PDA

View Full Version : Democrats, I have to ask...



Franco
02-04-2009, 06:26 PM
What do you think of your President's Stimulus Package he and your leaders brought forth? You know, the one he's asking the Senate to act on quickly because we haven't got the time to scrutenize a 900 billion to 1.5 trillion bill.

YardleyLabs
02-04-2009, 07:06 PM
What do you think of your President's Stimulus Package he and your leaders brought forth? You know, the one he's asking the Senate to act on quickly because we haven't got the time to scrutenize a 900 billion to 1.5 trillion bill.

Well, personally I think all the money should go only to states that voted Democrat and the bills should go to the others. After all, up until now tax dollars have flowed primarily from blue to red. :D

IowaBayDog
02-04-2009, 07:40 PM
Well, personally I think all the money should go only to states that voted Democrat and the bills should go to the others. After all, up until now tax dollars have flowed primarily from blue to red. :D


That's fine, all of us in flyover country will just quadruple the price of food and let all those limousine liberals on the coasts can afford it, they certainly aren't paying their taxes.

subroc
02-04-2009, 08:41 PM
Well, personally I think all the money should go only to states that voted Democrat and the bills should go to the others. After all, up until now tax dollars have flowed primarily from blue to red. :D

doesn't the food flow from red to blue?

luvalab
02-04-2009, 08:58 PM
What do you think of your President's Stimulus Package he and your leaders brought forth? You know, the one he's asking the Senate to act on quickly because we haven't got the time to scrutenize a 900 billion to 1.5 trillion bill.

I'm assuming this is an honest, serious question rather than a rhetorical one.

Honest, serious response:

I like it about as much as I liked the boondoggle Bush/Paulson bailout bill that has has been completely ineffective and without oversight. (Not to mention all the other billions of dollars of non-bailout, unvoted-on treasury money that disappeared in the last six months of 2008 in the name of economic recovery.) That is to say, it makes me ill.

I will say, the potential boondoggle beneficiaries this time around (state pork and special interests) are slightly (ever-so-slightly) less unpalatable to me than the earlier boondoggle beneficiaries (failing financiers and their allies), and there might be a teeny tiny bit of genuine stimulus in there somewhere... maybe. But it's a horror nonetheless, especially considering that the stakes may be even higher now.

The Republicans are doing the right thing at the moment--but I don't recall all that many of them doing the right thing under the Bush administration (a few, but not many, and frankly of those I think a lot were doing it for show, and I believe I recall at least one that said as much--I'll have to figure out how to look it up). The democrats on the Hill are not what they say they are (surprise, surprise), but neither are the Republicans (surprise, surprise).

It reminds me of a story of a friend's recent Christmas dinner. One host--a vegetarian 364 other days of the year--ate a prodigious amount of ham. After having eaten the ham, she self-rightously denied everyone else the opportunity to take home what was left of the ham, as meat is a horrible thing and she would do everyone else's health a favor by not letting them have ham, and she summarily threw it away, still belching ham breath herself.

Yes, I'm comparing Republicans to a crazy lapsed vegetarian.

However, I'm not all that happy with the Democrats at the moment, either, as they stand around drooling over the leftover table. It's gross.

Neither side gets to claim the high ground. The whole thing is a [expletive here] mess all around. It was before--15 days doesn't make that much of a difference, apparently (again, no surprise).

Most of the democrat voters I know were the white-knuckle "change is the only option I can stomach" brand, and we're white-knuckling the first hundred days as much as any Republican, I think. Perhaps moreso.

Franco
02-04-2009, 09:48 PM
I agree, it is a horror and the stakes are much higher now. I also agree we can blame both sides of the isle for many mistakes in the past. This is the here and now and it is economic suicide for us. Maybe this is what is meant by redistributing the wealth. We'll all be poor.

Franco
02-04-2009, 10:01 PM
That's fine, all of us in flyover country will just quadruple the price of food and let all those limousine liberals on the coasts can afford it, they certainly aren't paying their taxes.

And the big 3 oil producing states of Louisiana, Texas and Alaska, the three that voted Republican will only refine thier oil and pipe their natural gas to states that voted Republican. Afterall, the Dems hate oil companies.The Stimulus Bill is a fraud and can't be defended!

luvalab
02-04-2009, 10:09 PM
I agree, it is a horror and the stakes are much higher now. I also agree we can blame both sides of the isle for many mistakes in the past. This is the here and now and it is economic suicide for us. Maybe this is what is meant by redistributing the wealth. We'll all be poor.

If Obama had real chutzpah, he would veto it even if it got pushed through by the democrats as is, and tell the whole lot of them he wouldn't sign it until it met his expectations and had a modicum of support from the other side of the aisle.

I'm not expecting it to happen from him, as it would also be political suicide and ill-advised if he wanted to accomplish anything else in the next four years. Hopefully it will get hammered into some sort of sense through negotiation behind the scenes.

Unfortunately, if history is any indicator, it will just get balanced out by Republican pork and cost twice as much, and both sides will pat themselves on the back for their bi-partisanship and take some smiling photos and watch their mutual friends make money off of it--and then get jobs from their mutual friends when they get voted out sometime in the future.

Grrr.

Maybe if we're all poor gas prices will stay down and I'll still be able to take my humble hounds to a few events every now and then. Just looking on the bright side...

Franco
02-04-2009, 10:24 PM
If Obama had real chutzpah, he would veto it even if it got pushed through by the democrats as is, and tell the whole lot of them he wouldn't sign it until it met his expectations and had a modicum of support from the other side of the aisle.

I'm not expecting it to happen from him, as it would also be political suicide and ill-advised if he wanted to accomplish anything else in the next four years.

I was thinking the same thing earlier. That would take some real guts and I don't think political suicide. It would send a clear message that he's not Pelosi's boy and that he is in charge. I just don't think he has it in him and the bad advice he is getting will hurt him. Noticed on Tv tonight, O was talking up the boondoggle bill and poor Gietner was standing next to him like a whipped school boy.

Henry V
02-04-2009, 10:38 PM
OK, let's try to start with something basic and build from there.

We are in a real bad economic situation which is comparable to the period before the great depression, yes? From what I have read and heard, most economists and experts believe so.

Is a stimulus package needed? From what I have read and heard, most economists and experts agree that a stimulus package is needed to jump start the economy. If you don't think so, why not and what is your alternative?

The question then becomes what should be in a stimulus package? This stimulus package, at this point, has/had a bunch of stuff in it that does not belong. Assuming you believe that a stimulus package is needed what should be in there? It already has $300+ billion in tax cuts. What else is needed folks? I look at the list that KG posted and there sure appears to be a lot of infrastructure projects. Much of that seems generally good. What specifically on the list should be there or not and what should be there that isn't?

IowaBayDog
02-05-2009, 05:30 AM
OK, let's try to start with something basic and build from there.

We are in a real bad economic situation which is comparable to the period before the great depression, yes? From what I have read and heard, most economists and experts believe so.

Is a stimulus package needed? From what I have read and heard, most economists and experts agree that a stimulus package is needed to jump start the economy. If you don't think so, why not and what is your alternative?

The question then becomes what should be in a stimulus package? This stimulus package, at this point, has/had a bunch of stuff in it that does not belong. Assuming you believe that a stimulus package is needed what should be in there? It already has $300+ billion in tax cuts. What else is needed folks? I look at the list that KG posted and there sure appears to be a lot of infrastructure projects. Much of that seems generally good. What specifically on the list should be there or not and what should be there that isn't?


The problem with the infrastructure projects is that only about 25% of it will be spent prior to the end of 2010. How is that stimulative to the effect of taking us out of an impending deep recession. We are not in a situation that was as bad as even the Carter recession yet, doesn't mean it won't get worse especially with printing Trillions of dollars of paper. I don't see the logic in the Democrats screaming at how much Bush overspent but they expect to fix it by spending more? What will work? Do the 25% of spending that actually is short term stimulative, put a 6 to 12 month large reduction on Small Business taxes, capital gains tax, and income tax. The Banks obviously don't want to run themselves ethically and we don't want them nationalized so we need to let them fail and cannibalize to sort the market out. Unfortunetly that will slow down any recovery due to the lack of credit flowing, but long term that might be a good thing, it was flowing a bit too freely for a long time.

Franco
02-05-2009, 08:52 AM
OK, let's try to start with something basic and build from there.

We are in a real bad economic situation which is comparable to the period before the great depression, yes? From what I have read and heard, most economists and experts believe so.



It depends on which part of the country you are living in. The economy may be bad in the rust belt where unions are the strongest. We had a GM plant close in Shreveport, La. but, it wasn't due to thier local economy as much as all domestic auto mfg's are having problems. In speaking with a local Toyota dealer this week, they had a record January for sales! The media is creating most of this economic meltdown by scaring everybody! We need to return to a Free Market Economy and let things sort themselves out.

precisionlabradors
02-05-2009, 10:36 AM
the problem i have with the stimulus is that it is so big and the beneficiaries are so many that it is impossible to predict the efficacy.

it seems that the govt keeps it ambiguous to confuse the public and tell us that everything will be okay.

i want to know just how it will benefit us and at what cost. when will it benefit?

as for the majority of the people that are waaaaay against it, it seems that there are few better solutions. i started a thread on that about a week ago. nothing real thought provoking there.

booty-according to you, since you are pretty active in this part of the board, give me a synopsis of the bailout. how is it economic suicide?

i've studied up on the bailout, but must be pretty dumb or something, because it makes little sense to me.
________
Redhead Webcam (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/redhead-girls/)

Franco
02-05-2009, 11:19 AM
booty-according to you, since you are pretty active in this part of the board, give me a synopsis of the bailout. how is it economic suicide?

i've studied up on the bailout, but must be pretty dumb or something, because it makes little sense to me.

The bailout makes little sense to me too! I've stated on similar threads what I feel is wrong with it. to recap; it will NOT stimulate the economy but cost us financially much more than we can afford. The real problems need to be addresses, not have money thrown at them. The USA can not be competitve in mfg-ing because our Labor Unions makes us uncompetitve. Look at the U S Auto Makers for a start. Instaed of trying to bail out a broken business model, moves need to be made that will make them competitve. Getting rid of the entitlement mentallity and limiting the power of the unions would be a great start. A REAL stimulus package would be one that would encourage businessses to reinvest and grow. Tax breaks for business would jump start any part of the country experiencing a slow down. This would also create more taxes as these business grow, hire and spend. Next, give tax payers a break so that they feel good about buying things they want from luxury items to esstentials. Let the free economy reign because we need less government, not more. As i've said before, both parties are the culprits. However, this TRILLION dollar plus bill will bury us because it is nothing more than a liberal spending bill that is NOT going to stimulate anything. The American people know it and that is why most are against it.The biggest thing we can do is place strict term limits on Congress. Lets get rid of the career politicians. McCain said the same thing last night and I've been saying it forever. The folks we have in Congress for the most part don't understand business or how to run a buisness. They got us into this mess and I don't trust them to be able to solve it. What we have now is socalism at its worse. Poor leadership, entitlement mentallity and a growing unproductive workforce.

precisionlabradors
02-05-2009, 11:31 AM
The bailout makes little sense to me too! I've stated on similar threads what I feel is wrong with it. to recap; it will NOT stimulate the economy but cost us financially much more than we can afford. The real problems need to be addresses, not have money thrown at them. The USA can not be competitve in mfg-ing because our Labor Unions makes us uncompetitve. Look at the U S Auto Makers for a start. Instaed of trying to bail out a broken business model, moves need to be made that will make them competitve. Getting rid of the entitlement mentallity and limiting the power of the unions would be a great start. A REAL stimulus package would be one that would encourage businessses to reinvest and grow. Tax breaks for business would jump start any part of the country experiencing a slow down. This would also create more taxes as these business grow, hire and spend. Next, give tax payers a break so that they feel good about buying things they want from luxury items to esstentials. Let the free economy reign because we need less government, not more. As i've said before, both parties are the culprits. However, this TRILLION dollar plus bill will bury us because it is nothing more than a liberal spending bill that is NOT going to stimulate anything. The American people know it and that is why most are against it.The biggest thing we can do is place strict term limits on Congress. Lets get rid of the career politicians. McCain said the same thing last night and I've been saying it forever. The folks we have in Congress for the most part don't understand business or how to run a buisness. They got us into this mess and I don't trust them to be able to solve it.

i see what you're saying. if i understand, you believe it would make more sense to give tax breaks to stimulate spending rather than giving money to corporations whose business models have failed due to poor marketing or crappy products, etc. that makes sense.

from what i understand, the bailout is aimed to rescue failing businesses, thus keeping employees employed so that they can spend, right? the proponents of the bailout think that if nobody has jobs it will hurt the economy more than stimulating spending through tax cuts, right?

like i said, it seems that it is kept huge and ambiguous to shirk accountability. i really want to educate myself here.

does anybody have a link to the projected beneficiaries of the bailout?
________
Ship Sale (http://ship-sale.com/)

Henry V
02-05-2009, 11:34 AM
...........The media is creating most of this economic meltdown by scaring everybody! We need to return to a Free Market Economy and let things sort themselves out.

Take a look at this page of economic indicators and dig into the summary data too. http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/briefroom/BriefRm

No way the media created this problem. A Republican administration just authorized bailing out the banking industry to the tune of $700 billion. Large banks are failing. Investments have decline 30+% on average. Home values and foreclosures are at an unprecedented level and its the medias' fault. Come on.

What do you think will happen if the government just backs away from the current economic situation? Most economists are saying it will be another major depression. That's the alternative that you want?

How would Louisiana do without all the government subsidzize and FEMA bailout $$$'s. Your state gets $1.85 federal dollars in return for every federal tax dollar contributed. I sure can see how that helps boost your local economy.

Franco
02-05-2009, 11:41 AM
[quote=precisionlabradors;396214]
from what i understand, the bailout is aimed to rescue failing businesses, thus keeping employees employed so that they can spend, right? the proponents of the bailout think that if nobody has jobs it will hurt the economy more than stimulating spending through tax cuts, right?


The problem here is that it is a very expensive band-aide. Huge money thrown at the problem rather than being tough, telling voters what they don't want to hear and fixing the problem. All that today's career politician knows how to do is pander to the voters. That goes back to the old saying that voters get the government they deserve. This country has more uneducated voters than any other country so, it is no surprise we have what we have.

Franco
02-05-2009, 11:50 AM
Here are some real issues that need to be addressed and not have money thrown at it;American investors no longer trust Wall Street. A rebound of the stock market is NOT a given and this is not a cyclical thing, it is broken.Because of Labor Unions, we can not mfg anything worth a crap. Our Immigration Laws have been abused since the end of WW2. They need to be severly over-hauled as the times have changed. How many BILLION a year is this problem costing and why won't anyone on the hill address the issue with anything other than Amnisty? We need to look hard at making some amendments to the Constitution that would include who can vote. That would be a great start. Too many voting for who they think will provide a free ride and it is currently and will continue to destroy us.

kjrice
02-05-2009, 11:57 AM
The Republicans are doing the right thing at the moment--but I don't recall all that many of them doing the right thing under the Bush administration (a few, but not many, and frankly of those I think a lot were doing it for show, and I believe I recall at least one that said as much--I'll have to figure out how to look it up). The democrats on the Hill are not what they say they are (surprise, surprise), but neither are the Republicans (surprise, surprise).



Get your jab in but it never could have passed without the Democratic controlled Congress. ;-)

Franco
02-05-2009, 12:20 PM
Take a look at this page of economic indicators and dig into the summary data too. http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/briefroom/BriefRm

No way the media created this problem. A Republican administration just authorized bailing out the banking industry to the tune of $700 billion. Large banks are failing. Investments have decline 30+% on average. Home values and foreclosures are at an unprecedented level and its the medias' fault. Come on.

What do you think will happen if the government just backs away from the current economic situation? Most economists are saying it will be another major depression. That's the alternative that you want?

How would Louisiana do without all the government subsidzize and FEMA bailout $$$'s. Your state gets $1.85 federal dollars in return for every federal tax dollar contributed. I sure can see how that helps boost your local economy.

The FEMA money is going mostly into New Orleans, not the state. This area didn't get any FEMA money, we have less than 3% unemployment. That FEMA $ is going to the Democrats in NewOrleans, you know the ones with the entitlement mentallity. The ones that blamed Bush for Katrina. That's why southcentral La. an area that doesn't put up with handouts is still thriving. Home values are stable, have not decreased and people here work for their money. We hate BIG gooberment!If the badly run banks fail there are plenty of well run ones that will survive. We don't need to bailout failure. For what, so they can fail again? And yes, the media is fueling the flames. We are running a huge campaign telling out listeners not to buy into what the media is telling everyone about the economy. The national media is in Obomo's pocket and they are helping him get the sick stimulus bill passed.

luvalab
02-05-2009, 12:24 PM
Get your jab in but it never could have passed without the Democratic controlled Congress. ;-)

I agree it could never have passed without the Democratic controlled Congress.

It wasn't a jab--it was an observation on events less than 4 months previous. Since when did time re-set on January 20, 2009? Or for that matter, January 20, 2005, 2001, 1997, 1993...

I don't know why some of you folks are so intent on fighting Democrats when we have such a golden opportunity to unite in disgust. This has been decades and at least 2 administrations in the making.

Besides, I keep trying to say I'm not a Democrat, though I voted for one. I'm philosophically a Republican that can't abide by the current leadership and recent past track record, and I happen to have been boxed into an uncomfortable voting position on the national level, and I won't apologize for it. At least not yet.

White knuckle regards......

Franco
02-05-2009, 12:29 PM
I don't know why some of you folks are so intent on fighting Democrats when we have such a golden opportunity to unite in disgust. This has been decades and at least 2 administrations in the making.

<White knuckle regards......

I'm all for it, let us Impeach Them All. Lets get rid of all the career politicians and start over with strict term limits! That would be a huge stimulus to our economy.

kjrice
02-05-2009, 12:34 PM
I'm all for it, let us Impeach Them All. Lets get rid of all the career politicians and start over with strict term limits! That would be a huge stimulus to our economy.
Thanks for saving me the typing.

I'm not sure about term limits, because that opens up another can of worms. If the election process truly worked, these bozos would be limited. The fact is Americans have become apathetic. Watch scumbags like Barney Frank and his ilk get re-elected even after their direct manipulation in the subprime crisis.

luvalab
02-05-2009, 01:35 PM
Thanks for saving me the typing.

I'm not sure about term limits, because that opens up another can of worms. If the election process truly worked, these bozos would be limited. The fact is Americans have become apathetic. Watch scumbags like Barney Frank and his ilk get re-elected even after their direct manipulation in the subprime crisis.

I agree--the best term limit is an election with an engaged electorate.

Human nature being what it is, I agree with a two-term limit for the top executive position... no need to risk having a dictator or a king for the sake of the principle...

Maybe the time has come for the top legislative positions to be limited as well. I could be convinced.

backpasture
02-05-2009, 02:16 PM
The problem with the infrastructure projects is that only about 25% of it will be spent prior to the end of 2010.

Citation?

The Congressional Budget Office projects over 75% of the money in the House bill will be spent in the next 18 months.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=204

labdoc
02-05-2009, 03:35 PM
What do you think of your President's Stimulus Package he and your leaders brought forth? You know, the one he's asking the Senate to act on quickly because we haven't got the time to scrutenize a 900 billion to 1.5 trillion bill.

Apparently he stated today that if this doesn't pass, we may not survive as a nation. Quite a dramatic statement. I don't no whether to expect mass chaos or a Mexican takeover. How much ammo should we stock?

Ken Newcomb
02-05-2009, 03:38 PM
His grasp at scare tactics just shows his pathetic desperation. I suppose it works on the same gullable people that voted for him to start with.

labdoc
02-05-2009, 03:41 PM
Watch it!! I may be gullible but I sure didn't vote for Obama!!!;)

Hew
02-05-2009, 03:51 PM
Apparently he stated today that if this doesn't pass, we may not survive as a nation. Quite a dramatic statement. I don't no whether to expect mass chaos or a Mexican takeover. How much ammo should we stock?
That fence we're building on the border may end up keep us from going to Mexico and stealing Mexicans' jobs. :oops:

I'm not keen on all this doom and gloom talk about not surviving as a nation and comparisons to the Great Depression. How the frick does that help the economy? It's not a good time to be removing the last shred of confidence consumers might have left.

kjrice
02-08-2009, 02:03 PM
His grasp at scare tactics just shows his pathetic desperation. I suppose it works on the same gullable people that voted for him to start with.
Geez he even has his blind-hope satellite offices calling around asking people to put pressure to pass the bill. I guess they didn't see my name on the Do Not Call list. :-x

Oregon Lab Lover
02-09-2009, 12:59 AM
American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen under 9% ó levels not seen since 1932. Workers seem uninterested in joining, and strike activity has almost faded away. The labor force in unionized automobile and steel plants, for example, has fallen dramatically. In another example, Construction trades now only represent approximately 14% of the labor market. The inability to prevent non-union companies from taking significant market share has undercut union membership.

Union labor is not the cause of our economic problems as some would have us believe. Maybe you can throw some of the blame on the unions in the auto industry but there problems started back in the late 40's and early 50's when those crapy imports started to show. Detroit laughed instead of retooling and the imports retooled and now they are laughing.

twall
02-09-2009, 03:56 PM
The Congressional Budget Office projects over 75% of the money in the House bill will be spent in the next 18 months.http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=204

One of the problems is that it will takes months before the cash starts flowing. The second is most of the jobs are construction. That is good for the construction workers but what about all the other workers?

What about documented/undocumented workers that are sending the majority of their paychecks out of the country? That money leaves this country and our economy.

Also, many of these infrastructure projects have been waiting for funding for years because they didn't get funding because of lack of merit. They have been reporting in my local paper on how local officials have been contacted by one of our US Senators for a wish list of projects to be funded. Just because the Feds are looking to pass out copious amounts of our current and future tax dollars does not "fix" our economic problems.

An immediate tax holiday would put money in the taxpayers pocket at their next paycheck. The problem is get "us" to spend the money instead of save it.

I am completely against giving people who do not pay taxes a tax refund.

Tom

backpasture
02-09-2009, 04:10 PM
An immediate tax holiday would put money in the taxpayers pocket at their next paycheck. The problem is get "us" to spend the money instead of save it.

That is exactly the problem. And, that is why spending is more effective for jumpstarting the economy than tax cuts.

The reason that the Senators have been asking local officials for a wish list is because they want to fund the so called 'shovel ready' projects. The goal is to get the money flowing as fast as possible. They are doing that to address the very first point that you raised, that 'it will take months before the cash starts flowing'.

As for non-construction jobs, there is some in the stimulus for that, though not as much as there was in the original bill (for example, a major IT infrastucture project for the CDC -- the type of project that would employee highly skilled engineers, and provide the CDC with a data/IT backup platform that it desperately needs.)

WindyCreek
02-09-2009, 04:51 PM
Better figure this into your economic equation - the Obama Administration has directed a 10% cut in the Fiscal Year 2009 budget. For reference the Fiscal Year started almost 6 months ago. That will do some interesting things for the economy not to mention have a adverse effect on National Defense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/02/AR2009020202618.html


That is exactly the problem. And, that is why spending is more effective for jumpstarting the economy than tax cuts.

The reason that the Senators have been asking local officials for a wish list is because they want to fund the so called 'shovel ready' projects. The goal is to get the money flowing as fast as possible. They are doing that to address the very first point that you raised, that 'it will take months before the cash starts flowing'.

As for non-construction jobs, there is some in the stimulus for that, though not as much as there was in the original bill (for example, a major IT infrastucture project for the CDC -- the type of project that would employee highly skilled engineers, and provide the CDC with a data/IT backup platform that it desperately needs.)

backpasture
02-09-2009, 05:22 PM
Better figure this into your economic equation - the Obama Administration has directed a 10% cut in the Fiscal Year 2009 budget. For reference the Fiscal Year started almost 6 months ago. That will do some interesting things for the economy not to mention have a adverse effect on National Defense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/02/AR2009020202618.html

I have to admit, I have a hard time keeping up on whether Republicans are upset that we are increasing spending, and when they are upset that we are cutting it..... As near as I can tell the current method is to look at whether the Obama adminstration has proposed the increase/cut, then take the opposite position.

twall
02-09-2009, 05:45 PM
That is exactly the problem. And, that is why spending is more effective for jumpstarting the economy than tax cuts.

The reason that the Senators have been asking local officials for a wish list is because they want to fund the so called 'shovel ready' projects. The goal is to get the money flowing as fast as possible. They are doing that to address the very first point that you raised, that 'it will take months before the cash starts flowing'.

As for non-construction jobs, there is some in the stimulus for that, though not as much as there was in the original bill (for example, a major IT infrastucture project for the CDC -- the type of project that would employee highly skilled engineers, and provide the CDC with a data/IT backup platform that it desperately needs.)

So, growing our goverment larger is going to "save" our country? The 300 employees laid-off by one of the larger healthcare systems in central Ohio are going to relocated and retrain for IT jobs in Washington? Or, wait for a "shovel ready" infrastructure project to get off the ground sometime in the next 18 months?

I know why a US Senator wants local "shovel ready" projects. Nothing like having a few "monuments" in every community come elction time. The term "shovel ready" is a joke! Our dem senator who is on his first term is seeking a list of projects. Our repub sneator who is retiring isn't seeking a list. My local city and county are coming up with projects they "think" will get funded. This bill is just a fat hog waiting to make us taxpayers squeel for years to come!

Federally mandated loans got us in this mess and this bill will just create another mess without "fixing" our economy.

Tom

WindyCreek
02-09-2009, 06:12 PM
I think you are missing the big point, this is a significant cut to defense spending, half way through the fiscal year and in the middle of a war. Oh yeah, don't forget Iran launched a satellite, is developing a significant nuclear capability and the list goes on. Of course this is "Change" but not that I can believe in.


I have to admit, I have a hard time keeping up on whether Republicans are upset that we are increasing spending, and when they are upset that we are cutting it..... As near as I can tell the current method is to look at whether the Obama adminstration has proposed the increase/cut, then take the opposite position.

backpasture
02-09-2009, 06:34 PM
I think you are missing the big point, this is a significant cut to defense spending, half way through the fiscal year and in the middle of a war. Oh yeah, don't forget Iran launched a satellite, is developing a significant nuclear capability and the list goes on. Of course this is "Change" but not that I can believe in.

The supposed 'cut' in the defense budget is a myth. Obama is actually increasing the defense budget.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/03/kagan/index.html


The administration is not giving the Pentagon the full amount it requested and so Kagan claims that is a 'cut'.

WindyCreek
02-09-2009, 06:57 PM
Not giving the agency responsibile for defense of the Nation the full amount it requested but it is not a cut. That sounds like fuzzy math to me. BTW I have over 30 years in uniform, I know a cut when I see it. Lived through it twice, 1976-1980 and 1993-2000. Go ahead and get the last word, I'm out of here going back to training dogs.


The supposed 'cut' in the defense budget is a myth. Obama is actually increasing the defense budget.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/03/kagan/index.html


The administration is not giving the Pentagon the full amount it requested and so Kagan claims that is a 'cut'.

backpasture
02-09-2009, 07:08 PM
I know a cut when I see it. .

If you get more money than you got last year, your budget has not been cut. It has been increased. There is nothing 'fuzzy' about that.

Henry V
02-09-2009, 07:14 PM
This is an interesting site describes where our income tax dollars go.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/tax_dollars_notes

Click on the interactive tax chart link to the right of the page. It gives you a pie chart for your tax level.

FYI - over $0.40 of every tax dollar goes to the military. Far and away the largest single slice of the pie.

Hew
02-10-2009, 12:03 AM
This is an interesting site describes where our income tax dollars go.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/tax_dollars_notes

Click on the interactive tax chart link to the right of the page. It gives you a pie chart for your tax level.

FYI - over $0.40 of every tax dollar goes to the military. Far and away the largest single slice of the pie.
FYI, in pimping that 40% figure you're putting an awful lot of faith in a piechart that was bought and paid for by a gaggle of smelly hippies and malcontents who'd rather all that military money be given to them so they don't have to go out and get a real job:

ACORN
AFSCME
American Friends Service Committee
Assín of Farmworkers Opportunity Programs
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Center on Budget and Public
Cities for Peace
Code Pink
Economists for Peace and Security
Hip Hop Caucus (I often catch myself thinking, "hmmm, I wonder where the Hip Hop Caucus stands on US fiscal policy?")
MoveOn.org
NAACP
National Organizersí Alliance (gee, a whole alliance of future Obamas)
Peace Action
People for the American Way
Project on Defense Alternatives
United for Peace and Justice
US Labor Against the War
War Resisters League

Wow, imagine that...Code Pink and United for Peace and Justice paid for a pie chart that says we spend too much money on national defense.

backpasture
02-10-2009, 07:44 AM
Henry V is talking about how our income tax dollars are spent, and his numbers are correct, despite the fact that you don't like the group that compiled the data.

The typical response to these numbers is to say that defense spending is around 20% of the Federal Budget. This is also true. But, the federal budget is made up of more than our income tax dollars --it includes Social Security and Medicare, which are funded (or at least is supposed to be) by a specific earmark. We also have been funding a good chunk of our budget for the past 8 years by borrowing money. (And, of course, the same party that is obstructing the stimulus bill borrowed and spent 3-4 TRILLION dollars when the economy was chugging along and we should been paying DOWN the federal debt.)

That 20% number also does not include things like paying the debt on previous military expenditures, and Veterans Benefits, which arguably are part of defense spending, and will be a HUGE burden moing forward given all the disabled vets coming out of Iraq, and the massive debt financing that we used to pay for the war (MUCH more than the cost of the stimulus bill)

Cody Covey
02-10-2009, 09:48 AM
oh so since republicans did it you are going to do it to but on a much more grand scale?

over a trillion dollars added to the debt regards~

backpasture
02-10-2009, 10:03 AM
oh so since republicans did it you are going to do it to but on a much more grand scale?

over a trillion dollars added to the debt regards~

The stimulus bill is actually quite a bit less money than the Repubs added to the national debt over the past 8 years.

Franco
02-10-2009, 10:21 AM
So, does two wrongs make a right?

backpasture
02-10-2009, 10:27 AM
So, does two wrongs make a right?

No. But the fact that the Repubs spent like drunken sailors when times were good doesn't mean that we should NOT be spending now.

Sound economic policy says you spend and accumulate debt when times are bad, and you pay off debt when times are good.

The Congressional Republicans' position is apparently the exact opposite of sound economic policy.

K G
02-10-2009, 11:11 AM
The stimulus bill is actually quite a bit less money than the Repubs added to the national debt over the past 8 years.

And it only took them THREE WEEKS to come up with that amount...imagine what they'll spend over the next four years. Gonna make Bush 43's eight years look like a time of austerity in comparison.......


But the fact that the Repubs spent like drunken sailors when times were good doesn't mean that we should NOT be spending now.

Sound economic policy says you spend and accumulate debt when times are bad, and you pay off debt when times are good.

The Congressional Republicans' position is apparently the exact opposite of sound economic policy.

We'll see in short order how the Dem's congressional minority views "sound economic policy" once the money starts flowing. Look for the cash junkies to need additional fixes that will rival any crack addict.........

kg

YardleyLabs
02-10-2009, 11:36 AM
And it only took them THREE WEEKS to come up with that amount...imagine what they'll spend over the next four years. Gonna make Bush 43's eight years look like a time of austerity in comparison.......



We'll see in short order how the Dem's congressional minority views "sound economic policy" once the money starts flowing. Look for the cash junkies to need additional fixes that will rival any crack addict.........

kg

Actually, in the same time period in his first term, Bush introduced bills for tax cuts costing $1.8 trillion and pushed them through even as it became clear that the "surplus" was disappearing in the face of recession. His justification was that a stimulus was needed. The price tag was kept down to $1.8 trillion by proposing that all the cuts would expire and that taxes would go back to pre-cut levels in 2010. Of, from the beginning, the assumption was that the cuts would be extended because no one would be willing to see taxes increase no matter how it affected the economy. As things evolved, the bulk of the cuts kicked in after the short-lived recession had ended and the cuts were continued despite a growing war-driven deficit. This contributed to over-heating of the economy and helped to lay the framework for the current collapse. Will those who are now belatedly concerned about deficits argue to allow the tax cuts to expire rathern than incur the additional trillions of dollars of new dificits that will be created by extending them?

The advantage of the stimulus bill is that the projects receiving the funds are non-recurring. However, the risk that the same spending attitude will be repeated as politicians become addicted to easy cash is real. I hope the admninistration will have the intestinal fortitude to begin generating surpluses to pay down debt once the economic crisis begins to fade.

Franco
02-10-2009, 06:34 PM
I hope the admninistration will have the intestinal fortitude to begin generating surpluses to pay down debt once the economic crisis begins to fade.

Begins to fade? We haven't seen the worse of the banking/financial system yet. Heck, our gooberment doesn't even know what happen to the $700, 000, 000.00 we used to bail out the credit markets! That was only two months ago. Did the automakers ever get thier share of the payoff? These are the same people, different administration, asking us to rush a TRILLION DOLLARS through and we have no time to discuss it! WE ARE BEING SWINDLED PEOPLE!!! And, they are going to ask for more.

Gerry Clinchy
02-10-2009, 06:48 PM
From backpasture:

Sound economic policy says you spend and accumulate debt when times are bad, and you pay off debt when times are good.

That doesn't always work out too well for the rest of us, since it's hard to tell how long the bad times will last, or the good times. Everybody knows the real estate market cycles up and down, but people always ask when I think prices will bottom out. No crystal ball.

Yardley added:

As things evolved, the bulk of the cuts kicked in after the short-lived recession had ended and the cuts were continued despite a growing war-driven deficit. This contributed to over-heating of the economy and helped to lay the framework for the current collapse.

As mentioned above, timing isn't everything, but it sure helps :-)

Yardley again:

However, the risk that the same spending attitude will be repeated as politicians become addicted to easy cash is real. I hope the admninistration will have the intestinal fortitude to begin generating surpluses to pay down debt once the economic crisis begins to fade.

Since career politicians have little concept of living within a budget, and have not shown any propensity to wean themselves off this habit, I don't have a whole lot of faith they will turn over a new leaf. The re-cycling of previous political "players" into the new administration doesn't give me a lot of hope for such an "epiphany" to occur for these people.

K G
02-10-2009, 07:31 PM
Begins to fade? We haven't seen the worse of the banking/financial system yet. Heck, our gooberment doesn't even know what happen to the $700, 000, 000.00 we used to bail out the credit markets! That was only two months ago. Did the automakers ever get thier share of the payoff? These are the same people, different administration, asking us to rush a TRILLION DOLLARS through and we have no time to discuss it! WE ARE BEING SWINDLED PEOPLE!!! And, they are going to ask for more.

Fortunately they only got their hands on half of that $700b, Franco.....and the automakers MUST have gotten what they were looking for, at least through March, since they're all promoting manufacturer's incentives to try and sell cars/trucks.

kg

Uncle Bill
02-17-2009, 04:25 PM
Assuming you believe that a stimulus package is needed what should be in there? It already has $300+ billion in tax cuts. What else is needed folks?



Why would you make another asinine assumption???? Also, when will you realize socialists don't know what a 'tax cut' is. Let us know how much you are enjoying yours..."assuming" you pay taxes, so you actually get one.

UB

K G
02-17-2009, 07:58 PM
Look at it this way, Bill....we just spent $250k per person to put 350,000 people back to work....NEXT YEAR............:rolleyes:

What a bargain regards,

kg

YardleyLabs
02-17-2009, 08:19 PM
Look at it this way, Bill....we just spent $250k per person to put 350,000 people back to work....NEXT YEAR............:rolleyes:

What a bargain regards,

kg
Pesky decimal points. It's closer to $2.5k per person.

Raymond Little
02-17-2009, 09:04 PM
OK, let's try to start with something basic and build from there.


The question then becomes what should be in a stimulus package? This stimulus package, at this point, has/had a bunch of stuff in it that does not belong. Assuming you believe that a stimulus package is needed what should be in there? It already has $300+ billion in tax cuts. What else is needed folks? I look at the list that KG posted and there sure appears to be a lot of infrastructure projects. Much of that seems generally good. What specifically on the list should be there or not and what should be there that isn't?

Most economists say that this is not a stimlus package but a spending bill.
Most of the infastructure spending will not take place until 2012.
If it is such a great deal why did Chavez not let the light shine on it for 5 days
like he promised in his campaign bullshit?
If it is such a popular bill, why has he had to "BARN STORM THE COUNTRY SELLING IT"?
Best thing that could happen is the "WELFARE CHECKS GET HELD UP ONE MONTH AND
MOST OF HIS CONSTITUENTS WILL EITHER EAT OR KILL ONE ANOTHER".

Bullets Are Ready

K G
02-17-2009, 10:32 PM
Pesky decimal points. It's closer to $2.5k per person.

Please send that info to NBC Nightly News....that's where my numbers came from.

kg

Patrick Johndrow
02-18-2009, 06:56 AM
Please send that info to NBC Nightly News....that's where my numbers came from.

kg

KG...it is not you that need to check your math...leave it to a liberal to not know the difference between a million, billion or trillion.

Not only do liberal not know how to make money they cant even count it correctly.


Dr. Evil Was A Liberal Regards

YardleyLabs
02-18-2009, 01:21 PM
KG...it is not you that need to check your math...leave it to a liberal to not know the difference between a million, billion or trillion.

Not only do liberal not know how to make money they cant even count it correctly.


Dr. Evil Was A Liberal Regards

The stimulus package is $787 billion, or $787,000 million. The population of our country is 303 million people. 787,000/303 = $2,597.26 per person. What math are you using Patrick? The plan would have to cost $787 trillion for the cost to be as great as posted.

With the exception of my son-in-law, there are few journalists I would trust with a calculator. However, I wonder if the comment on the news wasn't actually saying that the package would cost more than $250,000 per job created, which would be accurate assuming $787 billion in costs and 3 million jobs created.

badbullgator
02-18-2009, 01:28 PM
With the exception of my son-in-law, there are few journalists I would trust with a calculator. However, I wonder if the comment on the news wasn't actually saying that the package would cost more than $250,000 per job created, which would be accurate assuming $787 billion in costs and 3 million jobs created.

This is the quote I saw on NBC, per job created, not per person. That said I doubt that 3 million jobs will be created

YardleyLabs
02-18-2009, 02:05 PM
This is the quote I saw on NBC, per job created, not per person. That said I doubt that 3 million jobs will be created

My apologies then, Corey. I misunderstood you original statement and thought you were saying the cost was $250k per person rather than $250k per job.

Vicki Worthington
02-18-2009, 02:23 PM
Obama spent his entire political career expending all of his energies to do absolutely nothing of substance. His biggest accomplishment was to not make anyone too mad and fly under the radar screen.

For every important issue that faced Illinois, he was a rail-sitter with no stand on either side of an issue. When he went to the US Senate, his most notable votes on issues of substance were "Present".

Given his track record, how can anyone even be so bold as to imagine that he will take any kind of a stand against his Party. To Nancy Pelosi, bi-partisan is synonamous with "my way or the highway". Obama isn't about to actually change ANYTHING except the amount of money in your wallet/bank accounts.

We have systemic problems ingrained into how Goverment spends money. Most every politician--Dems or Repubs--use 99% of their time when they are supposed to be working for the good of their constituents spending our capital to ensure their re-election.

I ask you this, and I am referring to McCain, Obama, and Clinton, et al....
If you told your current employer that you wish to stop doing your current job and spend the next 18 months looking for another one--and oh by the way, you must pay me my full salary during this time--what do you think they would say? Yet, that is what every political candidate for the presidency that held a position in government--state or federal or local--did to you, the Taxpayer!