democracy! Comparing us to the likes of North Korea or Cuba is just so much unrelated crap."
If we don't compare what you describe to the real world examples of it in North Korea and Cuba, what should we compare it to? The fantasy world that lives in your head?
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 1:49pm
"...Spending for school construction that would actually have put people to work -- while at the same time investing in the future -- has been slashed. (Almost $20 billion slated for school construction is gone.)"
Well, DUH. They Want People In the United States to remain stupid! Stupid people are easily sedated with their Ipods and TiVo and all the other pacifiers that the people of this nation prefer over knowledge and truth.
I hope everyone is enjoying this "Bipartisan Change" that is the ONLY change Obama has offered so far and it isn't even working in his favor. Like I have said before, when the scale is unevenly tilted towards the RIGHT and you stand in the middle of that scale, guess what, the weight is STILL unbalanced. Instead of all those right-wing central-right democrats, etc, that Obama put into office, he REALLY needed to Put a Hell of a Lot more progressives in there to balance that scale, but he didn't! So what are we left with? More Of The SAME.
When will the People of this Country Wake Up to the TRUTH? See the deceptions that are placed in clear sight in front of our eyes daily, but choose to ignore because they were sold on the Advertisements and Pre Packaging of "Democracy".
It really hurts to see all this going on, to keep shouting to everyone out there and t have no one hear you. But as usual, everyone will realize it, only when it is too late to do anything about it.
please, visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Posted by kristofeR! at 02/09/2009 @ 1:50pm
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/09/2009 @ 1:22pm
Phil, you don't need to defend me...
I'll let THIS guy do it-
"MASK, you have got WAYYY too much common sense to be hanging out with these people..."----Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/05/2007 @ 05:53am
LOL
Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 1:50pm
Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 1:48pm
"I feel sorry for you (if you DO have a molecule of conscious) that over the next 4, hopefully 8 years, you might wake up in the middle of the night KNOWING that you are hoping the country will fail...just to prove your ideology...Limbaugh...and yourself right. "
I don't need to hope they fail, MASK. As I have said before, I KNOW they will. You cannot create wealth by wasting it. Simply stating this fact does not constitute a hope, it constitutes a recognition of reality. I'm not surprised you fail to see the difference, the Democratic Party as a whole represents the triumph of delusional hope over experience. It represents the core of your philosophy.
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 1:53pm
Posted by Mask at 02/09/2009 @ 1:50pm
What an archive!
It also illustrates PONTI's standard issue rightwing relativism across most every issue. The method is to rant against the US gov't (!!!), against Saddam (!!!), against Pol Pot (!!!) in the darkest, most apocolyptic terms. Except when one supports these very things with a degree of heinous cynicism only matched by its abject stupidity (to wit: elective invasion and occupation/death penalty/gulags/unitary exec, Saddam when he's against Iran whatever the human cost, Pol Pot when he's against Vietnam, again, whatever the ferocity of the statist bloodshed)...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/09/2009 @ 2:01pm
Hey shubby, if you hate corporations so much, why don't you go start your own business somewhere?
Posted by poncus at 02/09/2009 @ 1:44pm
Is that like you hating terrorist so much that you're now attempting to become one?
Ok, shining a light on new con repub blood sucking tick logic is no great feat.
However, because of your rather fragile logic, can I conclude that I probably work, and have worked, more than you and at more jobs requiring more responsibility and contributing to society and it's worth?
And do you make in the 6 figures?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/09/2009 @ 2:03pm
If we don't compare what you describe to the real world examples of it in North Korea and Cuba, what should we compare it to? The fantasy world that lives in your head?
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 1:49pm
Ok. I'm done. Some people will just have to wait until their next incarnation to get it. In PONTI's case maybe the next 1000 incarnations. I'm done expending my energy trying to help. I will no longer engage. This dunderhead is a lost cause for now.
I will however read his posts for the sparse amusement that they provide. But not to wax nostalgic on the 100 or so lifetimes it took me to get beyond the short circuits and static that the PONTI brain is suffering.
I will ubdoubtedly pay for my intolerance in a Karmic sense for not having the strength to endure.
But then again I am far from perfect. And as far as I know he may have been put here to test my patience.
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 2:03pm
I know you won't listen to me, MASK, because it's gospel around here that 'spending - any spending' by the government constitutes 'stimulus'. I won't even try the reductio ad absurdum test to that line of thinking, i.e., "if spending $10 is good, why isn't $100 better?" because you just seem to get a kind of virtual blank stare, as you do when I quote Madison or Jefferson to you. And I'm sure that any economist who disagrees with you automatically qualifies as a member of the VRWC, but I'll show you this just for shits and grins.
Robert Barro, prominent economist, speaking in The Atlantic today on the 'stimulus' bill:
"Q: The last thing is just about the stimulus bills as it stands. Two things here. One thing is what do you think about the ratio of spending to tax relief in the bill. And the second is, if you judge it by Larry Summers standard -- that stimulus be temporary, timely and targeted -- does it clear the bar?
A: This is probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s. I don't know what to say. I mean it's wasting a tremendous amount of money. It has some simplistic theory that I don't think will work, so I don't think the expenditure stuff is going to have the intended effect. I don't think it will expand the economy. And the tax cutting isn't really geared toward incentives. It's not really geared to lowering tax rates; it's more along the lines of throwing money at people. On both sides I think it's garbage. So in terms of balance between the two it doesn't really matter that much."
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 2:12pm
I agree w/two editorials in WSJ.com, one: 2)the TARP doesn't include middle class,and 2) you (govt) reward the behavior you support...
both of these are correct, and both are sad...
for "first adopters" of some things you get benefit...however, americans are now blackmailed into "buying American"...look up where any American vehicle is built...the new "hybrid" fusion is built in Hermosilla, Mexico; the Escalade: silao, mexico, etc.etc...
chrysler CEO bob lutz now retiring: in '06 he said "hybrids are fantasies" and "climate change is a myth"...
today I read that China is in drought one hundred times worse than last year, accor. to chinese officials... australia is experiencing epic drought/fires....
britain has blizzards...etc..etc..
I dont' support bailout, I don't think stimulus will "save" main street, when american still go to china mart....
if WE don't change, there will BE no change....expect deleterious change which will hurt all of us....
the sierras which supply majority of ca. water, was 1/3 of snowpack as last year....
the ONLY thing which will change ignorant small minded americans is when their own lifestyle is affected...
but then, it will be too late, and some will still say "it (climate change) is a myth"...
it is hard to say we are all in this together when neocons (and others) hate everybody else....
GOP the grand ole' party is just like the dodo and gm...they are derelicts of days' gone past...and are out of touch with reality...and the times...they cannot adopt...only the dodo was hunted to extinction...and gm and chrysler are bringing down the taxpayers with them...
how are they supposed to pay back taxpayers when they are not "viable" when they have just bought out their own workers....with taxpayer money....
Posted by jrs112 at 02/09/2009 @ 2:13pm
Posted by chaoszen at 02/09/2009 @ 2:03pm
No need to castigate yourself, 'ZEN. PONTI is the most feeble and the most annoying form of ignoramus on this earthly plane. You shoulda' seen the exchange awhile back when CRABWALK cited exhibit after exhibit of evidence demonstrating that Plame was covert, including the legal process in which it was an established finding. Through it all, PONTI was like a broken record of a retarded parrot's voice. Beyond pathetic.
Trash like PONTI is what the Repugnant base has shrivelled down to, sickos who get more and more defensive and childishly insistent the more they have been slammed with steel-girder-hard and incontrovertible evidence to which they have not even the pretense of answers. It won't end well for these CroMag chumps and disgruntled losers who carry the ragged banner of GOP.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/09/2009 @ 2:16pm
Speak for yourself, dude. There are some of us who know that a government which owns everything is not a 'democracy' but a state with an awful lot of slaves, like North Korea or Cuba.
Posted by pontificus at 02/09/2009 @ 1:21pm
but the banks are insolvent.
they crash, and BOOM!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/09/2009 @ 2:59pm
A government of and by the people can be said to a slave to its people, but new con repub blood sucking ticks want our gov to serve their blood sucking tick corporations...
Uhmmm, so in reality it's the new con repub blood sucking ticks that want us as their slaves.
After all-- they do 'suck'.
That is their nature.
To suck.
Or, not to suck.
That is the question!
Whether it is nobler to.........!?!?
Oh brother, just BURN the damn TICKS!
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/09/2009 @ 4:21pm