Many of the opponents of President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan are not arguing in good faith, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman contends. He noted how they have used faulty math to exaggerate the cost of the jobs expected to be created by the stimulus. He also contends that “it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts – and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) – because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.” Rather than accept this, Krugman said, “conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
128 Comments
I love all these Republics who are suddenly concerned about the deficit – after 8 years of THEIR insanity!
I love all these Republics
We live in a republic. To which other republics were you referring?
And the Obama ‘whine’ machine has commenced…
“Regular
Posted January 28, 2009 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
And the Obama ‘whine’ machine has commenced…”
speaking of not arguing in good faith….
#
brian_nuevo
Posted January 28, 2009 at 12:42 pm | Permalink
“Regular
Posted January 28, 2009 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
And the Obama ‘whine’ machine has commenced…”
speaking of not arguing in good faith….
————————
Who is arguing, I’m just making comments.
The ‘peanut gallery’ allows for tossing popcorn and assorted trash.
Democrats should just give the Republicans what they want now. It’ll save them a lot of embarassment later.
X,
“Democrats should just give the Republicans what they want now. It’ll save them a lot of embarassment later.”
Hey, they did just that, and look where we are now? The economy is busted, the treasury has been stolen and given away to campaign contributors, we’re in a war or two we can’t win (all over again), and the only friends we have left in the world are the Uzbekistani’s and the Albanians! It wouldn’t take much more ‘publicanism to permanently finish us off as a nation!
But hey, Jed, you forget the one bright spot.
We’re still safe from gay marriage!
Jed, that’s more or less my point.
The Democrats have the majority, especially in the House. What the heck is going on here? Why are Democrats not dictating terms instead of caving in?
#
bth
Posted January 28, 2009 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
I love all these Republics who are suddenly concerned about the deficit – after 8 years of THEIR insanity!
==========================================================
Ben, ain’t it the truth. After eight years of throwing the baby out with the bath water, and backing Bush, suddenly the republicans get some sort of conscience, and want to blame Obama. Jimmie was right: there ain’t no life nowhere.
#
JMWalker
Posted January 28, 2009 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
Ben, ain’t it the truth. After eight years of throwing the baby out with the bath water, and backing Bush, suddenly the republicans get some sort of conscience, and want to blame Obama. Jimmie was right: there ain’t no life nowhere.
======================================
Since when have duh Libs been concerned about throwing perfectly good babies into the many abortion trash bins?
Ordinarily, Jed, I would agree. But at least Obama is trying to reach across the aisle and get bipartisan support, something Bush never tried to do. I do suggest to the Democrats, though, if that fails, flip the cons the bird (OR IS THAT BYRD?), and pass whatever they want.
#
Regular
Posted January 28, 2009 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
Since when have duh Libs been concerned about throwing perfectly good babies into the many abortion trash bins?
=====================================================
As usual, reg can’t stay on topic. But since you asked: when have the cons ever been concerned about the babies AFTER they’ve been born?
Farm Gal,
“But hey, Jed, you forget the one bright spot.
We’re still safe from gay marriage!”
Oh are we now? Not if I have anything to say about it, and I’m still talkin’, as more and more people are. I’m all for getting a little gaiety in marriage- believe me, marriage needs it!
#
JMWalker
Posted January 28, 2009 at 1:22 pm | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted January 28, 2009 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
Since when have duh Libs been concerned about throwing perfectly good babies into the many abortion trash bins?
=====================================================
As usual, reg can’t stay on topic. But since you asked: when have the cons ever been concerned about the babies AFTER they’ve been born?
======================================
Sure they care about their babies and their neighbor’s babies.
Just not so much about the babies the Crats disguise gremlin legislation as cute little baby innocent public law and call it fixed – when it ain’t.
#
Regular
Posted January 28, 2009 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
Sure they care about their babies and their neighbor’s babies.
Just not so much about the babies the Crats disguise gremlin legislation as cute little baby innocent public law and call it fixed – when it ain’t.
====================================================
So the Democrats babies and the Republican babies are two distinct species? Amazing, ain’t it.
JM,
“But at least Obama is trying to reach across the aisle and get bipartisan support, something Bush never tried to do.”
Oh, Bush tried for bipartisan support; unfortunately his concept of bipartisanship was “everybody do as I say and shut up about it!”
#
JMWalker
Posted January 28, 2009 at 1:29 pm | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted January 28, 2009 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
So the Democrats babies and the Republican babies are two distinct species? Amazing, ain’t it.
=====================================
Yeah, Crat babies are born with a full set of ‘mouth hair.’
We’re still safe from gay marriage!
And under Obama, we’ll stay that way.
Obama is trying to reach across the aisle and get bipartisan support,
Agreed. Bully for him on that.
So…the republics are not arguing in good faith?
Color me shocked.
This missive from the Rude Pundit explains it all.
BIG bad language warning. Worse than usual. DONT click if you are offended by bad language, because he’s saying just how the cow ate the cabbage in very descriptive terms.
And oh so true.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
“We’re still safe from gay marriage!
And under Obama, we’ll stay that way.”
And they say he’s not a christian….
And they say he’s not a christian….
LMFAO…
:)
Is it true that only 12% of the $1.2 trillion will actually be going to the economy?
Ben,
And I love all you liberals who have complained about deficit government spending for the past 8 years and want to spend even more in 1 year than the past 8 combined!
Eight years? More like twenty-six out of the last twenty-eight.
Only Clinton balanced the budget. Neither Reagan, nor Bush I or II even PROPOSED a balanced budget.
WS Clark,
I see you are still trying to take credit for what the Republican Congress did under Clinton.
Regardless, here you sit standing behind Obama and the Democrats trying to spend more money in deficit than has been spent the past “28 years”
Kind of Hypocritical don’t you think?
#
Nathaniel
Posted January 28, 2009 at 2:17 pm | Permalink
I see you are still trying to take credit for what the Republican Congress did under Clinton.
====================================================
And the republicans didn’t blame the democrats for all that wasn’t done under bush/reagan? Talk about partisan braindead.
JM Walker,
I thought you were above the insults…
For shame. I thought you were better than that, especially when you act all high and mighty in our religion discussions when someone dares oppose your opinion.
Nathan – we understand the needto run deficits to ‘prime the pump’ during down times. However, we ALSO understand the need to run surpluses during good times. THAT is where the Republics under Bush failed.
And by the way – your claim of more in one year than in the prior 8 is FALSE.
Nathaniel
Posted January 28, 2009 at 2:18 pm | Permalink
Regardless, here you sit standing behind Obama and the Democrats trying to spend more money in deficit than has been spent the past “28 years”
Kind of Hypocritical don’t you think
=======================================================
Not in the least: What’s that war in Iraq cost this country in both lives and money? What kind of oversight did Bush put on the money he used for the bailout? And what kind of oversight is Obama demanding on his bailout plan?
“However, we ALSO understand the need to run surpluses during good times.”
If the guvmint has a surplus, they should give it back to the ones they took it from in the first place.
JM Walker,
What do any of your questions have to do with my comment?
Nothing.
You complain about deficit spending for 8 years… so you can do what?
Support spending even more money in deficit in one year?
“Only Clinton balanced the budget. Neither Reagan, nor Bush I or II even PROPOSED a balanced budget.”
ws’s blog moritorium didn’t last long, did it.
#
Nathaniel
Posted January 28, 2009 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
I thought you were above the insults…
For shame. I thought you were better than that, especially when you act all high and mighty in our religion discussions when someone dares oppose your opinion.
====================================================
The high and mighty preaching comes from none other than yourself. I have always stated my opinions as mine alone. Your opinions are yours but you claim others as wrong if they don’t follow yours: something I have never done when it comes to religion. Feel free to prove me wrong. Just because I don’t believe as you do, does not in any way imply I think your wrong. Only your mind could produce such deductions.
“Obama is trying to reach across the aisle and get bipartisan support,…”
Maybe he should do the Reach Around.
Ben,
Oh, well, don’t get all technical on me now. You are right. Wanting to spend around 1 Trillion in deficit in one year is not quite as much as was spent in deficit the past 8.
Your point?
JM Walker,
It is called logic.
Two contradictory statements both can’t be true.
If you state something which contradicts something I say, then you don’t have to tell me I am wrong directly, you have done so by stating a truth which contradicts what I have claimed to be true.
It is called logic.
Stimulus opponents aren’t arguing in good faith.
My questions are relevant. But, okay, nathan, with millions losing their jobs, and either on unemployment or welfare (government pays that), what, exactly, would you do?
#
Nathaniel
Posted January 28, 2009 at 2:37 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
It is called logic.
Two contradictory statements both can’t be true.
If you state something which contradicts something I say, then you don’t have to tell me I am wrong directly, you have done so by stating a truth which contradicts what I have claimed to be true.
It is called logic.
======================================================
No, Nathan, it is not logic, it is religion. It is entirely faith based, and as such, is open to interpretation, as over 4200 recognized religions prove. Neither you nor I can say with any positive proof, one religion, and it’s beliefs, is any better than any other religion. You can expound on the Bible any way you want, but that in itself does not make you able to judge anyone else’s religious beliefs.
“No, Nathan, it is not logic, it is religion. It is entirely faith based, and as such, is open to interpretation, as over 4200 recognized religions prove.”
The AGW discussion is on the other thread.
“Wanting to spend around 1 Trillion in deficit in one year…”
Howza ’bout just giving each man, woman and chile,
$3,333.00 each and be done with it.
JM Walker,
“Neither you nor I can say with any positive proof, one religion, and it’s beliefs, is any better than any other religion.”
You see, there you go again, telling me I am wrong.
How dare you.
I simply can’t have a discussion with someone as close minded as you are.
Repubs. have one generic solution for whatever ails America. Tax cuts. Their fits all solution. We’ve had enough of their way.
“ws’s blog moritorium didn’t last long, did it.”
Sorry, Mr. Fleetwood, but I never said I would not return. I said that I would not be blogging much. I am still in Florida and it is dang boring around here. I am going through approximately 5,000 photos and slides to distribute to family members. I am just taking a short break.
Even still, I have only posted a couple of comments today.
Okay?
JM Walker,
And it is logic. Once again, two statements of truth, which are contradictory to one another, both can’t be true.
It is a very simple concpet.
So, when you make a claim of truth which is contradictory to one I make, you need not directly say I am wrong, the very nature of your claim is telling me I am wrong.
What is so hard about that simple concept to grasp?
Obama tried for bipartisanship, now it’ll be Obama, thy will be done. And the repubs will be cast out with much gnashing teeth and whailing!
#
Nathaniel
Posted January 28, 2009 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
“Neither you nor I can say with any positive proof, one religion, and it’s beliefs, is any better than any other religion.”
You see, there you go again, telling me I am wrong.
How dare you.
I simply can’t have a discussion with someone as close minded as you are.
=====================================================
Okay, genius, which of the 4200+ religions is better than any of the other, and why. Please provide proof of your selection, as the other 4199+ religions might get a bit ticked off at you. And Christianity has religious factions that don’t fully support the bible.
Me? Closed mind? Yours is so closed as to be impenetrable by any kind of belief. Mine’s open to any and all beliefs, I just don’t happen to believe most of them, but they do have that right to believe what they want, and I do listen to them.
And you quote by me was taken out of context, but you already knew that, didn’t you.
How does the National Review guy’s credentials stack up against Krugman’s?
#
JMWalker
Posted January 28, 2009 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
Stimulus opponents aren’t arguing in good faith.
My questions are relevant. But, okay, nathan, with millions losing their jobs, and either on unemployment or welfare (government pays that), what, exactly, would you do?
=======================================================
Still waiting . . . . . . .
“Even still, I have only posted a couple of comments today.
Okay?”
OK. But, I’m counting.
“what, exactly, would you do?”
Don’t know what Nathan would do, but I would tell them to get a job.
#
fleettwood
Posted January 28, 2009 at 3:09 pm | Permalink
“what, exactly, would you do?”
Don’t know what Nathan would do, but I would tell them to get a job.
=======================================================
There aren’t any, look in the paper today?
“Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.
Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.”
-Krugman
Mr Krugman uses a clear Non Sequitor here.
The FAA was not devised simply to create jobs. It was devised because it was in the best interest of public safety to have a central organization to coordinate air traffic patterns. The work by the FAA helps instill confidence and organization in the air travel industry which helps free market function efficiently.
The FAA is an good yet rare examply of how government can wisely create jobs. First a need arrives, it is decided that the Government is the best entity to meet the need, and then taxpayer money is used to meet the need. THEN jobs are created. See, the creation of jobs was not the impetus to form the FAA.
If the government is needed to fund projects that the private sector is ill-equipped to supply, then the government can then fund those projects and create jobs.
However, paving the same road 5 times just to create jobs is not meeting a need, it is creating one that beforehand did not exist and therefore wasting taxpayer money.
Government spending should never be focused on creating jobs because when it does, the temptation to spend money on projects (like re-paving the hypothetical perfectly good road) is too great.
The best thing Government can do to create jobs is to lower the tax rate which will change behavior. This is different than a one time rebate check that is quickly forgotten. Lowering taxe rates semipermanently allows business to plan for a future that will result in less expenses for making their businesses grow.
If there are holes that private industry simply can not fill then the government is duty bound to step in to fill that hole. The goal should not be to create jobs but to provide the necessary services/infrastructure that helps the free market move more efficiently.
The private industry which is controlled by billions of consumers world wide will decide where the jobs go from there on.
“public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts….., because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.”
Oh horse crap Paul Krugman, and you too Brownlee for giving him a forum!
Where do you think ’savings’ go, under the mattress. No they go to make loans to build houses, and to build business, they go into stock investments that allow business to hire and expand. All things that enlarge the economy.
Government spending takes from those resources, people paying higher taxes can’t spend or invest as much which which then hurts the economy.
What an economic nitwit.
When was the last time you got a job from a poor man?
JM Walker,
So, if I was a head hunter in South America and in my faith I believed it was ordained by God to kill other people, you think that my belief is ok?
What you believe is not any better than that?
Or how about Human sacrifce?
If my religion called for human sacrifice of non-believers, would you agree that my faith is just as good as anyone elses and none are better?
If my religion called for human sacrifice of non-believers, would you agree that my faith is just as good as anyone elses and none are better?
Sounds like radical Islam to me…
Just sayin…
JM Walker,
I believe that Christ is the one true God. There are no other god’s. Faith in Him alone is required for salvation.
Are you saying I am wrong?
WS, be careful! This place is worse than a heroin addiction, (just imagined, having never partaken).
Don’t get sucked back in to something that raises your blood pressure and lowers your quality of life now.
You seemed to have experienced an epiphany while caring for your father, don’t lose sight of it.
I am both sincere and jesting with you as a friend now, please interpret as such.
Good luck with your sad work.
#
Nathaniel
Posted January 28, 2009 at 3:17 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
So, if I was a head hunter in South America and in my faith I believed it was ordained by God to kill other people, you think that my belief is ok?
What you believe is not any better than that?
Or how about Human sacrifce?
If my religion called for human sacrifice of non-believers, would you agree that my faith is just as good as anyone elses and none are better?
=================================================
Are you sure you don’t want to include aliens in that?
What you seem to be basically saying is a tribe in the amazon, with no outside influence, who believe eating the killed warriors from some other tribe to appease their God, will be denied heaven? If that is their true belief, and they live by that belief, than, no, in my opinion, God will grant them the kingdom of heaven.
If that conflicts with your beliefs, than so be it. It in no way implies your beliefs are wrong. God will be the final judge of that, not man. But, again, that’s my belief.
“There aren’t any, look in the paper today?”
I just did. Get a job.
#
Nathaniel
Posted January 28, 2009 at 3:19 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
I believe that Christ is the one true God. There are no other god’s. Faith in Him alone is required for salvation.
Are you saying I am wrong?
=======================================================
Nope! Never even implied that.
#
JMWalker
Posted January 28, 2009 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
#
JMWalker
Posted January 28, 2009 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
Stimulus opponents aren’t arguing in good faith.
My questions are relevant. But, okay, nathan, with millions losing their jobs, and either on unemployment or welfare (government pays that), what, exactly, would you do?
=======================================================
Still waiting . . . . . . .
======================================================
Still waiting . . . . . . .
Obamanation’s bailout is mostly pork and a Marxist political agenda. It includes putting all your medical and abortion records in his national database.
pukay – and what was Bushie’s bailout to the banks?
This guy was so right it hurts. Watch the Fox News bunch laugh at his prediction.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b0a_1232747931
“lindainks55″ –
Peter Schiff nailed it in 2007!
Everyone should watch the clip and think about who we should listen to.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b0a_1232747931
Linda,
Bringing up those past predictions was just sooooo unfair! How could anybody in the mortgage business believe such drivel!
“Nathaniel
Posted January 28, 2009 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
Ben,
Oh, well, don’t get all technical on me now. You are right. Wanting to spend around 1 Trillion in deficit in one year is not quite as much as was spent in deficit the past 8.
Your point?”
It’s called being accurate. In fatc, Bush was already approaching trillion/year deficits.
And the ‘rest of the story’ is Keynesian economics.
OK by and large if I were in the Senate or House I could not have voted for this bill. Far too much fluff and waste. Nonsense and side stepping to it, the goal is to stimulate the economy not fund already funded programs with borrowed monies. Not throw good money at courses that had already led to this problem and continued a failed course.
This is about the future and survival of the American people and their economy. Not some bill that is just another meaningless gesture.
Hey Walker, the counter-argument is pretty simple.
The middle class should get used to losing everything they have.
The poor should get used to becoming homeless.
The homeless should die.
Follow that trajectory for long enough, and, eventually, enough chattel will move from middle class to death, and the economy will rebound, leaving the resources for the people that matter. Problem solved!
Isn’t that how American capitalism is supposed to work?
/sarcasmOFF
You got some specific objections, dog? The bill is still being written, you know–there’s still time.
It’s called being accurate. In fatc, Bush was already approaching trillion/year deficits.
In fact, we’re approaching a 1.2 trillion deficit under George Bush’s budget, without Obama changing a single thing.
Straight party line vote in the house approving the stimulus plan. Obama, you don’t need them! Good to learn early as not to waste your time and efforts in the future on the obstructionist.
Over 300 bil. of the stimulus is a carry forward from paulson and bush’s mishandling of the first half
#
Rage
Posted January 28, 2009 at 5:51 pm | Permalink
Hey Walker, the counter-argument is pretty simple.
The middle class should get used to losing everything they have.
The poor should get used to becoming homeless.
The homeless should die.
Follow that trajectory for long enough, and, eventually, enough chattel will move from middle class to death, and the economy will rebound, leaving the resources for the people that matter. Problem solved!
Isn’t that how American capitalism is supposed to work?
/sarcasmOFF
====================================================
Sure would be the smell of cremated bodies in the air for a generation or two. But then, the cons are used to war, so it shouldn’t upset them too much:-0
Cons like Israelies relish the smell of burning flesh in the morning.
Rage, it would still be interesting, though, to actually hear something intelligent come out of the other sides mouth for a change as to what they would, or could, do.
Hear that, Nathan? Give us a positive.
Fleetie,
“If the guvmint has a surplus, they should give it back to the ones they took it from in the first place.”
Okay, and by the same logic, if a business makes a profit, they should have to cut their prices by enough to erase that profit. I didn’t think so.
The Dems won and they are putting everything they wanted on this big giveway of our tax dollars. You want it you got it. Very little job creation here.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html
Rage,
“Hey Walker, the counter-argument is pretty simple.
The middle class should get used to losing everything they have.
The poor should get used to becoming homeless.
The homeless should die.”
Actually, it goes like this:
The right will screw you for profit.
The left will screw you on principle.
The top will screw you because it’s the natural order of things.
The bottom will screw you because they have to screw somebody to survive.
Progressives and reactionaries are both utopians of the first water; they just disagree on whether paradise is around the next corner or the last!
JM – now don’t go getting technical again.
george – just how much job creation was there in all those handouts to the banking industry?
Progressives and reactionaries are both utopians of the first water; they just disagree on whether paradise is around the next corner or the last, and will screw anybody they have to to get around that corner!
“Okay, and by the same logic, if a business makes a profit, they should have to cut their prices by enough to erase that profit. I didn’t think so.”
Perfect! Libs don’t get it. The guvmint earns no money. The only money they have is to take it from taxpayers. If the guvmint has too much money (surplus), they took too much.
A business is different. They take money from people who willing traded their money for a good or service.
Good God, man! You have shown way too much about how you people think.
My issue with ‘giving the surplus back’ is that we should reduce debt first. And, setting up a reserve fund might not be a bad idea either.
Instead of the trillion dollar spending bill, why not give each of us (children, too) $3,333. For a family of four, that would be over $13,000.
Where’s my check?
“My issue with ‘giving the surplus back’ is that we should reduce debt first.”
Ben Ben Ben.
If you have a debt, there is no “surplus”.
If one’s debt is within your income, then I suppose one could call it a “surplus”, but the debt is still there.
Just like in our own households.
But in our own households, we earn it.
The guvmint doesn’t.
Instead of the trillion dollar spending bill, why not give each of us (children, too) $3,333. For a family of four, that would be over $13,000.
Because, even for families with modest expenditures, it would be gone in months and, in the meantime, while the grocers, oil companies, and suit-cleaners might see a stimulus effect, the rest of the economy would still continue to take.
For those who didn’t need the money, it would simply get saved, particularly in times like these. The only stimulus there would be to the same financial industry that got us into this mess.
fleettwood,
we all know government generates NO income, but I think it’s my responsiblity to pay for the services government delivers. I think some others feel that way too. By the way, I also think government can efficiently deliver many more services than it does now. It isn’t government that fails, it’s ineffective government. Republicans think government is the failure and once elected set out to make it so!
Fleetie,
“The guvmint earns no money. The only money they have is to take it from taxpayers. If the guvmint has too much money (surplus), they took too much.”
Okay, seeing as you consider guvmint a waste of money, maybe guvmint ought to be eliminated altogether. Anarchy Now!
Okay, seeing as you consider guvmint a waste of money, maybe guvmint ought to be eliminated altogether. Anarchy Now!
Can’t endorse it (even though I’ve known some sharp anarchists), but it makes more sense than what the Republicans are saying.
Rachel Maddow is reporting that Obama sat down and talked at length with the RepubliCONs to get a bill they could vote on . . . he compromised on many issues and NOT A SINGLE REPUKE voted for the bill.
Good giddling gosh, do CONs suck or what?
Rage,
Didn’t you know? Republicans, or at least the controlling faction of ‘em, ARE closet anachists!
#
CapnAmerica
Posted January 28, 2009 at 8:45 pm | Permalink
Rachel Maddow is reporting that Obama sat down and talked at length with the RepubliCONs to get a bill they could vote on . . . he compromised on many issues and NOT A SINGLE REPUKE voted for the bill.
Good giddling gosh, do CONs suck or what?
—————————–
Perhaps Obama’s interpretation of ‘compromise’ wasn’t really a compromise but pandering?
It appears that’s what happened here imo.
The RePUKEs wanted more tax cuts and they got them.
The RePUKEs wanted family planning eliminated from the bill and they got it.
The RePUKEs wanted no money going to “government bureaucrats” like the US Park Service who wanted to re-sod the national mall and they got it.
Then they turn around and refuse to vote for it.
Hopefully, the American people are smart enough to see who’s reaching out a hand and who’s giving the finger in return . . .
Now that the PUKES have lost both houses and the Presidency, maybe they’ll get the message that what they do is more failed politics.
But they seem to be such s l o w . . . l e a r n e r s.
Didn’t you know? Republicans, or at least the controlling faction of ‘em, ARE closet anachists!
I only wished, Jed. In fact, the modern neo-con is very much in favor of government, as a personal enabler, a thumb on the scale. If there were in fact, no government control of anything–the contracts, the value of currency, even the city streets–those types would be begging for government to rescue them from the enraged masses.
Governments can be nothing more than a tool of the already powerful, but it doesn’t have to be that way. That’s what’s great about democracy.
And, unfortunately, if this crazy experiment doesn’t work, the only acceptable alternatives are perpetual revolution, or anarchy.
And, unfortunately, if this crazy experiment doesn’t work, the only acceptable alternatives are perpetual revolution, or anarchy.
Support the second amendment.
(chortles)
It looks like Americans are getting the picture.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/State-States-Political-Party-Affiliation.aspx
35 States have DEMOCRATIC majorities
5 States have REPUKE majorities
10 States are split.
More and more it’s obvious that if you’re a Puke, it really sucks to be you.
The only way this will work out well for the Republicans is if the economy isn’t stimulated and continues to fail, and gets even worse for a longer time. It’s what they seem to be counting on. Sad way to prove a point, but if they turn out to be correct it will definitely be a feather in their cap and a path to regaining the majority.
I was reading an op-ed piece recently that said if President Obama is successful in turning the economy around sooner rather than later it will help the way history treats bush. The deeper and longer the recession / depression the sadder the regard with which he will be held. Same article went on to say the irony is that it will be his party who is obstructing the possible path to his redemption.
What is immediately clear from the map is that residents of the United States were very Democratic in their political orientation last year. In fact, Gallup has earlier reported that a majority of Americans nationwide said they identified with or leaned to the Democratic Party in 2008.
All told, 29 states and the District of Columbia had Democratic party affiliation advantages of 10 points or greater last year. This includes all of the states in the Northeast, and all but Indiana in the Great Lakes region. There are even several Southern states in this grouping, including Arkansas, North Carolina, and Kentucky.
Chortles.
So, according to the Crapn, I might be part of a ‘protected minority’ because of my affiliation with an ideology.
Better be kind to me or I’ll call the ACLU.
(chortles)
Rage,
Try reading Pierre-Joseph Proudhon sometime, and then reading some of the neo-con theorists. The parallels in concept and method are astonishing! They disagree with him slightly on the issue of private property, in that they believe in it for themselves but not for the “lower classes,” but on the destruction of government leading to a purified society, they practically quote him word for word. As for control of contracts and law enforcement, wealth buys protection (the model there seems to be the mafia); government and rule of law are just too (ugh)fair!
Reggie,
“Support the second amendment.”
Now there’s the illusion the neo-cons want you to believe in. Of course they’ll have lots more and better weapons.
That’s a map I could learn to love, Cap’n! Looks so pretty!
What do you think will happen in the Senate?
I mean what does anyone think will happen in the Senate with regards to the Economic Stimulus package.
Reggie,
At the rate the party is going downhill, they may have to call the ACLU before long.
Thanks, Linda!
Blue has always been my favorite color.
Chortles . . .
Interesting, Jed. Most of the self-described anarchists I’ve known I think were more focused on bringing down the corrupt state than a theoretical devotion to anarchy itself. They even expressed admiration for democracy.
But I think there are many paths to totalitarianism, and, even if the eventually goal is autonomous feudal zones, government can be an effective tool for accomplishing such ends. Take, for instance, the private prisons for profit, using government to privatize a public function, and pervert its very purpose.
But whatever the theorists say, I suspect the rank-and-file still want some form of government, as a mediated way to keep the baron with more firepower across the river from attacking and kiling them while they’re asleep. It’s just more convenient that way.
lindainks55
Posted January 28, 2009 at 9:23 pm | Permalink
I mean what does anyone think will happen in the Senate with regards to the Economic Stimulus package
=====================================
I think it will pass the Senate after a small dog fight in conference.
FINAL DISAPPROVAL RATING FOR RECENT PRESIDENTS (Gallup Poll)
Nixon . . . . . . . . . 66
GWorstPresEverBush . . .61
Truman . . . . . . . . .56
Carter . . . . . . . . .55
LBJ . . . . . . . . . . 37
GHWBush . . . . . . . . 37
Ford . . . . . . . . . .32
Clinton . . . . . . . . 29
Reagan . . . . . . . . .29
Eisenhower . . . . . . .28
I mean what does anyone think will happen in the Senate with regards to the Economic Stimulus package.
That depende. John McCain was sounding like Bush, but ducked the question when the “F” word (filibuster) was used. The two remaining Republicans in New England gotta be nervous.
If Reid can keep the Dems and Independents on board, add in Snowe and Collins, I think that would be enough to stop a filibuster. Big If. But if something doesn’t eventually pass, the Senate Repubs will be very nervous, and unlike in the House, they know a price will be paid if nothing happens.
Linda–
It will pass because the adults are in charge.
The babies will scream their heads off and cause as much trouble as possible.
They just don’t get it.
Rage–
If the ‘Pukes filibuster, they will show that they’d rather destroy the country than lose power.
I don’t think even the idiot CONs are going to self-immolate like that . . .
Well, they are politicians.
My son testified before Congress as an ‘expert.’ It was according to him awesome, and very interesting. One of his comments I’ll never forget. He said when he went from the House to the Senate the IQ level raised many points.
I can’t even find many articles speculating about the Senate. Maybe I’m not using ‘the google’ well. Here’s one that says the real work begins now.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2009/db20090128_303269.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis
Stimulus Package’s Components Vary in Speed and Efficiency
WASHINGTON — At first, it will trickle into paychecks in small, barely perceptible amounts: perhaps $12 or $13 a week for many American workers, in the form of lower tax withholding.
For the growing ranks of the unemployed, it will be more noticeable: benefit checks due to stop will keep coming, along with an extra $25 a week.
At the grocery store, a family of four on food stamps could find up to $79 more a month on their government-issued debit card.
And far bigger sums will appear, courtesy of Washington, on budget ledgers in state capitals nationwide: billions of dollars for health care, schools and public works.
more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29assess.html?ref=us
Rage,
Yeah, most of the self-identified anarchists (and I’ve known a few too) are on the far left, politically. Anarchism’s dirty little secret is that as theory, it can be fairly politically ambidextrous (Marx figured that out), and there’s an extreme right-wing faction too. The few ultra right ones that I’ve known keep it fairly quiet and unless you’ve read the literature you don’t recognize the quotes. As for the Baron across the river, they either don’t worry about him, or they’ve already reached an accommodation with him. And no, the rank and file wouldn’t even suspect that’s what they’ve bought into- just too fantastic!
This “stimulus” bill is nothing but a long liberal Democratic “wish list,” of items they have wanted for years, but never had the votes for. Now’s their chance to put all these rotten apples into one basket that can’t fail. This is terrible; God help us all!
Does anyone here really know how much $800 Billion is? How long it would take to make back, even if 1/2 of these items actually did provide some growth? I’ve heard of pork, this is a pig heaven!
So where’s your plan, MartyG? Are you planning to personally bankroll the U.S. out of a depression?
You might want to learn Chinese, while you’re at it.
I think we’re beginning to get a glimpse of President Obama’s style; the stuff that impressed people who were looking for a speaker for the 2004 convention, who came on board long before that announcement on the old Illinois statehouse steps….
Politics is, after all, a People Business. And this guy gets people.
This week with the Republic Party’s congressional delegation has been “You’re likable enough, Hillary” moment played on a grand scale. There were moments in the debates when Obama knew he was making McCain want to tell Barack to stop playing on his lawn.
After a week of bleating they’d vote for the Stimulus “…if only you get rid of the condoms!” the House Republic Party congresscritters revealed they were lying.
Tiahrt, Moran, Jenkins? You just got pwned.
Then, they ran like hyenas to drink free Scotch and eat pigs-in-a-blanket in the “Black House.”
Obama is playing the Republic Party like a harp.
Rage I would hope so, this is far to serious an issue to be playing catch-up and fund that pet project that before we could not get through without being laughed at. We need only “concrete” courses and not paint touch up. Far too much of this was going around Murphy’s barn to get to a stimulus. The condom prevision was withdrawn, it was a round about of if we reduce births and help people to have family planning. It will down the road to be more responsible. It along with many of the other previsions are more like thinking that if we paint flowers on the wall people will be more likely to use the businesses.
Some of this package is things that long down the road will make the country better is true. But its like if I were to make this wager with you. “If you can go an entire year without eating anything or taking in any substances. I will give you one million dollars.”. One million dollars would be a great asset for you in a year, but what good is it if you starve to death next week?
This stimulus is more of the thinking we had in the last eight years, the only difference is it is a Democratic plan instead of a Republican plan. And the Republican plan was just as fruitless FYI.
Republicans and 19 democrats stood their ground for fiscal conservatism. They did the righ thing.
The Stimulus Bill is a lie. It is truly a Pay Back bill giving billions to ACORN supporters, labor unions (teachers,construction workers, fire, and police, etc…).
Good faith my a$$. Good faith would be democrats being honest and approving only a stimulus package that would truly quickly stimulate. Money for the Arts, rubbers, college loans is not stimulus. It’s a scam.
There is no compromise. “good faith” is a bleeding heart crybaby term anyway.
And instead of an independent, unbiased thread where bloggers could discuss the merits of the Stimulus Bill, we get more of the same from the liberal fish wrap quality newspaper.
“And instead of an independent, unbiased thread where bloggers could discuss the merits of the Stimulus Bill, we get more of the same from the liberal fish wrap quality newspaper.”
——–
American_Way,
I’ve never noticed that many bloggers feel any constraint to stick to any particular agenda, or suggestions of what their individual posts should be.
If you had posted a thread header “where bloggers could discuss the merits of the Stimulus Bill, how would you have done it? What words would you use to make any blogger post differently?