“It was just one vote in the early days of a new Congress and a new presidency, but it was hard not to see Wednesday’s big zero – not one of 177 House Republicans supported the economic stimulus bill – as an ominous sign that Washington is still stuck in the bitterly polarized politics that has blocked progress on big issues for years,” a USA Today editorial argued. “The process was a textbook example of what President Obama was talking about in his inaugural address when he referred to the ‘recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.’ In this case, Democrats wanted more spending programs; Republicans wanted more tax cuts. The Democratic majority refused to yield, so the Republicans all voted no.”
Meanwhile, Republican leaders are hailing the unanimous “no” vote as a return to GOP principles of small government. “How about those House Republicans?” bragged Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C..
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
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
124 Comments
RUSH . . . he’s the man .. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/
listen on-line .. http://www.640wgst.com/cc-common/streaming_new/index.html?refreshed=yes
. . . learn it ~ live it ~ love it . . .
There is so much pork in the ’stimulus’ bill it should make every taxpayer nauseous and then mad.
It is a Dimocrats as usual pork bill not designed so much to help the economy, which it won’t but to increase the Dims power and hold on government.
Good for the Republicans for not caving in.
view Rush in full context .. they say: “you can make him say anything you want .. just take him out of context” .. I agree .. therefore .. HOW ABOUT A LITTLE CONTEXT SCARECROW ???? .. enjoy
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/22/limbaugh-of-course-i-want-obama-to-fail-if-hes-going-to-push-a-new-new-deal/
GASP!
The ONE has NOT YET become President of the U-nited States of America?
I’m SHOCKED!
How could the most Liberal Socialist President of the U-nited States of America be soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo devisive?
Oh, but Obamah is doing the best he can .. and that’s what counts .. right ??
. . . . . (BARF !!! )
webster . . . The word FASCISM has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini’s, that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and uses violence and MODERN TECHNIQUES OF PROPAGANDA AND CENSORSHIP TO FORCIBLY SUPPRESS POLITICAL OPPOSITION, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism). Nazism is usually considered as a kind of fascism.
Pelosi made it very clear before this session started that the dems were in control. Pat those repubs on the back for saying ‘it is your bill, own it’. Finally a backbone again.
Neo-Libs.
Let’s just hope the Republicans keep their backbone this time.
The Dems can soley own their Socialist Plans. When the SHTF, they will be the only ones to blame.
The so-called conservatives are anything but in the above posts: all hot air, no substance. Any of you care to take apart HR1 by pointing what you don’t like and/or what you do like? Referring to Limbaugh hardly qualifies as either an indictment, or intelligent thought.
My guess is, they are unable to, as it would require them to actually think, something they forgot how to do during Bush’s eight years in office.
As for the asinine statement, “the most Liberal Socialist President of the U-nited States of America”, HR1 is little different from the one Bush pushed through. So I guess that makes Obama the second “most Liberal Socialist President of the U-nited States of America.”
In an attempt yesterday to form a consensus on what we the people could do to inform our leaders what we would like to see done, I felt like the doctor, who, after trying an experimental drug on his charges, found them to be totally coherent, only to find, after the drug wore off, the patients returned to their normal vegetative state.
Feel free to prove me wrong, or don’t: I could really give a rats a ss. Talking to a tree provides more info than reading what the morons have posted here.
they need to change the name of this so-called “fairness doctrine” to the Chavez doctrine .. ya think ??
the Democrats won .. they wrote the bill .. they OWN the bill
“Republican leaders are hailing the unanimous “no” vote as a return to GOP principles of small government”
hmmm…. so why now? the same repulican leaders have grown the government over the past 8 years….why now do they take a stand on pricipal to return to the GOP principle of small government?
quit yur whinin-n-cryin’ .. Democrats have the votes .. the bill will be passed .. the seas will no-longer rise .. the earth has begun to heal .. balh blah blah
“dadman
Posted January 30, 2009 at 12:52 pm | Permalink
the Democrats won .. they wrote the bill .. they OWN the bill”
so dadman, I am sure that in 2 years if it is shown the stimulus bill was a complete failure you will be shouting that again – that the Democrats did it their way and it failed.
But… if the stimulus package works, are you going to still shout that the Democrats OWN the bill?
For the Genious Walker, who claims to want a debate on the issues, I posted this the other day:
Nice Socialist Plan. Instead of cutting tax rates or refunding tax payments to taxpayers, this is a handout program and a government building program. The biggest impact is in year 2, and the plan covers 10 years. Not exactly a short-term immediate recovery program, and certainly not a long-term plan to make America stronger and more independent. It’s the opposite in fact. It makes America weaker and more dependent on Government.
Oh, and since there will be negligible short-term recovery as a result of this longer-term ‘plan’, Another Stimulus Plan will be required within a year, possibly even before year-end 2009, depending on when the Banks are taken over and how much ‘relief’ that brings.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf
I want the $2.4 & $6.4 Billion for Other. Changing my name to: “Other Activities”.
Some spending highlights:
? An estimated $20.0 billion over the next five years to temporarily increase the
maximum benefit under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP,
formerly known as the Food Stamp program);
? $2.8 billion to expand broadband Internet service in rural areas; and
? About $4 billion for programs to develop rural communities and improve
infrastructure.
? $3.0 billion for grants to improve the criminal justice system,
? $3.0 billion for grants to fund science and technology research as well as
$1.0 billion for periodic censuses and programs,
? $2.8 billion for grants to extend broadband Internet services;
? $1.0 billion for programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration;
? $1.0 billion for the Community Oriented Policing Services program; and
? $2.4 billion for other activities.
provide $4.5 billion to the Department
of Defense to repair, maintain, and renovate its facilities; for energy-efficiency projects,
including the modernizing of heating/cooling and electrical systems; and for improving
Army barracks. Title IV also would provide $350 million for energy-related research and
development.
? $18.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs (including
$6.2 billion to expand existing weatherization activities and $7.9 billion for
energy-related grants to states);
? $8.0 billion to cover the subsidy costs of federal loan guarantees for renewable
energy systems and electric transmission projects;
? $6.5 billion for capital investments by certain federal power marketing
administrations in electric power transmission systems;
? $4.5 billion to modernize the nation’s electricity grid; and
? $6.4 billion for various other activities.
Title VI would appropriate
$8.7 billion to promote energy efficiency and conservation at federal facilities and to
support small businesses. Most of that amount—$7.7 billion—would be appropriated to
the General Services Administration’s Federal Buildings Fund to construct and repair
federal facilities. That amount represents a significant increase relative to current funding
levels, which have averaged about $1.3 billion annually in recent years.
$15 billion, including nearly $8.4 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds (SRFs). Under both programs, EPA provides grants or “seed money” to
all 50 states plus Puerto Rico to capitalize state loan funds used by local governments to
build water infrastructure projects.
? $20.4 billion for programs administered by the Department of Health and Human
Services;
? $4.6 billion for employment and training programs administered by the
Department of Labor;
? $20.0 billion to renovate elementary and secondary schools;
? $17.6 billion for Pell grants and other student financial assistance and facilities at
post-secondary institutions including federal student loan programs; and
? $29.1 billon for other education programs aimed particularly at elementary and
secondary education
$6.0 billion in 2009 budget authority for military construction projects of the
Department of Defense
? $30.0 billion for highway construction;
? $13.1 billion for other transportation programs administered by DOT;
? $11.2 billion for housing assistance programs administered by HUD; and
? $5.2 billion for grants to states and cities for activities related to community
development.
Title XIII would create a fiscal
stabilization fund to provide grants-in-aid to states. The fund, to be administered by the
Department of Education, would make $39.5 billion available to states each year
Division B—Other Provisions
Division B of H.R. 1 contains provisions that would increase direct spending for
unemployment insurance, health care, fiscal relief for states through the Medicaid
program, and other programs. Division B also contains numerous tax provisions that
would reduce federal revenues and increase outlays for certain grants and refundable tax
credits. In total, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the provisions in Division B would
increase direct spending by $64 billion in 2009 and $248 billion over the 2009-2019
period, and would reduce revenues by $76 billion in 2009 and $212 billion over the
2009-2019 period.
Tax Provisions. Title I of Division B would make several changes to tax law that the
Joint Committee on Taxation estimates would lower federal revenues by about $63
billion in fiscal year 2009 and by about $188 billion over the 2009-2019 period. Some of
the changes in tax law would also affect outlays for payments of refundable tax credits.
Those changes would increase outlays by about $80 billion over the 2009-2019 period. In
particular, the legislation would:
? For tax years 2009 and 2010, create a refundable tax credit of up to $500 for a
single taxpayer ($1,000 for joint filers), to be phased out for taxpayers with
income above certain thresholds. It is anticipated that the credit would be partially
reflected in reduced income-tax withholding from paychecks. JCT estimates that
the provisions would reduce revenues by $99 billion and increase outlays by
$45 billion over the 2009-2011 period.
? Modify an existing nonrefundable tax credit for higher education expenses to
increase the maximum credit allowed to $2,500, lengthen the period for which the
credit may be claimed to four years, expand the list of qualifying expenses, and
make up to 40 percent of the credit refundable. JCT estimates that those provisions
would reduce revenues by $10 billion and increase outlays by $3 billion over the
2009-2011 period.
? For tax years 2009 and 2010, increase the earned-income tax credit for taxpayers
with three or more qualifying children to 45 percent of their eligible earned
income, and eliminate the limitation on the amount of earned income used to
calculate the refundable portion of the $1,000 child tax credit. JCT estimates that
those provisions and others related to refundable credits would reduce revenues by
$3 billion over the 2009-2019 period and increase outlays by $22 billion over the
2009-2011 period.
Unemployment Insurance and Other Provisions. Title II of Division B would increase
direct spending for several programs. CBO estimates that those changes would increase
outlays by about $22 billion in 2009, $21 billion in 2010, and small amounts in later
years for a total of about $46 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
Unemployment Benefits. H.R. 1 would extend the date by which an individual must
exhaust his or her regular unemployment benefits in order to qualify for emergency
benefits from March 31, 2009, to December 31, 2009, boosting outlays by an estimated
$12 billion in 2009 and $15 billion in 2010. Currently, Emergency Unemployment
Compensation (EUC) is available to individuals who exhaust their regular unemployment
benefits by March 31, 2009. Such individuals are eligible for an additional 20 weeks of
benefits, and 13 weeks more if they are in a state with “high unemployment” (defined as
a total unemployment rate of 6 percent or higher or an insured unemployment rate of
4 percent or more). Effective January 25, 2009, 29 states had met the “high
unemployment” measure. CBO estimates that, from its enactment in June 2008 through
December 2009, 6.7 million people will collect EUC.
In addition, title II would temporarily raise the weekly benefit for recipients of
unemployment compensation by $25, increasing outlays by an estimated $5 billion in
2009 and $4 billion in 2010. Those benefits would be paid from general funds, rather
than by state trust funds.
The legislation would also provide up to $7.0 billion for incentive payments and
$0.5 billion for administrative costs to states that adopt certain provisions in law to
provide benefits to individuals who may not qualify under existing criteria.
hmmm…. so why now? the same repulican leaders have grown the government over the past 8 years….why now do they take a stand on pricipal to return to the GOP principle of small government?
I’d have to add to that the last socialist spending bill. The 750 billion bail out.
My congressman stood strong (R)
One of my senators (D) stood strong and one (D) didn’t
Again JM, you use the ‘BUSH’ defense for Obama.
How many years are you going to use the Bush excuse for Obama’s failures?
How about that $8.8 Billion for Other JM?
You for or against that?
Democrats .. it’s one O’clock . . . are you ready for your daily anal probe ????
But… if the stimulus package works . . . . you wish !!!
R U S H . . . he’s the man .. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/
listen on-line .. http://www.640wgst.com/cc-common/streaming_new/index.html?refreshed=yes
. . . learn it ~ live it ~ love it . . .
OH, I forgot . . . I’m not supposed to listen to Rush . . . . tell Obamah to come to my house and say that to my face . . . Freakn fascist
The Audacity of Nope
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/7217/25607
Once again, Stephen Colbert nails it.
And if this is an ‘Economic Stimulous’ Bill, that needs to be U R G E N T L Y passed to RESCUE the Economy NOW!!!!, then why are the expenditures as follows:
(in Billions)
2009 $169
2010 $356
2011 $174
2012 $ 49
2013 $ 25
2014 $ 24
2015 $ 11
The bulk of the spending does not occur until years 2 & 3.
BUT,
THIS WAS NEEDED I M M E D I A T E L Y !!!!
Stephen Colbert ?? .. no-wonder these people are such blithering idiots . . . better thing to do .. later yall
http://www.nwrnetwork.com/radiostations/RealAnswersRadio/player/embedded_player.php?bw=high
JMWalker
Posted January 30, 2009 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
The so-called conservatives are anything but in the above posts: all hot air, no substance. Any of you care to take apart HR1 by pointing what you don’t like and/or what you do like?
—————————————————-
NOW who is FULL OF HOT AIR?
JM, you done disapeared. Where’d ya go? Lookin for your facts?
As for your ass, it has now been handed to you.
Gee, reading these posts, I can’t understand why the Republicans are out of power.. such senible solutions. List to Rush, and don’t forget to read the long cut and paste.
now that JMWalker has been handed his ass .. what will he do ?? .. what W I L L he do ??
dadman
Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:15 pm | Permalink
now that JMWalker has been handed his ass .. what will he do ?? .. what W I L L he do ??
—————————————-
Likely he will hide for a long time, while lickin his wounds.
JMW should not quit his day-time job
dadman
Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:21 pm | Permalink
JMW should not quit his day-time job
——————————————–
He works?
Thanks for sharing Colbert’s, “The Audacity of Nope,” Monkeyhawk. It is similar (but funnier!) to what The Votemaster had to say:
“…if the recession is still going strong in the Fall of 2010, Republicans will say “Democrats threw your hard-earned tax dollars down the toilet. Time to get rid of them.” But this is a huge gamble for the Republicans. This recession has already been going on for a year and they rarely last three years. Even if the recession is not technically over, but jobs are no longer being shed and houses are no longer being foreclosed it will be a lot easier for Democrats to claim it was their leadership that improved the economy. What can the Republicans say? It was their courageous no votes against bills that passed anyway that saved the economy?”
#
JimJohnson
Posted January 30, 2009 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
Again JM, you use the ‘BUSH’ defense for Obama.
How many years are you going to use the Bush excuse for Obama’s failures?
=====================================================
As long as Obama does the same things Bush did.
And handing me my ass? Now that is funny.
Partisan?
It was a non-partisan vote on the losing side! 177 republicans and 11 democrats voted against the ’stimulus’ bill.
Partisan on the democrat side. Not one republican ammendment was allowed. Pelosi did not allow republican input. Allowed not debate.
Do you really want Congress to pass a 1.3 trillion spending bill with no debate?
“lindainks55″ –
I love CONs’ reactions to Colbert.
In one word:
WHOOOSH!
linda’s comment and permalink are going into my ‘prediction file’ .. keepn an eye on it for 2010
#
HLP
Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
Partisan?
It was a non-partisan vote on the losing side! 177 republicans and 11 democrats voted against the ’stimulus’ bill.
Partisan on the democrat side. Not one republican ammendment was allowed. Pelosi did not allow republican input. Allowed not debate.
Do you really want Congress to pass a 1.3 trillion spending bill with no debate?
====================================================
No, and on that we’re in total agreement. Pelosi is an idiot, and a major source of what’s keeping both sides from coming to any kind of compromise. After listening to the pundits from both sides, I get the distinct feeling neither side has any idea what’s going on, and neither has an answer. And neither side has fully read or comprehended HR1. That, in itself, tells me more about congress that does the vote outcome.
Do you remember Newt’s contract with America? A hastily thrown together piece of nonsense that was done via the same tactics: No input from the democrats allowed. That didn’t work out too well either, did it. Samo-samo.
MH:
Colbert… awesome!!!
It just means that there are 177 House Republicans that need new jobs.
We Dems will have to work harder to see that the 177 don’t get reelected.
Dadman:
What the hey does that song have to do with anything?
What I’ve read says the real work on the bill that will eventually pass will be done in the Senate. The members of the House will all have their votes of this week in hopes their crystal ball is the accurate one next time they ask to be reelected.
I don’t have a crystal ball so I don’t know who will have the edge they desire. That edge to be used as the tool to be reelected isn’t what most Americans care about. We need help and these yahoos of every political persuasion are who we’ve got, who we elected.
“dadman
Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
linda’s comment and permalink are going into my ‘prediction file’ .. keepn an eye on it for 2010”
——
Good for you, dadman! I liked that quote from The Votemaster too, that’s why I brought it here to share.
Feds allege plot to destroy Fannie Mae data . . . DUUU !!! .. no surprise here
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D961I79O0&show_article=1
It is scary how quickly the once free embrace socialism. This SPENDING bill is such a major blow to the foundation of our republic. Look how many of you support it. Is it the free money you think you will get or the fact that this was Obama’s baby?
“I don’t have a crystal ball so I don’t know who will have the edge they desire. That edge to be used as the tool to be reelected isn’t what most Americans care about. We need help and these yahoos of every political persuasion are who we’ve got, who we elected.”
c-mon now Linda .. don’t start you backpeddln just yet
We will see what happens on the Senate side, where the filibuster can provide some leverage to revising this mindless, throw money at the problem solution.
BTW, today’s editorial cartoon was dead on.
JMWalker I did post back to you with suggestions on improving the bill yesterday.
But I can’t believe you posted this today:
“HR1 is little different from the one Bush pushed through.”
I am no fan of either deficit busters. But you have to see differences between the two. ACORN support for one.
In principle, maybe. And to the end of disclaiming the post about OBama’s bill being socialist o.k…
But there is little in the Obama Stimulus which is “immediate” or directly helps the economy. The programs are all big government and important bandwagon items for democrats.
dadman, if you find anyplace anytime I have stated my opinion on the stimulus package, go for it. I don’t have an opinion, so it would have been difficult for to state it. I’ve been reading as many so-called experts as I can find and all I’ve learned is there is no consensus of opinion even from them.
Do you have an accurate crystal ball that you are positive is correct? You better let someone know, everyone is wondering it seems.
don’t worry Linda .. Obamah will save us
RUSH LIMBAUGH . . . he’s the man .. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/
listen on-line .. http://www.640wgst.com/cc-common/streaming_new/index.html?refreshed=yes
. . . learn it ~ live it ~ love it . . .
Obamah: .. now is not the time to make a profit
” Is it the free money you think you will get or the fact that this was Obama’s baby?’
Free money
Free healthcare
Free foodstamps
Free unemployment benefits
Free money for states which spend too much
Free money for homebuyers with too much home
Free college money
Free money for under investigation ACORN leader
Free etc,., etc,etc.,
What’s not to like?
“Mr. Boehner said. “Unfortunately, the trillion-dollar spending plan authored by Congressional Democrats is chock-full of government programs and projects, most of which won’t provide immediate relief to our ailing economy.”
Mr. Boehner cited numbers to counter Mr. Obama’s, saying the House Democratic plan included $600 million for the federal government to buy new cars, $650 million for digital television coupons and $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. “All told,” he said, “the plan would spend a whopping $275,000 in taxpayer dollars for every new job it aims to create.”
HINT !! .. European Socialism is not the answer
DANG !!! I can quit my job and live on the “public-dole” .. YIPPEE !!!
You catch that?
“All told,” he said, “the plan would spend a whopping $275,000 in taxpayer dollars for every new job it aims to create.”
Heck yes! Republicans didn’t knuckle under. Are you surprised Brownlee? Did you want them to compromise their beliefs and sacrifice what conservatives believe in – just to bow down to darling Barack?
SolDevVB –
Microsoft Windows – Capitalism
UNIX – Socialism
Now, Which is the better product?
10 Reasons to Whack Obama’s Stimulus Plan
January 27, 2009 02:10 PM ET | James Pethokoukis | Permanent Link | Print
Some people are going to oppose President Obama’s ginormous stimulus package just because they’re on a different political team. But when you look at the economic evidence, it sure seems like an economic recovery package that’s heavy on government spending and light on tax cuts is just the opposite of what we should be doing right now. Try this closing argument on for size:
1) A 2005 study by Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig “analyzed three types of policy shocks: a deficit-financed spending increase, a balanced budget spending increase (financed with higher taxes) and a deficit-financed tax cut, in which revenues increase but government spending stays unchanged. We found that a deficit-spending shock stimulates the economy for the first 4 quarters but only weakly compared to that for a deficit-financed tax cut.” In other words, FDR vs. Clinton vs. Reagan, Reagan wins.
2) Harvard economist Robert Barro looked at the multiplier effect of World War II military spending — supposedly the Mother of All Stimulus Plans and found that “wartime production siphoned off resources from other economic uses — there was a dampener, rather than a multiplier.” Barro prefers eliminating the corporate income tax to massive government spending.
3) Alberto Alesina of Harvard and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago want to adress the fear and confidence issue by creating “the incentive for people to take more risk and move their savings from government bonds to risky assets. There is no better way to encourage this than a temporary elimination of the capital-gains tax for all the investments begun during 2009 and held for at least two years.”
4) An initial CBO analysis found that a mere $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending, just 7 percent, would be delivered into the economy by next fall. An update determined that just 64 percent of the stimulus would reach the economy by 2011.
5) University of Chicago economist and Nobel laureate Gary Becker doubts whether all this stimulus spending will do much to lower unemployment: “For one thing, the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies. For another thing, with unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending. The net job creation from these and related spending is likely to be rather small. In addition, if the private activities crowded out are more valuable than the activities hastily stimulated by this plan, the value of the increase in employment and GDP could be very small, even negative.”
6) Christina Romer, the new head of the Council of Economic Advisers, coauthored a paper in which the following was written about taxes: “Tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output. Since most of our exogenous tax changes are in fact reductions, the more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects.” And former Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey tack on this addendum: “The macroeconomic benefits of tax cuts can be two to three times larger than common estimates of the benefits related to spending increases. The relative advantage of tax cuts over spending is even clearer when the recession is centered on the household balance sheet.”
7) Economists Susan Woodward and Robert Hall find that the multiplier effect from infrastructure spending maybe just 1-for-1, less than that 3-to-1 ratio for tax cuts that Romer found: “We believe that the one-for-one rule derived from wartime increases in military spending would also apply to increases in infrastructure spending in a stimulus package. We should not count on any inducement of higher consumption from the infrastructure stimulus.”
8) Economist John Taylor thinks it better to let the Federal Reserve deal with the short-term problems in the economy, while fiscal policy should attend to long-term issues: “In the current context of the U.S. economy, it seems best to let fiscal policy have its main countercyclical impact through the automatic stabilizer … It seems hard to improve on this performance with a more active discretionary fiscal policy, and an activist discretionary fiscal policy might even make the job of monetary authorities more difficult. It would be appropriate in the present American context, for discretionary fiscal policy to be saved explicitly for longer-term issues, requiring less frequent changes. Examples of such a longer-term focus include fiscal policy proposals to balance the non-Social Security budget over the next ten years, to reduce marginal tax rates for long run economic efficiency, or even to reform the tax system and Social Security.”
9) Massive stimulus didn’t work in the Great Depression. As this Heritage Foundation study notes: “After the stock market collapse in 1929, the Hoover Administration increased federal spending by 47 percent over the following three years. As a result, federal spending increased from 3.4 percent of GDP in 1930 to 6.9 percent in 1932 and reached 9.8 percent by 1940. That same year– 10 years into the Great Depression–America’s unemployment rate stood at 14.6 percent.” Same goes for Japan and its Great Stagnation of the 1990s.
10) Olivier Blanchard, the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, coauthored a paper which found “that both increases in taxes and increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending.”
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/1/27/10-reasons-to-nix-the-stimulus-plan.html
Oh, but Obamah is doing the best he can
.. and that’s what counts .. right ??
. . . . . (BARFF !!! )
One thing we will clearly see before the end of the One Obama’s first term.
“Government is not the solution to all the nations problems.”
It will be a sad day and too late to reform. With new entitlments – they never go away.
GD,
France or the US. Which is the better country?
Obamah: .. “the days of PORK out of congress as a strategy are over”
Oh really ???
SolDevVB -
Buddhism or Christianity – which is the better religion?
#
dadman
Posted January 30, 2009 at 2:12 pm | Permalink
RUSH LIMBAUGH . . . he’s the man ..
. . . learn it ~ live it ~ love it . . .
================================================
Yep, I can believe that after reading typical con posts: They are definitely unable to think for themselves.
It’s all hog swill.
I have this feeling that Pelosi is gonna pizz off ole Obama and he’s gonna see to it she doesn’t get re-elected.
We’ll see…
and Hillary would say . . . ditto
Colbert ??? .. Yep, I can believe that after reading typical com-posts: They are definitely unable to think for themselves.
com-posts . . . that’s a good one . . . God, I kill myself .. Ha !!
“They are definitely unable to think for themselves.”
Who told you to say that? democratunderground or change.underwear?
The repubs have reaaalllly got ALL the answers.
We better listen to them.
After all, they are the only reason the eeeeville muslims have not killed us all.
I think Billo the clown and Lush Limpballs should take the hundreds of millions they have and pre-emptively and unilaterally implement their ideas.
After all….free market, bla bla ,….
great economy, bla bla…..
#
American_Way
Posted January 30, 2009 at 2:06 pm | Permalink
JMWalker I did post back to you with suggestions on improving the bill yesterday.
But I can’t believe you posted this today:
“HR1 is little different from the one Bush pushed through.”
I am no fan of either deficit busters. But you have to see differences between the two. ACORN support for one.
In principle, maybe. And to the end of disclaiming the post about OBama’s bill being socialist o.k…
But there is little in the Obama Stimulus which is “immediate” or directly helps the economy. The programs are all big government and important bandwagon items for democrats.
======================================================
Yes you did get back on it, and I agreed with and appreciated it, but the point is, this bill, like the Bush bill, will do basically nothing to jump start the economy, pork and bs aside. Unless we have Senators with both backbone and intelligence, then like the Bush bill, it will be rammed through, and we will be stuck another round of businesses buying up the competition, exactly what the Bush bill allowed.
I am 100% against this bill, and have stated that, but with the Conservatives on this blog yelling fire in a crowded theater, I don’t see where people like dadman, jj, and many others have much of anything to offer but the usual b itch and moan. Go back and read the posts prior to mine, and I think you might agree.
If anything, I at least pulled some legitimate arguments against the bill out of some, but it’s like pulling teeth from the brain dead.
For instance: people, like dadman, listen to people, like rush, go into some sort of heavenly trance, tell others how great rush is, but are unable to voice an intelligent opinion of their own. Where has dadman ever voiced an original thought? IMHO, never.
#
dadman
Posted January 30, 2009 at 2:47 pm | Permalink
com-posts . . . that’s a good one . . . God, I kill myself .. Ha !!
========================
- You have earned three slip-shod votes.
- Proceed to the penalty box.
#
dadman
Posted January 30, 2009 at 2:46 pm | Permalink
Colbert ??? .. Yep, I can believe that after reading typical com-posts: They are definitely unable to think for themselves.
=======================================================
See: comparing a comedian with a political pundit, and using the same lines, more than proves my point.
“SolDevVB” asks –
“France or the US. Which is the better country?”
In terms of cheese? France.
In terms of wine? It’s a toss-up.
In terms of who’s got a great national anthem? The French, again.
Health Care? Well, France gets more bang for the
buckEuro.In terms of monetary policy? Well, the Euro looks pretty good these days.
In terms of women with armpit hair? The U S of A, mofo!
In terms of going ga-ga over a 30-day bicycle race? We got Super Bowl Sunday, frogs! Ha-ha!
In terms of lithe young nublettes who’ll fuc# like crazed weasels and not expect you to call back? Again, a toss-up. (But screaming in French is a plus.)
In terms of cultural silliness? Well, the French have the edge but we’re gettin’ there, albeit via an alternative route.
In France they can’t sell a “Royale with Cheese” unless they can sell red wine to wash it down. In America a lot of people eat “Quarter-Pounders” stone cold sober! Your call.
This is a French First Lady:
http://tinyurl.com/dehnt4
This is a typical American First Lady:
http://tinyurl.com/byqydg
Most certainly the French dress better.
Monkeyhawk,
Sounds like you favor France. Get your ticket now while airfare is still low. Sure you won’t have any problem at all finding work over there.
Damn. Thanx for the first pic. I’ll pass on the second.
OK. OK. OK. My bad. I didn’t read your entire post. I admit it, you had me laughing out loud for real. Fu#@ like a weasels indeed. LOL.
“For instance: people, like dadman, listen to people, like rush, go into some sort of heavenly trance,…”
Isn’t that from HuffPo?
JMWalker
Posted January 30, 2009 at 2:51 pm | Permalink
I am 100% against this bill, and have stated that, but with the Conservatives on this blog yelling fire in a crowded theater, I don’t see where people like dadman, jj, and many others have much of anything to offer but the usual b itch and moan. Go back and read the posts prior to mine, and I think you might agree.
If anything, I at least pulled some legitimate arguments against the bill out of some, but it’s like pulling teeth from the brain dead.
——————————————–
Crying Liar. You ignored my 12:55 post.
You say you oppose this Bill yet you defend Obama by saying Bush did the same thing.
It must be OK to murder someone then, because somebody else did it before.
2 Wrongs Make A Right = Lib Logic
“SolDevVB” –
Like CRAZED weasels, damnit!
Let’s not make this vulgar.
Whatsa matter MonkeyHawk? You got something against women with hair under their arms?
imJohnson
Posted January 30, 2009 at 3:19 pm | Permalink
JMWalker
Posted January 30, 2009 at 2:51 pm | Permalink
Crying Liar. You ignored my 12:55 post.
You say you oppose this Bill yet you defend Obama by saying Bush did the same thing.
It must be OK to murder someone then, because somebody else did it before.
2 Wrongs Make A Right = Lib Logic
=================================================
Actually, I didn’t ignore the post. If you would go back and read the full post, I stated the post prior to my first one were nothing more than the usual con whining.
And, this is really humorous, where exactly did I say I support, or defend, Obama on this bill?
Obfuscate and redirect, the usual con logic. Problem is, knowing what I actually wrote kinda negates that logic, doesn’t it?
“Grateful_Dave” asks me –
“Whatsa matter MonkeyHawk? You got something against women with hair under their arms?”
Guilty.
I’ve had several things, ahem, against them, in fact.
#
fleettwood
Posted January 30, 2009 at 3:15 pm | Permalink
“For instance: people, like dadman, listen to people, like rush, go into some sort of heavenly trance,…”
Isn’t that from HuffPo?
======================================================
I really wouldn’t know, as I very rarely visit there. You have accused me from time to time of being a regular rush listener, because I can’t stand the guy, and say so, using examples. Could it be you yourself are a closet hoffpo listener? I mean, if you think I’m a hypocrite,because you think I listen to rush, by the same token, wouldn’t the same apply to, say, yourself?
I mean, one of the great passages in the art of war is, “Know your enemy”, so I have no problem if you do read Huffpo.
So amazing; when Bush handed out rebate checks the cons were all for it; now as Obama (in effect) does the same, they’re outraged.
beber
Posted January 30, 2009 at 3:53 pm | Permalink
So amazing; when Bush handed out rebate checks the cons were all for it; now as Obama (in effect) does the same, they’re outraged.
====================
No we weren’t.
Hey .. I also listen to Al-Jazeera .. you have to view/hear as many diff sources as you can . . why just attach youself to ‘filtered’ sources eg: NPR – CNN – BBC .. go straight to the source eg: C-SPAN .. MEMRI .. End-Time .. Bob George .. White house briefings etc. etc. .. thank God for the internet .. thank God I no-longer have to have one man tell me . . . . that’s the way it is . . . peace
http://www.nwrnetwork.com/radiostations/RealAnswersRadio/player/embedded_player.php?bw=high
“Whatsa matter MonkeyHawk? You got something against women with hair under their arms?”
If it’s my hair, no.
Then how the hell did it get done if Cons weren’t for it?
“Stimulus vote an ominous sign”
Yes. America is divided between the Socialists and the Conservatives. King Obama, S U R P R I S E cannot change that.
And the debate on this blog is about as intelligible as the statements made by Obama and the DemoRats who pushed this Bill through the House.
beber
Posted January 30, 2009 at 3:55 pm | Permalink
Then how the hell did it get done if Cons weren’t for it?
——————–
Politicians are dip sihts. (both sides)
“So amazing; when Bush handed out rebate checks the cons were all for it; now as Obama (in effect) does the same, they’re outraged.”
. . . sorry .. not the same .. Bush gave my money BACK to me .. Obama is taking money FROM me and giving it to his pet projects . . . . big diff ya doof
And so the fight continues…
The Socialist DemoRats will fight to steal more money from those who are productive.
And the productive will fight to keep what they have earned.
Freedom, using DemoLogic is being able to take from one group and give to the other.
Freedom, under the old definition, meant that you were free to keep your life and your property from being taken by others.
beber
Posted January 30, 2009 at 3:53 pm | Permalink
So amazing; when Bush handed out rebate checks the cons were all for it; now as Obama (in effect) does the same, they’re outraged.
—————–
Beber I haven’t got my check from Obama yet. When did you get yours? All I got was a UOMe.
dadman
Posted January 30, 2009 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
“So amazing; when Bush handed out rebate checks the cons were all for it; now as Obama (in effect) does the same, they’re outraged.”
. . . sorry .. not the same .. Bush gave my money BACK to me .. Obama is taking money FROM me and giving it to his pet projects . . . . big diff ya doof
———————————————————-
And you can’t cut taxes for someone who isn’t already paying taxes.
The Obama game plan is to redistribute wealth though. So those getting his tax ‘cuts’ will be getting back more money from the Government then they paid-in.
Legalized Theft, using Big Brother Government as the robber. And so those getting handouts receive their promised payoff, and will vote the Robbers in to office year after year.
it’s patriotic to PAY .. to PAY .. to PAY . . . it’s time to “spread the wealth around”
My, my, everyone has wet shoes and nothing has been accomplished or decided.
Perhaps it is time that we all truly consider a bipartisan approach to the serious problems facing OUR country and get off the $#&@ you wagon. The last time I checked, we were all Americans.
Eh?
after you make a certian amount of money .. the Democrats no longer need your vote .. they want your money
Oh .. that’s sooo profound . . . GOSH !!!!
we have Americans .. and then we have Amerikans . . . big diff ya doof
So what was said was Republicans are real AMERICANS and Democrats are not………………..
And one wonders why there is a partisan divide in the United States these days.
Wonderful.
Se ya’
Obama’s Socialism will be the transition (”change” if you will) .. from Free-Market-Capitalism to National-Socialism-Communism
see ya . . . wouldn’t wanna be ya
MonkeyHawk – a true bon vivant and it looks like beber is headed in that direction also.
maybe some of you “intellectuals” can display elements of Socialist / communist doctrine .. any stabs at it ????
““So amazing; when Bush handed out rebate checks the cons were all for it; now as Obama (in effect) does the same, they’re outraged.””
The Libs really don’t get it, do they?
heads in the sand
butts in the air . . . oh drop kick me satan thru the goal posts of life
when the “people-of-America” realize that they can vote-for-themselves goodies from the treasury . . . our nation will soon emplode
One way to stimulate the economy is tp build prisons and reeducation camps for the Wall Street thieves, the previous administration (although a barbed wire hog farm would be too good for Bush/Cheney) and camps for any Republican still breathing.
Forced abortion and mandatory sterilization for Republican women should also be considered.
Democrats party of pork. The Repulicans don’t even compare. Money for climate change proposed, yuk! Here is quotes from Rush Limabaugh (Obama”s favorite Critic)
RUSH: My friends, my other friends at the Heritage Foundation had found something else in the Porkulus bill. Listen to this. This is from http://www.Heritage.org: “President Barack Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus plan,” the Porkulus plan, “has morphed into an appropriations bill devoid of debate. The process forgoes any pretense of targeting unemployed people and resources. For instance, the [Porkulus] bill reads ‘Provided further, that not less than $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling.’ This raises the question of how many unemployed climate modelers are out there pounding the pavement. When presented with that question, last Friday, Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists stated ‘I don’t know one unemployed modeler.’
“Whether or not another $140,000,000 for climate data modeling is a good idea, it is hard to see an immediate, economy-stimulating impact from this item.” I’ll tell you something else that’s going on with this. This establishes that if you’re a climate modeler, you get money from the federal government. This government is the Obama government. They want to propagate this manmade global warming hoax. You take money from them for your climate computer models, when you don’t even need it? What, do I wonder, are your results going to show? Exactly what Obama wants. Where did I find this? Heritage Foundation. AskHeritage.org. It’s all I did.
Daddyboy,
Free-market capitalism? I hate to tell you this, but free-market capitalism committed suicide last fall; its obituary was published in the Wall Street Journal, and its funeral was held on election day. Kruschev was right; it contained the seeds of its own destruction.
Courtesy of Glen Beck-
If Global warming is settled science why do we need tens of millions to study it more?
Mega pork stimulus may be in trouble in the Senate.
We can only hope.
Aw, shucks, did the RNC go and get them a Steele The Magic Negro to work some voodo for them?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090130/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_republicans_4
Clearly they are not ready to put aside their childish ways, the adults will just have to take charge and lead.
Of course will hear them out, then do what needs to be done.
It becomes clearer now, our Repub leadership just couldn’t stomach the ‘Buy American’ clause snuck into the stimulus package. They just can’t keep that monster dead!
“”Some have slammed the U.S. Chamber for opposing ‘Buy American’ provisions, calling our position ‘economic treason,’” Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a statement. “Try ‘economic patriotism’,” he said.
“Such provisions would cost American jobs, trigger retaliation from our trading partners, slow economic recovery by delaying shovel-ready infrastructure projects and cede our leadership role as a long-standing proponent of free and fair trade and global engagement.”
The House of Representatives approved the measure this week as part of an $825 billion bill to kick-start the U.S. economy. In the House bill, the “Buy American” measure would require all public works projects funded by the stimulus package to use only U.S.-made iron and steel.
If Tiahrt had his thinking cap on, he’d have suggested that the govt. buy aircraft from American companies, or more specifically, company.
About half of this bill is pretty good. The other half is a malicious scam to slip questionable spending items past the American people without scrutiny. It’s a betrayal of the public trust to use this crisis to circumvent spending rules and due diligence.
“It’s a betrayal of the public trust to use this crisis to circumvent spending rules and due diligence.”
Kind of like the ENTIRE Bush Administration.
In brief I have already said I could not vote for it, this was too important for the Democratic to play the same ole game of add-on pet projects and wishful thinking.
They just threw in some giveaways to make the senate repubs feel like they did something.
Coming in late:
JMWalker, I applaud your at least somewhat successful attempt on a previous thread to get substantive suggestions on how to deal with the economic mess. Of course, in this thread it looks like we went back to partisan nonsense.
One of the things that makes me really pessimistic comes from the nature of this country. There is the quote often, but not conclusively, attributed to Tytler:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.”
I think this statement is incomplete, however. The flipside would be this:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, while minimizing their own contribution to it.”
What I see in the current stimulus package debate is both sides going to their worst instincts. And unfortunately, the absolute worst instincts of the pseudo-fiscal conservatives are the most appealing for the so-called “socialist” liberal democrats to compromise with. Cut taxes while cutting the other guy’s money, while of course the other guy is saying cut taxes while cutting your money. The compromise always becomes, cut taxes while not cutting either one of your money. Well hey, the reasoning goes, at least I got my taxes cut.
Those who are in office, particularly in the House, know this math, and it is absurd that “we the people” blame them for it. We have created a system where office holders must embrace this stupidity if they want to keep their jobs, and since ambition is necessary to hold onto office, of course they want to keep their jobs.
Actions to actually address, long term, our economic woes and the shaky state of our government to do its part to address them.
1) We should have a constitutional amendment changing the term of members of the House of Representatives from two years to four, with House elections occuring between presidential elections. This would allow House members to develop more of a spine and embrace longer term thinking while at the same time preserving the difference between the House and the Senate.
2) No tax cuts, no way, no how. This is not the time to raise taxes, but it is not the time to cut them either. The correlation, contrary to the claims of the supply sider and self proclaimed conservative apologists, between tax cuts and increases in economic activity is short term at best, and nowhere near as well established as those who love them want to believe. Some of the increases in economic activity were arguably part of the trend of the economy anyway, and any bump from tax decreases would arguably be short term any way as everyone adjusts to the new equalibrium. What this means is that revenue IS lost from tax cuts, and we can’t afford that. I would not argue for tax increases at this time, but no tax cuts.
Unfortunately, neither side is going to have the guts to embrace this stand.
3) Understand that in a country of 300 million and a dominant part of the world economy (even if right now it is as a consumer rather than a producer), our economy is necessarily a combination of the private and the public. One of the most pernicious myths embraced in this country, particularly among armchair libertarians, is the idea that the private sector is the productive part of the economy that drives the rest of the engine. Bullsh*t. I find it astonishing to listen to people say this when they a) live in suburban locations where the primary employer, by FAR, is the public school system and b) their private businesses are largely reliant on public entities or those who are paid by the public’s purse. I just love the nitwits who say stupid things about “redistribution of wealth” for people who work with the poor, or people with mental illness and/or disabilities because they “aren’t productive”, but they’ll take the money of the people and the public and private entities who are paid with public funds to provide those services.
4) Income does not equal productivity. Many of those who are paid in the bottom 50% work very hard for their money, and without them, the upper 50% wouldn’t be getting their money.
5) Much of our public spending is fixed, and politically impossible to cut. Eventually, these entitlements are going to have to be confronted, but when they are, it is going to be through a combination of cuts and finding of increased or new revenue supports. That’s simple reality.
One last thing, JMWalker. I think you have been very wrong on one issue. Climate change is an important issue in this economy. The reality is increasingly better established (those who deluded enough to think that assaulting the character of Hansen or Gore is an effective rebuttal to the contrary) that human activity has changed climate consistent with predictions. There is a reason why the National Academy of Sciences and every other reputable scientific body has the position on this so-called “issue” that they do. The issues arising from this and other environmental degredation (particularly in the ocean and the tropical rain forests) are very real, and addressing them provides opportunity.
Addressing environmental issues is not something that should be put “on the back burner”.
http://www.concordcoalition.org/
I think it’s possible to have smart, targeted tax cuts as a means of stimulating the economy, but otherwise I pretty much agree with Agnatha’s take.
Putting more money in the hands of lower-income Americans is arguably a good thing, but will not fix the systemic problems and, absent dramatic slashes of the federal budget (which would be economic suicide–government actually does things, ya know), we’re looking at ballooning deficits, at least in the short term. And I’m specifically concerned about China: if we’re going to address our huge labor and trade imbalance with them, we can’t have the financing of our government largely held hostage by the same.
I agree with Robert Reich, that, in Keynesian fashion, government must be the spender of last resort and, what’s more, I agree with Obama that it must be long-term investments, not a quick fix, which wouldn’t work anyway. It’s all too easy, of course, to load down a spending bill with the most absurdist things, but if it’s something that can and will create jobs, I can’t argue with it (otherwise, take it out!). That needs to be the unrelenting goal: job creation.
Tax cuts put a little more money in people’s pockets if they’re making money to begin with. It does exactly zero for the unspending, unstimulating jobless, and the seriously underemployed. Relying solely, or even mostly, on tax cuts to fix the economy is dumb, and it’s already been proven dumb by history.
The focus must be on job creation and making America a better, more creative, more productive place to live. Those are two sides of the same coin.
I would only add one more thing: healthcare. Universal healthcare is absolutely essential. Sorry, “got mine, skrew you” crowd: even if you don’t care about the quality of life of millions of fellow Americans, you should care about the lost productivity, the spiraling costs, the mounting unpaid debts, all of which have a grave effect on our economy. You’re already paying through the nose. Even from the a self-centered personal-finance perspective, continuing this slow-motion train wreck is breathtakingly dumb.
I think some of the three-piece-and-fangs types have belated realized that multinational greed that profits at the expense of everyone but the shareholders is an unsustainable model.
Ideologically, I believe in the quaint notion, embodied in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, that the purpose of a good economy is to provide prosperity for human beings, not, as Calvin Coolidge once reportedly noted, that “the business of government is business.”
P.S. The worst three-piece-and-fangs types, of course, don’t even care about the shareholders. The past decade was their latest heyday.