When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
Aye Chihuahua, I guess my history book is not the John Wayne version. Our country has been a great force for good in the world. But it is very wrong to think it was perfect or even our motives.
Do you have any idea what public opinion was regarding the Revolution? The Civil War? How about our involvement in WWII?
Yes, I do. Lets take WWII as an example since it was the US involved in military action against a foreign power (such as our invasion of Iraq). The US homeland was attacked by the Japanese on Dec 7 1941, we declared war on them and then the Axis powers declared war on the US. American public opinion was firmly on the side of the president. Keep in mind our homeland was attacked by a foreign power. In this case, 9/11 we were attacked by AQ from Afghanistan and that is where the fight should have been taken.
While you have your history books open, look into the Spanish American War and The wars of the US against the Native Populations in the US and then come back on your high horse about how good we always are. I love this country and know we are a place of good, but we have done bad as well.
The US homeland was attacked by the Japanese on Dec 7 1941, we declared war on them and then the Axis powers declared war on the US. American public opinion was firmly on the side of the president.
You’re right. Public opinion on WWII was on the President’s side at the beginning. What was it later, as the war slogged on? Public opinion was on the President’s side at the beginning of the Iraq conflict as well, falling off later as the war slogged on, but Presidents don’t generally make decisions of war and peace based on public opinion.
So, what’s your point?
In this case, 9/11 we were attacked by AQ from Afghanistan and that is where the fight should have been taken.
It was taken there.
Perhaps you missed Operation Enduring Freedom.
You should stop digging now. The hole is very deep.
Aye Chihuahua: Presidents don’t generally make decisions of war and peace based on public opinion. So, what’s your point?
Well, for one Iraq did not attack the USA like Japan did. The president made the decision preemptively and whether it was based upon flawed intelligence or not does not matter in the fact he made a decision and presented it based upon false pretenses. I am not calling him a liar, it is a fact that even he admits that we went in based upon faulty intelligence.
Aye: Perhaps you missed Operation Enduring Freedom.
No, I didn’t but obviously the Iraq war ended up derailing the progress in Afghanistan.
Aye: Oh, by the way, when you were pointing out all of America’s faults you missed slavery. I guess you ran out of fingers.
No, I think educated people understand the general concepts with the few examples I presented.
Well, for one Iraq did not attack the USA like Japan did.
Perhaps not directly, but through proxy organizations they were certainly involved.
Judge Harold Baer disagrees with you. He ruled that Saddam Hussein provided material support to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and those are the people who attacked us on 9/11.
You must have missed that part.
The top of the water doesn’t always show the movement of the current.
Aye: Perhaps you missed Operation Enduring Freedom.
No, I didn’t but obviously the Iraq war ended up derailing the progress in Afghanistan.
You conveniently choose to ignore the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq and their connections to their sister organization in Afghanistan. In addition, you trot one of the favorite lefty memes that the US military cannot do more than one thing at a time.
Afghanistan did not suffer in any way because of our actions in Iraq.
You really should stop digging. The hole is getting very deep.
Back to the $1 trillion or so “stimulus” for a moment: The numbers we’ve been seeing for the last year or seem to have numbed us. Congress is so casual about the numbers that we lose a feel for their magnitude. So, how’s this for reference:
$1 trillion = $1,000,000,000,000
and is enough money to turn one million penniless people into millionaires. Or divided by roughly 140 million taxpayers, that could be over $70,000 to every taxpayer.
Could you imagine the economic stimulus that would result from “giving” every taxpayer $70,000?
Obviously, when this all trickles down, most of us will see no more than a couple thousand bucks, so guess who gets the rest? Poitical supporters, who will then turn around and make sizeable contributions to lawmakers’ campaign funds. THIS is the real reason for the stimulus; the same old pay-for-play crap that our politicians denounce in public but benefit from in private.
How does the voting public stand a chance against such a rigged system?
I, for one, am sick and tired of getting screwed By the ruling elite. We need a grass-roots effort to elect a truly independent president, one who is not beholden to special interests. I know it’s a fool’s dream, but it seems the only chance to turn around a government controlled by special interest groups!
@me.yahoo.com/a/tgqdcI0Oz: “Or divided by roughly 140 million taxpayers, that could be over $70,000 to every taxpayer. “
If only the money would go back to the people who paid it in. But if you examine Larry’s comments above he’s more than happy with the redistribution of that wealth to just about anyone whether they have paid income taxes or not.
And you’re right about this being a mega payoff to the Dems. The ACORN payoff is especially odious.
JV: $1 trillion = $1,000,000,000,000 and is enough money to turn one million penniless people into millionaires. Or divided by roughly 140 million taxpayers, that could be over $70,000 to every taxpayer.
Could you imagine the economic stimulus that would result from “giving” every taxpayer $70,000
• In 1993, the unemployment was virtually the same as the rate today (around 7%). Yet, President Clinton’s proposed stimulus legislation *only* contained $16 billion in spending
• The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.
• This legislation nears a trillion dollars. President Reagan said the best way to understand a trillion dollars is to imagine a crisp, new stack of $1000 bills.
• If you had a stack four inches high, you’d be a millionaire. A trillion-dollar stack of $1000 bills would measure just over 63 miles high.
• In $20 bills, a trillion dollar stack would be 3150 miles high. That’s about the distance between DC and Trujillo, Peru.
• President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $42,000 a year.
• This bill provides enough spending to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.
• This bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.
• Although this legislation has been billed and described as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, but only three percent ($30 billion) of this package is for road and highway spending.
• Much of the funding within the proposed stimulus package will go to programs which already have large, unexpended balances.
• For example, the draft bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which already has $16 billion on hand.
• And, this year, Congress has plans to rescind $9 billion in highway funding that the states have not yet used.
• Deficit spending will not expand the economy. If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit — the largest in history — would already be rescuing the economy.
• $800 billion more will not change that.
• Trade groups state that every $1 billion in highway “stimulus” can be spent creating 34,779 new construction jobs.
• But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion out of the private sector.
• The private sector then loses or forgoes roughly the same number of jobs.
• Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 “stimulus” bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world). Their economy remained stagnant and their per capita income went from the second highest in the world to the tenth highest.
[Source: QUICK FACTS ON THE DEMOCRAT STIMULUS PROPOSAL; January 15, 2009]
Aye Chihuahua, you mention Glen Becks comment about unemployment being virtually the same as 1993. Do you think our current economic conditions are the same as we had in 1993? Do you think unemployment will get worse than 7% or be just at 1993 levels?
Unemployment may get worse but the Fed Gov’t spending trillions of dollars will not solve that.
Spending money which will not even get into the system for 18 months is not going to help.
Spending money on STD’s and other various and sundry things will not help.
The best thing that gov’t can do is get the hell out of the way and let the private market and free enterprise system handle this.
Get the gov’t to drastically roll back spending and tax rates simultaneously. Get the gov’t to cut capital gains tax rates and corporate tax rates and real estate tax rates while cutting individual income tax rates as well.
Those steps will get this economy moving again because they will produce an immediate flush of cash into the pockets of the people who actually control the economy, not the politicians.
The American people are quickly waking up to this boondoggle. Approval rates for it are falling daily.
Aye: Unemployment may get worse but the Fed Gov’t spending trillions of dollars will not solve that.
Unemployment may get worse… that is an understatement given housing, equities, most commodities, credit, manufacturing etc etc are at historic lows and still falling. The Republicans AND Democrats in Congress better get their shit together. At least now the bill goes to the Senate where there are some adults (hopefully).
Again, it’s not the job of gov’t to stimulate the economy.
It’s not the job of gov’t to create jobs.
It’s NOT their job.
As I said before, public approval, which you were really, really concerned with earlier on this thread, has turned against this pork laden debt load. Less than 5% is being spent on anything that will really create jobs. The rest is PORK. This bill is the biggest spending boondoggle that has ever passed through the halls of Congress. It is unbelievable that anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together would support it.
America is getting ready to pour another TRILLION dollars down a black hole and it will never be seen again.
The Dems own this one.
When it fails, the American people will see whose name is attached to it.
Let me see if I have this right. When the Dems refuse to support something they’re obstructionist and when the Republicans do the same thing they’re savvy politicians who don’t let public opinion hijack their sensibilities? http://democralypsenow.blogspot.com/2009/01/master-of-house_28.html
Oops, I slipped a decimal point. One trillion divided by 140 million is 7,000, not 70,000.
Nonetheless, what the average recipient will receive is nowhere near what each will owe. Even after factoring in the fact that somewhere around half of the money will simply be printed by the Fed, how many of us are going to see our tax monies spent wisely, cautiously, and transparently?
Why doesn’t the government require all of these special interests to show a business plan with a timetable and return on investment like the auto exec’s were required to provide? I think we should get an accounting of where the first TARP $350 billion went before doling out any more bailouts!
(Sigh!) Of course it won’t happen, since it’s all a scam anyway. The government is so casual about trillions of dollars that I don’t think very many of our legislators have any idea what to do. All they know how to do is print money, increase bloated government, or provide pathetically small tax incentives.
Nobody seems to be wiiling to do what we all know needs to be done, which is to let the market correct itself. The latest prospect of creating a bank specifically for worthless assets may be a step in the right direction, but all that this will do is prolong the “mark to market” to bring the true value of these assets into the open. Unfortunately, by guaranteeing the purchase of these assets, the government is simply offering up a shell game, where we will once again get the shaft.
I propose that we rescind all bonuses for executives of any bailed out institution, and use that money to offset part of the taxpayer burden. I’d also like to see rigorous accounting for all bailout funds, including the initial $350 billion. The Fed (Paulson and Kashkari) should be given a court order to provide adequate accounting to the oversight committee within, say, 60 days, or they should be placed in jail and held for contempt of court until they cooperate fully. We should not tolerate such pompous disregard for the trillions of our hard-earned money. We are a bunch of spineless wimps if we cannot stand up to these shuckster cowards.
blast: Well, for one Iraq did not attack the USA like Japan did.
uh… neither did the Taliban and Afghanistan, blast. We toppled the Taliban for harboring AQ in Afghanistan. Neither that nation, nor the Taliban directly attacked the US. But you’re okay with us going there.
And when the US was attacked by Japan, we went to… ta da… N. Africa first. That’s because they were anticipating the German front and had a plan. But no plan, and no chessboard pieces for Japan. So we started first on the German front via N. African. BTW, the Germans and N. Africa didn’t attack the US either.
Who attacked us before we entered WWI? No one…
blast: No, I didn’t but obviously the Iraq war ended up derailing the progress in Afghanistan.
Don’t be absurd. It was passed to NATO just as the liberal Congress and “the American people” wanted it to be. It was supposed to be one of those “int’l efforts”, ya know. The baton was officially passed completely in the summer of 2006… wherein almost immediate, NATO and their rules of engagement started losing the advantage the US coalition had gained.
You know the rule… you want something to fail? Give it to the UN and NATO
And all this has to do with what about the stimulus? Nothing, of course.
~~~
Fit Fit: Republicans are now fully invested in the failure of the American economy.
ROTFLMAO! By gawd, that’s good Fit. Tell me now… how can they be “invested” in anything since the GOP can’t do whit to stop this bill. Now you might have a right to that opinion had their votes stalled the bill, or killed it. But that’s not the case now, is it?
My suggestion is rejoice in your party’s partisan victory. If it’s all you believe it’s cracked up to be, you’ll have stuck the knife into the GOP forever. You won’t have to to say a word, or make ridiculous statements like you just did.
But these statements are all part of the backroom political strategy, aren’t they? The Dems don’t want this hanging around their neck on their own because history has proven over and over that this govt spending can not work, and will slow a recovery… AND will leave upcoming generations in unbelievable debt that makes Bush’s debt look like a petty $2 allowance.
It’s quite obvious that they are looking for fellow GOPers to share the future blame. Otherwise they’d be whoopin’ and hollerin’ about how they have just saved the nation.
It’s a simple strategy, really… the GOP voices it’s opposition with the vote as to the wisdom of this plan, knowing it will go thru anyway. They aren’t stopping the Dems. The GOP is merely passing them enough rope to hang themselves.
Obama also gave Republicans incentive to oppose his bill, according to GOP aides who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly about internal party deliberations. In his private appearance with House Republicans on Tuesday, the new president acknowledged that the House version of the bill contained too much spending and indicated he was open to more tax breaks for small businesses. Obama suggested that fixes would be made in the Senate and during a House-Senate conference to work out differences between versions of the bill.
Aides said Obama’s signal that the final version would be more to their liking provided an incentive for wavering Republicans to vote against the bill, thereby winning kudos from conservatives while leaving them the option of voting for the final product.
By the way, this goes back to the issue of the GOP actually being President Obama’s allies, as much as his opposition. I voted for a Republican (Dana Rohrabacher) in the election for my Congressional House district, in part because of his principled vote (twice) against the Bush/Paulson Wall Street bail out and in part because I didn’t want solid Dem Congressional majorities to push Obama too far leftward. For this reason, and because I want the better candidate to win, I hope that Coleman can somehow prevail in his court challenge to Franken’s highly dubious victory in the Minnesota Senate race. GOP vetoes will hopefully spare Obama the necessity to lose too much political capital on the Left, while he tries to secure as much capital as he can on the Right.
I won’t debate people who use language such as this.
Just point of information. Unlike you, Hard, I’m a real person, with a real name, and a real reputation. You are someone hiding in a spider hole, coming out timidly in the darkness to scribble graffiti, and then scurrying back down, before you can be discovered.
If you want to insult me on a personal level, have the guts to sign your own name, or else speak to me respectfully.
Now, if you’d like to have a detailed discussion of the origins of the economic crisis, where the economists (as opposed to echo chamber pundits) support my point of view and not yours, then let’s do so. But I’ve got no time or desire to get involved in Blast vs Chihauhau-type pissing contests.
Blast: In this case, 9/11 we were attacked by AQ from Afghanistan and that is where the fight should have been taken.
She Said
Mata:We toppled the Taliban for harboring AQ in Afghanistan. Neither that nation, nor the Taliban directly attacked the US. But you’re okay with us going there.
I did not say that the Taliban and Afganistan attacked us. I said we were attacked by AQ from Afghanistan.
Who attacked us before we entered WWI? No one…
Oh? Americans were being killed by the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare of Imperial Germany, so although they did not attack the USA homeland, they did sink American ships and kill Americans aboard Ships of other nations.
It was passed to NATO just as the liberal Congress and “the American people” wanted it to be. It was supposed to be one of those “int’l efforts”, ya know. The baton was officially passed completely in the summer of 2006… wherein almost immediate, NATO and their rules of engagement started losing the advantage the US coalition had gained.
It was passed to NATO as much for expediency so the focus and need for troops could be applied to Iraq. The International Security Assistance Force established by UN in Dec 01, was taken over by NATO in 2003. I would agree that ROE and how troops were deployed were partly responsible for the resurgence. I don’t lay this on the congress. Bush was the Commander and Chief, and Rumsfeld as SecDef, both were pursuing the policy to get NATO involved. You make it sounds that the “liberal congress” had something to do with forcing the issue which is wrong. Keep in mind that the congress was majority Republican through Dec 8 2006.
And all this has to do with what about the stimulus? Nothing, of course.
Mata: Who attacked us before we entered WWI? No one…
blast: Oh? Americans were being killed by the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare of Imperial Germany, so although they did not attack the USA homeland, they did sink American ships and kill Americans aboard Ships of other nations.
Thank you for debating yourself into my corner, blast. i.e. the global Islamic jihad movement attacking US warships, embassies and barracks “although they did not attack the USA homeland” is indeed a viable act of war. So it’s okay for WWI and not for waging war on the global Islamic jihad movement where they proliferate?
The International Security Assistance Force established by UN in Dec 01, was taken over by NATO in 2003.
And they did indeed hand over control of most of Afghanistan to NATO then, with the final territories in the summer of 2006. … snip… I don’t lay this on the congress. Bush was the Commander and Chief, and Rumsfeld as SecDef, both were pursuing the policy to get NATO involved. You make it sounds that the “liberal congress” had something to do with forcing the issue which is wrong.
And they did indeed hand over most of Afghanistan’s security to NATO then, but handed over the final territories for complete control in the summer of 2006.
As to the “liberal Congress”…. perhaps you missed all that “we must get the int’l community involved” crap going on during that era…. and duplicated for Iraq. An effort made by the Bush admin for almost a year, arguing in front of the UNSC using the most logical path that they could recognize… the ignored 17 resolutions INRE the Iraq transparency on WMDs.
Thus the birth of the rallying cry by the media… “no WMDs” as being the “only” reason we went there, when it was not. It was, however, the “only” reason Bush chose to argue to the int’l community that the liberals bend over for, begging for adoration.
blast: Haha… you are ridiculous, Obama has been in office a total of 10 DAYS. HUGE DIFFERENCE. If you think there is similarity between 8 years of history and 10 days, you are totally insane or so partisan that you cannot see any truth.
Correct, blast. Obama and the unstoppable Dem Congress will have spent more in the first two weeks than Bush spent in a year. HUGE DIFFERENCE, I agree.
Mata, even the Republicans in congress agree that a stimulus is needed, so regardless of the spending, the current economic climate is what BOTH parties are responding to at present.
What I refer to on the past 8 years is the awful economic conditions that prevail today are not a result of a man who took office just over a week ago.
Oh, the Republican House plan would spend billions and cost hundreds of billions as well.
There is almost nothing “stimulus” in this bill, blast. Spending money is not the issue. Spending money wisely so that it stimulates the private sector and job growth is. That reality bears no resemblence to the Dem monstrosity we have.
I know what you were referring to. And the awful conomic conditions prevailing today started back in the mid 90s and are not the responsibility of the man who just left office. They are, however, primarily the responsibility of Congress… both GOP and Dems.
And the awful conomic conditions prevailing today started back in the mid 90s and are not the responsibility of the man who just left office. They are, however, primarily the responsibility of Congress… both GOP and Dems.
I grant that dems had their hand in f-ing things up, but com’on, you can’t give equal weight to this. President Bush doubled the deficit when “the fundamentals of our economy were strong”, his SEC muffed up oversight to such a degree Madoff made off with $50Bn. No doubt there have been systemic issues, but lets face it… deregulation or no regulation of credit default swaps, derivatives etc were a train wreck.
On the stimulating value of the Dem plan. I have no idea, frankly whatever does pass is a bitter pill to swallow. It will raise the deficit even more and it is a wing and a prayer that it will keep our economy from falling further.
Today, the Cato Institute placed an ad in The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
The ad was signed by 200 top economists and takes BO to task over his representation of economic stimulus viewpoints.
Here’s the text of the ad:
“There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy.”
President-Elect Barack Obama
January 9, 2009
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. 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.
OTTAWA – Barack Obama will review the “Buy American” provision of his stimulus package that has angered Canada, but experts warned Friday the new U.S. president could be powerless to stop a protectionist Congress.
Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, stopped short of saying whether the White House shared the view of the Canadian government and some big American companies that the measure was a violation of deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. The provision, part of Obama’s $819-billion stimulus package, would allow only American iron and steel to be used in construction projects.
President Barack Obama will review the ‘Buy American’ provision of his stimulus package that has angered Canada, but experts warn the new U.S. president could be powerless to stop a protectionist Congress.
“The administration is reviewing that provision. It understands all of the concerns that have been heard, not only in this room, but in newspapers produced both up north and down south,” Gibbs said.
The Liberal opposition raised pressure on the Conservative government Friday to defend Canadian producers and exporters, and leader Michael Ignatieff pledged to take that message directly to Obama when he meets him in Ottawa on Feb. 19.
“We don’t need to talk about threats, but they need to understand, and this will be a message I will pass to the president, that we’re a force to be reckoned with,” Ignatieff told Global Television’s Focus Ontario in an interview to be broadcast Saturday.
“We’re the United States’ largest energy supplier, not just oil, but also hydro; and they’ve got to understand that, if they want energy security, they shouldn’t start putting up barriers to our goods and services, and that quid pro quo has to be clearly understood by the incoming administration.”
Aye: You’ve dared to question the bl ass t? That’s the insult his majesty is referring to.
At least you are showing more tolerance for fools than I am.
I award you today’s golden eagle:
and for bl ass t, an award more fitting for his ilk:
Aye Chihuahua, I guess my history book is not the John Wayne version. Our country has been a great force for good in the world. But it is very wrong to think it was perfect or even our motives.
Do you have any idea what public opinion was regarding the Revolution? The Civil War? How about our involvement in WWII?
Yes, I do. Lets take WWII as an example since it was the US involved in military action against a foreign power (such as our invasion of Iraq). The US homeland was attacked by the Japanese on Dec 7 1941, we declared war on them and then the Axis powers declared war on the US. American public opinion was firmly on the side of the president. Keep in mind our homeland was attacked by a foreign power. In this case, 9/11 we were attacked by AQ from Afghanistan and that is where the fight should have been taken.
While you have your history books open, look into the Spanish American War and The wars of the US against the Native Populations in the US and then come back on your high horse about how good we always are. I love this country and know we are a place of good, but we have done bad as well.
@blast:
You’re right. Public opinion on WWII was on the President’s side at the beginning. What was it later, as the war slogged on? Public opinion was on the President’s side at the beginning of the Iraq conflict as well, falling off later as the war slogged on, but Presidents don’t generally make decisions of war and peace based on public opinion.
So, what’s your point?
It was taken there.
Perhaps you missed Operation Enduring Freedom.
You should stop digging now. The hole is very deep.
Well, for one Iraq did not attack the USA like Japan did. The president made the decision preemptively and whether it was based upon flawed intelligence or not does not matter in the fact he made a decision and presented it based upon false pretenses. I am not calling him a liar, it is a fact that even he admits that we went in based upon faulty intelligence.
No, I didn’t but obviously the Iraq war ended up derailing the progress in Afghanistan.
No, I think educated people understand the general concepts with the few examples I presented.
Perhaps not directly, but through proxy organizations they were certainly involved.
Judge Harold Baer disagrees with you. He ruled that Saddam Hussein provided material support to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and those are the people who attacked us on 9/11.
You must have missed that part.
The top of the water doesn’t always show the movement of the current.
You conveniently choose to ignore the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq and their connections to their sister organization in Afghanistan. In addition, you trot one of the favorite lefty memes that the US military cannot do more than one thing at a time.
Afghanistan did not suffer in any way because of our actions in Iraq.
You really should stop digging. The hole is getting very deep.
Back to the $1 trillion or so “stimulus” for a moment: The numbers we’ve been seeing for the last year or seem to have numbed us. Congress is so casual about the numbers that we lose a feel for their magnitude. So, how’s this for reference:
$1 trillion = $1,000,000,000,000
and is enough money to turn one million penniless people into millionaires. Or divided by roughly 140 million taxpayers, that could be over $70,000 to every taxpayer.
Could you imagine the economic stimulus that would result from “giving” every taxpayer $70,000?
Obviously, when this all trickles down, most of us will see no more than a couple thousand bucks, so guess who gets the rest? Poitical supporters, who will then turn around and make sizeable contributions to lawmakers’ campaign funds. THIS is the real reason for the stimulus; the same old pay-for-play crap that our politicians denounce in public but benefit from in private.
How does the voting public stand a chance against such a rigged system?
I, for one, am sick and tired of getting screwed By the ruling elite. We need a grass-roots effort to elect a truly independent president, one who is not beholden to special interests. I know it’s a fool’s dream, but it seems the only chance to turn around a government controlled by special interest groups!
JV
@me.yahoo.com/a/tgqdcI0Oz: “Or divided by roughly 140 million taxpayers, that could be over $70,000 to every taxpayer. “
If only the money would go back to the people who paid it in. But if you examine Larry’s comments above he’s more than happy with the redistribution of that wealth to just about anyone whether they have paid income taxes or not.
And you’re right about this being a mega payoff to the Dems. The ACORN payoff is especially odious.
Ummm… that is $7142.86 per taxpayer not $70,000…
@me.yahoo.com/a/tgqdcI0Oz:
You are totally correct on the diversion of this topic. I apologize for that.
Here’s another way of looking at $1 trillion which may help put it in perspective too.
Courtesy of the Glenn Beck Program:
Aye Chihuahua, you mention Glen Becks comment about unemployment being virtually the same as 1993. Do you think our current economic conditions are the same as we had in 1993? Do you think unemployment will get worse than 7% or be just at 1993 levels?
Unemployment may get worse but the Fed Gov’t spending trillions of dollars will not solve that.
Spending money which will not even get into the system for 18 months is not going to help.
Spending money on STD’s and other various and sundry things will not help.
The best thing that gov’t can do is get the hell out of the way and let the private market and free enterprise system handle this.
Get the gov’t to drastically roll back spending and tax rates simultaneously. Get the gov’t to cut capital gains tax rates and corporate tax rates and real estate tax rates while cutting individual income tax rates as well.
Those steps will get this economy moving again because they will produce an immediate flush of cash into the pockets of the people who actually control the economy, not the politicians.
The American people are quickly waking up to this boondoggle. Approval rates for it are falling daily.
The Dems own this one.
Unemployment may get worse… that is an understatement given housing, equities, most commodities, credit, manufacturing etc etc are at historic lows and still falling. The Republicans AND Democrats in Congress better get their shit together. At least now the bill goes to the Senate where there are some adults (hopefully).
Again, it’s not the job of gov’t to stimulate the economy.
It’s not the job of gov’t to create jobs.
It’s NOT their job.
As I said before, public approval, which you were really, really concerned with earlier on this thread, has turned against this pork laden debt load. Less than 5% is being spent on anything that will really create jobs. The rest is PORK. This bill is the biggest spending boondoggle that has ever passed through the halls of Congress. It is unbelievable that anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together would support it.
America is getting ready to pour another TRILLION dollars down a black hole and it will never be seen again.
The Dems own this one.
When it fails, the American people will see whose name is attached to it.
Remember, you heard it here first.
Let me see if I have this right. When the Dems refuse to support something they’re obstructionist and when the Republicans do the same thing they’re savvy politicians who don’t let public opinion hijack their sensibilities?
http://democralypsenow.blogspot.com/2009/01/master-of-house_28.html
Oops, I slipped a decimal point. One trillion divided by 140 million is 7,000, not 70,000.
Nonetheless, what the average recipient will receive is nowhere near what each will owe. Even after factoring in the fact that somewhere around half of the money will simply be printed by the Fed, how many of us are going to see our tax monies spent wisely, cautiously, and transparently?
Why doesn’t the government require all of these special interests to show a business plan with a timetable and return on investment like the auto exec’s were required to provide? I think we should get an accounting of where the first TARP $350 billion went before doling out any more bailouts!
(Sigh!) Of course it won’t happen, since it’s all a scam anyway. The government is so casual about trillions of dollars that I don’t think very many of our legislators have any idea what to do. All they know how to do is print money, increase bloated government, or provide pathetically small tax incentives.
Nobody seems to be wiiling to do what we all know needs to be done, which is to let the market correct itself. The latest prospect of creating a bank specifically for worthless assets may be a step in the right direction, but all that this will do is prolong the “mark to market” to bring the true value of these assets into the open. Unfortunately, by guaranteeing the purchase of these assets, the government is simply offering up a shell game, where we will once again get the shaft.
I propose that we rescind all bonuses for executives of any bailed out institution, and use that money to offset part of the taxpayer burden. I’d also like to see rigorous accounting for all bailout funds, including the initial $350 billion. The Fed (Paulson and Kashkari) should be given a court order to provide adequate accounting to the oversight committee within, say, 60 days, or they should be placed in jail and held for contempt of court until they cooperate fully. We should not tolerate such pompous disregard for the trillions of our hard-earned money. We are a bunch of spineless wimps if we cannot stand up to these shuckster cowards.
I think I’ve said enough – for now.
JV
uh… neither did the Taliban and Afghanistan, blast. We toppled the Taliban for harboring AQ in Afghanistan. Neither that nation, nor the Taliban directly attacked the US. But you’re okay with us going there.
And when the US was attacked by Japan, we went to… ta da… N. Africa first. That’s because they were anticipating the German front and had a plan. But no plan, and no chessboard pieces for Japan. So we started first on the German front via N. African. BTW, the Germans and N. Africa didn’t attack the US either.
Who attacked us before we entered WWI? No one…
Don’t be absurd. It was passed to NATO just as the liberal Congress and “the American people” wanted it to be. It was supposed to be one of those “int’l efforts”, ya know. The baton was officially passed completely in the summer of 2006… wherein almost immediate, NATO and their rules of engagement started losing the advantage the US coalition had gained.
You know the rule… you want something to fail? Give it to the UN and NATO
And all this has to do with what about the stimulus? Nothing, of course.
ROTFLMAO! By gawd, that’s good Fit. Tell me now… how can they be “invested” in anything since the GOP can’t do whit to stop this bill. Now you might have a right to that opinion had their votes stalled the bill, or killed it. But that’s not the case now, is it?
My suggestion is rejoice in your party’s partisan victory. If it’s all you believe it’s cracked up to be, you’ll have stuck the knife into the GOP forever. You won’t have to to say a word, or make ridiculous statements like you just did.
But these statements are all part of the backroom political strategy, aren’t they? The Dems don’t want this hanging around their neck on their own because history has proven over and over that this govt spending can not work, and will slow a recovery… AND will leave upcoming generations in unbelievable debt that makes Bush’s debt look like a petty $2 allowance.
It’s quite obvious that they are looking for fellow GOPers to share the future blame. Otherwise they’d be whoopin’ and hollerin’ about how they have just saved the nation.
It’s a simple strategy, really… the GOP voices it’s opposition with the vote as to the wisdom of this plan, knowing it will go thru anyway. They aren’t stopping the Dems. The GOP is merely passing them enough rope to hang themselves.
What’s behind the united House Republican oppostion to Pelosi’s “stimulus plan?”
The POTUS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012904329.html
By the way, this goes back to the issue of the GOP actually being President Obama’s allies, as much as his opposition. I voted for a Republican (Dana Rohrabacher) in the election for my Congressional House district, in part because of his principled vote (twice) against the Bush/Paulson Wall Street bail out and in part because I didn’t want solid Dem Congressional majorities to push Obama too far leftward. For this reason, and because I want the better candidate to win, I hope that Coleman can somehow prevail in his court challenge to Franken’s highly dubious victory in the Minnesota Senate race. GOP vetoes will hopefully spare Obama the necessity to lose too much political capital on the Left, while he tries to secure as much capital as he can on the Right.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
From Hard Right:
I won’t debate people who use language such as this.
Just point of information. Unlike you, Hard, I’m a real person, with a real name, and a real reputation. You are someone hiding in a spider hole, coming out timidly in the darkness to scribble graffiti, and then scurrying back down, before you can be discovered.
If you want to insult me on a personal level, have the guts to sign your own name, or else speak to me respectfully.
Now, if you’d like to have a detailed discussion of the origins of the economic crisis, where the economists (as opposed to echo chamber pundits) support my point of view and not yours, then let’s do so. But I’ve got no time or desire to get involved in Blast vs Chihauhau-type pissing contests.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
He said
She Said
I did not say that the Taliban and Afganistan attacked us. I said we were attacked by AQ from Afghanistan.
Oh? Americans were being killed by the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare of Imperial Germany, so although they did not attack the USA homeland, they did sink American ships and kill Americans aboard Ships of other nations.
It was passed to NATO as much for expediency so the focus and need for troops could be applied to Iraq. The International Security Assistance Force established by UN in Dec 01, was taken over by NATO in 2003. I would agree that ROE and how troops were deployed were partly responsible for the resurgence. I don’t lay this on the congress. Bush was the Commander and Chief, and Rumsfeld as SecDef, both were pursuing the policy to get NATO involved. You make it sounds that the “liberal congress” had something to do with forcing the issue which is wrong. Keep in mind that the congress was majority Republican through Dec 8 2006.
Bl ass t: If you cannot stay on topic, or at least make an effort to do so, don’t be surprised to find your comments deleted.
I’ll give anyone who wishes to respond to your latest off topic remark the opportunity to respond then that’s it. No more.
Thank you for debating yourself into my corner, blast. i.e. the global Islamic jihad movement attacking US warships, embassies and barracks “although they did not attack the USA homeland” is indeed a viable act of war. So it’s okay for WWI and not for waging war on the global Islamic jihad movement where they proliferate?
And they did indeed hand over control of most of Afghanistan to NATO then, with the final territories in the summer of 2006. … snip… I don’t lay this on the congress. Bush was the Commander and Chief, and Rumsfeld as SecDef, both were pursuing the policy to get NATO involved. You make it sounds that the “liberal congress” had something to do with forcing the issue which is wrong.
And they did indeed hand over most of Afghanistan’s security to NATO then, but handed over the final territories for complete control in the summer of 2006.
As to the “liberal Congress”…. perhaps you missed all that “we must get the int’l community involved” crap going on during that era…. and duplicated for Iraq. An effort made by the Bush admin for almost a year, arguing in front of the UNSC using the most logical path that they could recognize… the ignored 17 resolutions INRE the Iraq transparency on WMDs.
Thus the birth of the rallying cry by the media… “no WMDs” as being the “only” reason we went there, when it was not. It was, however, the “only” reason Bush chose to argue to the int’l community that the liberals bend over for, begging for adoration.
@MataHarley:
Heh.
Again today, he proves himself to be more of a “dud” than a “blast”.
I tried to tell him to stop digging but that shovel is busy, busy, busy.
… and on the original topic…
Correct, blast. Obama and the unstoppable Dem Congress will have spent more in the first two weeks than Bush spent in a year. HUGE DIFFERENCE, I agree.
Mata, even the Republicans in congress agree that a stimulus is needed, so regardless of the spending, the current economic climate is what BOTH parties are responding to at present.
What I refer to on the past 8 years is the awful economic conditions that prevail today are not a result of a man who took office just over a week ago.
Oh, the Republican House plan would spend billions and cost hundreds of billions as well.
There is almost nothing “stimulus” in this bill, blast. Spending money is not the issue. Spending money wisely so that it stimulates the private sector and job growth is. That reality bears no resemblence to the Dem monstrosity we have.
I know what you were referring to. And the awful conomic conditions prevailing today started back in the mid 90s and are not the responsibility of the man who just left office. They are, however, primarily the responsibility of Congress… both GOP and Dems.
@blast:
Can you provide a link to the Republican House plan please?
I’d like to see how much they want to spend on sod for the National Mall.
I’d like to see how much they want to spend on STD education.
I’d like to see how much they want to spend on preparation for socialized medicine.
I’d like to see how much they want to spend on Medicaid.
I’d like to see how much they want to spend for rural broadband services.
I’d like to see their plan.
Link please.
I grant that dems had their hand in f-ing things up, but com’on, you can’t give equal weight to this. President Bush doubled the deficit when “the fundamentals of our economy were strong”, his SEC muffed up oversight to such a degree Madoff made off with $50Bn. No doubt there have been systemic issues, but lets face it… deregulation or no regulation of credit default swaps, derivatives etc were a train wreck.
On the stimulating value of the Dem plan. I have no idea, frankly whatever does pass is a bitter pill to swallow. It will raise the deficit even more and it is a wing and a prayer that it will keep our economy from falling further.
It is very short on substance since they never marked it up into bill form.
For the record, I am not in favor of the House Dem plan.
@blast:
I’ll pass on the TRILLION dollar wing and a prayer offer, thank you very much.
What most people don’t realize is that this TRILLION won’t be the last installment. This will simply be the most recent installment.
It’s been proven over and over and over that you cannot spend your way out of a situation like this. It won’t work.
Have you read the plan?
There is virtually no stimulative value in this bill. Virtually none.
Have a gander at this. It’ll make you ill.
Tax cuts will get the money into the pockets of those who actually control the economy, the people and the businesses.
Get the gov’t the hell out of the way.
OK, let me understand this. The first statement there was just a presumptuous assumption then based on the absence of info you noted in the second.
Glad to hear that.
It’s interesting that we had to wait until post #78 to find out.
Ooof….that’s gonna leave a mark.
Today, the Cato Institute placed an ad in The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
The ad was signed by 200 top economists and takes BO to task over his representation of economic stimulus viewpoints.
Here’s the text of the ad:
Here’s the ad itself and a link to a fully readable version:
Now he’s got the Canadians ticked, deja vu:
OTTAWA – Barack Obama will review the “Buy American” provision of his stimulus package that has angered Canada, but experts warned Friday the new U.S. president could be powerless to stop a protectionist Congress.
Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, stopped short of saying whether the White House shared the view of the Canadian government and some big American companies that the measure was a violation of deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. The provision, part of Obama’s $819-billion stimulus package, would allow only American iron and steel to be used in construction projects.
President Barack Obama will review the ‘Buy American’ provision of his stimulus package that has angered Canada, but experts warn the new U.S. president could be powerless to stop a protectionist Congress.
“The administration is reviewing that provision. It understands all of the concerns that have been heard, not only in this room, but in newspapers produced both up north and down south,” Gibbs said.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1236954
The Liberal opposition raised pressure on the Conservative government Friday to defend Canadian producers and exporters, and leader Michael Ignatieff pledged to take that message directly to Obama when he meets him in Ottawa on Feb. 19.
“We don’t need to talk about threats, but they need to understand, and this will be a message I will pass to the president, that we’re a force to be reckoned with,” Ignatieff told Global Television’s Focus Ontario in an interview to be broadcast Saturday.
“We’re the United States’ largest energy supplier, not just oil, but also hydro; and they’ve got to understand that, if they want energy security, they shouldn’t start putting up barriers to our goods and services, and that quid pro quo has to be clearly understood by the incoming administration.”