Obama presser

[fpickering]

How many lies has Barry told in the first 10 minutes?

1. There is not a single pet project or earmark in the bill.... then he says "it has been stripped of the projects that both parties found most objectionable"
2. We must act immediately or disaster will befall our Country.
3. Government is the only entity that can get us out of this crisis.
4. Placing $1,000 in working and middle class families' pockets will lead to them spending it.
5. Tax cuts alone can't solve our economic problems. (Corporate Tax cuts alone would create jobs and eliminate the cycle that he refers to)
6. Tax cuts are partly responsible for the crisis that we are in now.
7. Suggesting that the bill will create jobs. This bill creates work that will go away, not jobs.
8. Suggesting that we must pass this bill for the future of our children and grandchildren. (if we pass this bill we will leave them with a gigantic deficit)
9. "Most economists almost unanimously recognize that even a philosophically..... you're wary of government intervening in the economy......" huh?


Feel free to add.

[Keino]

Re: #5 from your list. The last 8 years called and they want you back.....

[akhhorus]

How many lies has Barry told in the first 10 minutes?

1. There is not a single pet project or earmark in the bill.... then he says "it has been stripped of the projects that both parties found most objectionable"

There are no earmarks in the bill.

2. We must act immediately or disaster will befall our Country.

Please show any legitimate economist who doesn't agree with that.

3. Government is the only entity that can get us out of this crisis.

Unfortunately true.

4. Placing $1,000 in working and middle class families' pockets will lead to them spending it.

Bush tried that last year, it failed.

5. Tax cuts alone can't solve our economic problems. (Corporate Tax cuts alone would create jobs and eliminate the cycle that he refers to)

He's right. Japan did that in the mid-90s and it led to a deflationary trap.

6. Tax cuts are partly responsible for the crisis that we are in now.

This is wrong on Obama's part. Total and absolute deregulaton did. Goldman sachs, Lehman, Bear Steans, AIG and all those companies had voluntary regulation from the SEC(which they obviously didn't do). The head of Goldman Sachs wrote a mea culpa in the WSJ this morning.

8. Suggesting that we must pass this bill for the future of our children and grandchildren. (if we pass this bill we will leave them with a gigantic deficit)

What cave were you living in for the last 8 years?

[Fathead]

Wait, we aren't leaving a deficit for our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren right now? I must have missed that memo.

[SkinsKY]

Does someone have a good link to a breakdown of what's in the package? I haven't found a good one yet.

[RedskinsDave]

Does someone have a good link to a breakdown of what's in the package? I haven't found a good one yet.

It's something like this: :D

http://nymag.com/news/articles/reasonstoloveny/2006/pork061218_560.jpg

[SkinsKY]

That might have the opposite effect than what you want Dave. I love pork. Especially pulled. That's pork I can believe in.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Does someone have a good link to a breakdown of what's in the package? I haven't found a good one yet.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/stimulus_pork_spending/2009/01/29/176503.html

Provisions of the bill that many legislators are questioning:


$1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades.


$2 billion to help subsidize child care.


$400 million for research into global warming.


$2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere.


$650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.


$600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.


$75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking.


$21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration.


$2.25 billion for national parks. This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.


$335 million for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.


$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. $4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The bill allows nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money, which means a substantial amount of it will be captured by ACORN, the controversial activist group currently under federal investigation for vote fraud. Another $750 million would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN – meaning cities and states are barred from receiving that money. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., charges the money could appear to be a “payoff” for the partisan political activities community groups in the last election cycle.


$44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department.


$32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste.


$87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states.


$53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.


$13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes.


$20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment.


$10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the cost of college tuition.


$20 billion over five years for an expanded food stamp program.

Republican leaders say the stimulus package will add 32 new government programs at a cost of $136 billion. They object that many of the programs, once established, are likely to continue indefinitely.

Most media outlets are reporting the cost of the package at $819 billion. As Newsmax revealed yesterday, however, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the interest on the debt generated by the bill’s spending will cost another $347.1 billion, making the total cost approximately $1.17 trillion.

Of course, the measure contains hundreds of billions in tax cuts and infrastructure projects that conservatives will find palatable. But as House Minority whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., told the media Wednesday, “This was not a stimulus bill. It was a spending bill.”

[akhhorus]

4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The bill allows nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money, which means a substantial amount of it will be captured by ACORN, the controversial activist group currently under federal investigation for vote fraud. Another $750 million would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN – meaning cities and states are barred from receiving that money. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., charges the money could appear to be a “payoff” for the partisan political activities community groups in the last election cycle.

This is just not true. ACORN has said that they're not applying for the money, nor would they be eligible for it. And no, the 3.4 billion distributed to the states wouldn't mean that ACORN would get a dime of it.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Tax cuts are absolutely part of why we are where we are. We could have easily had a balanced budget from 2002-2007, and we would be in a much stronger position today. Instead conservatives doubled our debt and put us in an exponentially weaker position to deal with the consequences of their failures.

Al Gore's lockbox is looking pretty good right about now.

[Fathead]

Instead a group of retards who called themselves conservatives decided to forget their core values and spent themselves into oblivion and doubled our debt




Fixed.

[akhhorus]

Fixed.

+1

[Ibleedburgundy]

The only difference between a Republican and a conservative is that a Republican can be held accountable.

[dj_stouty]

And we are supposed to believe that households making $250,000 a year or less are really going to have their taxes cut? Puleeze....

[RedskinsDave]

Wow:

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis (http://www.amazon.com/Critical-What-About-Health-Care-Crisis/dp/0312383010/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234118804&sr=8-1).” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

I hope Bloomberg is good enough for IBB's weak stomach.

[dj_stouty]

Wow:



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

I hope Bloomberg is good enough for IBB's weak stomach.

May as well get rid of doctors and replace them with computers. Who needs human judgement when it comes to something as easy as diagnosing and treating illness? ;) Hey...why not make all doctors log into WebMD during every patient visit and read to them off the screen?!?!

I'd love to hear Shally's comments on this...

[akhhorus]

May as well get rid of doctors and replace them with computers. Who needs human judgement when it comes to something as easy as diagnosing and treating illness? ;) Hey...why not make all doctors log into WebMD during every patient visit and read to them off the screen?!?!

I'd love to hear Shally's comments on this...

The bill that just passed the Senate says this about the office in question:
PURPOSE.—The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that--

‘‘(1) ensures that each patient’s health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;
‘‘(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;
‘‘(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;
‘‘(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;
‘(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;
‘‘(6) improves the coordination of care and information among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure and authorized exchange of health care information;
‘‘(7) improves public health activities and facilitates the early identification and rapid response to public health threats and emergencies, including bio-
terror events and infectious disease outbreaks;
‘‘(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;
‘‘(9) promotes early detection, prevention, and management of chronic diseases;
‘‘(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and
‘‘(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.

Thats a BIG difference from what that Op-ed in Bloomberg is saying.

[RedskinsDave]

The bill that just passed the Senate says this about the office in question:
PURPOSE.—The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that--

‘‘(1) ensures that each patient’s health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;
‘‘(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;
‘‘(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;
‘‘(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;
‘(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;
‘‘(6) improves the coordination of care and information among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure and authorized exchange of health care information;
‘‘(7) improves public health activities and facilitates the early identification and rapid response to public health threats and emergencies, including bio-
terror events and infectious disease outbreaks;
‘‘(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;
‘‘(9) promotes early detection, prevention, and management of chronic diseases;
‘‘(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and
‘‘(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.

Thats a BIG difference from what that Op-ed in Bloomberg is saying.

It is not a big difference from what the piece said. I pay for my own insurance and I don't want the government to have any access to any of my files. I do love 1) though. Are these the same people who protect sealed court documents? Yeah, ugh, back the F off Big Brother. They can do this for anyone who uses their socialized free stuff if they want. Leave the paying customers alone.

[akhhorus]

It is not a big difference from what the piece said. I pay for my own insurance and I don't want the government to have any access to any of my files. I do love 1) though. Are these the same people who protect sealed court documents? Yeah, ugh, back the F off Big Brother. They can do this for anyone who uses their socialized free stuff if they want. Leave the paying customers alone.

I agree with you on med records(they shouldn't have one database that everyone's are on). That article accuses that office of now being in charge of your medical care. Thats horse crap.

Nevermind that Tom Daschle won't be in charge of anything related to health care, which is one of the cruxes of that piece.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I hope Bloomberg is good enough for IBB's weak stomach.

How did you find out about my weak stomach!?! :mad:

[RedskinsDave]

I agree with you on med records(they shouldn't have one database that everyone's are on). That article accuses that office of now being in charge of your medical care. Thats horse crap.

Nevermind that Tom Daschle won't be in charge of anything related to health care, which is one of the cruxes of that piece.

It's not a great leap from "coordinates", "improves" and "ensures" to get to "controls" in my book. Where are all the screaming mimis who didn't want their phones tapped now? I'd say this one is a bit more intrusive.

[akhhorus]

It's not a great leap from "coordinates", "improves" and "ensures" to get to "controls" in my book. Where are all the screaming mimis who didn't want their phones tapped now? I'd say this one is a bit more intrusive.

You're going to need statutory authority clearly set out in a congressional bill in order to come close to that, because you know a private doctor/hospital will tell them to stuff it if they try that(and they'll end up in court). That bill doesn't give them any authority to decide anything.

[RedskinsDave]

You're going to need statutory authority clearly set out in a congressional bill in order to come close to that, because you know a private doctor/hospital will tell them to stuff it if they try that(and they'll end up in court). That bill doesn't give them any authority to decide anything.

And an insurance company can't make decisions for a doctor either. Of course they can suggest things but we all know the government would never put itself above the interest of its people.....

This is one of those, give them an inch they'll take a mile things I'd rather they not get the inch on.

[akhhorus]

And an insurance company can't make decisions for a doctor either. Of course they can suggest things but we all know the government would never put itself above the interest of its people.....

This is one of those, give them an inch they'll take a mile things I'd rather they not get the inch on.

No, but a doctor tied to a specific HMO is effectively an employee of that company, so they have to follow instructions from the corporate hierarchy. There's not a parallel here because that office isn't becoming the defacto clearing house for any and all medical decisions(and can withhold something from doctors if they don't do what they suggested). I understand the concern, but there's nothing in the bill that would lead to letting some small NIH adjust office to be effectively in charge of the nation's health care. Nevermind that none of the stim package's political opponents have mentioned this at all. Seems like gold for them if they wanted to make a case against it.

[fpickering]

Re: #5 from your list. The last 8 years called and they want you back.....

I was not happy with the spending in the last 8 years either but let's not deflect and stay on topic.

[Keino]

I was not happy with the spending in the last 8 years either but let's not deflect and stay on topic.

Actually that was not deflection and very much on topic. From your list:

5. Tax cuts alone can't solve our economic problems. (Corporate Tax cuts alone would create jobs and eliminate the cycle that he refers to)


Your Parenthetical comment was exactly the mind-set of the former administration and those tax cuts did not stimulate job creation. In fact the number of jobs shrank over the last 8 years. That is on topic sir.

Furthermore, Obama is absolutely correct (as is just about any economist with no credibility issues) in that Tax cuts alone will not lead to job creation. Where have you been the last few months or weeks even? Jobs are getting cut left and right.

[fpickering]

There are no earmarks in the bill.


Try again.

Obama himself admitted that there were pet projects (aka earmarks, pork, etc..) when he said:
"it has been stripped of the projects that both parties found most objectionable".

Also, one only has to read the many reports detailing the porkulus bill to find out that he told a bold faced lie.



Please show any legitimate economist who doesn't agree with that.


"The call for stimulus packages represents the triumph of political arrogance over common sense. The U.S. is a massive $14 trillion economy. The size of proposed stimulus packages range from $150 to $200 billion, which is about 1 to 2 percent of our GDP. Economy-wide, that's a drop in the bucket likely to have little or no effect. Congress ought to focus on measures that create greater long-term productive incentives such as reducing corporate taxes, estate taxes and personal income taxes as well as economic deregulation. "

Walter E Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University
http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/01/30/stimulus_package_nonsense





Unfortunately true.



See previous quote from Walter Williams



Bush tried that last year, it failed.


You made my point for me. Giving people 1,000 will do little to nothing for the economy.

"Previous experiences have shown that ...(2) many people save a large portion of any tax rebate."

http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/01/30/stimulus_package_nonsense




What cave were you living in for the last 8 years?

I have consistently stated that I was not a big fan of Bush for his spending but that has nothing to do with Obama and what is happening now. Your meager attempt at deflection does not eliminate the fact that Obama, at best misrepresented the truth when he said that we must pass this bill for the future of our children and grandchildren.

What I am getting at is this:

Where is all of the outrage and accusations that our President is a liar that
dominated the political landscape while Bush was President?

Someone with some integrity please answer that question!

[Keino]

When someone with integrity (read intellectual honesty) asks a question, I am sure one of us will be more than happy to answer it.

The last 8 years are relavent, especially 3 weeks into the new administration because EVERY single economic indicator that you could cite today would have some lag time i.e. would be reflective of conditions 6 - 18 months ago depending on the economic school of thought for how long certain stats lag.

Furthermore, Obama has not gotten on National TV making accusations about country in making the case to go to war with that country, that the CIA told him could not be verified that was later debunked as false. Maybe that and any number of things we were told about Iraq had something to do with the "Liar" tag as opposed to some Vast Left wing Media conspiracy....

[fpickering]

Tax cuts are absolutely part of why we are where we are. We could have easily had a balanced budget from 2002-2007, and we would be in a much stronger position today. Instead conservatives doubled our debt and put us in an exponentially weaker position to deal with the consequences of their failures.

Al Gore's lockbox is looking pretty good right about now.

Tax cuts had nothing to do with where we are today. That is a total fallacy and does not make any sense.

Tax cuts take money away from a wasteful, inefficient and ineffective government and spur increased spending by individuals and businesses.

"According to economists Tracy Foertsch and Ralph Rector, making the 2003 tax cuts permanent will annually add $76 billion to the GDP, create 709,000 jobs and add $200 billion to personal income."

http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/01/30/stimulus_package_nonsense

[Keino]

Well as long as we are using objective sources for our op-ed pieces :rolleyes:

[akhhorus]

Try again.

Obama himself admitted that there were pet projects (aka earmarks, pork, etc..) when he said:
"it has been stripped of the projects that both parties found most objectionable".

Try again? I said there were no earmarks in the bill. I didn't say there were "pork" projects in it. You can say anything you want, but you can't argue what I said.

Also, one only has to read the many reports detailing the porkulus bill to find out that he told a bold faced lie.


He makes a non-definitive statement about what "most parties found objectionable," so I guess you have to show that most parties liked the projects that were stripped out to prove it was a bold faced lie.

"The call for stimulus packages represents the triumph of political arrogance over common sense. The U.S. is a massive $14 trillion economy. The size of proposed stimulus packages range from $150 to $200 billion, which is about 1 to 2 percent of our GDP. Economy-wide, that's a drop in the bucket likely to have little or no effect. Congress ought to focus on measures that create greater long-term productive incentives such as reducing corporate taxes, estate taxes and personal income taxes as well as economic deregulation. "

Walter E Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University
http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/01/30/stimulus_package_nonsense


What you said:
"We must act immediately or disaster will befall our Country." saying that it was a lie by Obama.

What I said: "Please show any legitimate economist who doesn't agree with that. "

Your quote has nothing to do with the point.

See previous quote from Walter Williams


Thats nice. Cutting taxes is what Japan did in the mid 90s and it lead to massive deflation.

You made my point for me. Giving people 1,000 will do little to nothing for the economy.


Except that it proves you previous point wrong. Do you bother to put any thought into your posts?


"Previous experiences have shown that ...(2) many people save a large portion of any tax rebate."

http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/01/30/stimulus_package_nonsense


Thats exactly the problem. Companies and people save their cash and don't put into the economy(either in spending, investments or jobs). Thanks for proving my point. Tax cuts are great when the economy is rebounding or growing, because it acts as an accelerator to growth. When you're in a recession, they make it worse.

I have consistently stated that I was not a big fan of Bush for his spending but that has nothing to do with Obama and what is happening now. Your meager attempt at deflection does not eliminate the fact that Obama, at best misrepresented the truth when he said that we must pass this bill for the future of our children and grandchildren.

What I am getting at is this:

Where is all of the outrage and accusations that our President is a liar that
dominated the political landscape while Bush was President?

Someone with some integrity please answer that question!

Pointing out the the GOP leadership enabled Bush to spent more percentage-wise than any other president in US history isn't a deflection. Its pointing out a fact that undermines all the opposition the Congressional GOP has on the Stimulus package. It rings hollow for Boehner and McConnell et al to suddenly start being concerned with future debt. If the Congressional GOP wanted to suddenly go back to their small government roots, they should have voted out every single one of the leadership in the house and Senate, because otherwise it sounds like hypocrisy.

[Keino]

Pointing out the the GOP leadership enabled Bush to spent more percentage-wise than any other president in US history isn't a deflection. Its pointing out a fact that undermines all the opposition the Congressional GOP has on the Stimulus package. It rings hollow for Boehner and McConnell et al to suddenly start being concerned with future debt.

Thank you. It's like the use of the Veto for SCHIPP and citing fiscal responsibility after dumping Billions into Iraq. It rings hollow......

[fpickering]

Actually that was not deflection and very much on topic. From your list:

5. Tax cuts alone can't solve our economic problems. (Corporate Tax cuts alone would create jobs and eliminate the cycle that he refers to)


Your Parenthetical comment was exactly the mind-set of the former administration and those tax cuts did not stimulate job creation. In fact the number of jobs shrank over the last 8 years. That is on topic sir.

Furthermore, Obama is absolutely correct (as is just about any economist with no credibility issues) in that Tax cuts alone will not lead to job creation. Where have you been the last few months or weeks even? Jobs are getting cut left and right.

After some thought, I retract #5 from my list and I apologize. There are way too many variables to be able to declare one way or the other whether Corporate tax cuts alone would solve our economic problems. However, I still contend that they would have the largest positive impact.

As I exhibited in a previous post, tax cuts have nothing to do with our slowing Economy and the recent job loss.

I would be interested to hear some evidence to the contrary, from an economist with no credibility issues, of course.

[fpickering]

When someone with integrity (read intellectual honesty) asks a question, I am sure one of us will be more than happy to answer it.

The last 8 years are relavent, especially 3 weeks into the new administration because EVERY single economic indicator that you could cite today would have some lag time i.e. would be reflective of conditions 6 - 18 months ago depending on the economic school of thought for how long certain stats lag.

Furthermore, Obama has not gotten on National TV making accusations about country in making the case to go to war with that country, that the CIA told him could not be verified that was later debunked as false. Maybe that and any number of things we were told about Iraq had something to do with the "Liar" tag as opposed to some Vast Left wing Media conspiracy....

I wonder if you often assume that those who disagree with you have a lack of intellectual honesty? Can you please support your assertion and point out where I exhibited a lack of intellectual honesty? Please show me where I supported a position that I knew was false or misleading.

Obama went on national television, lied and misrepresented the truth several times. So, where is the same outrage from liberals? I am still waiting for some intellectually honest answers.

[akhhorus]

I wonder if you often assume that those who disagree with you have a lack of intellectual honesty? Can you please support your assertion and point out where I exhibited a lack of intellectual honesty? Please show me where I supported a position that I knew was false or misleading.

Claiming that federal taxation is "taxation without representation." Either you knew it was false/misleading or you've never read the Constitution or you don't know what a congressman(or Senator)'s role is.

[fpickering]

Well as long as we are using objective sources for our op-ed pieces :rolleyes:

Are you attempting to change the subject by attacking the source?
That's nothing more than a classic case of an ad hominem argument. Here is the definition from wiki in case you are interested:

...consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[fpickering]

Try again? I said there were no earmarks in the bill. I didn't say there were "pork" projects in it. You can say anything you want, but you can't argue what I said.

He makes a non-definitive statement about what "most parties found objectionable," so I guess you have to show that most parties liked the projects that were stripped out to prove it was a bold faced lie.



Please don't try to play a game of semantics. Pork and earmarks are the same thing! For evidence of Pork aka earmarks, please refer to post #8 from this thread:

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1195252&postcount=8

In light of this overwhelming evidence, would you care to retract your statement?



What you said:
"We must act immediately or disaster will befall our Country." saying that it was a lie by Obama.

What I said: "Please show any legitimate economist who doesn't agree with that. "

Your quote has nothing to do with the point.


Except it has everything to do with my point. Obama is saying that we must pass this stimulus bill immediately or disaster will befall our Country. The economist I referred to flatly says that the need for a stimulus bill is a fallacy. So, not only do we not need it now, we don't need it at all, especially considering that it is more like a spending bill not a stimulus.



Thats nice. Cutting taxes is what Japan did in the mid 90s and it lead to massive deflation.


I would like to see some evidence to this. Do you have a link?



Thats exactly the problem. Companies and people save their cash and don't put into the economy(either in spending, investments or jobs). Thanks for proving my point. Tax cuts are great when the economy is rebounding or growing, because it acts as an accelerator to growth. When you're in a recession, they make it worse.


My sourced economist disagrees with the assertion that Corporate Tax cuts would be detrimental at this time. Are you a renowned economist?
What are you basing this information on?



Pointing out the the GOP leadership enabled Bush to spent more percentage-wise than any other president in US history isn't a deflection.


Obama said that we must pass this bill for the future of our children and grandchildren. I contended that this is a lie since it will actually be detrimental to them.

Then, you brought up the last 8 years. How is that not deflecting? You did not address the point I made and instead attempted to deviate the conversation to what happened the last 8 years. I want to talk about how Obama lied.

[fpickering]

Claiming that federal taxation is "taxation without representation." Either you knew it was false/misleading or you've never read the Constitution or you don't know what a congressman(or Senator)'s role is.

Again, this is nothing more than a difference of opinion.

A portion of my federal tax dollars may be allocated to bailout the State of California.

However, I have no direct representation in that State.

Therefore I am being taxed without being afforded representation in California.

Thus my belief that this would be Taxation without representation.


I'm outta here. Thanks for the spirited debate.

[akhhorus]

Please don't try to play a game of semantics. Pork and earmarks are the same thing! For evidence of Pork aka earmarks, please refer to post #8 from this thread:

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1195252&postcount=8

In light of this overwhelming evidence, would you care to retract your statement?


Earmarks and pork are two different things. An Earmark is specific legislative measure in which a member of congress can put in an appropriation without having their name attached to it outside of the bill text(and it doesn't have to go through the appros process). "Pork" is slang for any spending that members of congress(or outside observers) want to call wasteful(whether or not its actually wasteful). The stimulus package has no earmarks in it. The list Taylor posts is spending that was not requested as earmarks. Is this yet another subject you have no clue about?

Except it has everything to do with my point. Obama is saying that we must pass this stimulus bill immediately or disaster will befall our Country. The economist I referred to flatly says that the need for a stimulus bill is a fallacy. So, not only do we not need it now, we don't need it at all, especially considering that it is more like a spending bill not a stimulus.

The economist you quote makes no such claim. He criticizes the composition of the stimulus package, nothing more. So, yet another thing you're wrong about or misleading.

I would like to see some evidence to this. Do you have a link?

The Japanese are just coming out of their economic problems(Koizumi cutting waste and increasing spending helped), but the Japanese cut taxes dramatically(about 45 billion dollars in cuts in 1998) and it barely made a difference in the economy. In fact growth in Japan in the next year(99) was 0.1%.

My sourced economist disagrees with the assertion that Corporate Tax cuts would be detrimental at this time. Are you a renowned economist?
What are you basing this information on?


Milton Friedman, The Japanese lost decade, reality. And your "sourced economist" just says this:
"Congress ought to focus on measures that create greater long-term productive incentives such as reducing corporate taxes, estate taxes and personal income taxes as well as economic deregulation. "

And doesn't offer any details on why he thinks that. I can show you a Paul Krugman post on this topic(with links to further reading on it):
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/about-that-deflation-risk/

He's as much a political hack as Williams is lol


Obama said that we must pass this bill for the future of our children and grandchildren. I contended that this is a lie since it will actually be detrimental to them.

Then, you brought up the last 8 years. How is that not deflecting? You did not address the point I made and instead attempted to deviate the conversation to what happened the last 8 years. I want to talk about how Obama lied.

Because its relevant to the criticism of it. And its still not a lie: whether or not it will add debt to the US government, preventing a depression(or a Japan style prolonged recession) in the United States is for the future of the children/grandchildren(no matter how you feel about the specific policy goals or how successful they will be).

[akhhorus]

Again, this is nothing more than a difference of opinion.

A portion of my federal tax dollars may be allocated to bailout the State of California.

However, I have no direct representation in that State.

Therefore I am being taxed without being afforded representation in California.

Thus my belief that this would be Taxation without representation.

I'm outta here. Thanks for the spirited debate.

Except that its covered by the 16th amendment. You are represented by your congressman and Senators.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Tax cuts had nothing to do with where we are today. That is a total fallacy and does not make any sense.


The tax cuts increased the budget deficit and the national debt. Guys who agree with your type of thinking doubled our debt. It put us in a profoundly weaker position to deal with Stimulus packages and bailouts right now.

Al Gore was right. Conservatives were wrong.

You probably believe the Bush tax cuts increased revenues. They don't even come close:

PRESIDENT BUSH wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Wednesday that "it is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues." The claim about fueling record revenue is flat wrong, and it is shocking that the president should persist in making such errors. After all, tax cuts are the central plank of his domestic policy. How can he fail to understand the basic facts about them?

This is not just our opinion. Harvard's N. Gregory Mankiw, an economic conservative who served as chairman of Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, has tested the hypothesis on which Mr. Bush's claim is based: He looked at the extent to which tax cuts stimulate extra growth and the extent to which that growth generates extra tax revenue that offsets the initial loss of revenue from the tax cut. Mr. Mankiw's conclusion: Even over the long term, once you've allowed all of the extra growth to feed through into extra revenue, cuts in capital taxes juice the economy enough to recoup half of the lost revenue, and cuts in income taxes deliver a boost that recoups 17 percent of the lost revenue. So a $100 billion cut in taxes on capital widens the budget deficit by $50 billion, and a $100 billion cut in income taxes widens the budget deficit by $83 billion.


If Mr. Bush does not believe Mr. Mankiw, perhaps he may believe the Congressional Budget Office. In a period when it was run by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another economic conservative who worked in Mr. Bush's White House, the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. On the most optimistic assumptions it could muster, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss.



Given our current economy, guess which set of assumptions came true?


Prodded by the White House, Treasury economists have calculated how much extra growth would result from making the Bush tax cuts permanent. They have concluded that economic output would rise by about 0.5 percent in the first six years and by an additional 0.2 percent in the "long term." Since the federal government collects around 18 percent of gross domestic product in taxes, enlarging GDP by 0.7 percent would result in extra tax revenue equivalent to 0.13 percent of GDP. That would offset less than a tenth of the revenue that would be lost because of the tax cuts.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010501801.html

Tax cuts take money away from a wasteful, inefficient and ineffective government

No they don't. They just increase our debt. See above. And I disagree with your broad brush assessment of the Government in general.

Government is wasteful at times, but also effective at times. For example nobody has died in a commercial jet accident in the last two years, due largely in part to the work of the efficient and effective federal Government.

"According to economists Tracy Foertsch and Ralph Rector, making the 2003 tax cuts permanent will annually add $76 billion to the GDP, create 709,000 jobs and add $200 billion to personal income."


700,000 jobs and $76 billion? That's nothing! We lost damn near 600,000 last Month-which is shocking to you I'm sure seeing as how the Bush tax cuts are still in place. With a fraction of the amount of money lost on the tax cuts the Fed could create that many jobs.

Total revenues lost from the tax cuts is about $3.9 trillion over ten years-5 times larger than a stimulus package that is predicted to created jobs by the millions.

http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

[BurgundyNGold]

Is anyone else getting a "rush to war" deja vu with this stimulus bill? The names have changed but the story seems eerily similar to me.

[akhhorus]

Is anyone else getting a "rush to war" deja vu with this stimulus bill? The names have changed but the story seems eerily similar to me.

I don't see the parallels. There's no experts saying that there's no crisis or that the reports of the crisis were overblown(or misleading), and the White House had to convince the opposition party to sign off on it in 02(the Dems were narrowly in charge of the Senate in 2002).

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't see the parallels. There's no experts saying that there's no crisis or that the reports of the crisis were overblown(or misleading), and the White House had to convince the opposition party to sign off on it in 02(the Dems were narrowly in charge of the Senate in 2002).
You really don't see the parallel? Then you're not trying.

In [year], [POTUS] used his popularity in a time of crisis to advance his agenda to [agenda]. A sell job was done to the American people, warning or dire consequences -- specifically, imagery of [imagery] -- to quickly ram through the necessary legislation. Critics claimed that there was no rush to do what [POTUS] suggested must be done and that it would be far more expensive than projected, only to be met with near frantic pleas about the cost of inaction. All the while, there were many [experts] who backed up the claims of the administration. In the end, the American people did not have the time to debate the merits of [agenda] as the short time line, the climate of fear and uncertainty allowed [POTUS] to ultimately [agenda].

Key:

Bush:

[year] 2003
[POTUS] President Bush
[agenda] Invasion of Iraq
[imagery] WMD's and the specter of a mushroom cloud in the US
[experts] intelligence agencies and former weapons inspectors

Obama:

[year] 2009
[POTUS] President Obama
[agenda] stimulus and government spending bill
[imagery] people losing their jobs, houses foreclosed and single mothers out on the street
[experts] economic advisors, university professors

It is precisely the same story. Try reading it with the key values inserted and tell me that it is still not 100% accurate.

[akhhorus]

You really don't see the parallel? Then you're not trying.

In [year], [POTUS] used his popularity in a time of crisis to advance his agenda of [agenda]. A sell job was done to the American people, warning or dire consequences -- specifically, imagery of [imagery] -- to quickly ram through the necessary legislation. Critics claimed that there was no rush to do what [POTUS] suggested must be done, only to be met with near frantic pleas about the cost of inaction. All the while, there were many [experts] who backed up the claims of the administration. In the end, the American people did not have the time to debate the merits of [agenda] as the short time line, the climate of fear and uncertainty allowed [POTUS] to ultimately [agenda].

Key:

Bush:

[year] 2003
[POTUS] President Bush
[agenda] Invasion of Iraq
[imagery] WMD's and the specter of a mushroom cloud in the US
[experts] intelligence agencies and former weapons inspectors

Obama:

[year] 2009
[POTUS] President Obama
[agenda] stimulus and government spending bill
[imagery] people losing their jobs, houses foreclosed and single mothers out on the street
[experts] economic advisors, university professors

It is precisely the same story. Try reading it with the key values inserted and tell me that it is still not 100% accurate.

Except that we know for 100% fact that jobs are being lost, houses being foreclosed on, economic troubles. Bush's imagery was sheer bluster(and as it turned out, bullcrap). Its one thing making up a straw man to rally support for policies when there are experts in the field saying that the problem is false/fake/overstated. There are no economists who say that the economy is actually fine or that these economic problems are vastly overstated. The experts just disagree on what to do about it. We're not going to find out that Obama had his finger on the economic stats to try and herd support for his stimulus package.

[RedskinsDave]

You really don't see the parallel? Then you're not trying.

In [year], [POTUS] used his popularity in a time of crisis to advance his agenda to [agenda]. A sell job was done to the American people, warning or dire consequences -- specifically, imagery of [imagery] -- to quickly ram through the necessary legislation. Critics claimed that there was no rush to do what [POTUS] suggested must be done and that it would be far more expensive than projected, only to be met with near frantic pleas about the cost of inaction. All the while, there were many [experts] who backed up the claims of the administration. In the end, the American people did not have the time to debate the merits of [agenda] as the short time line, the climate of fear and uncertainty allowed [POTUS] to ultimately [agenda].

Key:

Bush:

[year] 2003
[POTUS] President Bush
[agenda] Invasion of Iraq
[imagery] WMD's and the specter of a mushroom cloud in the US
[experts] intelligence agencies and former weapons inspectors

Obama:

[year] 2009
[POTUS] President Obama
[agenda] stimulus and government spending bill
[imagery] people losing their jobs, houses foreclosed and single mothers out on the street
[experts] economic advisors, university professors

It is precisely the same story. Try reading it with the key values inserted and tell me that it is still not 100% accurate.

Excellent point!

[BurgundyNGold]

Except that we know for 100% fact that jobs are being lost, houses being foreclosed on, economic troubles. Bush's imagery was sheer bluster(and as it turned out, bullcrap). Its one thing making up a straw man to rally support for policies when there are experts in the field saying that the problem is false/fake/overstated. There are no economists who say that the economy is actually fine or that these economic problems are vastly overstated. The experts just disagree on what to do about it. We're not going to find out that Obama had his finger on the economic stats to try and herd support for his stimulus package.
Yeah, but pointing out that Bush's imagery with the hindsight of 6 years in the rear view does not change the facts of what I am saying. Put yourself back into the same 9/11 aftermath point back in 2003 that we are now with the economic crisis in 2009. Without the benefit of hindsight, you're pretty much in the same position. A huge thing is about to happen and all we have to go on are the words of the administration and the "experts" and not a whole lot of time to digest the information.

Also, there were experts who dissented back then but, like now, they are marginalized, portrayed instead as, at best, incorrect and, at worst, partisans or "supply-siders who caused this mess in the first place".

And even if we do include hindsight, shouldn't that make any pragmatist that much more wary of letting the Fed spend more in one stroke that the entire 7 year costs of the War on Terror?

As for what to do, why not just buy up the current delinquent or foreclosing mortgages (and become the creditor)? Dump $500B into that and you'll solve most of the problem. That just leaves you with the lack of capital being loaned by banks to businesses which is still not happening. There are ideas on how to open that up without spending one single (additional) dime of deficit spending.

Why jam it through? The same reason that Bush wanted to jam the Iraq resolution through congress. So he can advance his agenda.

And I'm not even saying that I agree or disagree with the agenda. I'm just appalled by the tactic.

[Ibleedburgundy]

wow! There are also shocking parallels to Clinton's healthcare reform, Reagan's cold war spending, -they all fall under the category of "Presidents trying to do stuff." Amazing.

[akhhorus]

Yeah, but pointing out that Bush's imagery with the hindsight of 6 years in the rear view does not change the facts of what I am saying. Put yourself back into the same 9/11 aftermath point back in 2003 that we are now with the economic crisis in 2009. Without the benefit of hindsight, you're pretty much in the same position. A huge thing is about to happen and all we have to go on are the words of the administration and the "experts" and not a whole lot of time to digest the information.

Also, there were experts who dissented back then but, like now, they are marginalized, portrayed instead as, at best, incorrect and, at worst, partisans or "supply-siders who caused this mess in the first place".

And even if we do include hindsight, shouldn't that make any pragmatist that much more wary of letting the Fed spend more in one stroke that the entire 7 year costs of the War on Terror?

I have no desire to repeat myself, so just insert my last comment here as my response to this.

And not to be picky, but Congress approved 864 billion last year for Iraq, Afghanistan and military/security for the War on Terror alone.

As for what to do, why not just buy up the current delinquent or foreclosing mortgages (and become the creditor)? Dump $500B into that and you'll solve most of the problem. That just leaves you with the lack of capital being loaned by banks to businesses which is still not happening. There are ideas on how to open that up without spending one single (additional) dime of deficit spending.


The problem with a solution like this(which I agree in theory) was finally stated by the banking heads today on the Hill: they don't really want to sell the toxic paper right now because its more in their interest to value them at the levels they've decided on, rather than letting the market decide their value(which would cost them across the board). Letting them value their toxic paper for a bad bank idea(which is effectively what you're saying here) would cost about 4 trillion(based on the banks' value of their own paper).

The ultimate solution to the problem is to get that toxic paper moving out of the banks and into private equity. They would be much more attractive to that equity if they cramdowned the mortgages(for a fee to the holders), so that should be the first step, then opening up a market window for the toxic paper for the banks to earn a tax credit for every one they sell off.

Why jam it through? The same reason that Bush wanted to jam the Iraq resolution through congress. So he can advance his agenda.

Problem 1: Bush and his people were talking about invading Iraq before 9-11(wolfowitz was pushing it as early as 97).
Problem 2: Insert my last comment again here.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Why jam it through? The same reason that Bush wanted to jam the Iraq resolution through congress. So he can advance his agenda.


The agenda is definitely part of it. But I think the reason to jam it through is to stop the bleeding ASAP (580,000 jobs lost last Month).

[BurgundyNGold]

wow! There are also shocking parallels to Clinton's healthcare reform, Reagan's cold war spending, -they all fall under the category of "Presidents trying to do stuff." Amazing.
This might be the dumbest thing you've ever said.

[BurgundyNGold]

I have no desire to repeat myself, so just insert my last comment here as my response to this.
Translation: You didn't bother to consume my post into your consciousness.

And not to be picky, but Congress approved 864 billion last year for Iraq, Afghanistan and military/security for the War on Terror alone.
Please provide a link for that. Total WOT spending through 2006 hadn't topped $500B so I highly doubt there was $864B spent in a single year.

The problem with a solution like this(which I agree in theory) was finally stated by the banking heads today on the Hill: they don't really want to sell the toxic paper right now because its more in their interest to value them at the levels they've decided on, rather than letting the market decide their value(which would cost them across the board). Letting them value their toxic paper for a bad bank idea(which is effectively what you're saying here) would cost about 4 trillion(based on the banks' value of their own paper).
There are only $1T in total sub prime mortgages notes -- and that includes a good 20% or so in bank interest and charges. Of that $1T, not all are in default because not all are credit challenged or stupid. $500B more than cleans up the mortgage problems and effectively give the banks a do-over. It's then up to them to start lending money. How to do that? Suspend capital gains taxes for 12 months for loans in certain sectors (refi, small business, debt consolidation, etc.) Then raise the CG tax rate to 3% for 12-18 months. Then to 8% for 18 months to 24 months and so on. the Fed should be using the CG tax rates like they do the Fed key interest rates.

The ultimate solution to the problem is to get that toxic paper moving out of the banks and into private equity. They would be much more attractive to that equity if they cramdowned the mortgages(for a fee to the holders), so that should be the first step, then opening up a market window for the toxic paper for the banks to earn a tax credit for every one they sell off.
Let the mortgage holders choose to go that route or to have the Fed hold their note. If the Fed holds their note, the Fed can protect themselves like they do with IRS debts. The Fed will get paid back so long as the person lives in the US, but they can afford to give the homeowner a one time, fixed 5% rate.

Problem 1: Bush and his people were talking about invading Iraq before 9-11(wolfowitz was pushing it as early as 97).
Problem 2: Insert my last comment again here.
All of which came out after the fact. In 6 years we can have an apples to apples comparison that includes that fact. Until then, it cannot be included as it is immaterial.

[BurgundyNGold]

The agenda is definitely part of it. But I think the reason to jam it through is to stop the bleeding ASAP (580,000 jobs lost last Month).
You can talk about Libor/TED. You can talk about USD strength. You can talk about interest rates and capital gains. You can talk about the scam that is the Consumer Price Index (CPI). You can talk about whatever figures you want but, in the end, the only figure that matters to a free market economy is the Consumer Confidence Index (CCI). It's the opposite of supply side economics, so I figure you'll agree.

Right now (and for about 18 months) the CCI has been waning. It started with the deliberate deflation of the USD in order to ostensibly create jobs (which failed miserably, as the US as lost jobs every month since that policy was enacted). That affected people's confidence. Then, the oil/fuel prices took off, which affect the CCI that much more as prices from everything from gas to food to beer to dry cleaning. That was a huge hit. Then the subprime mortgage bubble burst, the market tanked and the banks revealed that they are run by idiots. And now, unpopular as it is, the Fed keeps giving our tax dollars to people to whom we don't want them going. Is it any wonder that the CCI is at an all time low with no end in sight?

Toxic debt is a red herring. People aren't buying so companies have cut back production and labor roles. Since they are producing less, there is less demand on the banks so the banks go with a more rigid lending policy (compounded by their brown eye blunder on the mortgages) so that the folks who do need the cash still can't get to it.

Fix consumer confidence and you'll fix the economy. People buy when they feel secure. They pucker up when they don't. Right now, they're puckered up tight.

[akhhorus]

Translation: You didn't bother to consume my post into your consciousness.

I read it, nothing you say has to do with what I said. I said, essentially, that there's a fundamental difference between situation A: where a President created a myth(knowingly or not) to advance a policy goal and situation B: where a President uses a 100% factual crisis to advance policy goals. And that while experts disagree on the solution to the economic crisis, no one disagrees with the fact that there is a crisis. In 2002, experts in the field disagreed on the solution to Iraq's WMD and whether or not they actually existed. Apples and Sarin Gas.

Please provide a link for that. Total WOT spending through 2006 hadn't topped $500B so I highly doubt there was $864B spent in a single year.


http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:jntJFM8VIE4J:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf+afghanistan+war+costs&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

My bad: 864 billion total from 01-08. 830 of which was just for Iraq/Afghanistan.

It would be relevant to point out that of the 800ish billion of the stim package, 550ish is spending, the rest are tax cuts.

There are only $1T in total sub prime mortgages notes -- and that includes a good 20% or so in bank interest and charges. Of that $1T, not all are in default because not all are credit challenged or stupid. $500B more than cleans up the mortgage problems and effectively give the banks a do-over. It's then up to them to start lending money. How to do that? Suspend capital gains taxes for 12 months for loans in certain sectors (refi, small business, debt consolidation, etc.) Then raise the CG tax rate to 3% for 12-18 months. Then to 8% for 18 months to 24 months and so on. the Fed should be using the CG tax rates like they do the Fed key interest rates.


If it would cost only 500 billion to fix the subprime problem like that, then how come absolutely no one is saying that? Why did they request 700 billion last year if they thought 500 billion could fix it? According to Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/01/29/afx5983769.html

Schumer and Goldman Sachs think that the costs start at 1 trillion and is probably closer to 3 trillion. I think your math is way off.

Let the mortgage holders choose to go that route or to have the Fed hold their note. If the Fed holds their note, the Fed can protect themselves like they do with IRS debts. The Fed will get paid back so long as the person lives in the US, but they can afford to give the homeowner a one time, fixed 5% rate.


The cramdowns, which is what they should do.

All of which came out after the fact. In 6 years we can have an apples to apples comparison that includes that fact. Until then, it cannot be included as it is immaterial.

Except that in order for it to be a fair comparison, you would have to show that Obama wanted to do some massive spending bill like the stimulus package before there were any hints of an economic crisis. You're comparing two totally different situations and declaring them identical despite the fact that they lack similarities.

[BurgundyNGold]

I read it, nothing you say has to do with what I said. I said, essentially, that there's a fundamental difference between situation A: where a President created a myth(knowingly or not) to advance a policy goal and situation B: where a President uses a 100% factual crisis to advance policy goals. And that while experts disagree on the solution to the economic crisis, no one disagrees with the fact that there is a crisis. In 2002, experts in the field disagreed on the solution to Iraq's WMD and whether or not they actually existed. Apples and Sarin Gas.
The problem is your perception and your desire to stat with certainty what each man was/is thinking. We cannot know those things so leave them alone and just look at the example I gave at face value.

Bush might every well have expected to find WMD in Iraq. Similarly, Obama might very well know that his stim package is effectively a supply side boondoggle that likely will not stem job losses any better than letting the market work the issues out for itself. There is no basis for saying with "100% factual" certainty that the stim package will solve the crisis or will even have an impact at all. And there's nothing to say that Obama doesn't know or somewhat believe that.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:jntJFM8VIE4J:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf+afghanistan+war+costs&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

My bad: 864 billion total from 01-08. 830 of which was just for Iraq/Afghanistan.
Well, that's consistentwith what I said. The Senate passed a $840B mess and the House version is looking to be about the same. They might trim is back to $750B but that's the starting point. Iraq was supposed to cost $100B - $200B and look at it now. We know what this figure is now and it is massive. We owe it to our children to talk about this and to be deliberate about it. Add in that Geithner is already talking about $2T in bailout money above and beyond the TARP and we need a freaking timeout here, lol.

It would be relevant to point out that of the 800ish billion of the stim package, 550ish is spending, the rest are tax cuts.
One time tax cuts don't work. As any Dem, lol. And $550B is still 4X what the initial Iraq estimates are. I'd be shocked if that figure stays at $550B after the end of Obama's first term.

If it would cost only 500 billion to fix the subprime problem like that, then how come absolutely no one is saying that? Why did they request 700 billion last year if they thought 500 billion could fix it?

According to Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/01/29/afx5983769.html

Schumer and Goldman Sachs think that the costs start at 1 trillion and is probably closer to 3 trillion. I think your math is way off.
For sub pimes? That's impossible. Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1714725,00.html

There are only $1T in sub primes with as many as $300B-$400B at risk. $500B would fix the problem. I think this is convenient collusion to get Wall Street tax payer subsidies and to get Shumer and the Dems their infrastructure agenda items and that we are getting hoodwinked, as my earlier post would suggest, for the sake of agenda.

The cramdowns, which is what they should do.
Cramdowns are effectively negated because of the changes to the bankruptcy laws. In the end, the banks and the credit cards companies do not want to see that happen and cannot survive it.

Except that in order for it to be a fair comparison, you would have to show that Obama wanted to do some massive spending bill like the stimulus package before there were any hints of an economic crisis. You're comparing two totally different situations and declaring them identical despite the fact that they lack similarities.
Whatever, man. I'm tired of this happening every time. You seize upon tree and miss the forest. Just, for once, see what I am saying. If you don't care to then don't respond.

[akhhorus]

The problem is your perception and your desire to stat with certainty what each man was/is thinking. We cannot know those things so leave them alone and just look at the example I gave at face value.


Their motives are relevant to your initial complaint. The Iraq war run up was misleading politics(if not flat out deception). The Stimulus package might end up being bad policy, but its not deceptive. There's no disagreement that we have major economic problems currently.

Bush might every well have expected to find WMD in Iraq. Similarly, Obama might very well know that his stim package is effectively a supply side boondoggle that likely will not stem job losses any better than letting the market work the issues out for itself.

The difference being that everyone agrees that something has to be done about the economy. That wasn't the case about Iraq/WMDs.

There is no basis for saying with "100% factual" certainty that the stim package will solve the crisis or will even have an impact at all. And there's nothing to say that Obama doesn't know or somewhat believe that.


I didn't say that the stim package would solve anything for certain or was 100% factual that it would solve the crisis. I said the crisis was 100% factual. WMDs weren't(even at the time we were being sold that story). Thats one of the cruxes of my argument to your point.

Well, that's consistentwith what I said. The Senate passed a $840B mess and the House version is looking to be about the same. They might trim is back to $750B but that's the starting point. Iraq was supposed to cost $100B - $200B and look at it now. We know what this figure is now and it is massive. We owe it to our children to talk about this and to be deliberate about it. Add in that Geithner is already talking about $2T in bailout money above and beyond the TARP and we need a freaking timeout here, lol.

Russian proverb: when the ice is thin, you have to run fast lol.

One time tax cuts don't work. As any Dem, lol. And $550B is still 4X what the initial Iraq estimates are. I'd be shocked if that figure stays at $550B after the end of Obama's first term.


Ok, but that's what the spending is in this specific bill. We can speculate on future spending, but its exactly that: speculation.

For sub pimes? That's impossible. Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1714725,00.html

There are only $1T in sub primes with as many as $300B-$400B at risk. $500B would fix the problem. I think this is convenient collusion to get Wall Street tax payer subsidies and to get Shumer and the Dems their infrastructure agenda items and that we are getting hoodwinked, as my earlier post would suggest, for the sake of agenda.


Then explain to me why absolutely no one in the economics field is saying what you're saying please.

Cramdowns are effectively negated because of the changes to the bankruptcy laws. In the end, the banks and the credit cards companies do not want to see that happen and cannot survive it.


Which is why the want(and should get) a fee for each one they cramdown.

Whatever, man. I'm tired of this happening every time. You seize upon tree and miss the forest. Just, for once, see what I am saying. If you don't care to then don't respond.

I am seeing what you're saying. You want a slow down on the stimulus package(and TARP II) to make sure that its the correct policy because of Bush's rush to war on Iraq. I get that(on TARP 2, I agree). I'm pointing out the fundamental differences between Bush's war push and addressing the current economic situation.

And I'm not grabbing at any tree, I'm trying to show you why the forests are totally different.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Toxic debt is a red herring. People aren't buying so companies have cut back production and labor roles. Since they are producing less, there is less demand on the banks so the banks go with a more rigid lending policy (compounded by their brown eye blunder on the mortgages) so that the folks who do need the cash still can't get to it.

Fix consumer confidence and you'll fix the economy. People buy when they feel secure. They pucker up when they don't. Right now, they're puckered up tight.

Not trying to discount the rest of your post, just didn't feel the need to quote it all.

If the stimulus creates jobs, or even slows the trend of job loss, it will have a positive impact on CCI.

I think you point about taking a timeout to examine what is the best way to proceed is perfectly reasonable.

[BurgundyNGold]

Their motives are relevant to your initial complaint. The Iraq war run up was misleading politics(if not flat out deception). The Stimulus package might end up being bad policy, but its not deceptive. There's no disagreement that we have major economic problems currently.
The comparison says nothing about the honesty or dishonesty of the parties, only that they are feeding through an agenda quickly and, probably, irresponsibly. This is what happened with Iraq, This is what happened with the TARP. The point is that we are not learning our lessons, as it is happening again.

And the stim pkg is equally as dishonest as the Iraq campaign (and the TARP) inasmuch as it is being crammed through without the proper level of discussion or review by the American people. 7 days of faux debate before folks can digest the pkg in the face of "economic disaster" threats is much more like the Iraq lead up than it is different.

The difference being that everyone agrees that something has to be done about the economy. That wasn't the case about Iraq/WMDs.
But not everyone agrees that the stimulus is the answer or that the current form of the stimulus is the answer. Much like the march up to Iraq (and the TARP), the dissenters have been silenced or marginalized and the debate has been cut off by an intentionally short conception to legislation period.

I didn't say that the stim package would solve anything for certain or was 100% factual that it would solve the crisis. I said the crisis was 100% factual. WMDs weren't(even at the time we were being sold that story). Thats one of the cruxes of my argument to your point.
Understand where you are wrong: You *think* that the current "crisis" is 100% factual. You, me and a whole lot of others. Many do not think that. In this way the current "crisis" is not different and is not less factual than the Iraq WMD and mushroom crowd crisis in the aftermath of 9/11. In the face of that evidence and with the fear mongering town criers swinging bells from every street corner, it was very real and the crisis just as factual.

Unless you can tell me that you were up here telling everyone in 2003 that Wolfowitz had manufactured the threat as part of a 1997 manifesto and that there were no WMD in Iraq and that they truly posed no threat, than you have absolutely no foundation for claiming that, at the time, the evidence for the Iraq threat was any less credible than you can say the current economic crisis is. The reasoning is because in both cases, you do not know what the POTUS knows. Neither do I and we cannot know. In order for us to have that misinformation conversation regarding the cvurrent economic crisis in parallel to the Iraq march, we'll have to wait until we havfe hindsight.

Does that make sense? I hope so because it is my last time explaining it.

Ok, but that's what the spending is in this specific bill. We can speculate on future spending, but its exactly that: speculation.
I am not speculating. I am only saying that, as a first stroke, we've debting away $820B for a stim pkg. Add in $700B for TARP and now we're at $1.5T. And for what? They could have bought and paid for every late mortgage in America for that amount. None of this perks your ears up at all? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Then explain to me why absolutely no one in the economics field is saying what you're saying please.
I don't know, maybe they are. I haven't researched it too much from that angle, but CNBC and Bloomberg sure don't like this stim opkg. And neither did the market when it passed.

And I don't care that nobody thinks one thing or another. Maybe when some shows me one respected expert that state unequivocally that Iraq had no WMDs (aside from Baghdad Bob, lol) I might be more inclined to care. The reality is that almost everyone thought we'd find them. Even the UN thought we'd find some.

Which is why the want(and should get) a fee for each one they cramdown.
If the Fed actually cared about people, they'd do better to revoke that crime of a bankruptcy law.

I am seeing what you're saying. You want a slow down on the stimulus package(and TARP II) to make sure that its the correct policy because of Bush's rush to war on Iraq. I get that. I'm pointing out the fundamental differences between Bush's war push and addressing the current economic situation.
Certainly, there are differences. But when you take out the hindsight, there are too many similarities to just ignore because Obama is a cool guy. I'm tired of being fooled by the faux hysterics.

There are 55,000 cars sitting on a Baltimore dock right now, They've been there for months. If GM or the Fed gave a rat's arse about people of the economy, they'd sell those cars for 50% discount rather than take huge losses in storage, reduce production, lay off workers and then be stuck with 55,000 cars in 6 months that will never sell because the 2010 models will be coming out.

It has become abundantly clear that the world is run by idiots. If we believe what they tell us without bothering to look around at reality, we should be counted among them.

[RedskinsDave]

Not trying to discount the rest of your post, just didn't feel the need to quote it all.

If the stimulus creates jobs, or even slows the trend of job loss, it will have a positive impact on CCI.

I think you point about taking a timeout to examine what is the best way to proceed is perfectly reasonable.

That's all I think they should do. Take a breath and figure it out. Obama and company tossed out a piece of dung and they want everyone to dig in. I don't see the harm in taking a little bit of time to get it right. Obama wants in done now because he knows all his pets have stuff to gain from the current make up and parsing it will only reveal more.

[akhhorus]

The comparison says nothing about the honesty or dishonesty of the parties, only that they are feeding through an agenda quickly and, probably, irresponsibly. This is what happened with Iraq, This is what happened with the TARP. The point is that we are not learning our lessons, as it is happening again.

I've pointed out the differences, and I'm just not going to repeat myself.

And the stim pkg is equally as dishonest as the Iraq campaign (and the TARP) inasmuch as it is being crammed through without the proper level of discussion or review by the American people. 7 days of faux debate before folks can digest the pkg in the face of "economic disaster" threats is much more like the Iraq lead up than it is different.

You can have that opinion if you want. But if the stimulus package had "faux debate" then every piece of legislature had "faux debate."

But not everyone agrees that the stimulus is the answer or that the current form of the stimulus is the answer. Much like the march up to Iraq (and the TARP), the dissenters have been silenced or marginalized and the debate has been cut off by an intentionally short conception to legislation period.


Thats totally irrelevant to my point.

Understand where you are wrong: You *think* that the current "crisis" is 100% factual. You, me and a whole lot of others. Many do not think that.

Oh really? Who doesn't think that the economy isn't in a crisis?

In this way the current "crisis" is not different and is not less factual than the Iraq WMD and mushroom crowd crisis in the aftermath of 9/11. In the face of that evidence and with the fear mongering town criers swinging bells from every street corner, it was very real and the crisis just as factual.


Wrong, wrong and wrong. Whether or not Iraq had WMDs was a matter of interpretation. Whether or not the US is in a recession(and a deep on at that) isn't. This is my point. I don't know what you're arguing with me about on this point frankly.

Unless you can tell me that you were up here telling everyone in 2003 that Wolfowitz had manufactured the threat as part of a 1997 manifesto and that there were no WMD in Iraq and that they truly posed no threat, than you have absolutely no foundation for claiming that, at the time, the evidence for the Iraq threat was any less credible than you can say the current economic crisis is. The reasoning is because in both cases, you do not know what the POTUS knows. Neither do I and we cannot know. In order for us to have that misinformation conversation regarding the cvurrent economic crisis in parallel to the Iraq march, we'll have to wait until we havfe hindsight.

The evidence of the Iraq threat was circumstantial. Even Dick Cheney said that. The fact that we're in a deep recession is a fact. Unless you want to try and argue that we're not in a recession and everything is fine?

Does that make sense? I hope so because it is my last time explaining it.


I think you need to go back and read what you wrote.

I am not speculating. I am only saying that, as a first stroke, we've debting away $820B for a stim pkg. Add in $700B for TARP and now we're at $1.5T. And for what? They could have bought and paid for every late mortgage in America for that amount. None of this perks your ears up at all? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.


Aren't you the same person who was saying that the stimulus package was too small because the economy of the US was so large recently? The Stim package isn't for housing, its for the general economy.

I don't know, maybe they are. I haven't researched it too much from that angle, but CNBC and Bloomberg sure don't like this stim opkg. And neither did the market when it passed.


The stimulus package has nothing to do with TARP 2.

And I don't care that nobody thinks one thing or another. Maybe when some shows me one respected expert that state unequivocally that Iraq had no WMDs (aside from Baghdad Bob, lol) I might be more inclined to care. The reality is that almost everyone thought we'd find them. Even the UN thought we'd find some.


I've been over this too many times, but not everyone thought we'd find them. The Europeans didn't believe the source we used to make the case for war. Don't you remember what brought down Tony Blair? That the Brits thought the WMD case was crap?

If the Fed actually cared about people, they'd do better to revoke that crime of a bankruptcy law.

You'll never get agreement on how to change it, especially with Jesse Jackson pushing for it now.

Certainly, there are differences. But when you take out the hindsight, there are too many similarities to just ignore because Obama is a cool guy. I'm tired of being fooled by the faux hysterics.


Even taking the players out of this, there are no real similarities. Using an analogy: one person talked you attacking your neighbor's house to prevent a fire in order to try prevent a fire, the other person is going to try(key word) to put out a fire at an expensive cost.

There are 55,000 cars sitting on a Baltimore dock right now, They've been there for months. If GM or the Fed gave a rat's arse about people of the economy, they'd sell those cars for 50% discount rather than take huge losses in storage, reduce production, lay off workers and then be stuck with 55,000 cars in 6 months that will never sell because the 2010 models will be coming out.

The world is run by idiots. If we believe what they tell us without bothering to look around at reality, we should be counted among them.

I'm not disagreeing on the poor state of leadership, but there's just no parallels between the Iraq war run up and addressing the economic crisis.

[BurgundyNGold]

Not trying to discount the rest of your post, just didn't feel the need to quote it all.

If the stimulus creates jobs, or even slows the trend of job loss, it will have a positive impact on CCI.

I think you point about taking a timeout to examine what is the best way to proceed is perfectly reasonable.
That's the trick. It's almost sleight of hand. Reagan knew it. The US didn't get out of the 70s slump and start doing well again in the 80s until Reagan started beating up on Grenada, Libya, et al. Americans got a stiff willy and the CCI went up. The same thing happened with Clinton and the Internet. the economy boomed on the promise of the Internet, not necessarily the delivery. ;)

It's pretty simple, really. People need to feel better about things. If the stim pkg can help swing the CCI pendulum back the other way, then it will have worked. But the reality is probably that it will not have a huge impact. Without industry fixing it's own bloated inadequacies (which might very well mean more job losses before sector reallocation gains) it will be little more than a blip.

The best way to fix the CCI? Screw the banks and the greedy, lazy sloppy bastards who dug their on graves on these sub primes. Buy up the bad sub prime mortgages and give the homeowners fixed 15 and 30 years mortgages based on the VA model. Extend 0% capital gains taxes for loans made by banks to green and new economy technology jobs. Extend the 0% to infrastructure improvement projects, job retooling and a few other sectors, as well. Once those sectors start popping and what folks see on "Ecopolis" actually being to come to pass, the CCI will easily gain .com levels again. Finally, lower the tax rates for small business to next to nothing to make it worthwhile to risk and become a bsuiness owner.

Make people feel good again. There are opportunities out there. Loads of them. Obama needs to leave the tax cut gimmicks behind, help people to remember their greatness and lead them into the 21st century economy.

[BurgundyNGold]

I've pointed out the differences, and I'm just not going to repeat myself.
Neither am I. I've stated my points and I think everyone up here knows exactly what I'm saying and can see the parallel without a seeing eye dog. Hence, no real argument.

[akhhorus]

Neither am I. I've stated my points and I think everyone up here knows exactly what I'm saying and that it is not illogical. Hence, no real argument.

Except that in order to agree with what you're claiming, you have to believe the premise that the economic crisis of today even has a tiny potential chance of being fake or vastly overblown. I'm sorry, but thats a premise I believe is impossible. Everything you say in your posts depend on that premise, and I seriously doubt you can find 1 expert who would agree with that.

[BurgundyNGold]

Except that in order to agree with what you're claiming, you have to believe the premise that the economic crisis of today even has a tiny potential chance of being fake or vastly overblown. I'm sorry, but thats a premise I believe is impossible. Everything you say in your posts depend on that premise, and I seriously doubt you can find 1 expert who would agree with that.
I am asking you to remember how things went down at the time, after 9/11, in 2003 before the Iraq War and to put your consciousness back into that state. Then, as a though experiment, to compare that situation with this one with the stim pkg. The exercise does not require you to keep injecting facts that we all learned after the fact into the experiment. In fact, it completely destroys the exercise without ever giving it a chance to run through.

The idea is to put two things together from a perspective of circumstance in a sliver of time. Only after you have seen the similarities should you step out and then inject the hindsight facts about the Iraq War into the case, Once you do that, it makes you look at this stim pkg business with a fresh eye. At least, it did for me.

If you believed at the time that the Iraq War case was fake or overblown, that's OK. You'd be one of the very, very few who thought our (modern) government insidious enough to do what they ultimately did.

[akhhorus]

I am asking you to remember how things went down at the time, after 9/11, in 2003 before the Iraq War and to put your consciousness back into that state. Then, as a though experiment, to compare that situation with this one with the stim pkg. The exercise does not require you to keep injecting facts that we all learned after the fact into the experiment. In fact, it completely destroys the exercise without ever giving it a chance to run through.

The idea is to put two things together from a perspective of circumstance in a sliver of time. Only after you have seen the similarities should you step out and then inject the hindsight facts about the Iraq War into the case, Once you do that, it makes you look at this stim pkg business with a fresh eye. At least, it did for me.

If you believed at the time that the Iraq War case was fake or overblown, that's OK. You'd be one of the very, very few who thought our (modern) government insidious enough to do what they ultimately did.

At the time, I was in favor of the Iraq war, not just because of Wmds(from what I saw, I thought there was a good case, but I didn't know that Bush himself questioned the case for WMDs or that the WH stripped out the caveats in the CIA intel), but a successful war there would serve to create counterweights to a lot of problems(Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria) of ours in the middle east(and we totally botched that). I've said I don't agree with the composition of the stimulus package, but I agree with the principle of it.

No matter how burned I feel about the run up to war(and I do feel burned after reading Woodward's books), I believe that a spending package is the way to go with the general economy(not referring to TARP at all here, although despite all its problems, TARP 1 worked). And I honestly don't see any parallels between what Bush was pushing and what Obama is now. Whether or not you agree with the stimulus package, the economic crisis is real and requires solutions. I would see a parallel if it was:
1-Obama trying to build support for a war against someone on a case that wasn't a slam dunk
2-The same people who pushed the WMD case(in and out of government) are trying to push another policy objective.

[BurgundyNGold]

At the time, I was in favor of the Iraq war, not just because of Wmds(from what I saw, I thought there was a good case, but I didn't know that Bush himself questioned the case for WMDs or that the WH stripped out the caveats in the CIA intel), but a successful war there would serve to create counterweights to a lot of problems(Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria) of ours in the middle east(and we totally botched that). I've said I don't agree with the composition of the stimulus package, but I agree with the principle of it.

No matter how burned I feel about the run up to war(and I do feel burned after reading Woodward's books), I believe that a spending package is the way to go with the general economy(not referring to TARP at all here, although despite all its problems, TARP 1 worked). And I honestly don't see any parallels between what Bush was pushing and what Obama is now. Whether or not you agree with the stimulus package, the economic crisis is real and requires solutions. I would see a parallel if it was:
1-Obama trying to build support for a war against someone on a case that wasn't a slam dunk
2-The same people who pushed the WMD case(in and out of government) are trying to push another policy objective.
I guess my personal questions relate to the criticality of the economy and the need for that particular stimulus. There's a lot of flash paper in it (tax cuts, etc) that will burn up quickly and brightly but won't leave very much behind.

And as for the spending initiatives, I just wonder why nobody is addressing the debt and lack of credit. The Fed could stimulate mortgage lending by dropping capital gains for banks that make certain loans for certain sectors. Want to help small business? Let them get consolidation loans at a fixed 6% instead of paying 11.9-28.9% for their current lines of credit. Hell, they could do this for individuals too. We could help America clean up their credit problems without doing much more than insuring loans and letting banks make great, untaxed profits for a while on such loans. You kill at least two birds with one stone and as people get out of debt, the CCI will jump.

If it worked, you could extend that plan into initiatives. You could give no or low CG rewards to banks who load to small businesses or businesses that are serving green or new tech sectors. You could further cut tax rates for certain sectors.

These are good, "progressive" ideas. And just because no economist is thinking this or saying this doesn't mean that it's not a good idea. Economics needs a Howard Roark, as it is, lol.

[akhhorus]

I guess my personal questions relate to the criticality of the economy and the need for that particular stimulus. There's a lot of flash paper in it (tax cuts, etc) that will burn up quickly and brightly but won't leave very much behind.

You'd agree that this is a whole different debate than what we were having, no? We can argue the wisdom of various plans, but there's no debate that a plan is needed.

And as for the spending initiatives, I just wonder why nobody is addressing the debt and lack of credit. The Fed could stimulate mortgage lending by dropping capital gains for banks that make certain loans for certain sectors. Want to help small business? Let them get consolidation loans at a fixed 6% instead of paying 11.9-28.9% for their current lines of credit. Hell, they could do this for individuals too. We could help America clean up their credit problems without doing much more than insuring loans and letting banks make great, untaxed profits for a while on such loans. You kill at least two birds with one stone and as people get out of debt, the CCI will jump.

If it worked, you could extend that plan into initiatives. You could give no or low CG rewards to banks who load to small businesses or businesses that are serving green or new tech sectors. You could further cut tax rates for certain sectors.


I think that could/should be the basis of another bill. The stim package, now, is really a laundry list of pork/non-pork spending/tax changes meant to try and spur states to spend on the same thing(and giving them the financial security to do so).


These are good, "progressive" ideas. And just because no economist is thinking this or saying this doesn't mean that it's not a good idea. Economics needs a Howard Roark, as it is, lol.

Did we have a bet on the first Fountainhead reference in this forum? lol.

The problem is that since there are so many economists, and especially so many economists who blog/comment on the issues of the day, the fact that none of the various economic factions are pushing an idea makes me wonder about the validity of any specific idea. I'm not saying that Krugman or Friedman has a monopoly of economic wisdom, but if they(and especially the policy makers) aren't even leaking consideration about an idea, it makes me wonder about it. I don't quibble with your 500 billion figure for the subprime paper, but if thats the only problem and would only cost that much to fix, then the government/congress/treasury would be at least considering it/mentioning it.

[BurgundyNGold]

You'd agree that this is a whole different debate than what we were having, no? We can argue the wisdom of various plans, but there's no debate that a plan is needed.
I thought we understood each other so I just moved on to some other aspect of discussion, lol. Sorry, I should have done a better job; maybe a segue.

A plan, a policy, whatever. A president always needs to have his economic initiatives and a president with such a sluggish economy needs even more initiatives. I think there should be government action, in the manner that I have suggested. Call it a stimulus, call it intervention. Either way, I'm fine. But whatever is done, it should be weighed and measured in the light, not crafted in the dark recesses of the Capitol and then hurried through Congress in a week while the President wags his finger about the dangers of dragging feet.

I don't like this plan. I don't see much that is very stimulating about it but it still manages to be extremely costly. Maybe the House plan will be better.

I think that could/should be the basis of another bill. The stim package, now, is really a laundry list of pork/non-pork spending/tax changes meant to try and spur states to spend on the same thing(and giving them the financial security to do so).
Are the states bailed out in this "stimulus package"?

And I understand that there are a lot of pet projects in the purported stim pkg. That's what pisses me off. It's $800B of air that likely won't do much but put us nearly another $1T in debt. Then they have to come behind it with the real defibrulation. Well, if that's the case, WTF is the hurry for this first stim pkg anyway?

Did we have a bet on the first Fountainhead reference in this forum? lol.
No, but suffice to say that I cleared that off of my re-reading list recently. Finally saw the King Vidor version too. Very well done.

The problem is that since there are so many economists, and especially so many economists who blog/comment on the issues of the day, the fact that none of the various economic factions are pushing an idea makes me wonder about the validity of any specific idea. I'm not saying that Krugman or Friedman has a monopoly of economic wisdom, but if they(and especially the policy makers) aren't even leaking consideration about an idea, it makes me wonder about it. I don't quibble with your 500 billion figure for the subprime paper, but if thats the only problem and would only cost that much to fix, then the government/congress/treasury would be at least considering it/mentioning it.
Not necessarily. If it was in Reps interest to capitalize the banks with TARP and the interest of Wall Street for it to happen, why would either mention alternatives? If it was in the Dems interest to capitalize their new infrastructure and social initiatives, why would they mention that their spending probably won't actually give much of a jolt to the economy? They're all just making hay while the sun shines, so to speak.

The frackin' economy has a severed leg and the idiots in charge are putting tourniquets on both arms, lol.

[akhhorus]

I thought we understood each other so I just moved on to some other aspect of discussion, lol. Sorry, I should have done a better job; maybe a segue.

A plan, a policy, whatever. A president always needs to have his economic initiatives and a president with such a sluggish economy needs even more initiatives. I think there should be government action, in the manner that I have suggested. Call it a stimulus, call it intervention. Either way, I'm fine. But whatever is done, it should be weighed and measured in the light, not crafted in the dark recesses of the Capitol and then hurried through Congress in a week while the President wags his finger about the dangers of dragging feet.


Over a week of senate bioviating isn't enough for you? lol

I don't like this plan. I don't see much that is very stimulating about it but it still manages to be extremely costly. Maybe the House plan will be better.

They met each other halfway it looks: cut out some of the tax cuts to restore spending.

Are the states bailed out in this "stimulus package"?


They're getting some programs funded(Medicare, etc). The majority of the money for energy efficiency and such are going to the state offices for them to spend.

And I understand that there are a lot of pet projects in the purported stim pkg. That's what pisses me off. It's $800B of air that likely won't do much but put us nearly another $1T in debt. Then they have to come behind it with the real defibrulation. Well, if that's the case, WTF is the hurry for this first stim pkg anyway?


790ish total, most of it spending. I think the hurry is that it will take about 4ish months to get the money into the economy, and they don't want to wait until effectively the 4th quarter to see any results.

No, but suffice to say that I cleared that off of my re-reading list recently. Finally saw the King Vidor version too. Very well done.

Yeah, the make some cuts to the book, but it was great. LIke I told you: captured the real tragedy of the story.

Not necessarily. If it was in Reps interest to capitalize the banks with TARP and the interest of Wall Street for it to happen, why would either mention alternatives? If it was in the Dems interest to capitalize their new infrastructure and social initiatives, why would they mention that their spending probably won't actually give much of a jolt to the economy? They're all just making hay while the sun shines, so to speak.

Thats just talking about one segment of the economic discussion, even if you accept your premise. I have yet to see any economist or commentator say the things you're saying. Or any leaks from disgruntled policy makers who want to "do the right thing" saying anything close to your views.

[BurgundyNGold]

Thats just talking about one segment of the economic discussion, even if you accept your premise. I have yet to see any economist or commentator say the things you're saying. Or any leaks from disgruntled policy makers who want to "do the right thing" saying anything close to your views.
Well, here is a petition of 200 economists who think the "stimulus" plan is a bad idea ...

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

Of course, these are folks who have signed a CATO institute petition. So, I'm sure they're not mainstream enough or their academic credentials should be ignored for some other reason. Not necessarily by you, but no doubt by a whole lot of people, given that so many think and have convinced others to think that nobody is in opposition.

BTW, Martin Feldstein (who opposes the stim pkg) has some pretty good ideas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012802938.html) on how to use targets government spending and temporary tax credits that can be used to helop the economy now -- not downstream in April of 2010 and 2011 when taxes are paid.

[akhhorus]

Well, here is a petition of 200 economists who think the "stimulus" plan is a bad idea ...

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

Of course, these are folks who have signed a CATO institute petition. So, I'm sure they're not mainstream enough or their academic credentials should be ignored for some other reason. Not necessarily by you, but no doubt by a whole lot of people, given that so many think and have convinced others to think that nobody is in opposition.

I'm not talking about opposing the stimulus. There's even keyesians who oppose the stimulus for various reasons. I'm talking about your ideas for solutions. Specifically that all you need is 500 billion to fix the housing mess.

[BurgundyNGold]

I'm not talking about opposing the stimulus. There's even keyesians who oppose the stimulus for various reasons. I'm talking about your ideas for solutions. Specifically that all you need is 500 billion to fix the housing mess.
I don't hear anybody mentioning the prospects of anything I'm suggesting, whether it's insuring mortgages and consolidation loans to increase lending or providing temporary, targeted corporate tax and capital gains relief for bank loans to start getting credit moving.

Does that mean they're bad ideas? Or that they're not doable? Who knows. In this entire country the entire debate been limited to a handful of options. And the ones that don't involved government spending don't seem to be getting much air time.

For me, the bottom line is that the folks who authored this bill either had an agenda to help their states or their party. I've spent my whole life advocating ideas that others hadn't thought of, or at least asking "why not?" for unpopular ideas that they had. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not. In any case, I have no problem standing alone with my ideas and I'm not particularly discomforted if other people haven't come up with them yet.

The real question is, why have there not been more ideas like these made available for discussion? I'm sure there are better ideas than mine out there. Why do we need the same tired old solutions?

[akhhorus]

I don't hear anybody mentioning the prospects of anything I'm suggesting, whether it's insuring mortgages and consolidation loans to increase lending or providing temporary, targeted corporate tax and capital gains relief for bank loans to start getting credit moving.

Thats not true, the Feds were kicking around the "bad bank" idea last week, some of your ideas are similar to that. Its a terrible idea imo, because either you pay what you want for the bad paper(thus killing the banks' balance sheets and they have no financial incentive to do the plan) or you pay what the banks want for it(and it will cost trillions).

Does that mean they're bad ideas? Or that they're not doable? Who knows. In this entire country the entire debate been limited to a handful of options. And the ones that don't involved government spending don't seem to be getting much air time.


Thats not true at all.

For me, the bottom line is that the folks who authored this bill either had an agenda to help their states or their party. I've spent my whole life advocating ideas that others hadn't thought of, or at least asking "why not?" for unpopular ideas that they had. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not. In any case, I have no problem standing alone with my ideas and I'm not particularly discomforted if other people haven't come up with them yet.


My God. Politicians helping their parties or their constituents. A first in representative politics lol.

The real question is, why have there not been more ideas like these made available for discussion? I'm sure there are better ideas than mine out there. Why do we need the same tired old solutions?

There have been many different ideas discussed among the policy makers and the pundits for fixing the banks. However, I have yet to hear anyone say that fixing the housing mess will only take 500 billion. Considering the figures being kicked around, I don't believe that they would pass on a relatively cheap solution like that.

[BurgundyNGold]

Thats not true, the Feds were kicking around the "bad bank" idea last week, some of your ideas are similar to that. Its a terrible idea imo, because either you pay what you want for the bad paper(thus killing the banks' balance sheets and they have no financial incentive to do the plan) or you pay what the banks want for it(and it will cost trillions).
I'm not advocating this. In typical government style, they're addressing the worn side of the equation. The banks made the loans. They deserve what they get. They should be addressing the individual and small business dept. They can't buy because they can't afford to. They're paying credit cards and business loans at 12-28% and it's crushing them. they can;t play the shell game. They need to consolidate, but they can't because the credit isn't there. Allow them to consolidate and the "bad" paper is all of a sudden paid off and "good". Then, the banks only have to manage one, fixed long term loan.

Now, I understand that a 6 step process to correct the posture of a guy with a toothache is more elegant, but sometimes the simplest and most direct solution is the more truly elegant. That is, of course, if you're interested in solving a problem and not merely playing economic 3 Card Monty with our tax dollars.

Thats not true at all.
That's a weak retort. How about showing me an example where a viable alternative to government spending was advanced, debated and considered en masse, say on NBC Nightly news or in the WaPo.

I've seen dozens of stimulus stories in each outlet and nothing in the way of alternative remedy outside of CNBC and Bloomberg.

My God. Politicians helping their parties or their constituents. A first in representative politics lol.
There's a time and a place for that crap. If the economy is as bad as advertised, we should build a Bastille for these politicians as an infrastructure project, specifically in front of which to lop off their heads, lol.

There have been many different ideas discussed among the policy makers and the pundits for fixing the banks. However, I have yet to hear anyone say that fixing the housing mess will only take 500 billion. Considering the figures being kicked around, I don't believe that they would pass on a relatively cheap solution like that.
Have you heard anyone actually discuss working through the banks to apply a fixed mortgage rate for the sub primes? If so, how much was that to cost? Who would have been helped? How much would it have cost?

I would have thought that would have been the very FIRST plan and that if it were to be dismissed as too expensive, we would have been told the figure and how it was derived. I read quite a bit and watch quite a bit of financial news and I haven't seen that. Have you?

The difference between you and I is that you are willing to be trusting. After the Iraq War and other such fiascos, save perhaps Obama himself, I'm just not willing to believe in the inherently benevolent motives of our elected leadership -- especially in the face of decades of blatant displays of self interest and veritable economic sloth.

[akhhorus]

I'm not advocating this. In typical government style, they're addressing the worn side of the equation. The banks made the loans. They deserve what they get. They should be addressing the individual and small business dept. They can't buy because they can't afford to. They're paying credit cards and business loans at 12-28% and it's crushing them. they can;t play the shell game. They need to consolidate, but they can't because the credit isn't there. Allow them to consolidate and the "bad" paper is all of a sudden paid off and "good". Then, the banks only have to manage one, fixed long term loan.

Now, I understand that a 6 step process to correct the posture of a guy with a toothache is more elegant, but sometimes the simplest and most direct solution is the more truly elegant. That is, of course, if you're interested in solving a problem and not merely playing economic 3 Card Monty with our tax dollars.


Any program that involves moving their bad paper to a government entity is some sort of bad bank plan. So what is your plan? Dumping an amount of cash into the banks to pay for that paper(your 500 billion claim)? You criticize TARP, but that sounds like the exact same thing.

That's a weak retort. How about showing me an example where a viable alternative to government spending was advanced, debated and considered en masse, say on NBC Nightly news or in the WaPo.

Jim Cramer has been saying a few times a week that his plan is to open a special government trading desk so that private money can value the toxic paper, then buy it(with or without government assistance) off the banks to clear it. Is he mainstream enough for you, considering that he hits all the NBC properties as the economic guru?(nevermind that his stock picks are awful)

I've seen dozens of stimulus stories in each outlet and nothing in the way of alternative remedy outside of CNBC and Bloomberg.

Try reading calculated risk or Felix Salmon.

There's a time and a place for that crap. If the economy is as bad as advertised, we should build a Bastille for these politicians as an infrastructure project, specifically in front of which to lop off their heads, lol.


Thats the cornerstone of the system.

Have you heard anyone actually discuss working through the banks to apply a fixed mortgage rate for the sub primes? If so, how much was that to cost? Who would have been helped? How much would it have cost?


I believe I posted a link about that.

I would have thought that would have been the very FIRST plan and that if it were to be dismissed as too expensive, we would have been told the figure and how it was derived. I read quite a bit and watch quite a bit of financial news and I haven't seen that. Have you?


Yes, I do read a lot of financial news, and I haven't heard ANYONE say that the subprime problem would only cost 500 billion to fix. No one. Not even the most optimistic of economists.

The difference between you and I is that you are willing to be trusting.

Oh please. You can stop that line right now. At some point, unless you just want the entire system to burn down, you have to trust some politician/expert. And if you want the entire system to burn down, let me know and I'll just walk away since discussions with anarchist are futile.

After the Iraq War and other such fiascos, save perhaps Obama himself, I'm just not willing to believe in the inherently benevolent motives of our elected leadership -- especially in the face of decades of blatant displays of self interest and veritable economic sloth.

Except that the current leadership wasn't involved with those decisions. And I didn't say that any leadership always(or commonly) has benevolent motives. No matter what ANYONE does, someone will benefit from it, and someone will get hurt. Unless you have some solution that solves the problem without hurting or favoring anyone?

[fpickering]

Earmarks and pork are two different things. An Earmark is specific legislative measure in which a member of congress can put in an appropriation without having their name attached to it outside of the bill text(and it doesn't have to go through the appros process). "Pork" is slang for any spending that members of congress(or outside observers) want to call wasteful(whether or not its actually wasteful). The stimulus package has no earmarks in it. The list Taylor posts is spending that was not requested as earmarks. Is this yet another subject you have no clue about?


Even if one assumes that there are no earmarks in the bill, my original point was that Obama lied when he said that there were no pet projects or earmarks in the bill. There clearly were pet projects at the time of his declaration. Despite his promise of transparency (another Obama lie) portions of the bill were dug up that proved it.

What did you hope to prove by cherry picking my point and asserting that there were no earmarks? First of all, you can't prove it and second knowing that there were pet projects alone make his statement a lie.




The economist you quote makes no such claim. He criticizes the composition of the stimulus package, nothing more. So, yet another thing you're wrong about or misleading.


The economist says in plain words that there is no need for a stimulus package and government intervention.

"A far more important measure that Congress can take towards a healthy economy is to insure that the 2003 tax cuts don't expire in 2010 as scheduled."

-and-

"If we are headed into a recession, these proposed stimulus packages will make little difference."

-and-

"The call for stimulus packages represents the triumph of political arrogance over common sense.



The Japanese are just coming out of their economic problems(Koizumi cutting waste and increasing spending helped), but the Japanese cut taxes dramatically(about 45 billion dollars in cuts in 1998) and it barely made a difference in the economy. In fact growth in Japan in the next year(99) was 0.1%.


Still waiting for the link to prove your assertion that cutting taxes led to the Japanese economic issues.
According to the following wiki entry, the following caused Japan's economic woes:

"Sliding stock and real estate prices marked the end of the "Japanese asset price bubble" of the late 1980s, and ushered in a decade of stagnant economic growth. These problems may have been exacerbated by domestic policies intended to wring speculative excesses from the stock and real estate markets."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan



He's as much a political hack as Williams is lol


Walter Williams holds a PHD in Economics, he is a John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and author of books and articles on economical and sociological issues.... however, because you disagree with him he is a political hack. Priceless.



Because its relevant to the criticism of it. And its still not a lie: whether or not it will add debt to the US government, preventing a depression(or a Japan style prolonged recession) in the United States is for the future of the children/grandchildren(no matter how you feel about the specific policy goals or how successful they will be).

Bringing up the last 8 years does nothing to disprove my assertion that Obama was misrepresenting the facts and it is contextually irrelevant. In other words, the fact that under the Bush administration there was a lot of spending does not negate the fact that Obama misrepresented the facts

Now, for one to suggest that this massive spending bill will not be passed down to our children is either extremely naive or a little disengenuious.

[fpickering]

Except that its covered by the 16th amendment. You are represented by your congressman and Senators.

You are right that the 16th Amendment allows for this but that does not negate my assertion that it is in fact taxation without representation in its purest sense. Especially since a massive 44 billion dollars of the bill are going to bail out States and other governments.

[akhhorus]

Even if one assumes that there are no earmarks in the bill, my original point was that Obama lied when he said that there were no pet projects or earmarks in the bill.

Its not an assumption, there are no earmarks in the bill. Obama's not lying when he said that. And "pet projects" is too subjective a term to claim someone is lying on that. You'll have to prove that he thinks that they are pet projects, not that you think they are. Thats like arguing over whether a GM knew how bad a draft pick would be when he made it and claiming that he was lying when he said that the player would be a good pick when he made it.

There clearly were pet projects at the time of his declaration. Despite his promise of transparency (another Obama lie) portions of the bill were dug up that proved it.


Like I said: just because you think they are pet projects doesn't mean anyone lied about saying that they weren't.

What did you hope to prove by cherry picking my point and asserting that there were no earmarks? First of all, you can't prove it and second knowing that there were pet projects alone make his statement a lie.

Sure I can: I can look at the final bill and see what the earmarks are. In order to put an earmark in a bill, it has to be specifically labeled as such. Are you just totally in the dark about the earmark process or what they actually are?
And for the 3rd time: just because you think they are pet projects doesn't mean anyone lied about saying that they weren't.

The economist says in plain words that there is no need for a stimulus package and government intervention.
"A far more important measure that Congress can take towards a healthy economy is to insure that the 2003 tax cuts don't expire in 2010 as scheduled."

-and-

"If we are headed into a recession, these proposed stimulus packages will make little difference."

-and-

"The call for stimulus packages represents the triumph of political arrogance over common sense.


None of this has anything to do with my point. Your economist doesn't say that the economy didn't need action on it to help it. And making tax cuts permanent would be action.

Still waiting for the link to prove your assertion that cutting taxes led to the Japanese economic issues.
According to the following wiki entry, the following caused Japan's economic woes:

"Sliding stock and real estate prices marked the end of the "Japanese asset price bubble" of the late 1980s, and ushered in a decade of stagnant economic growth. These problems may have been exacerbated by domestic policies intended to wring speculative excesses from the stock and real estate markets."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan



First off, Wiki is a terrible source.
Secondly, you said that Obama was lying that tax cuts can't solve the economic problems. I said that he's right because Japan tried that in the mid90s and it led to a deflationary spiral. I didn't say that tax cuts caused their economic problems, I said that their tax cuts didn't fix their problems.

So, yet again, you're bringing up an irrelevant point.


Walter Williams holds a PHD in Economics, he is a John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and author of books and articles on economical and sociological issues.... however, because you disagree with him he is a political hack. Priceless.


I said he was as big a political hack as Krugman. Do you just have reading problems?

Bringing up the last 8 years does nothing to disprove my assertion that Obama was misrepresenting the facts and it is contextually irrelevant. In other words, the fact that under the Bush administration there was a lot of spending does not negate the fact that Obama misrepresented the facts

Now, for one to suggest that this massive spending bill will not be passed down to our children is either extremely naive or a little disengenuious.

Please show where I said it wouldn't be passed on to the next generation or retract your claim. I said this:
"Because its relevant to the criticism of it. And its still not a lie: whether or not it will add debt to the US government, preventing a depression(or a Japan style prolonged recession) in the United States is for the future of the children/grandchildren(no matter how you feel about the specific policy goals or how successful they will be)."

Yet again: you say nothing relevant in response to what I said.

[akhhorus]

You are right that the 16th Amendment allows for this but that does not negate my assertion that it is in fact taxation without representation in its purest sense. Especially since a massive 44 billion dollars of the bill are going to bail out States and other governments.

For the 3rd time: you were represented by your congressman and your Senators. The Federal government has the right in the Constitution to levy taxes and spend them anywhere else in the country's interest that the elected officials approve it for.

[fpickering]

The tax cuts increased the budget deficit and the national debt. Guys who agree with your type of thinking doubled our debt. It put us in a profoundly weaker position to deal with Stimulus packages and bailouts right now.

Al Gore was right. Conservatives were wrong.

You probably believe the Bush tax cuts increased revenues. They don't even come close:


You know what can decrease the deficit? The elimination of waste, pork and ineffective social programs.

Al Gore is a stooge and a fraud.

Also, I never asserted that tax cuts decrease our deficit.

I currently work on a government project and have worked on commercial projects as well. Let me tell you, the government project is the most wasteful, inefficient, and asinine project I have ever been a part of in my 10+ years. Ridiculous processes and red tape are a daily occurrence and result in costly delays. If anything like this happened just for one day on a commercial project, heads would roll.



Total revenues lost from the tax cuts is about $3.9 trillion over ten years-5 times larger than a stimulus package that is predicted to created jobs by the millions.

http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

Here is another perspective:


"Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 bil*** ****lion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]

The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 bil*** ****lion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues"


http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

[fpickering]

Their motives are relevant to your initial complaint. The Iraq war run up was misleading politics(if not flat out deception). The Stimulus package might end up being bad policy, but its not deceptive. There's no disagreement that we have major economic problems currently.


Except that that stimulus package is being sold to the public using misleading statements, if not outright lies (see below). How is this different than what you accuse Bush of? You can't have it both ways!

1. There is not a single pet project or earmark in the bill.... then he says "it has been stripped of the projects that both parties found most objectionable"
2. We must act immediately or disaster will befall our Country.
3. Government is the only entity that can get us out of this crisis.
4. Placing $1,000 in working and middle class families' pockets will lead to them spending it.
5. retracted, but replaced with the lie that there will be transparency in this bill. What is the URL that lists the text of the bill?
6. Tax cuts are partly responsible for the crisis that we are in now.
7. Suggesting that the bill will create jobs. This bill creates work that will go away, not jobs.
8. Suggesting that we must pass this bill for the future of our children and grandchildren. (if we pass this bill we will leave them with a gigantic deficit)
9. "Most economists almost unanimously recognize that even a philosophically..... you're wary of government intervening in the economy......" huh?

[akhhorus]

Except that that stimulus package is being sold to the public using misleading statements, if not outright lies (see below). How is this different than what you accuse Bush of? You can't have it both ways!


I'm not having it both ways(i'm not going to repeat myself), and I've already been through your inane list.

And saying that we're in an economic crisis that will get worse is not remotely a lie, that's the important point.

[fpickering]

Its not an assumption, there are no earmarks in the bill. Obama's not lying when he said that. And "pet projects" is too subjective a term to claim someone is lying on that.


Really? I ask you, how could you know whether or not there are earmarks considering the complete text of the bill is not published? I suppose that you are willing to take Obama's word for it because he has not made any misleading statements in his first three weeks as POTUS, has he?

Schumer admitted that there was pork or "pet projects" when he declared that we the chattering class don't care about pork. He is directly working on the bill. Who should we believe? A Senator or akhhorus a poster on a football message board?



Sure I can: I can look at the final bill and see what the earmarks are. In order to put an earmark in a bill, it has to be specifically labeled as such. Are you just totally in the dark about the earmark process or what they actually are?
And for the 3rd time: just because you think they are pet projects doesn't mean anyone lied about saying that they weren't.



What is the URL that contains the text of the bill? Attempting to insult me will not help prove your point. We do not know if there are earmarks because we do not have access to the text of the bill.

Schumer thinks that they are pet projects or "pork". Should we not believe him?






None of this has anything to do with my point. Your economist doesn't say that the economy didn't need action on it to help it. And making tax cuts permanent would be action.



Your point has nothing to do with anything contextually relevant to this thread. The point you originally attempted to refute was my assertion that suggesting that government alone can get us out of this mess is a lie. The Economist I referenced suggested otherwise. Period.




First off, Wiki is a terrible source.
Secondly, you said that Obama was lying that tax cuts can't solve the economic problems. I said that he's right because Japan tried that in the mid90s and it led to a deflationary spiral. I didn't say that tax cuts caused their economic problems, I said that their tax cuts didn't fix their problems.

So, yet again, you're bringing up an irrelevant point.


Fine, you believe that wiki is a terrible source. Feel free to provide some sourced information to the contrary.



I said he was as big a political hack as Krugman. Do you just have reading problems?



No, I actually excel in reading comprehension. Stating that Williams is a hack is simply another ad hominem attack. Feel free to discount his expertise.



Please show where I said it wouldn't be passed on to the next generation or retract your claim. I said this:
"Because its relevant to the criticism of it. And its still not a lie: whether or not it will add debt to the US government, preventing a depression(or a Japan style prolonged recession) in the United States is for the future of the children/grandchildren(no matter how you feel about the specific policy goals or how successful they will be)."


My point is that you are deflecting. While there might be some truth in that statement on its own, it is totally contextually irrelevant to this thread.

No matter what you say, Obama, at best misrepresented the facts when he said that we must pass this bill for the sake of our children and grandchildren, when we all know that the debt incurred will be detrimental to them since it will be passed onto them.

[fpickering]

For the 3rd time: you were represented by your congressman and your Senators. The Federal government has the right in the Constitution to levy taxes and spend them anywhere else in the country's interest that the elected officials approve it for.


Actually it was the second time. But in response:
For the second time, I acknowledge that the 16th amendment to the Constitution says this but on its face, it is still taxation without representation. It just is. Nothing you say can discount that.

[akhhorus]

Really? I ask you, how could you know whether or not there are earmarks considering the complete text of the bill is not published? I suppose that you are willing to take Obama's word for it because he has not made any misleading statements in his first three weeks as POTUS, has he?

Because earmarks have to be requested LONG before the bill goes into conference. Its pretty clear you have no clue what an earmark really is.

Schumer admitted that there was pork or "pet projects" when he declared that we the chattering class don't care about pork. He is directly working on the bill. Who should we believe? A Senator or akhhorus a poster on a football message board?


Thats his opinion. You still have to prove that Obama knows they are "pet projects" and said otherwise.

What is the URL that contains the text of the bill? Attempting to insult me will not help prove your point. We do not know if there are earmarks because we do not have access to the text of the bill.

Considering how clueless you still are about what an earmark actually is, that wasn't an insult. Yes, we do know whether or not there's no earmarks. The bill has passed conference, which means its in its final version(and cannot be altered), and there's no earmarks in it currently(nor can anyone put an earmark in now without restarting the legislative process).

Schumer thinks that they are pet projects or "pork". Should we not believe him?


Thats his opinion. You still have to prove that Obama knows they are "pet projects" and said otherwise.

Your point has nothing to do with anything contextually relevant to this thread. The point you originally attempted to refute was my assertion that suggesting that government alone can get us out of this mess is a lie. The Economist I referenced suggested otherwise. Period.

You brought up that link and economist in response to the point that the economy needed action(tax cuts or spending or both). You can't now try to change the context.

Fine, you believe that wiki is a terrible source. Feel free to provide some sourced information to the contrary.


What I said:
"Secondly, you said that Obama was lying that tax cuts can't solve the economic problems. I said that he's right because Japan tried that in the mid90s and it led to a deflationary spiral. I didn't say that tax cuts caused their economic problems, I said that their tax cuts didn't fix their problems.

So, yet again, you're bringing up an irrelevant point."

So, your response to my saying that you brought up an irrelevant point is to not discuss the main point you were trying to make?

No, I actually excel in reading comprehension.

:lol1:

Stating that Williams is a hack is simply another ad hominem attack. Feel free to discount his expertise.

I said he was as big a hack as Krugman(who has better credentials). If you think that Williams or Krugman aren't political hacks, then I didn't call him a hack. Obviously, you need a refresher course on reading comprehension.

My point is that you are deflecting. While there might be some truth in that statement on its own, it is totally contextually irrelevant to this thread.

No matter what you say, Obama, at best misrepresented the facts when he said that we must pass this bill for the sake of our children and grandchildren, when we all know that the debt incurred will be detrimental to them since it will be passed onto them.

Your claim was:
"8. Suggesting that we must pass this bill for the future of our children and grandchildren. (if we pass this bill we will leave them with a gigantic deficit)"

I pointed out that preventing a depression or prolonged recession(whether or not the stim package will actually do that) is for the sake of the next generations(you're not going to argue that, are you?). What you're saying now is not relevant to that discussion. Nevermind that its not a lie since he didn't say that it wouldn't pass debt to the future generations, did he?

[akhhorus]

Actually it was the second time. But in response:
For the second time, I acknowledge that the 16th amendment to the Constitution says this but on its face, it is still taxation without representation. It just is. Nothing you say can discount that.

You're still wrong. You were represented by your Senators and your congressman. The legislative/executive branches decide how to spend federal taxation. Every America citizen has 4 positions of Federal representation that they directly vote for: their congressman, their two senators and the President.

[fpickering]

I'm not having it both ways(i'm not going to repeat myself), and I've already been through your inane list.

And saying that we're in an economic crisis that will get worse is not remotely a lie, that's the important point.

No one wants you to repeat yourself.

The lie is not that we are in tough economic times. No one disputes this.

The lie deals with the assertion that in response, we must act immediately, there are no pet projects in the bill, only government can solve this problem, we must do this for the sake of our children and grandchildren, there will be transparency in the bill, placing $1,000 in working and middle class families' pockets will lead to them spending it and tax cuts are partly responsible for the crisis that we are in now.

In other words, we are being sold a bill of goods based on misrepresentation of fact and told that we must act now. This is exactly what you accuse the Bush Admin of doing.
No matter how you try to wriggle your way out of this, it is the same thing.

This bill is full of pork no matter what semantics you choose to use or any assertion that pork is simply subjective. This is supposed to be a stimulus bill. One that revives our economy. So, how can we best do this?
Someone earlier accurately said that we must raise consumer confidence. How do we do this?

1. Create jobs.
2. Directly tackle bad debt held by financial institutions
3. Slow down home foreclosures


I am sure that there are more but these are the heaviest hitters. Only a minute portion of the bill will directly result in accomplishing the 3 above. Anything else is pork.

[akhhorus]

No one wants you to repeat yourself.

And no one wants you to keep speaking about political issues you clearly have zero clue about what they actually are lol.

The lie is not that we are in tough economic times. No one disputes this. The lie deals with the assertion that in response, we must act immediately, there are no pet projects in the bill, only government can solve this problem, we must do this for the sake of our children and grandchildren, there will be transparency in the bill, placing $1,000 in working and middle class families' pockets will lead to them spending it and tax cuts are partly responsible for the crisis that we are in now.

I've been through this nonsense of yours.

In other words, we are being sold a bill of goods based on misrepresentation of fact and told that we must act now. This is exactly what you accuse the Bush Admin of doing.
No matter how you try to wriggle your way out of this, it is the same thing.


I've explained the differences.

This bill is full of pork no matter what semantics you choose to use or any assertion that pork is simply subjective.

Except that you're accusing Obama of lying about the earmark claim(which he's not) and pet projects(but you haven't proved that he's actually lying).

This is supposed to be a stimulus bill. One that revives our economy. So, how can we best do this?
Someone earlier accurately said that we must raise consumer confidence. How do we do this?

1. Create jobs.
2. Directly tackle bad debt held by financial institutions
3. Slow down home foreclosures

I am sure that there are more but these are the heaviest hitters. Only a minute portion of the bill will directly result in accomplishing the 3 above. Anything else is pork.

#2 and #3 are being addressed in different legislation.

And your definition of pork is absurd.

[BurgundyNGold]

Any program that involves moving their bad paper to a government entity is some sort of bad bank plan. So what is your plan? Dumping an amount of cash into the banks to pay for that paper(your 500 billion claim)? You criticize TARP, but that sounds like the exact same thing.
It is not the same thing. The TARP does not give Fed money to banks specifically for the purpose of consolidating bad loans. The TARP does not rewards banks with no or low taxes on loans given to issue mortgage and credit consolidation loans. TARP 1 gives money to banks -- whether they needed it or asked for it -- to do with as they see fit. In TARP 1, some banks used that to clear their books and acquire other banks, lol. How does that help the average American or boost the CCI? If you honestly think my suggestion and the TARP are the same thing than you do not understand my suggestion, the TARP or both.

Jim Cramer has been saying a few times a week that his plan is to open a special government trading desk so that private money can value the toxic paper, then buy it(with or without government assistance) off the banks to clear it. Is he mainstream enough for you, considering that he hits all the NBC properties as the economic guru?(nevermind that his stock picks are awful)
I know, other plans have been floated on CNBC and Bloomberg. But why haven't these plans (or any others) been discussed in the mainstream media? Why the effort to ramrod this stim pkg through in short order without so much as a serious discussion to included far more knowledgeable and intelligent people than the politicians and their staffers who crafted the bill?

Try reading calculated risk or Felix Salmon.
Blogs dude? Seriously? While they might have a ton of great ideas, none of them have made it to the national state of debate. No political or news program (including Chris Matthews and Meet the Press) mentioned a single alternative, let alone discussed the fact that such ideas exist. Bandwagon reporting at it's finest, lol.

Thats the cornerstone of the system.
Party allegiance over national duty in a time of crisis is not the cornerstone of the system. And if it has become so, it's time for a new system.

I believe I posted a link about that.
So, you want me to believe that it could cost (up to) $4T to cleanup up a maximum $1T (sub prime mortgages) problem because Chuck Shumer tells us so? The range in this article by some anonymous experts and Sen. Shumer is $1-$4T. The fact that Shumer (and the Dems) are out pushing the alarmingly high (and laughably unrealistic) figure of $4T is setting up to get at least $2T for programs that have nothing to do with helping people or with stimulus.

Here's the math: There are only about $1T in sub prime mortgages. Of that $1T, about $200B is projected interest owed over term. The banks should not get 20-30 years of interest on bad loans that they should not have made and are now begging to have rescued. So, lop $200B off. Even if all of the remaining $800B were bad (and they are not) it would cost $800B to buy out every . The last time I checked, than 20-25% of these loans were in default or in fear of default. That's $200B worth of mortgages. Even if you included a wide berth of at risk criteria, you could comfortable refinance 50-60% of these loans for $500B.

And for the record, it is not the responsibility of the Fed to gobble up all toxic assets of banks (privately help corporations). It is, however, somewhat their responsibility to help the average citizen who is about the get tossed out of their house and on their bums. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that the idea of the Fed buying up all toxic assets by the banks somehow equated to fixing the problem of *some* bad mortgages, when they are very clearly different things. I can only imagine that the proposed "trickle down" effect of assuming bad debt from the banks was/is supposed to help the average citizen and small business. It's absurd, of course; you'd think the Dems would know better.

Yes, I do read a lot of financial news, and I haven't heard ANYONE say that the subprime problem would only cost 500 billion to fix. No one. Not even the most optimistic of economists.
That's probably because nobody has talked about fixing that problem since October. Now it's about the entirety of the nebulous "toxic assets" arch. The sub prime mortgage problem was a gateway drug.

And I just showed you the numbers. Even if you bought every single sub prime directly, it wouldn't cost more than $800B. Realistically, it would cost half that much, because not all homeowners are in default and not all homeowners will have problems getting a refi.

Oh please. You can stop that line right now. At some point, unless you just want the entire system to burn down, you have to trust some politician/expert. And if you want the entire system to burn down, let me know and I'll just walk away since discussions with anarchist are futile.
And you can stop your Armageddon speak right now. It seems that you're more than trusting, you're a bugler for the cause. Well, I'm done being moved to acquiescence by the critical tone of politicians looking to fund their pet projects on our fears and the debt of our children. Once I noted the uncanny similarity to the Iraq fear mongering, it was a little easier to see.

Letting things take a natural course -- with includes some destruction of poorly run companies and their asset reallocation -- is not akin to letting the "entire system burn down". Without Darwinism, capitalism does not work. Without capitalism, America does not work. If the Fed it going to spend debt dollars then let them do it by providing direct relief to people. By doing so, the "toxic debt" associated with the bad mortgages, credit debt will be cleaned up and many banks should be saved (without corporate handouts). Beyond that, it is up to the markets to solve the problems of inefficiencies of industry.

Except that the current leadership wasn't involved with those decisions. And I didn't say that any leadership always(or commonly) has benevolent motives. No matter what ANYONE does, someone will benefit from it, and someone will get hurt. Unless you have some solution that solves the problem without hurting or favoring anyone?
My solutions involve the advertised benefactors of the TARP and the stimulus -- the American people and their small businesses. If they are hurting, our plans should help them. I couldn't give 2 squirts of piss if Citi goes under because, when you break it down, if you chose to help people instead of banks, the people would be covered. If a bank goes under, their assets get purchased by other banks. The only people who end up possibly losing are the stockholders of the bank. Who cares? Make a bad investment, lose money. Them's the rules.

[Fathead]

Actually it was the second time. But in response:
For the second time, I acknowledge that the 16th amendment to the Constitution says this but on its face, it is still taxation without representation. It just is. Nothing you say can discount that.

No, taxation without representation is being taxed and having no one to represent you in the body doing the taxing. As long as you live in one of the states, you have representation.

People paying federal taxes who live in DC can claim taxation without representation. So unless that's the case, can it with the T w/o R.

[akhhorus]

It is not the same thing. The TARP does not give Fed money to banks specifically for the purpose of consolidating bad loans. The TARP does not rewards banks with no or low taxes on loans given to issue mortgage and credit consolidation loans. TARP 1 gives money to banks -- whether they needed it or asked for it -- to do with as they see fit. In TARP 1, some banks used that to clear their books and acquire other banks, lol. How does that help the average American or boost the CCI? If you honestly think my suggestion and the TARP are the same thing than you do not understand my suggestion, the TARP or both.


Your plan is TARP with hard guidelines(and could be called nationalization through the back door). This has been considered(and rejected).

I know, other plans have been floated on CNBC and Bloomberg. But why haven't these plans (or any others) been discussed in the mainstream media? Why the effort to ramrod this stim pkg through in short order without so much as a serious discussion to included far more knowledgeable and intelligent people than the politicians and their staffers who crafted the bill?

Can we keep the stim package discussion separate from the TARP discussion please, or we're going to get muddled. And the nightly news/news networks aren't the place for deep economic debate since thats not what they're set up for.

And yes: I have seen plenty of discussion about alternatives to the stim package bandied about in the mainstream press--but even if it doesn't rise to the level you want, this is a complaint that goes nowhere. If the American people don't like the policy goals and legislation of the current leadership, they have the option of voting them out in the next election.

Blogs dude? Seriously? While they might have a ton of great ideas, none of them have made it to the national state of debate. No political or news program (including Chris Matthews and Meet the Press) mentioned a single alternative, let alone discussed the fact that such ideas exist. Bandwagon reporting at it's finest, lol.


Yes they have discussed alternatives to TARP, and even if they didn't: so what? Why does a policy goal need a certain level of one sided discussion on a news show?

Party allegiance over national duty in a time of crisis is not the cornerstone of the system. And if it has become so, it's time for a new system.


Working for ones constituents is also the cornerstone of politics, and the justification for supporting/opposing any bill.

So, you want me to believe that it could cost (up to) $4T to cleanup up a maximum $1T (sub prime mortgages) problem because Chuck Shumer tells us so? The range in this article by some anonymous experts and Sen. Shumer is $1-$4T. The fact that Shumer (and the Dems) are out pushing the alarmingly high (and laughably unrealistic) figure of $4T is setting up to get at least $2T for programs that have nothing to do with helping people or with stimulus.

Here's the math: There are only about $1T in sub prime mortgages. Of that $1T, about $200B is projected interest owed over term. The banks should not get 20-30 years of interest on bad loans that they should not have made and are now begging to have rescued. So, lop $200B off. Even if all of the remaining $800B were bad (and they are not) it would cost $800B to buy out every . The last time I checked, than 20-25% of these loans were in default or in fear of default. That's $200B worth of mortgages. Even if you included a wide berth of at risk criteria, you could comfortable refinance 50-60% of these loans for $500B.


I ask again: how come absolutely no one is saying what you're saying. Considering how you want link validity with the amount of open discussion in the media, then by your own standards, your theory is invalid.

And for the record, it is not the responsibility of the Fed to gobble up all toxic assets of banks (privately help corporations). It is, however, somewhat their responsibility to help the average citizen who is about the get tossed out of their house and on their bums. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that the idea of the Fed buying up all toxic assets by the banks somehow equated to fixing the problem of *some* bad mortgages, when they are very clearly different things. I can only imagine that the proposed "trickle down" effect of assuming bad debt from the banks was/is supposed to help the average citizen and small business. It's absurd, of course; you'd think the Dems would know better.

You should have this monologue after the plans for the mortgages come out.

That's probably because nobody has talked about fixing that problem since October. Now it's about the entirety of the nebulous "toxic assets" arch. The sub prime mortgage problem was a gateway drug.

No one has been talking about fixing that problem? Bull.

And I just showed you the numbers. Even if you bought every single sub prime directly, it wouldn't cost more than $800B. Realistically, it would cost half that much, because not all homeowners are in default and not all homeowners will have problems getting a refi.

I repeat what I said in response to your last snippet about your theory.

And you can stop your Armageddon speak right now.

Its not Armageddon speak. Its a simple question: if you personally want the system to burn down, then any discussion with you on this topic is pointless.

It seems that you're more than trusting, you're a bugler for the cause.

Just because I disagree with your comparison between the Iraq war run up and this stimulus package and that I believe that sooner or later you have to trust a politician to fix a problem(which doesnt mean I'm opposing your points here), doesn't mean I'm an active campaigner for your opposing views.

Well, I'm done being moved to acquiescence by the critical tone of politicians looking to fund their pet projects on our fears and the debt of our children. Once I noted the uncanny similarity to the Iraq fear mongering, it was a little easier to see.

You can make any comparisons you want to, no matter how little/few the similarities actually are. But at some point-whether you like it or not-you're going to have to trust someone in leadership to make a decision. What do you want? A system with zero politicians and collective decision making?

Letting things take a natural course -- with includes some destruction of poorly run companies and their asset reallocation -- is not akin to letting the "entire system burn down".

I didn't say that. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Without Darwinism, capitalism does not work. Without capitalism, America does not work.

And your proposal is what? Giving the banks a large amount of cash and telling them exactly what to do with it? That smells like socialism.

If the Fed it going to spend debt dollars then let them do it by providing direct relief to people. By doing so, the "toxic debt" associated with the bad mortgages, credit debt will be cleaned up and many banks should be saved (without corporate handouts). Beyond that, it is up to the markets to solve the problems of inefficiencies of industry.


Finally, something we agree on.

My solutions involve the advertised benefactors of the TARP and the stimulus -- the American people and their small businesses. If they are hurting, our plans should help them. I couldn't give 2 squirts of piss if Citi goes under because, when you break it down, if you chose to help people instead of banks, the people would be covered. If a bank goes under, their assets get purchased by other banks. The only people who end up possibly losing are the stockholders of the bank. Who cares? Make a bad investment, lose money. Them's the rules.

Except that letting an entity like Citi totally fail(and Citi should be nationalized and restructured before that happens) and be split up would hurt the American people and small businesses more than you're willing to admit. Its one thing if GM goes under, that would only hurt a certain segment of the economy(and could be made up for by their competitors picking up their market share). Because of the default swaps, letting a major pillar of the economy go under like Citi would have repercussions that would shake the entire economy. Even splitting up Citi among their competitors has bad repercussions(see how Merrill Lynch being forcibly sold to BoA wounded BoA badly). Thats why the government goes balls to the walls to help the banks, but not GM.

[Sweepea436]

Hey, this has nothing to with the "multi-quote" freight train going on here (entertaining by the way) - just a question that I was curious to hear this boards opinion on.

War in Iraq = Rushed
TARP = Rushed
Stimulus = Rushed

Is this going to be the norm now? This insane "dire sense of urgency" to cram these decisions through without time to fully analyze it?

I understand that both side will never fully agree on most of the issues that are going to be voted on - but I cant help but feel "hoodwinked" evey time I hear that we need to do it now "or else". I'm waiting for congress to start wearing "The end of the world is near" signs..... thoughts?

[dj_stouty]

I don't care about the economy; I'm only interested in making sure the Smithsonian gets its 150 million dollar face lift through this stimulus package. THAT is the one and only way we can move forward and prosper in the near future!

Seriously; This bill is obvious proof that nothing has "changed" and it is "business as usual" on Capitol Hill.

[BurgundyNGold]

Hey, this has nothing to with the "multi-quote" freight train going on here (entertaining by the way) - just a question that I was curious to hear this boards opinion on.

War in Iraq = Rushed
TARP = Rushed
Stimulus = Rushed

Is this going to be the norm now? This insane "dire sense of urgency" to cram these decisions through without time to fully analyze it?

I understand that both side will never fully agree on most of the issues that are going to be voted on - but I cant help but feel "hoodwinked" evey time I hear that we need to do it now "or else". I'm waiting for congress to start wearing "The end of the world is near" signs..... thoughts?
Your analogy is flawed because akh says so.

There is nothing to see here. Move along, people.

http://media.southparkstudios.com/media/images/101/ep_101_barbrady_alien.gif

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't care about the economy; I'm only interested in making sure the Smithsonian gets its 150 million dollar face lift through this stimulus package. THAT is the one and only way we can move forward and prosper in the near future!

Seriously; This bill is obvious proof that nothing has "changed" and it is "business as usual" on Capitol Hill.
Move along, lol.

http://www.packetloss.co.uk/images/barbrady.jpeg

[dj_stouty]

Move along, lol.

http://www.packetloss.co.uk/images/barbrady.jpeg

Sir, yes Sir!

[Ibleedburgundy]

You know what can decrease the deficit? The elimination of waste, pork and ineffective social programs.


You can take that up with the conservatives/Republicans you voted for. While you're at it, why don't you ask them why they spent twice as much on earmarks as the Democratic congress of 2007 and 35% more on earmarks than the Democratic congress of 2008.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007

The fact remains, conservatives never decrease the deficit. Reagan didn't even come close, Dubya completely reversed a balanced budget into an enormous deficit, Bush Sr. didn't even come close. Clinton began with a deficit and ended with a surplus, and Carter leveled it. Noticing a trend here?

Al Gore is a stooge and a fraud.


In hindsight, his economic plan was infinitely better than the one you voted for.

Also, I never asserted that tax cuts decrease our deficit.

Good for you. Now can you admit the truth that tax cuts increase the deficit when they aren't coupled with a spending decrease?

I currently work on a government project and have worked on commercial projects as well. Let me tell you, the government project is the most wasteful, inefficient, and asinine project I have ever been a part of in my 10+ years. Ridiculous processes and red tape are a daily occurrence and result in costly delays. If anything like this happened just for one day on a commercial project, heads would roll.


Uh huh. And if the Government ever paid the head of an agency head $25 million while his agency fell apart...

I'm not saying there isn't waste because there is. But your broad stroke critique is as worthless as the conservatives who failed the Government over the last 8 years. Conservatives don't believe in good Governance, therefor have no interest in what constitutes good governance. Conservatives suck at Government. Just like I would suck at developing and innovating something that I hate (such as marketing pop music).

It's not a good comparison anyway. The Government is mission oriented. Private industry is money oriented. Your company can be utterly immoral, unfair, rip people off, screw people over, lie, get nothing done, put out a crappy product, pay people a thousand times more than they are worth, etc, and that's all fine and dandy as long as you make money.

The Government operates to a much higher standard on a thousand different levels. They have to consider equal opportunities, stimulating industry in economically disadvanatged areas, helping small businesses, service disabled veterans, they have to follow the FAR and OPM hiring practices, not to mention Government is responsible for the bottom line regarding all safety and security issues-meaning they can't simply carve out a niche, they are accountable for the big picture.

But if you want compare in terms of agility, it's only fair to compare in terms of objectives. Show me the business that defeated Hitler, put a man on the moon, kept all commercial air travel 100% safe for the last two years, built a nimitz class aircraft carrier, keeps the streets safe, maintains a very good justice system, etc.

The beauracratic nature of the Government is inherent based on it's objectives. Don't believe me, then why do federal employees beat private industry 83% of the time we do a direct competition? Could it be that conservatives don't know what the hell they are talking about regarding the FED?

Early Briefing: Private-Federal Competition
*President Bush proposed an initiative in 2001 to force federal employees to compete for their jobs against private contractors. The goal was to decrease costs, even if the work stayed in the government.

But critics say this "competitive sourcing" initiative had disappointing results, with morale shaken among civil servants and private contractors reluctant to participate in the competitions, which federal employees have won 83 percent of the time.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washbizblog/2008/04/early_briefing_57.html

Here is another perspective:

"Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 bil*** ****lion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]

The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 bil*** ****lion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues"

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm


First of all, I don't trust heritage numbers and neither should you. I've seen far too many of their numbers being debunked. But even if I did, their argument is laughable. Basically they claim the problem isn't tax cuts, it's that conservatives spent too much LOL. So as long as we suspend the reality of Government spending, they have a point.

[BurgundyNGold]

Your plan is TARP with hard guidelines(and could be called nationalization through the back door). This has been considered(and rejected).
There is no way that can be considered nationalization any more that taking ownership stakes in the banks.

Can we keep the stim package discussion separate from the TARP discussion please, or we're going to get muddled. And the nightly news/news networks aren't the place for deep economic debate since thats not what they're set up for.
Agreed. As for the news outlets, their jobs are to inform of all sides, objectively. Yet, they haven't. They have failed the country and have been accomplices in this rush to legislation.

And yes: I have seen plenty of discussion about alternatives to the stim package bandied about in the mainstream press--but even if it doesn't rise to the level you want, this is a complaint that goes nowhere. If the American people don't like the policy goals and legislation of the current leadership, they have the option of voting them out in the next election.
Where have you seen this? You gave me 2 blog links. Nowhere have alternatives been discussed where more than a few hundred or thousand people have seen it.

Yes they have discussed alternatives to TARP, and even if they didn't: so what? Why does a policy goal need a certain level of one sided discussion on a news show?
So, news outlets -- the self anointed source of news for the public -- should just accept the one plan that is given. Aren't ther always at least 2 sides to a debate? Where is the other side? We both know there is another side to the debates about the stim pkg and TARP.

Working for ones constituents is also the cornerstone of politics, and the justification for supporting/opposing any bill.
Constituents, yes. Party, no. And when the bacon being brought home to a state has little or nothing to do with the purported intention of a bill that, in effect, was fraudulently sold to the American public who are under duress using auspices of fear, well, that's not only morally objectionable, it might well be criminal. Possibly no less criminal than when that tactic was used leading up in Iraq War. We'll have to see what shakes out down the road.

I ask again: how come absolutely no one is saying what you're saying. Considering how you want link validity with the amount of open discussion in the media, then by your own standards, your theory is invalid.
Possibly because I just came up with it. As far as I know, I'm the only one who has mentioned my ideas. That doesn't make them invalid on the surface. What it does do is make me realize how pathetic the people in charge are that they come up with a stim pkg that has little to no stimulus mechanisms but has over $500B in new Dem project spending. Either Congress and the Administration are completely greedy and inept or the current financial "crisis" is not as critical as is being sold. Take your pick.

You should have this monologue after the plans for the mortgages come out.
Why weren't they out 4 months ago?! People are suffering, but we have to wait until a partisan stim bill with unprecedented spending levels is passed before we help them? That's hostage taking, no?

No one has been talking about fixing that problem? Bull.
They talk about toxic assets, which ostensibly includes bad or at risk mortgages. It all started with the mortgages. Why have they been lost in the shuffle? Because there is an uncontrolled orgy of cash grabbing going on right now -- the little guy be damned.

Its not Armageddon speak. Its a simple question: if you personally want the system to burn down, then any discussion with you on this topic is pointless.
Don't start with your normal tactics of mischaracterizing my position. I don't want the system to burn down. I want the market corrections in both the public and private sectors that MUST occur as part of the normal cycle of creation and destruction that is the market economy.

There is no Great Depression looming. There is no need to spend so much money. Some things should be done (shoring up AIG, loaning cash to the Big 3, helping clear up the mortgage problem) but there is no need for $500B in new government spending with little or no stimulus affect. There is no need for tax rebate checks that have shown that they do not work (only about 15% goes into new spending). Targeted stimulus spending is warranted, but not what these guys are doing. They've made the wrong choice at every turn. The only question is whether they are deliberately doing this while sounding the alarm bells.

Just because I disagree with your comparison between the Iraq war run up and this stimulus package and that I believe that sooner or later you have to trust a politician to fix a problem(which doesnt mean I'm opposing your points here), doesn't mean I'm an active campaigner for your opposing views.
You keep telling me of the dire circumstances. And, as near as I can tell from your posts, you are a big supporter of the TARP and stim pkg. You even believe that cash is flowing while the folks on capital hill are literally *yelling* at bank execs to release the cash (yesterday, on film), lol.

I don not trust many politicians. I certainly do not trust Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. I would like to trust Obama and I'm trying real hard, Ringo, lol. But he seems to be just fine with this bill and he is the one out there selling it. Now, they might be doing a Colin Powell to him, but I don't see a scenario where he is clean on this one.

You can make any comparisons you want to, no matter how little/few the similarities actually are. But at some point-whether you like it or not-you're going to have to trust someone in leadership to make a decision. What do you want? A system with zero politicians and collective decision making?
I want a politician who is deliberate. He takes his time and does it right. Obama says the right things but he is fighting for a bad cause. He has political capital now and he is pissing is away (and possibly up to $2T in debt) for political purposes. How am I supposed to take that? Does that seem like "change" to you? As a GOP guy, I really cannot see how you can defend any of this, from any angle -- free market, tax, debt or political.

I didn't say that. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
C'mon, man. You used those exact words to describe my position of letting the market handle most of the market adjustments. Right before you tried to characterize my views as "anarchist". Remember?

And your proposal is what? Giving the banks a large amount of cash and telling them exactly what to do with it? That smells like socialism.
How about reading my posts? Let the banks borrow from the Fed at the key rate for certain load types (fixed mortgages, debt consolidation, small business loans). Incentivize the banks to make these loans by offering them little or no taxes on loan profits for the life of the loans if made in these sectors for the next 12 months or so. Then, raise the tax rates slightly, in a scaled fashion over several years for new loans until we have consolidated the mortgage, credit card and small business debts, thereby freeing the people of burden, ending the mortgage crisis and clearing the banks of the "toxic assets" that they professed for needing the TARP. The best part is that the plan is a far cheaper TARP with a stimulus kick all rolled into one.

What part of that is socialistic? It's a similar lending model to VA loans, SBA loans, etc. If anything, it's a helluva lot less socialist than owning the banks. THAT, my friend, is encroaching upon nationalization.

Finally, something we agree on.
I would have thought that we would be agreeing on a lot more here.

Except that letting an entity like Citi totally fail(and Citi should be nationalized and restructured before that happens) and be split up would hurt the American people and small businesses more than you're willing to admit. Its one thing if GM goes under, that would only hurt a certain segment of the economy(and could be made up for by their competitors picking up their market share). Because of the default swaps, letting a major pillar of the economy go under like Citi would have repercussions that would shake the entire economy. Even splitting up Citi among their competitors has bad repercussions(see how Merrill Lynch being forcibly sold to BoA wounded BoA badly). Thats why the government goes balls to the walls to help the banks, but not GM.
Now who's advocating nationalizing banks?

Is this the same Citi that complained to congress because they couldn't try to acquire Wachovia and then turned around and flipped belly up? The same Citi who just raised their interest rates on all credit cards across the board by as much as 10% over the past few weeks whether they were warranted or not?

The most involvement that the Fed should have with Citi is insuring savings and overseeing the breakup. I see no scenario where the average American would be injured if Citi was broken up and banks from around the world gobbled them up. I can, however, see a bad and expensive precedent set by keeping them around. I can see a situation where futility is rewarded while good, clean banks are being punished. Certainly, this is not what you mean to have happen?

[akhhorus]

Your analogy is flawed because akh says so.

There is nothing to see here. Move along, people.



I explained the differences between the two situations. I have yet to see any rebuttals except accusing me of being part of the problem or something and repeating what you said previously.

[BurgundyNGold]

I explained the differences between the two situations. I have yet to see any rebuttals except accusing me of being part of the problem or something and repeating what you said previously.
Don't worry. I just wanted an excuse to post Barbrady, lol.

[akhhorus]

There is no way that can be considered nationalization any more that taking ownership stakes in the banks.


Telling them what to do with money you give them is nationalization from the back door. Pretty soon, you're appointing their board members and making decisions for them.

Agreed. As for the news outlets, their jobs are to inform of all sides, objectively. Yet, they haven't. They have failed the country and have been accomplices in this rush to legislation.


Thats your opinion. I've seen a galaxy of different ideas on what to do from credible experts.

Where have you seen this? You gave me 2 blog links. Nowhere have alternatives been discussed where more than a few hundred or thousand people have seen it.


Andrew Sulivan's blog(which gets millions of hits per day), Cal. risk, politico, Time, newsweek, slate on and on and on.

So, news outlets -- the self anointed source of news for the public -- should just accept the one plan that is given. Aren't ther always at least 2 sides to a debate? Where is the other side? We both know there is another side to the debates about the stim pkg and TARP.

Except that they aren't doing what you accuse them of. You're acting like the media isn't questioning either plan. Thats horse crap!

Constituents, yes. Party, no. And when the bacon being brought home to a state has little or nothing to do with the purported intention of a bill that, in effect, was fraudulently sold to the American public who are under duress using auspices of fear, well, that's not only morally objectionable, it might well be criminal. Possibly no less criminal than when that tactic was used leading up in Iraq War. We'll have to see what shakes out down the road.

Im not going to repeat myself on the differences between the situations. And the politicians are doing what they think is best for their constituents-pork or not. There's plenty of politicians who are voting for the bill and they don't see the full benefits of it and vice versa. And politicians who propose something for the Stim package that they've been pushing for over years, but then vote against the bill lol.

Possibly because I just came up with it. As far as I know, I'm the only one who has mentioned my ideas. That doesn't make them invalid on the surface. What it does do is make me realize how pathetic the people in charge are that they come up with a stim pkg that has little to no stimulus mechanisms but has over $500B in new Dem project spending. Either Congress and the Administration are completely greedy and inept or the current financial "crisis" is not as critical as is being sold. Take your pick.


I'd just like to see one expert back up your figures.

Why weren't they out 4 months ago?! People are suffering, but we have to wait until a partisan stim bill with unprecedented spending levels is passed before we help them? That's hostage taking, no?


I agree. The cramdowns/bankrupcy changes should be before TARp 2 gets approved.

They talk about toxic assets, which ostensibly includes bad or at risk mortgages. It all started with the mortgages. Why have they been lost in the shuffle? Because there is an uncontrolled orgy of cash grabbing going on right now -- the little guy be damned.


I'll wait to see what they do about the mortgage holder before condemning.

Don't start with your normal tactics of mischaracterizing my position. I don't want the system to burn down. I want the market corrections in both the public and private sectors that MUST occur as part of the normal cycle of creation and destruction that is the market economy.

I havent mischaracterized your position once. I'm putting a simple philosophical choice to you. i didn't say you wanted the system to burn down, just said that if you can't trust anyone in power, then the only alternative is anarchy.

There is no Great Depression looming.

Thanks to TARP 1, I agree. But there is a risk of an inflationary depression or a japan style extended recession. Both of which should be avoided.

There is no need to spend so much money. Some things should be done (shoring up AIG, loaning cash to the Big 3, helping clear up the mortgage problem) but there is no need for $500B in new government spending with little or no stimulus affect. There is no need for tax rebate checks that have shown that they do not work (only about 15% goes into new spending). Targeted stimulus spending is warranted, but not what these guys are doing. They've made the wrong choice at every turn. The only question is whether they are deliberately doing this while sounding the alarm bells.

Your burden of proof is much higher now if you're now accusing them of deliberate deceitful action. I've said my opinions on what I think the composition of the stim package should be, and I agree that tarp 2 should be as cheap as possible. If you read the fine print of Geithner's plan, he's not talking about spending another 1.5 trillion. He's referring to 1.5 trillion in total funding(potentially) both private and public. They want to keep the costs to under the 300 billion still appropriated in the tarp funding.

You keep telling me of the dire circumstances. And, as near as I can tell from your posts, you are a big supporter of the TARP and stim pkg.

Then you're obviously not reading my posts.

You even believe that cash is flowing while the folks on capital hill are literally *yelling* at bank execs to release the cash (yesterday, on film), lol.

So, if some nimrod on capitol hill says it, it must be so now? They can hector them all they want: cash is flowing. All the numbers show that.

I don not trust many politicians. I certainly do not trust Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. I would like to trust Obama and I'm trying real hard, Ringo, lol. But he seems to be just fine with this bill and he is the one out there selling it. Now, they might be doing a Colin Powell to him, but I don't see a scenario where he is clean on this one.


I'll wait to see the full monty before judging. They were leaking last november that they wanted 2 stimulus packages.

I want a politician who is deliberate. He takes his time and does it right. Obama says the right things but he is fighting for a bad cause. He has political capital now and he is pissing is away (and possibly up to $2T in debt) for political purposes. How am I supposed to take that? Does that seem like "change" to you? As a GOP guy, I really cannot see how you can defend any of this, from any angle -- free market, tax, debt or political.


Didn't I say that I wouldn't do the stimulus package the way its composed? And I'm defending that we need a keyneisan plan to fix the recession, not that the Dems/obama are right here.

C'mon, man. You used those exact words to describe my position of letting the market handle most of the market adjustments. Right before you tried to characterize my views as "anarchist". Remember?

Again, I didn't call you an anarchist. I put a choice to you.

How about reading my posts?

I have, please return the favor. I've lost count of how many times you've misread something I've written.

Let the banks borrow from the Fed at the key rate for certain load types (fixed mortgages, debt consolidation, small business loans). Incentivize the banks to make these loans by offering them little or no taxes on loan profits for the life of the loans if made in these sectors for the next 12 months or so. Then, raise the tax rates slightly, in a scaled fashion over several years for new loans until we have consolidated the mortgage, credit card and small business debts, thereby freeing the people of burden, ending the mortgage crisis and clearing the banks of the "toxic assets" that they professed for needing the TARP. The best part is that the plan is a far cheaper TARP with a stimulus kick all rolled into one.


This doesn't fix the bad paper problem. This is a good plan after you fix that problem.

What part of that is socialistic? It's a similar lending model to VA loans, SBA loans, etc. If anything, it's a helluva lot less socialist than owning the banks. THAT, my friend, is encroaching upon nationalization.

Giving a company money, then saying: You have to do XYZ with it is socialism. Its state capitalism. At least nationalization is more honest lol.

I would have thought that we would be agreeing on a lot more here.

I think that we do agree on a lot, we just disagree on the tactics.

Now who's advocating nationalizing banks?


I'm no fan of nationalization, but it has to be considered. I don't think they should do it unless they have no other options.

Is this the same Citi that complained to congress because they couldn't try to acquire Wachovia and then turned around and flipped belly up? The same Citi who just raised their interest rates on all credit cards across the board by as much as 10% over the past few weeks whether they were warranted or not?


I wasn't defending their business model. Just pointing out that their failure would lead to more problems.

The most involvement that the Fed should have with Citi is insuring savings and overseeing the breakup. I see no scenario where the average American would be injured if Citi was broken up and banks from around the world gobbled them up. I can, however, see a bad and expensive precedent set by keeping them around. I can see a situation where futility is rewarded while good, clean banks are being punished. Certainly, this is not what you mean to have happen?

Depends on how much CDM exposure they have, and who else is tied to it. if we bailed out Lehman last september, none of this would have happened. If Citi is still tied heavily into the CDM, they could take a lot of others down with them. That would badly hurt the average american-even those who avoided Citi.


If you want to continue this, lets take to PM/txts. Im done in this thread on this topic.

[CNYSkinFan]

while i understand the objections to certain parts of the package, remember that even a facelift on the smithsonian creates jobs. Someone has to do the work. Probably a private company that will contract with the government and hire workers to do it.

Sometimes to get out of a recession govt has to pay people to dig a ditch and the next day to fill it back up again. Look at the public works projects during FDR...sure there was the Hoover damn, but there were also thousands of amphitheater and parks built that could have been seen as waste. If it is employs people and serves a greater good, I have little objection to it.

Conservatives crying over spending after spending our way into this mess on thinkgs like the iraq war which did not stimulate any part of the economy and in many ways stifled it is like Hedi Fleiss preachign about celebacy. Elections have consequences, this is one of them. the Democrats get to spend money on domestic issues that have been ignored for 8 years and employ people in a time of crisis. Republicans will whine about tax cuts again and again, but they got a chance to come to the table and didn't.

[akhhorus]

Don't worry. I just wanted an excuse to post Barbrady, lol.

:lol1: okay.

[dj_stouty]

while i understand the objections to certain parts of the package, remember that even a facelift on the smithsonian creates jobs.

You can make that excuse for anything, frankly.

BTW - The last time I've visited the Smithsonian it looked just fine to me; and the new Air and Space Smithsonian out in Northern Virginia is still brand spanking new. Right now; the buildings that shelter the moon rock, the Archie Bunker chair and the Hope Diamond are doing their jobs just fine.

Elections have consequences, this is one of them. the Democrats get to spend money on domestic issues that have been ignored for 8 years and employ people in a time of crisis.

I appreciate your honesty, here. Of course this is an opportunity for Democrats. But Obama ran his campaign on making a change from "business as usual" in Washington and this bill is simply letting the democrats get their domestic policies passed in a bill that is labeled "economy" and using the "creates jobs" as a round-about excuse.

I fully expected things to "change" when a Democratic President and a democratic-controlled congress got into power; but I'd just prefer not to get fed lines of BS about it.

[BurgundyNGold]

Telling them what to do with money you give them is nationalization from the back door. Pretty soon, you're appointing their board members and making decisions for them.
That analogy is a stretch, at best. Especially when compared to taking them over or forcing them to give up a preferred ownership stake.

Nobody is forcing the banks to do anything. They can keep their bad loans. They can choose to not make unprecedented profit in return for releasing their capital. That's their choice. At least my plan isn't limited to only the bad banks. Any bank can partake and many banks will. Cash will flow like the mighty Mississippi, lol.

Thats your opinion. I've seen a galaxy of different ideas on what to do from credible experts.
Yeah, well I haven't. But I don't count blogs since the vast majority of the Americans who will be paying for this don't read blogs. They get their news from TV ands have been failed.

Andrew Sulivan's blog(which gets millions of hits per day), Cal. risk, politico, Time, newsweek, slate on and on and on.
I frequent Time (that's where I got my link) and Newsweek. I haven;t seen any alternative plans of substance on either.

Stop debating that there was a debate. There wasn't one. We got one choice. Savor it.

Except that they aren't doing what you accuse them of. You're acting like the media isn't questioning either plan. Thats horse crap!
They're not. They did far more to question the rush to war (not that it mattered) and they were waving the flag the whole time.

Im not going to repeat myself on the differences between the situations. And the politicians are doing what they think is best for their constituents-pork or not. There's plenty of politicians who are voting for the bill and they don't see the full benefits of it and vice versa. And politicians who propose something for the Stim package that they've been pushing for over years, but then vote against the bill lol.
That's the problem. Freaking sheep.

I'd just like to see one expert back up your figures.
Read the WaPo. They spelled out the amounts. Out of $790B, about $275B are tax cuts and rebates (pointless and untimely). The rest is primarily infrastructure spending (necessary, granted, but has no business in a stimulus bill and sold in that way).

I havent mischaracterized your position once. I'm putting a simple philosophical choice to you. i didn't say you wanted the system to burn down, just said that if you can't trust anyone in power, then the only alternative is anarchy.
You drew an unfounded conclusion, based on the alarmist position, that letting the markets lead will lead to the system "burning down". You then extended that into hyperbole by assuming that anarchy would ensue. Ergo, my position must be one of an anarchist.

That mischaracterization -- and that's what it is -- is thin even for your tactics.

Thanks to TARP 1, I agree. But there is a risk of an inflationary depression or a japan style extended recession. Both of which should be avoided.
Sure, bot should be avoided but that doesn't mean that we should spend $800B while ignoring the problem, lol. And Japan passed 6 stim bills in the 90s to no avail. If you're going to bring them up as an example, at least note that we are headed same the same path if we do the same things.

Your burden of proof is much higher now if you're now accusing them of deliberate deceitful action. I've said my opinions on what I think the composition of the stim package should be, and I agree that tarp 2 should be as cheap as possible. If you read the fine print of Geithner's plan, he's not talking about spending another 1.5 trillion. He's referring to 1.5 trillion in total funding(potentially) both private and public. They want to keep the costs to under the 300 billion still appropriated in the tarp funding.
Geithner said $2T, I believe. And that's still a lot more than we need to spend -- especially considering that we just burned $800B for nothing in the way of stimulus.

And the burden of proof is on them. They need to show what they're doing. I'm accusing them of either stupidity or deceit. It's too soon to tell which, though I am personally leaning towards the latter.

Then you're obviously not reading my posts.
So, you do not support the stim pkg?

So, if some nimrod on capitol hill says it, it must be so now? They can hector them all they want: cash is flowing. All the numbers show that.
Apparently, so since you seem to think that these decisions are the correct ones. And cash is not flowing. The numbers to not show this. Just saying it does not make it so.

I'll wait to see the full monty before judging. They were leaking last november that they wanted 2 stimulus packages.
And they still need them, lol.

Didn't I say that I wouldn't do the stimulus package the way its composed? And I'm defending that we need a keyneisan plan to fix the recession, not that the Dems/obama are right here.
We need a plan, I agree. We didn't get one. What we did get is an $800B debt on top of $10T or so that we already have.

For the record, I am for infrastructure funding, green initiatives and a variety of other spending initiatives as part of a medium and long term plan for the country. What I am not for is using fear and pressure to pass a stimulus package that was not properly debated and that has very few stimulus mechanisms.

Again, I didn't call you an anarchist. I put a choice to you.
Oh, right. Our way or oblivion. The 2009 version of "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists". Dissent = anarchism. Gotcha.

I have, please return the favor. I've lost count of how many times you've misread something I've written.
I have read all of your posts and the articles you posted. However, your posts always seem to devolve into single or double line replies and mischaracterization of the poster you're responding to.

This doesn't fix the bad paper problem. This is a good plan after you fix that problem.
It fixes the mortgages. It fixes credit card debt. It fixes small business debt. Which bad paper doesn't it fix? And should we care about it since it seems to be hanging out in the shadows?

Giving a company money, then saying: You have to do XYZ with it is socialism. Its state capitalism. At least nationalization is more honest lol.
Giving them access to the money is not giving them money. They can borrow it from the Fed just like they borrow from any other banks. And nobody is telling what to do with it, necessarily. They just won't get the great tax rates and reduced interest lending if they use it for something else. The choices are up to the banks: Borrow the money or not. Loan to certain sectors for historical profit opportunities or not. Nobody is mandating anything. Are we clear on that?

I think that we do agree on a lot, we just disagree on the tactics.
As a fiscal conservative, I don't like taking on debt or bailing our companies at the expense of the taxpayer. The only plans that are even slightly being considered are nationalist plans and huge, spending packages wrapped up and sold under false pretenses.

I'm no fan of nationalization, but it has to be considered. I don't think they should do it unless they have no other options.
When the government refuses to take the time to look for other options, it's not surprising that there is only one that gets discussed.

I wasn't defending their business model. Just pointing out that their failure would lead to more problems.
Specifically, which problems?

Depends on how much CDM exposure they have, and who else is tied to it. if we bailed out Lehman last september, none of this would have happened. If Citi is still tied heavily into the CDM, they could take a lot of others down with them. That would badly hurt the average american-even those who avoided Citi.
How so? The capital is there for the lending, even if it isn't used. The mortgages are still being paid or not paid as they were 4 months ago. The Fed has put a limit on ARM rate adjustments. How, specifically, will this affect anyone aside from Citi and their investors?

If you want to continue this, lets take to PM/txts. Im done in this thread on this topic.
OK. Respond to my questions in PM. Thanks.

[RedskinsDave]

You can make that excuse for anything, frankly.

BTW - The last time I've visited the Smithsonian it looked just fine to me; and the new Air and Space Smithsonian out in Northern Virginia is still brand spanking new. Right now; the buildings that shelter the moon rock, the Archie Bunker chair and the Hope Diamond are doing their jobs just fine.



I appreciate your honesty, here. Of course this is an opportunity for Democrats. But Obama ran his campaign on making a change from "business as usual" in Washington and this bill is simply letting the democrats get their domestic policies passed in a bill that is labeled "economy" and using the "creates jobs" as a round-about excuse.

I fully expected things to "change" when a Democratic President and a democratic-controlled congress got into power; but I'd just prefer not to get fed lines of BS about it.

Their new mantra is "you got to screw it up for 8 years so now it's our turn". Anyone who bought into the "change" thing is a moron. They need to make up their minds, either it's change from business as usual or it's their turn to spend. Either way, it sucks for America.

[fpickering]

Because earmarks have to be requested LONG before the bill goes into conference. Its pretty clear you have no clue what an earmark really is.

Thats his opinion. You still have to prove that Obama knows they are "pet projects" and said otherwise.



And it's pretty clear that you have no idea how to provide sources to backup your arguments. I wonder why that is?

You're right, I may not have known the detailed intricacies regarding earmarks but I do know that you still have done nothing to refute the original post in this thread. Whether or not there are earmarks and whether or not I have a clue what they are, there are still pet projects in the bill.

If you choose to deny that then you're either being very disingenuious or you are being extremely ignorant.
I think that we would generally agree that Obama is a competent and reasonable person. Correct?

Tell me what competent and reasonable person would not deem the following "pet projects" in a Stimulus bill:

Thirty million dollars for wetland restoration in the San Francisco Bay Area - including work to protect the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse

Wow, how convenient. San Francisco. Comrade Pelosi's stomping ground.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represents the city of San Francisco and has previously championed preserving the mouse's habitat in the Bay Area."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/earmark-less-bill-gives-pelosis-mouse-cookie/


Of course, this is only one example, but how fitting it is. A project to preserve a mouse's habitat is a shining example of a "pet" project.



Considering how clueless you still are about what an earmark actually is, that wasn't an insult. Yes, we do know whether or not there's no earmarks. The bill has passed conference, which means its in its final version(and cannot be altered), and there's no earmarks in it currently(nor can anyone put an earmark in now without restarting the legislative process).



Again with the earmark? I guess that is all you have to hang your hat on. Ok, I admit it, you're right. I confess. I do not know the minute details regarding an earmark.




You brought up that link and economist in response to the point that the economy needed action(tax cuts or spending or both). You can't now try to change the context.


I didn't change the context. Walter Williams article backs up several of my points. I sourced different passages for different points.




What I said:
"Secondly, you said that Obama was lying that tax cuts can't solve the economic problems. I said that he's right because Japan tried that in the mid90s and it led to a deflationary spiral. I didn't say that tax cuts caused their economic problems, I said that their tax cuts didn't fix their problems.

So, yet again, you're bringing up an irrelevant point."

So, your response to my saying that you brought up an irrelevant point is to not discuss the main point you were trying to make?


OK, I think that there has been some confusion on the Japan issue. Let's start from step one. Here is what you said originally:

"Cutting taxes is what Japan did in the mid 90s and it lead to massive deflation."

I know that you dislike wiki but I love it. The following are what it points to regarding the systemic reasons for deflation in Japan, none of which includes cutting taxes:

* Fallen asset prices
* Insolvent companies
* Insolvent banks
* Fear of insolvent banks
* Imported deflation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation_(economics)#Deflation_in_Japan

Before you say that wiki is a bad source, feel free to post your own source.




I said he was as big a hack as Krugman(who has better credentials). If you think that Williams or Krugman aren't political hacks, then I didn't call him a hack. Obviously, you need a refresher course on reading comprehension.


This does not make one iota of sense but just to play along.

You claimed to be a Political Scientist, correct? Hence your intimate understanding of the minute details of earmarks, right?

Williams is an Economist and an accomplished one at that. Pardon me but I think that I will place more credence on his words with regards to the Economics than yours.



Your claim was:
"8. Suggesting that we must pass this bill for the future of our children and grandchildren. (if we pass this bill we will leave them with a gigantic deficit)"

I pointed out that preventing a depression or prolonged recession(whether or not the stim package will actually do that) is for the sake of the next generations(you're not going to argue that, are you?). What you're saying now is not relevant to that discussion. Nevermind that its not a lie since he didn't say that it wouldn't pass debt to the future generations, did he?

"We do have to borrow that money, and the burden of the debt will fall on future generations"

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-spending-taxes-oped-cx_tc_0107cooley.html

Maybe this cannot be classified as a lie but it is terribly short sighted.

[akhhorus]

And it's pretty clear that you have no idea how to provide sources to backup your arguments. I wonder why that is?

You're right, I may not have known the detailed intricacies regarding earmarks but I do know that you still have done nothing to refute the original post in this thread.

I haven refuted your points, you've responded with ignorance and irrelevant comment.

Whether or not there are earmarks and whether or not I have a clue what they are, there are still pet projects in the bill.


Thats a matter of interpretation, not a black/white fact. Unless you know what Obama believes in his heart about those projects, you cant say anyone is lying about what's a pet project.

If you choose to deny that then you're either being very disingenuious or you are being extremely ignorant.
I think that we would generally agree that Obama is a competent and reasonable person. Correct?

Tell me what competent and reasonable person would not deem the following "pet projects" in a Stimulus bill:

Thirty million dollars for wetland restoration in the San Francisco Bay Area - including work to protect the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse

Wow, how convenient. San Francisco. Comrade Pelosi's stomping ground.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represents the city of San Francisco and has previously championed preserving the mouse's habitat in the Bay Area."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/earmark-less-bill-gives-pelosis-mouse-cookie/

Of course, this is only one example, but how fitting it is. A project to preserve a mouse's habitat is a shining example of a "pet" project.



http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/stimulus-package/pelosi-staff-conservative-talking-point-about-30-million-for-mice-is-fabrication/

Yesterday a House Republican leadership staffer circulated a background email, which I obtained, charging that GOP staffers had been told by an unnamed Federal agency that if it got money from the stim package, it would spend “thirty million dollars for wetland restoration in the San Francisco Bay Area — including work to protect the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse.”

The GOP staffer’s email didn’t say what agency it was. It didn’t say the money was actually in the package — just that an unnamed agency had said they would spend it on that if they got it.

But conservatives picked up the claim and began stating as fact that the mouse money was in the bill. On Fox News yesterday, Mike Huckabee blasted the bill for containing money for Pelosi’s mouse, and today GOP Rep Dan Lundgren hammered the alleged mouse money in the bill as “absurd.” Today’s Washington Times ran with a story called: “Pelosi’s mouse slated for $30M slice of cheese.”

But I just contacted the House GOP staffer who wrote the initial email laying out this talking point, and he conceded that the claim by conservative media that the mouse money is currently in the bill is a misstatement. “There is not specific language in the legislation for this project,” he said.

Again with the earmark? I guess that is all you have to hang your hat on. Ok, I admit it, you're right. I confess. I do not know the minute details regarding an earmark.


Considering that you're trying to use earmarks as "proof" that Obama was lying, maybe you should know what you're talking about before opening your mouth?

I didn't change the context. Walter Williams article backs up several of my points. I sourced different passages for different points.

And even his numbers are absurd. If you do what he wants, you'll create 700,000 jobs(nevermind that we're losing 600,000 a month and have lost 3.6 million jobs since this economic crisis started) and barely enough revenue to justify the move.

OK, I think that there has been some confusion on the Japan issue. Let's start from step one. Here is what you said originally:

"Cutting taxes is what Japan did in the mid 90s and it lead to massive deflation."

I know that you dislike wiki but I love it. The following are what it points to regarding the systemic reasons for deflation in Japan, none of which includes cutting taxes:

* Fallen asset prices
* Insolvent companies
* Insolvent banks
* Fear of insolvent banks
* Imported deflation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation_(economics)#Deflation_in_Japan

Before you say that wiki is a bad source, feel free to post your own source.


Obama was talking about how Japan cut taxes in a severe recession and they failed to fix anything(which is true). You called that a lie. After I proved you wrong, you're now trying to change the context again. Obama did not say that Japan cutting taxes led to their economic crisis(real estate and banking problems did).

This does not make one iota of sense but just to play along.

You claimed to be a Political Scientist, correct? Hence your intimate understanding of the minute details of earmarks, right?

Williams is an Economist and an accomplished one at that. Pardon me but I think that I will place more credence on his words with regards to the Economics than yours.


Fine, you can believe anyone you want. Then read the Krugman link I provided(nevermind that I don't like Krugman). He discusses why Williams is wrong(not specifically, but his theories). Since you're obsessed with credentials, Krugman just won the Nobel prize for economics.

"We do have to borrow that money, and the burden of the debt will fall on future generations"

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-spending-taxes-oped-cx_tc_0107cooley.html

Maybe this cannot be classified as a lie but it is terribly short sighted.

Thats different than what you want to complain about.

[fpickering]

You can take that up with the conservatives/Republicans you voted for. While you're at it, why don't you ask them why they spent twice as much on earmarks as the Democratic congress of 2007 and 35% more on earmarks than the Democratic congress of 2008.


Those are not Conservatives.



The fact remains, conservatives never decrease the deficit. Reagan didn't even come close, Dubya completely reversed a balanced budget into an enormous deficit, Bush Sr. didn't even come close. Clinton began with a deficit and ended with a surplus, and Carter leveled it. Noticing a trend here?


Again, none of these are Conservatives with the exception of Reagan and I think that we would agree that there were extenuating circumstances around that:

Carter Admin failed policies, Federal Reserve Board tightening money supply, economy in recession, unemployment over 10%, oil prices skyrocketing causing high gas prices, resulting in inflation by the time of the election. Interest rates ballooned to 20% and the value of the dollar dropped.

BTW, Carter supported high taxes, close government regulation of business, and high government spending.

SOUND FAMILIAR????



Good for you. Now can you admit the truth that tax cuts increase the deficit when they aren't coupled with a spending decrease?


I did not assert anything to the contrary. Of course I am 100% for a reduction in spending though since a lot of it is wasteful and inefficient.



Uh huh. And if the Government ever paid the head of an agency head $25 million while his agency fell apart...

I'm not saying there isn't waste because there is. But your broad stroke critique is as worthless as the conservatives who failed the Government over the last 8 years. Conservatives don't believe in good Governance, therefor have no interest in what constitutes good governance. Conservatives suck at Government. Just like I would suck at developing and innovating something that I hate (such as marketing pop music).



So much waste. So much inefficiency. Bloated. This is our federal government today. I witness it first hand on a daily basis. Do you? This is not an isolated incident either.

Again, they are not Conservatives. For whatever reason the entire political spectrum has shifted left to the point where I want a third party. If I could I would start one and call it the Patroit party and it would espouse true Conservative values.




It's not a good comparison anyway. The Government is mission oriented. Private industry is money oriented. Your company can be utterly immoral, unfair, rip people off, screw people over, lie, get nothing done, put out a crappy product, pay people a thousand times more than they are worth, etc, and that's all fine and dandy as long as you make money.

The Government operates to a much higher standard on a thousand different levels. They have to consider equal opportunities, stimulating industry in economically disadvanatged areas, helping small businesses, service disabled veterans, they have to follow the FAR and OPM hiring practices, not to mention Government is responsible for the bottom line regarding all safety and security issues-meaning they can't simply carve out a niche, they are accountable for the big picture.

But if you want compare in terms of agility, it's only fair to compare in terms of objectives. Show me the business that defeated Hitler, put a man on the moon, kept all commercial air travel 100% safe for the last two years, built a nimitz class aircraft carrier, keeps the streets safe, maintains a very good justice system, etc.

The beauracratic nature of the Government is inherent based on it's objectives. Don't believe me, then why do federal employees beat private industry 83% of the time we do a direct competition? Could it be that conservatives don't know what the hell they are talking about regarding the FED?


This is a lot of filler material filled with typical liberal propaganda about how Corporations are evil and the Government performs all kind of feel good PC activities.
The only thing of substance is that government employees beat private contractors 83% of the time in this so called "competitive sourcing" initiative. In all of my experiences with the government, I just have never seen this. Not once. I am not sure what criteria was used to judge this or how the study was conducted or how they chose the government and private persons, what experience they had, etc... but this just does not pass the litmus test. Not in my industry at least.
BTW, the Military is great at what they do and obviously cannot be replaced by a civilian counterpart. That would be asinine so your Hitler reference is out the window. Also, you can thank Bush and his policies for keeping all commercial air travel 100% safe. To my knowledege, the TSA did not thwart anything substantial. Lastly, the Nimitz class aircraft carrier was designed and built by a private industry.




First of all, I don't trust heritage numbers and neither should you. I've seen far too many of their numbers being debunked. But even if I did, their argument is laughable. Basically they claim the problem isn't tax cuts, it's that conservatives spent too much LOL. So as long as we suspend the reality of Government spending, they have a point.


I see you have no trouble taking the very liberal Washington Post at its word while trashing the Heritage Foundation. How convenient.

[fpickering]

Conservatives crying over spending after spending our way into this mess on thinkgs like the iraq war which did not stimulate any part of the economy and in many ways stifled it is like Hedi Fleiss preachign about celebacy.

Bush was not a Conservative. In fact Conservatives were pretty upset when Bush was spending like Paris Hilton on Sunset Blvd. and it all came to a head with TARP.

[akhhorus]

Bush was not a Conservative. In fact Conservatives were pretty upset when Bush was spending like Paris Hilton on Sunset Blvd. and it all came to a head with TARP.

And yet 33 republican senators voted for TARP, including some established fiscal conservatives like Robert Bennett, John Warner, John Kyl, Orrin Hatch, Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, John Cornyn, etc etc etc.

[fpickering]

Thats a matter of interpretation, not a black/white fact. Unless you know what Obama believes in his heart about those projects, you cant say anyone is lying about what's a pet project


http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/stimulus-package/pelosi-staff-conservative-talking-point-about-30-million-for-mice-is-fabrication/


OH COME ON. You are allowing your pride to deliver you right into idiocy. There is pork in this bill. Schumer admitted it. Why can't you?

But since I know that you have the unfortunate quality of never thinking you are wrong, allow me to introduce other examples of pet projects or what the follwing source says are <SHUDDER> earmarks:

"Coburn spokesman John Hart and Taxpayers for Common Sense also cited another project as an earmark: a provision in the bill calling for $2 billion for a "near zero emissions powerplant." They say the money is intended to restart FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that is supported by Sen. Dick Durbin.

Senators are also employing a wink-wink approach that uses vague-sounding language in a committee report to quietly direct money to pet projects. Although the language does not sound specific, groups that track earmarks say it's clear where senators want the money to go. For example, a report on the bill from the Senate Appropriations Committee specifies $70 million for "supercomputer activities, especially as they relate to climate research." The Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee, says that is probably targeted for the National Center for Environmental Prediction in Camp Springs, Md.

The group also cites $250 million that is designated "to repair NASA facilities damaged by Hurricane Ike and to reduce the significant backlog of maintenance and repair projects at NASA facilities nationwide." That appears to be for the Johnson Space Center in Houston.

Those projects don't have senators' names attributed to them, but the Senate Conservatives Fund points out that senators on the Appropriations Committee include Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

It's worth noting that Obama's observation about the overall nature of the bill is mostly correct. The House and Senate stimulus bills have not been stuffed with hundreds of pet projects the way that highway, energy and water bills often are. And that's especially true for the House bill.

But the Senate version includes at least several projects that we consider to be earmarks. The Filipino project might not fit the narrow definition of earmarks that Congress or OMB uses, but we think reasonable people would consider it to be an earmark. And the movie industry tax break, which was in the bill when Gibbs made his statement, and the Texas and Maryland projects sure look like earmarks by any definition.

Gibbs didn't leave himself any wiggle room. He said "no earmarks." But we see at least a few, so we find his statement to be False."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/feb/04/robert-gibbs/stimulus-bill-includes-projects-some-consider-earm/




Considering that you're trying to use earmarks as "proof" that Obama was lying, maybe you should know what you're talking about before opening your mouth?


You wish I was trying to use earmarks as "proof" that Obama was lying, but unless you are a moron you would know that I have been focusing on the term "pet projects". Plus, I already admitted that I did not know all of the minute details regarding earmarks, although my source quoted above seems to think that there are in fact earmarks. Thanks for playing.




And even his numbers are absurd. If you do what he wants, you'll create 700,000 jobs(nevermind that we're losing 600,000 a month and have lost 3.6 million jobs since this economic crisis started) and barely enough revenue to justify the move.


This was just his suggestion to make the tax cuts permanent. It is not his comprehensive solution if you read the article.


Obama was talking about how Japan cut taxes in a severe recession and they failed to fix anything(which is true). You called that a lie. After I proved you wrong, you're now trying to change the context again. Obama did not say that Japan cutting taxes led to their economic crisis(real estate and banking problems did).


I am still waiting for a link to support your contention. Oh and BTW, you proved nothing.



Fine, you can believe anyone you want. Then read the Krugman link I provided(nevermind that I don't like Krugman). He discusses why Williams is wrong(not specifically, but his theories). Since you're obsessed with credentials, Krugman just won the Nobel prize for economics.



Thats different than what you want to complain about.

OK, I will believe Williams.

[fpickering]

And yet 33 republican senators voted for TARP, including some established fiscal conservatives like Robert Bennett, John Warner, John Kyl, Orrin Hatch, Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, John Cornyn, etc etc etc.

Like I said, the political spectrum has shifted so far left that those labeled as liberals are actually closer to socialists and those labeled as Conservative are really actually moderates to liberal.

No true Conservative would have voted to nationalize the banks.

[akhhorus]

OH COME ON. You are allowing your pride to deliver you right into idiocy. There is pork in this bill. Schumer admitted it. Why can't you?

Because you didn't say Schumer was lying about it. You said Obama. Last time I checked, Chuck Schumer isn't the President(thank god). Please show where Obama believes that there are pork/pet projects in the bill or retract your comment.

But since I know that you have the unfortunate quality of never thinking you are wrong, allow me to introduce other examples of pet projects or what the follwing source says are <SHUDDER> earmarks:

"Coburn spokesman John Hart and Taxpayers for Common Sense also cited another project as an earmark: a provision in the bill calling for $2 billion for a "near zero emissions powerplant." They say the money is intended to restart FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that is supported by Sen. Dick Durbin.

Senators are also employing a wink-wink approach that uses vague-sounding language in a committee report to quietly direct money to pet projects. Although the language does not sound specific, groups that track earmarks say it's clear where senators want the money to go. For example, a report on the bill from the Senate Appropriations Committee specifies $70 million for "supercomputer activities, especially as they relate to climate research." The Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee, says that is probably targeted for the National Center for Environmental Prediction in Camp Springs, Md.

The group also cites $250 million that is designated "to repair NASA facilities damaged by Hurricane Ike and to reduce the significant backlog of maintenance and repair projects at NASA facilities nationwide." That appears to be for the Johnson Space Center in Houston.

Those projects don't have senators' names attributed to them, but the Senate Conservatives Fund points out that senators on the Appropriations Committee include Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

It's worth noting that Obama's observation about the overall nature of the bill is mostly correct. The House and Senate stimulus bills have not been stuffed with hundreds of pet projects the way that highway, energy and water bills often are. And that's especially true for the House bill.

But the Senate version includes at least several projects that we consider to be earmarks. The Filipino project might not fit the narrow definition of earmarks that Congress or OMB uses, but we think reasonable people would consider it to be an earmark. And the movie industry tax break, which was in the bill when Gibbs made his statement, and the Texas and Maryland projects sure look like earmarks by any definition.

Gibbs didn't leave himself any wiggle room. He said "no earmarks." But we see at least a few, so we find his statement to be False."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/feb/04/robert-gibbs/stimulus-bill-includes-projects-some-consider-earm/


Thats all well and good, but its interpretation, not fact. And your link is defining an earmark as any potentially wasteful spending. Thats WRONG. An earmark is a specific legislative measure. Here's the definition of an earmark from the Office of Management and Budget(the Federal government):

http://www.earmarks.omb.gov/



What is an Earmark?

Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to properly manage funds. Congress includes earmarks in appropriation bills - the annual spending bills that Congress enacts to allocate discretionary spending - and also in authorization bills.

It is not wasteful spending. And there are no earmarks in this bill.

You wish I was trying to use earmarks as "proof" that Obama was lying, but unless you are a moron you would know that I have been focusing on the term "pet projects". Plus, I already admitted that I did not know all of the minute details regarding earmarks, although my source quoted above seems to think that there are in fact earmarks. Thanks for playing.


No, there are no earmarks. And you still haven't proven anything you've said, except to show that you'll drone on and on about topics and terms you clearly don't understand.

This was just his suggestion to make the tax cuts permanent. It is not his comprehensive solution if you read the article.


Oh really? Whats his comprehensive solution then? He doesn't suggest anything except making the tax cuts permanent(despite their lack of effect).

I am still waiting for a link to support your contention. Oh and BTW, you proved nothing.


I showed Japan's tax cuts in 1998 and their growth in 1999. Thats proof.

OK, I will believe Williams.

You're entitled to believe anything you want no matter how wrong it actually is

[akhhorus]

Like I said, the political spectrum has shifted so far left that those labeled as liberals are actually closer to socialists and those labeled as Conservative are really actually moderates to liberal.

Thats your opinion. And if the GOP senators who voted for it were moderate republicans, you may have a point. But old line conservatives voted for it, and it doesn't make them liberals.

No true Conservative would have voted to nationalize the banks.

Well good thing that they haven't voted on nationalizing banks yet then.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Those are not Conservatives.


I forgot, a true conservative can only be found at the end of a rainbow.

But if Republicans aren't conservatives, why is it 90% of self-identified conservatives vote for Republicans? I know you did. Why is it conservatives don't have an alternative? 34% of Americans describe themselves as conservative, those votes have to be going somewhere. You and I both know conservatives vote Republican at a very high clip (80-90%).

George W. Bush was the conservative candidate. Conservatives and conservatives alone own the failure.

Again, none of these are Conservatives with the exception of Reagan and I think that we would agree that there were extenuating circumstances around that:

Carter Admin failed policies, Federal Reserve Board tightening money supply, economy in recession, unemployment over 10%, oil prices skyrocketing causing high gas prices, resulting in inflation by the time of the election. Interest rates ballooned to 20% and the value of the dollar dropped.



So you're a keynesian as long as it's a Republican administration lol.
Besides, Reagan didn't spend because of extenuating circumstances. He spent because he was a conservative, and that's what conservatives do. A lot of his spending was on wasteful military programs that didn't work, nor were they cost effective in terms of the cold war.

BTW, Carter supported high taxes, close government regulation of business, and high government spending.

SOUND FAMILIAR????


Outside of your Republican bubble, it's laughable to argue for deregulation at this point.

So much waste. So much inefficiency. Bloated. This is our federal government today. I witness it first hand on a daily basis. Do you? This is not an isolated incident either.


you could say I have a very close view.

Again, they are not Conservatives. For whatever reason the entire political spectrum has shifted left to the point where I want a third party. If I could I would start one and call it the Patroit party and it would espouse true Conservative values.


And once in power your party would do the exact same thing the Republicans do: Come to the realization that your dreams of eliminating huge portions of the Government are simply not feasible.

This is a lot of filler material filled with typical liberal propaganda about how Corporations are evil and the Government performs all kind of feel good PC activities.


Propaganda? Everything I said was true. I'm not saying corporations are evil, just pointing out that the Government and corporations don't play by the same rules.

The only thing of substance is that government employees beat private contractors 83% of the time in this so called "competitive sourcing" initiative. In all of my experiences with the government, I just have never seen this. Not once. I am not sure what criteria was used to judge this or how the study was conducted or how they chose the government and private persons, what experience they had, etc... but this just does not pass the litmus test. Not in my industry at least.


The criteria was developed by conservatives. And private industry still lost 83% of the time. This is like waking a sleep-walker-ill-advised and unpleasant.

BTW, the Military is great at what they do and obviously cannot be replaced by a civilian counterpart. That would be asinine so your Hitler reference is out the window.

No way. You want to compare private industry to Government? You got it. The whole enchilada. Your argument amounts to comparing a 22 foot speed coat to a thousand foot cruise boat. Shocker, the cruise boat is less agile. But it's purpose is entirely different and it has to accommodate a hell of a lot more people.

Also, you can thank Bush and his policies for keeping all commercial air travel 100% safe.

Those policies were a no-brainer. Locking cockpit doors, having marshals on planes, enhances searching equipment-you're not going to find anyone in their right mind who disagrees with any of that stuff.

To my knowledege, the TSA did not thwart anything substantial.


Not sure we would know about it anyway.

Lastly, the Nimitz class aircraft carrier was designed and built by a private industry.

It's a collaboration initiated by you know who.

I see you have no trouble taking the very liberal Washington Post at its word while trashing the Heritage Foundation. How convenient.

It's called credibility. The Washington Post has it. Heritage has none.

I wouldn't describe the Post as "very liberal" either. If anything, they're moderate.

What's convenient is Heritage's methods of analyzing data.

[BurgundyNGold]

Generally, I agree with your points, if not the partisan perspective. I only have a few exceptions:

Besides, Reagan didn't spend because of extenuating circumstances. He spent because he was a conservative, and that's what conservatives do. A lot of his spending was on wasteful military programs that didn't work, nor were they cost effective in terms of the cold war.
Reagan effectively did the same thing that Obama & Co are looking to do -- deficit spend their way out of the problem. The only differences are that Reagan put a whole lot more into military spending (as a quicker, practical stimulus and inn accordance with his foreign policy agenda) and simultaneously exacerbated the debt balloon with across the board tax cuts.

And once in power your party would do the exact same thing the Republicans do: Come to the realization that your dreams of eliminating huge portions of the Government are simply not feasible.

They are feasible. They're just not politically acceptable. Large government cuts (to the tune of 10-15% of spending) is plenty feasible. You might even be able to get to 20% if you can rework the Pentagon. That said, the truth is that most Federal spending is in the DOD and service of the national debt. If you want to cut spending, you have to start there because even if you lopped off 15% of the budgets for every other agency, you'd only affect the Federal budget by 3-5%, which is peanuts.

Propaganda? Everything I said was true. I'm not saying corporations are evil, just pointing out that the Government and corporations don't play by the same rules.
Corporations try to please most of the people most of the time -- as long as the endeavor is consistent with corporate initiatives. That's a harsh policy sometimes. Government tries to please all of the people all of the time. That's always a foolish policy.

The criteria was developed by conservatives. And private industry still lost 83% of the time. This is like waking a sleep-walker-ill-advised and unpleasant.
Who was doing the evaluations, the public or private sector? BTW, if you work for the Fed, you know that contractors can (and usually are) puppets so long as they get renewed, lol.

No way. You want to compare private industry to Government? You got it. The whole enchilada. Your argument amounts to comparing a 22 foot speed coat to a thousand foot cruise boat. Shocker, the cruise boat is less agile. But it's purpose is entirely different and it has to accommodate a hell of a lot more people.
Very true. I would advocate a different hierarchical structure for Federal agencies as part of Obama's reinventing government initiatives so that they can be more agile.

It's a collaboration initiated by you know who.
Neil Boortz?

It's called credibility. The Washington Post has it. Heritage has none.

I wouldn't describe the Post as "very liberal" either. If anything, they're moderate.
Heritage has some credibility, just not with moderates and liberals/progressives/hippies lol. On the composite, WaPo is left of moderate, but I don't consider them egregious, usually.

Personally speaking, if you want a conservative organization that gets bashed mercilessly that probably shouldn't it's the CATO Institute. Being mostly a Libertarian think tank, they're not aligned with any particular PAC and tend to come down on both conservative and liberal sides, dependent upon the issue.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Reagan effectively did the same thing that Obama & Co are looking to do -- deficit spend their way out of the problem. The only differences are that Reagan put a whole lot more into military spending (as a quicker, practical stimulus and inn accordance with his foreign policy agenda) and simultaneously exacerbated the debt balloon with across the board tax cuts.


Agree. Republicans spend, they just spend on different things. After the last 8 years, increasing military spending makes little sense.

One thing the new administration is doing is to take program funds that were not going to be available until 2010 and bump them up to '09. Some of this money was going to be spent anyway, just later.

They are feasible. They're just not politically acceptable. Large government cuts (to the tune of 10-15% of spending) is plenty feasible. You might even be able to get to 20% if you can rework the Pentagon. That said, the truth is that most Federal spending is in the DOD and service of the national debt. If you want to cut spending, you have to start there because even if you lopped off 15% of the budgets for every other agency, you'd only affect the Federal budget by 3-5%, which is peanuts.


Nobody is going to attain power by promising defense cuts and fiscal restraint. While the latter might be alluring to people who claim to be fiscal conservatives, the former eliminates chances of getting votes from the right. One of the most popular complaints about Clinton is decreased defense spending.

A little over half of discretionary spending is military/defense related. I think other agencies can have a substantial combined impact. Although defense spending seems to be wildly out of control, other discretionary spending is relatively stable.

Of course this ignores the $1.3 trillion Gorilla

Corporations try to please most of the people most of the time -- as long as the endeavor is consistent with corporate initiatives. That's a harsh policy sometimes. Government tries to please all of the people all of the time. That's always a foolish policy.


Seems inevitable in a Democracy. What kind of political appointee heading an agency is going to operate independently of public opinion?

To me, the solution is incredibly obvious: Drastically reduce the number of political appointees in the FED. Even though many of these folks come from incredibly successful careers in private industry, they generally get their asses handed to them by career civil servants:

In an unusual new analysis, another political scientist compared the Bush administration's own evaluations of more than 600 government programs with the backgrounds of the 242 managers who ran those programs. David E. Lewis, who is now at Vanderbilt University, found that three-quarters of the managers administering the programs were political appointees while a quarter were career civil servants.

The political appointees were better educated, on average, than the civil staff. Many had stellar records in the private sector or on the campaign trail. Side by side, the political appointees just looked like a much smarter bunch than the careerists.

When it came to performance, however, the bureaucrats whipped the politicals: Programs administered by civil servants were significantly more likely to display better strategic planning, program design, financial oversight -- and results. These findings, remember, were based on the Bush administration's own evaluation system -- the Program Assessment Rating Tool, administered by the Office of Management and Budget.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/23/AR2008112302485.html

Who was doing the evaluations, the public or private sector? BTW, if you work for the Fed, you know that contractors can (and usually are) puppets so long as they get renewed, lol.


Sure they are. I would imagine FEDs are doing the evaluations.

Heritage has some credibility, just not with moderates and liberals/progressives/hippies lol. On the composite, WaPo is left of moderate, but I don't consider them egregious, usually.


Everyone has their own scale.

Roughly 34% of voters consider themselves conservative, 21% consider themselves liberal, and 40% consider themselves moderate. If we accept this as a measure of the political spectrum, the WaPo falls firmly under moderate IMO. I don't think they are left of 80% of the country.

Personally speaking, if you want a conservative organization that gets bashed mercilessly that probably shouldn't it's the CATO Institute. Being mostly a Libertarian think tank, they're not aligned with any particular PAC and tend to come down on both conservative and liberal sides, dependent upon the issue.

I rarely agree with CATO but I do think they have integrity. Heritage, OTOH, is a disingenious Republican cheerleader. Having read a lot from both, I think there is a clear distinction.

Take this article for example:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/14/were-spending-more-than-ever-and-it-doesnt-work/

They use a Morgenthou quote that they know is inaccurate as if it validates their preconcieved opinions. Why on Earth would anyone use a quote that they know is wrong? That would be like someone using Colin Powell's speech to the UN 70 years from now to prove Iraq really did have WMDs.

[fpickering]

Because you didn't say Schumer was lying about it. You said Obama. Last time I checked, Chuck Schumer isn't the President(thank god). Please show where Obama believes that there are pork/pet projects in the bill or retract your comment.


One of the following is true no matter which way you spin it:

1. Obama is a crafty POTUS and knows that there are pet projects in the bill and knowingly lied to the American public about it, knowing that the liberal media would give him a free pass.

2. Obama is an irresponsible POTUS and said that there were no pet projects in the bill despite without verifying what was in the bill.

3. Obama is an incompetent POTUS and is completely out of touch with the American public because he does not consider anything in the thousand pages of legislation as a pet project considering this is supposed to be a stimulus bill when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Pick one or feel free to adequately explain how he could possibly justify his statement.




Thats all well and good, but its interpretation, not fact. And your link is defining an earmark as any potentially wasteful spending. Thats WRONG. An earmark is a specific legislative measure. Here's the definition of an earmark from the Office of Management and Budget(the Federal government):

http://www.earmarks.omb.gov/


How were the examples cited not earmarks? Earlier, you stated that the line items did not have any Legislator's name attached to them. Also, the recipients of the legislation that I posted were very vague. Please be specific.




It is not wasteful spending. And there are no earmarks in this bill.


You have no possible way of stating this with certainty. The bill has over 1,000 pages and the bill in its entirety has not been made public. Just stop the madness.




No, there are no earmarks. And you still haven't proven anything you've said, except to show that you'll drone on and on about topics and terms you clearly don't understand.


You have no possible way of stating this with certainty. The bill has over 1,000 pages and the bill in its entirety has not been made public. Just stop the madness, please.



Oh really? Whats his comprehensive solution then? He doesn't suggest anything except making the tax cuts permanent(despite their lack of effect).


Not true.

"Congress ought to focus on measures that create greater long-term productive incentives such as reducing corporate taxes, estate taxes and personal income taxes as well as economic deregulation."

http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/01/30/stimulus_package_nonsense



I showed Japan's tax cuts in 1998 and their growth in 1999. Thats proof.


Hahaha. You showed exactly nothing. I am still waiting for a link from any Economist that backs up your assertion.

[fpickering]

Thats your opinion. And if the GOP senators who voted for it were moderate republicans, you may have a point. But old line conservatives voted for it, and it doesn't make them liberals.


Well good thing that they haven't voted on nationalizing banks yet then.


It makes them non believers in the free market. There are very few true Conservatives right now in the House and especially in the Senate.

If you want to rely on semantics, they did not vote to nationalize the banks using that specific language but that is effectively what has happened.


"And the new ground rules laid down by Obama's top economic advisers for the second half of the $700 billion bailout fund, as explained in a letter submitted to Congress on Thursday, call for the government to play an increasing role in the major activities of the banks, from the dividends they pay to shareholders to the amount they can pay executives.

"We are down a path that this country has not seen since Andrew Jackson shut down the Second National Bank of the United States," said Gerard Cassidy, a banking analyst at RBC Capital Markets. "We are going to go back to a time when the government controlled the banking system."

-and-

"Christopher Whalen, a managing partner at Institutional Risk Analytics, said the approach also covers up the underlying reality that the government is already essentially the majority shareholder in Citigroup.

"There's nobody else out there to invest in them," Whalen said. "We already own them."

[akhhorus]

One of the following is true no matter which way you spin it:

1. Obama is a crafty POTUS and knows that there are pet projects in the bill and knowingly lied to the American public about it, knowing that the liberal media would give him a free pass.

2. Obama is an irresponsible POTUS and said that there were no pet projects in the bill despite without verifying what was in the bill.

3. Obama is an incompetent POTUS and is completely out of touch with the American public because he does not consider anything in the thousand pages of legislation as a pet project considering this is supposed to be a stimulus bill when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


Pick one or feel free to adequately explain how he could possibly justify his statement.


Thats a false choice. You have to show that Obama was actively lying over this specific topic(that was your accusation). And your interpretation of whats in the bill isn't proof that its also Obama's interpretation. If that's your standard for when a politician's lying, then you're twice as foolish as you've shown so far.

How were the examples cited not earmarks? Earlier, you stated that the line items did not have any Legislator's name attached to them. Also, the recipients of the legislation that I posted were very vague. Please be specific.


An earmark is a specific legislative measure. A member of either house of congress puts an earmark amount of money that doesn't have to go through the appropriation process(if you're lost about what appropriations are, then you shouldn't be discussing this topic anymore). The member doesn't have to put their name on the earmark either(they do in the Senate though, I believe). A congressman putting more spending for whatever reason in a bill without using an earmark has to sponsor the amendment and get it specifically passed to be added to the bill(and get the appropriation from the specific committee). An Earmark is a way to circumvent the process without your fingerprints on it. That being said, there are some good earmarks(but plenty of bad ones). The stimulus package does not contain any earmarks. The examples you showed were spending appropriations that weren't earmarked.

You have no possible way of stating this with certainty. The bill has over 1,000 pages and the bill in its entirety has not been made public. Just stop the madness.


You're just totally wrong here. The bill has to be made public(and it was) and it contains ZERO earmarks. Congressional observers would know that it would contain earmarks because they would be announced before they voted on it for the first time a couple weeks ago.

You have no possible way of stating this with certainty. The bill has over 1,000 pages and the bill in its entirety has not been made public. Just stop the madness, please.


See above.

Not true.

"Congress ought to focus on measures that create greater long-term productive incentives such as reducing corporate taxes, estate taxes and personal income taxes as well as economic deregulation."

http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/01/30/stimulus_package_nonsense


Economic deregulation is what created this mess. And I'm not repeating myself about the lack of wisdom regarding massive tax cuts in this situation. Krugman's link explains it.

Hahaha. You showed exactly nothing. I am still waiting for a link from any Economist that backs up your assertion.

I've posted the link showing their tax cut and their growth afterwards. PM Hashimoto was the leader who did a 15 billion dollar tax cut in 1996(along with a massive bailout of the banks), and their GDP dropped 10%(and another 10% the year after that). They didn't see sustained growth until Koizumi got into office and changed everything. Here's their GDP figures:
http://www.nationmaster.com/time.php?stat=eco_gdp-economy-gdp&country=ja-japan

Just because you want to put your hands over your eyes doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It makes them non believers in the free market. There are very few true Conservatives right now in the House and especially in the Senate.

One vote doesn't make someone one ideology or not. If this is your standard, then there aren't any liberals or conservatives in either house of congress.

If you want to rely on semantics, they did not vote to nationalize the banks using that specific language but that is effectively what has happened.


"And the new ground rules laid down by Obama's top economic advisers for the second half of the $700 billion bailout fund, as explained in a letter submitted to Congress on Thursday, call for the government to play an increasing role in the major activities of the banks, from the dividends they pay to shareholders to the amount they can pay executives.

"We are down a path that this country has not seen since Andrew Jackson shut down the Second National Bank of the United States," said Gerard Cassidy, a banking analyst at RBC Capital Markets. "We are going to go back to a time when the government controlled the banking system."

-and-

"Christopher Whalen, a managing partner at Institutional Risk Analytics, said the approach also covers up the underlying reality that the government is already essentially the majority shareholder in Citigroup.

"There's nobody else out there to invest in them," Whalen said. "We already own them."

They haven't voted on any plan from Obama yet, so how exactly can you condemn their votes?

And limiting pay or dividends isn't nationalization. Especially when its still theoretical. When you start picking employees, thats nationalization.

[fpickering]

I forgot, a true conservative can only be found at the end of a rainbow.


I would not expect you to be able to identify a true Conservative being that you obviously reside on the other end of the rainbow.



But if Republicans aren't conservatives, why is it 90% of self-identified conservatives vote for Republicans? I know you did. Why is it conservatives don't have an alternative? 34% of Americans describe themselves as conservative, those votes have to be going somewhere. You and I both know conservatives vote Republican at a very high clip (80-90%).

George W. Bush was the conservative candidate. Conservatives and conservatives alone own the failure.


Yes, I did vote Republican because the alternative was much more horrific (Kerry, Obama). Pretty simple.

Conservatives don't have an alternative because the GOP had been hijacked by the more moderate to liberal wing of the party. Additionally, we basically have a lack of leadership which is unfortunate. Making the frail and old McCain our nominee was shortsighted and a losing proposition, however it was better than the aforementioned alternative.

Bush presented himself as a Conservative but he largely betrayed Conservatives by going against Conservative principles in out of control spending and by failing to be tough on illegal immigration.

The Republican party certainly owns the failure but NOT Conservatives.




So you're a keynesian as long as it's a Republican administration lol.
Besides, Reagan didn't spend because of extenuating circumstances. He spent because he was a conservative, and that's what conservatives do. A lot of his spending was on wasteful military programs that didn't work, nor were they cost effective in terms of the cold war.


No, I am not a keynesian, never was and have not provided any substantive reason for you to claim me as such.

Reagan spent on Military at a time when said spending was necessary and strategically sound. We used our stronger capability and effectively outspent the Soviet Union which had a hand in winning the Cold War.
Suggesting that spending is what Conservatives do is short sighted and antithetical to the meaning of the word Conservative.




Outside of your Republican bubble, it's laughable to argue for deregulation at this point.


I am not a Republican. I am a Conservative.



And once in power your party would do the exact same thing the Republicans do: Come to the realization that your dreams of eliminating huge portions of the Government are simply not feasible.


Again, they are not my party unless they are promoting Conservative values.




Propaganda? Everything I said was true. I'm not saying corporations are evil, just pointing out that the Government and corporations don't play by the same rules.


It's PC bull dung. Plain and simple. Affirmative action, over regulation, bloated social programs, Nanny State mentality.




The criteria was developed by conservatives. And private industry still lost 83% of the time. This is like waking a sleep-walker-ill-advised and unpleasant.



Yet, you consider Bush a Conservative. BTW, please post a link to support this assertion.



No way. You want to compare private industry to Government? You got it. The whole enchilada. Your argument amounts to comparing a 22 foot speed coat to a thousand foot cruise boat. Shocker, the cruise boat is less agile. But it's purpose is entirely different and it has to accommodate a hell of a lot more people.



What does this even mean? I speak from personal experience on multiple levels. What are you basing your opinion on?



Those policies were a no-brainer. Locking cockpit doors, having marshals on planes, enhances searching equipment-you're not going to find anyone in their right mind who disagrees with any of that stuff.


You were the one trying to give the bloated government credit for keeping our airlines safe. I contend that it was the aggressive tactics employed by the Bush Admin that kept us safe. (The very tactics that the liberal media and Obama have attacked)





It's called credibility. The Washington Post has it. Heritage has none.



Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. According to a liberal maybe. My word, please tell me that you are not this clueless. The Washington Post is a very liberal institution through and through. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit it! I can admit that the Heritage Foundation is a Conservative Outlet.

[fpickering]

Thats a false choice. You have to show that Obama was actively lying over this specific topic(that was your accusation). And your interpretation of whats in the bill isn't proof that its also Obama's interpretation. If that's your standard for when a politician's lying, then you're twice as foolish as you've shown so far.


I asked you to pick one OR offer a reasonable explanation. You have failed to do either.

Since I consider Obama to be the crafty, dishonest and prideful type, I picked #1:

Obama is a crafty POTUS and knows that there are pet projects in the bill and knowingly lied to the American public about it, knowing that the liberal media would give him a free pass.



An earmark is a specific legislative measure. A member of either house of congress puts an earmark amount of money that doesn't have to go through the appropriation process(if you're lost about what appropriations are, then you shouldn't be discussing this topic anymore). The member doesn't have to put their name on the earmark either(they do in the Senate though, I believe). A congressman putting more spending for whatever reason in a bill without using an earmark has to sponsor the amendment and get it specifically passed to be added to the bill(and get the appropriation from the specific committee). An Earmark is a way to circumvent the process without your fingerprints on it. That being said, there are some good earmarks(but plenty of bad ones). The stimulus package does not contain any earmarks. The examples you showed were spending appropriations that weren't earmarked.

You're just totally wrong here. The bill has to be made public(and it was) and it contains ZERO earmarks. Congressional observers would know that it would contain earmarks because they would be announced before they voted on it for the first time a couple weeks ago.



OK, for simplicity sake lets stop talking about the earmarks (aka half of Obama's fallacious statement). I get it. You are an expert in earmarks. The source I quoted was erroneous. Maybe you should write them and demand accountability!



Economic deregulation is what created this mess. And I'm not repeating myself about the lack of wisdom regarding massive tax cuts in this situation. Krugman's link explains it.


I'm not repeating myself. Oh wait, I am. You have not provided a single sourced piece of information supporting your viewpoint.



I've posted the link showing their tax cut and their growth afterwards. PM Hashimoto was the leader who did a 15 billion dollar tax cut in 1996(along with a massive bailout of the banks), and their GDP dropped 10%(and another 10% the year after that). They didn't see sustained growth until Koizumi got into office and changed everything. Here's their GDP figures:
http://www.nationmaster.com/time.php?stat=eco_gdp-economy-gdp&country=ja-japan

Just because you want to put your hands over your eyes doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


I just want something that states that the Japanese tax cuts specifically did not work, independent of other factors. Surely with the vast resources available to you via the internet you can find someone that backs up your specific claim. I found evidence to the contrary and you dismissed it since it was from wikipedia.

I'm not putting my hands over my eyes. To the contrary, I thirst for some direct proof.






One vote doesn't make someone one ideology or not. If this is your standard, then there aren't any liberals or conservatives in either house of congress.


I disagree. This is not your run of the mill bill. Due to the extreme cost and the overwhelming effects this bill will have, it effectively defines ones ideology.

[akhhorus]

I asked you to pick one OR offer a reasonable explanation. You have failed to do either.

Since I consider Obama to be the crafty, dishonest and prideful type, I picked #1:

Obama is a crafty POTUS and knows that there are pet projects in the bill and knowingly lied to the American public about it, knowing that the liberal media would give him a free pass.


Like I said: it was a false choice. You accused him of lying, but are offering your interpretations as evidence of such. Thats not proof of anything except your interpretations.

OK, for simplicity sake lets stop talking about the earmarks (aka half of Obama's fallacious statement). I get it. You are an expert in earmarks. The source I quoted was erroneous. Maybe you should write them and demand accountability!


For simplicity's sake? How about for the sake of not making you look more and more ignorant? You were wrong about what an earmark is, but kept insisting that you were right.

I'm not repeating myself. Oh wait, I am. You have not provided a single sourced piece of information supporting your viewpoint.

Except the Paul Krugman link which you obviously ignored.

I just want something that states that the Japanese tax cuts specifically did not work, independent of other factors. Surely with the vast resources available to you via the internet you can find someone that backs up your specific claim. I found evidence to the contrary and you dismissed it since it was from wikipedia.

I'm not putting my hands over my eyes. To the contrary, I thirst for some direct proof.


Because I can alter that entry to say that "fpickering likes to have sex with donuts" in it if I wanted to. Thats why Wiki is a terrible source.

And you're arguing another irrelevant point here: you're trying to now argue that Obama was saying that tax cuts caused the problem. Thats not what anyone has said. Obama's point was that massive tax cuts don't help a country already in recession(we were discussing this point until you decided to try and change the debate). The Japanese GDP data supports that conclusion. Two straight years of -10% GDP growth after a massive tax cut is as clear as it gets.

I disagree. This is not your run of the mill bill. Due to the extreme cost and the overwhelming effects this bill will have, it effectively defines ones ideology.

If its about ideology, then the amounts don't matter. By your logic a fiscal conservative can still be a fiscal conservative if he only votes to waste a certain amount of money.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I would not expect you to be able to identify a true Conservative being that you obviously reside on the other end of the rainbow.

Yes, I did vote Republican because the alternative was much more horrific (Kerry, Obama). Pretty simple.

Conservatives don't have an alternative because the GOP had been hijacked by the more moderate to liberal wing of the party. Additionally, we basically have a lack of leadership which is unfortunate. Making the frail and old McCain our nominee was shortsighted and a losing proposition, however it was better than the aforementioned alternative.

Bush presented himself as a Conservative but he largely betrayed Conservatives by going against Conservative principles in out of control spending and by failing to be tough on illegal immigration.

The Republican party certainly owns the failure but NOT Conservatives.


Basically, what you are saying is that it's not the fault of conservatives that they keep voting for people who supposedly aren't conservative. Nobody put a gun to their heads and forced them to vote for one of the worst Presidents of all time (twice). You guys were so enamored with Bush you didn't even hold a meaningful primary in 2004. After 4 years of seeing Bush for what he truely is, he got 90% of the conservative vote. At the time I could turn on conservative radio and hear 100% support for Dubya. Every conservative newspaper endorsed him. Every conservative on FOX news advocated for him. Your Heritage foundation was one of the biggest cheerleaders of them all.

Are you claiming conservatives are a bunch of fools who are not responsible for their own actions (votes)?

No, I am not a keynesian, never was and have not provided any substantive reason for you to claim me as such.


So you think Reagan's military deficit spending had a negative impact on the economy. Personally, I do not. But I don't claim to be opposed to Keynesian principles.

Reagan spent on Military at a time when said spending was necessary and strategically sound. We used our stronger capability and effectively outspent the Soviet Union which had a hand in winning the Cold War.
Suggesting that spending is what Conservatives do is short sighted and antithetical to the meaning of the word Conservative.


And yet history and US budgets prove me right every time. See chart (dang it that thing is way too small. see link. not a great source but I believe the numbers are correct, and they didn't invent this chart anyway). Republicans/conservatives do not balance the budget. Clinton did. Reagan didn't even try because he wasn't so idealogically rigid as to dismiss Keynes. Carter should not have tried to balance the budget at that time.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bethemedia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/deficits.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bethemedia.org/elections_2004/&h=655&w=640&sz=205&tbnid=R4uYGuaGKZwRiM::&tbnh=138&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3DUS%2Bbudget%2Bdeficit&hl=en&usg=__c7ZgNh5unNMl8IzLey6yXwPgngs=&ei=3gWXSbCXHteitgfmzt2oCw&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image&cd=1

I am not a Republican. I am a Conservative.


Your votes (actions) speak louder. Although I can't blame you and virtually every other Republican I know for trying to disassociate yourselves with everything your movement has done.

Again, they are not my party unless they are promoting Conservative values.


I'm sure you'll say this right up until the point where you enter the voting booth. And the Republicans you vote for will be "conservative" right up until the point where they get elected.

It's PC bull dung. Plain and simple. Affirmative action, over regulation, bloated social programs, Nanny State mentality.


Nobody wants a nanny state more than conservatives-telling women what to do with their bodies, instructing Churches on which two consenting adults they can marry, listening in on people's phone calls, imposing congress's will on medical cases that they have no clue about (Terry Schiavo), etc.

Yet, you consider Bush a Conservative. BTW, please post a link to support this assertion.


I don't have to. You voted for the guy. Aren't you a conservative?

What does this even mean? I speak from personal experience on multiple levels. What are you basing your opinion on?


You're the one who wanted to compare the Government to industry, but you attempted to limit it to criteria that was favorable. I'm just saying, if you want to make the comparison, let's go the whole 9 yards and make the entire comparison.

You were the one trying to give the bloated government credit for keeping our airlines safe. I contend that it was the aggressive tactics employed by the Bush Admin that kept us safe. (The very tactics that the liberal media and Obama have attacked)


At this point I regret making that statement becaise 50 people died in a crash on Thursday.

I have seen absolutely nothing that proves torture has prevented any attacks. I have seen a lot of Republicans making that claim with zero evidence. And I have seen a lot of Republican opinion writers inventing facts that are easily disproven.

For example, I bet you believe everything in the following opinion piece. There are glaring wholes, but the piece appears factual unless you treat the Republican media with the skepticism they deserve. I won't spoil it by telling you what blows the doors off this guys' credibility (other than the fact that this article is on national review).

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNkYmU2NWVlOWE4MTU5MjhiOGNmMWUwMjdjZjU2ZjA=#mo re

If waterboarding was making us safe, why do you think Bush's CIA banished the practice in 2006?

Hayden, who prohibited the practice of waterboarding by CIA agents in 2006, confirmed that his agency waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim Nashiri, in efforts to compel the men to talk. He told senators the agency believed at the time "that additional catastrophic attacks were imminent."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/TheLaw/story?id=4244423&page=1

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. According to a liberal maybe. My word, please tell me that you are not this clueless. The Washington Post is a very liberal institution through and through. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit it! I can admit that the Heritage Foundation is a Conservative Outlet.

The Post employs Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Michael Gerson, Kathleen Parker, and soon to be round two with William Kristol. While it would be perfectly understandable for you to claim that this group of nimrods (sans Will) are nothing more than a bunch of tokens to make the right look silly, I dare you to point out any legit lefties at any of your "sources." Your perception is warped.

I'll say what I said to B&G. If 34% of Americans are conservatives, 21% liberal, and 40% moderate, you're going to tell me the Post is left of 79% of the country? I don't think so. They're moderate.

[akhhorus]

The Post employs Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Michael Gerson, Kathleen Parker, and soon to be round two with William Kristol. While it would be perfectly understandable for you to claim that this group of nimrods (sans Will) are nothing more than a bunch of tokens to make the right look silly, I dare you to point out any legit lefties at any of your "sources." Your perception is warped.


Gerson used to work for Dubya, Kristol is a total hack, and Krauthammer is a thoughtful columnist. Will and Parker are hardly movement conservatives. I think both endorsed Obama.

[RedskinsDave]

Basically, what you are saying is that it's not the fault of conservatives that they keep voting for people who supposedly aren't conservative. Nobody put a gun to their heads and forced them to vote for one of the worst Presidents of all time (twice). You guys were so enamored with Bush you didn't even hold a meaningful primary in 2004. After 4 years of seeing Bush for what he truely is, he got 90% of the conservative vote. At the time I could turn on conservative radio and hear 100% support for Dubya. Every conservative newspaper endorsed him. Every conservative on FOX news advocated for him. Your Heritage foundation was one of the biggest cheerleaders of them all.

I know you like to play the intellectually dishonest role but what did you expect anyone who was remotely moderate to conservative to vote for when your party tossed up the King of Lefties who, based on your own admission further down, represent a minority of Americans?

Are you claiming conservatives are a bunch of fools who are not responsible for their own actions (votes)?

Those folks who did not stand up to Bush's spending were and are fools.

So you think Reagan's military deficit spending had a negative impact on the economy. Personally, I do not. But I don't claim to be opposed to Keynesian principles.

And yet history and US budgets prove me right every time. See chart (dang it that thing is way too small. see link. not a great source but I believe the numbers are correct, and they didn't invent this chart anyway). Republicans/conservatives do not balance the budget. Clinton did. Reagan didn't even try because he wasn't so idealogically rigid as to dismiss Keynes. Carter should not have tried to balance the budget at that time.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bethemedia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/deficits.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bethemedia.org/elections_2004/&h=655&w=640&sz=205&tbnid=R4uYGuaGKZwRiM::&tbnh=138&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3DUS%2Bbudget%2Bdeficit&hl=en&usg=__c7ZgNh5unNMl8IzLey6yXwPgngs=&ei=3gWXSbCXHteitgfmzt2oCw&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image&cd=1



Your votes (actions) speak louder. Although I can't blame you and virtually every other Republican I know for trying to disassociate yourselves with everything your movement has done.

Again, completely disingenuous. This is a democracy. We vote for people and they vote on their own. Just because the people we voted for did things contrary to our own way of thinking, it doesn't make us fake conservatives or responsible for what they did.

I'm sure you'll say this right up until the point where you enter the voting booth. And the Republicans you vote for will be "conservative" right up until the point where they get elected.

Well you voted for "change" and that's clearly not going to happen so......

Nobody wants a nanny state more than conservatives-telling women what to do with their bodies, instructing Churches on which two consenting adults they can marry, listening in on people's phone calls, imposing congress's will on medical cases that they have no clue about (Terry Schiavo), etc.

Most Americans are against unlimited abortions but you ignore that fact. Most are also against gay marriage, even nanny-state libs in California. Show me anyone whose phones were tapped. You can't. Basically all your whining is horse crap but you go make sure we don't have any trans fats or smoking in health clubs known as bars. Then after your people threaten to clean up the airwaves since your lefties can't get ratings or keep an eye on how my doctor treats me, you can pretend you never wrote any of those things.

The Post employs Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Michael Gerson, Kathleen Parker, and soon to be round two with William Kristol. While it would be perfectly understandable for you to claim that this group of nimrods (sans Will) are nothing more than a bunch of tokens to make the right look silly, I dare you to point out any legit lefties at any of your "sources." Your perception is warped.

I'll say what I said to B&G. If 34% of Americans are conservatives, 21% liberal, and 40% moderate, you're going to tell me the Post is left of 79% of the country? I don't think so. They're moderate.

As I said before, people don't call themselves liberal because it's a bad word. Take a good portion of those liars who called themselves moderate and you're closer to the right number. That said, The Post is left of most Americans but almost all newspapers are. It's the nature of the people who seek those jobs.

[SkinsKY]

Again, completely disingenuous. This is a democracy. We vote for people and they vote on their own. Just because the people we voted for did things contrary to our own way of thinking, it doesn't make us fake conservatives or responsible for what they did.

Just a small note: It's a Republic.

A republic, Madison writes, is different from a democracy because its government is placed in the hands of delegates, and as a result of this, it can be extended over a larger area. Madison contends that a large republic will elect better delegates than a small one for two reasons. First, in simplest terms, the idea is that in a large republic there will be more "fit characters" to choose from for each delegate. Also, the fact that each representative is chosen from a larger constituency should make the "vicious arts", a reference to rhetoric, of electioneering less effective. For instance, in a large republic a corrupt delegate would need to bribe many more people in order to win an election than in a small republic. Second, in a republic the delegates both filter and refine the many demands of the people so as to prevent the type of frivolous claims that impede purely democratic governments.

Federalist No. 10

Now we can continue arguing whether we've elected "fit characters" or not.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I know you like to play the intellectually dishonest role but what did you expect anyone who was remotely moderate to conservative to vote for when your party tossed up the King of Lefties who, based on your own admission further down, represent a minority of Americans?


Wait a minute, who is the king of lefties? Is it Gore, Kerry, or Obama? You guys need to make up your minds.

Gore and Obama both got more votes than the conservative candidate, so I guess what you're saying is liberals outnumber conservatives by a long shot. Wow, I guess America's liberal mandate is bigger than I thought.

If only 19-21% of the country call themselves liberal (and they do) then your assertion that even remotely moderate people couldn't possibly vote for Kerry exposes precisely how warped your opinion is.

FROM 2004:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444

Those folks who did not stand up to Bush's spending were and are fools.


This is either a rather candid and refreshing bit of self-flagellation, or more likely, denial.

Again, completely disingenuous. This is a democracy. We vote for people and they vote on their own. Just because the people we voted for did things contrary to our own way of thinking, it doesn't make us fake conservatives or responsible for what they did.


I would agree with this regarding the 2000 vote. You didn't have a crystal ball. But after 4 years of watching these guys there was almost zero real resistance to Bush within the conservative movement. In 2004, Bush was completely unchallenged within the party and within the conservative media.

Well you voted for "change" and that's clearly not going to happen so......


I disagree. I believe plenty of things have changed and I'm quite happy about it. Obama and the Democrats have been remarkably productive so far. What are we-3.5 weeks in? Gonna be a helluva first 100 days.

Most Americans are against unlimited abortions but you ignore that fact. Most are also against gay marriage, even nanny-state libs in California. Show me anyone whose phones were tapped. You can't. Basically all your whining is horse crap but you go make sure we don't have any trans fats or smoking in health clubs known as bars. Then after your people threaten to clean up the airwaves since your lefties can't get ratings or keep an eye on how my doctor treats me, you can pretend you never wrote any of those things.


Most Americans support the decision in Roe vs. Wade. It's not even close.

The gay marriage ban won by 5% in California. 5 years from now, that thing loses.

But if you want to bring up state (nanny) Governments, how about Virginia's pants law? Oral sex is illegal here too. So is anything other than missionary position with the light on. This really is a huge can of worms and seeing as how the religious right is on your side, I don't think you want to go there.

If phones weren't tapped, why did anyone need immunity?

The fairness doctrine isn't going anywhere. Almost nobody supports it. That's a fringe element, it's like the left's version of Ron Paul. Let me know when it passes in the Democrat-dominated house.

As I said before, people don't call themselves liberal because it's a bad word. Take a good portion of those liars who called themselves moderate and you're closer to the right number. That said, The Post is left of most Americans but almost all newspapers are. It's the nature of the people who seek those jobs

Who are you to tell others what their political leanings are?

I don't agree that liberal is a bad word. I am a liberal. So is the President. Everyone knows he's a liberal. He ran as a liberal and he won as a liberal. If he compromises on certain issues, he will still be a liberal. "Republican" seems to be the term everyone is running from. Like I said, the only difference between a Republican and a conservative is that a Republican can be held accountable.

[RedskinsDave]

Obama ran as a liberal? Are there also giant lollipops that grow from the ground where you live?

[BurgundyNGold]

I'll say what I said to B&G. If 34% of Americans are conservatives, 21% liberal, and 40% moderate, you're going to tell me the Post is left of 79% of the country? I don't think so. They're moderate.
The WaPo is great and I like it. They do a fairly decent job of policing themselves, which is more than can be said of many news outlets.

That said, saying someone is moderate and saying they are a stout centrist are 2 different things. It is very hard to believe that most self proclaimed moderates do not lean right or left, regardless of how they identify themselves. And with others, myself included, they lean left on about half of the issues and right on the other half.

My point about the WaPo is that it is, taken on the whole, left of center. That is, in the majority of their articles and on the majority of the issues, they take a left-leaning tone or stance. This does not mean that they are not comfortably within the moderate spectrum or that is does not have plenty of conservative writers to help provide some measure of balance, only that it leans left disproportionately.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Obama ran as a liberal? Are there also giant lollipops that grow from the ground where you live?

Well let's see here. He ran on ending the war in Iraq, cutting taxes for lower and middle class while raising taxes on the rich, he plainly said healthcare is a right in front of 36 million people:

I think it [healthcare] should be a right for every American. … for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.


It doesn't get any more liberal than that.

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/10/08/obama-mccain-debate-whether-health-care-is-a-right-or-responsibility/

...ending torture, more gun control, the right to privacy, education spending, higher fuel efficiency standards, tax credits for renewable energy, reducing carbon emmisions, Government investments in clean energy/green jobs, other than abstainence only sex ed, pro-immigrant, pro-regulation, anti-trickledown, etc.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

This is all based on his own quotes from the second half of 2008. You'd have to be an idiot to not know he leans heavily to the left. Plenty of people said so during the campaign. It doesn't seem to have hurt him at all. Maybe liberal isn't as bad of a word as you think it is.

Then again, according to you and fpickering, we can't possibly tell if someone is a liberal or conservative until after they've been President for 6 years. So I guess the jury is still out on Obama's political leanings as far as you guys are concerned. :moon2:

[RedskinsDave]

Hope, change and loads of horse dung are liberal so you're right after all.

I know he's a liberal. You said he ran as one. That's incorrect. He ran as "I'm not GWB."

[Ibleedburgundy]

The WaPo is great and I like it. They do a fairly decent job of policing themselves, which is more than can be said of many news outlets.

That said, saying someone is moderate and saying they are a stout centrist are 2 different things.

If we go by polls, moderates occupy the center, 10-15% on the right, and 25-30% on the left. How does a centrist differ from a moderate?

It is very hard to believe that most self proclaimed moderates do not lean right or left, regardless of how they identify themselves. And with others, myself included, they lean left on about half of the issues and right on the other half.


Overall, I think the right to left scale is inadequate in describing people's political beliefs. There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal liberals (libertarians) etc. I don't see how fiscal conservatism is compatible with social conservatism, yet both are regarded as on the right. The axiom you described earlier as Government trying to satisfy everyone can probably be applied to conservatives trying to satisfy both of these groups. You end up with a very blurry set of goals.

My point about the WaPo is that it is, taken on the whole, left of center. That is, in the majority of their articles and on the majority of the issues, they take a left-leaning tone or stance. This does not mean that they are not comfortably within the moderate spectrum or that is does not have plenty of conservative writers to help provide some measure of balance, only that it leans left disproportionately

I think that's fair enough. They might be slightly left of center. But they have the discipline and integrity to cut both ways and make a sincere attempt at balance. I don't know of a single more credible source.

[BurgundyNGold]

If we go by polls, moderates occupy the center, 10-15% on the right, and 25-30% on the left. How does a centrist differ from a moderate?
I think a centrist endeavors for the middle ground. A moderate is in the middle because of a) a particular view, b) a conflicting set of views that cannot be otherwise categorized, or c) general indifference to politics.

Overall, I think the right to left scale is inadequate in describing people's political beliefs. There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal liberals (libertarians) etc. I don't see how fiscal conservatism is compatible with social conservatism, yet both are regarded as on the right. The axiom you described earlier as Government trying to satisfy everyone can probably be applied to conservatives trying to satisfy both of these groups. You end up with a very blurry set of goals.
Agreed. It's increasingly difficult to put people in boxes. I think that 30% on the left and 30% the right will always vote with their side. The rest are technically "moderates" by virtue of the fact that they're not entrenched in populist ideological identification.

Libertarians are technically fiscal conservatives and social liberals. They're the party of laissez-faire on all fronts, lol. Sometime, I find myself agreeing with their stances in both areas.

I think that's fair enough. They might be slightly left of center. But they have the discipline and integrity to cut both ways and make a sincere attempt at balance. I don't know of a single more credible source.
Also agreed. I'd take the WaPo over the NY Times, the LA Times or the WaTimes every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

1/2 a billion dollars to save field mice in San Francisco? Did I hear that right?

[akhhorus]

1/2 a billion dollars to save field mice in San Francisco? Did I hear that right?

No. The story is 30 million for wetlands restoration. A staffer claimed that it was also for protecting an endangered mouse, but thats a lie(and the staffer admitted as much).

[Keino]

I think a centrist endeavors for the middle ground. A moderate is in the middle because of a) a particular view, b) a conflicting set of views that cannot be otherwise categorized, or c) general indifference to politics.

This is somewhat nit-picky on my part, but it's you so I don't feel bad ;)

Left-right are references, as you know, to the political spectrum. Someone indifferent to politics cannot be in the middle of the spectrum. There is no accounting for the indifferent on a political spectrum. Now maybe the apathetic largely identify themselves as Moderates. General indifference, to politics, however, is not in any way measured on a political spectrum.

I would agree with your distinction of moderate and centrist. A moderate holds a view that is not reconciled with either left of center or right of center, while the centrist attempts to get to the middle ground via compromise etc.

[Keino]

Hope, change and loads of horse dung are liberal so you're right after all.

I know he's a liberal. You said he ran as one. That's incorrect. He ran as "I'm not GWB."

And the difference being?

And to touch on a point you made earlier, I think people who voted for Bush twice, whatever rationale they give or gave at the time, have to take some ownership of the policies that came from his administration, including his spending. It's not like he just sprung that on you guys in the last 4 years. He broke spending records from 2000-2004. It's too easy to say that you didn't support his spending and that folks who didn't stand up to same (many of the same people now standing up to this Administrations proposed spending) are the fools, especially when accusing another poster of being disingenuous. It strikes me as, well.....disingenuous.

Finally, not everyone believes "liberal" is a bad word, and I happily identify myself as same when it comes to social issues.

[RedskinsDave]

What was I to do, not vote? I was hopeful enough that the spending from 2000-2004 had a little something to do with the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil and a war. I was wrong in the following four years. I actually shoulder more blame on the people in the GOP who let it happen. They paid with their seats in Congress. The rest of us will pay because Dems are now in charge.

[RedskinsDave]

Obama's press secretary Gibbs is taking bad to new levels.

[fpickering]

Like I said: it was a false choice. You accused him of lying, but are offering your interpretations as evidence of such. Thats not proof of anything except your interpretations.


Pick one of the following. If you fail to do and once again say that it is a false choice without offering a rational explanation then I will take that as your admission that you are full of it.

1. Obama is a crafty POTUS and knows that there are pet projects in the bill and knowingly lied to the American public about it, knowing that the liberal media would give him a free pass.

2. Obama is an irresponsible POTUS and said that there were no pet projects in the bill despite without verifying what was in the bill.

3. Obama is an incompetent POTUS and is completely out of touch with the American public because he does not consider anything in the thousand pages of legislation as a pet project considering this is supposed to be a stimulus bill when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.



For simplicity's sake? How about for the sake of not making you look more and more ignorant? You were wrong about what an earmark is, but kept insisting that you were right.


Actually, I, unlike you can admit when I am wrong. I admitted that I was incorrect regarding what an earmark is. Again, despite my error, it still does not refute the claim made in my original post.



Because I can alter that entry to say that "fpickering likes to have sex with donuts" in it if I wanted to. Thats why Wiki is a terrible source.

And you're arguing another irrelevant point here: you're trying to now argue that Obama was saying that tax cuts caused the problem. Thats not what anyone has said. Obama's point was that massive tax cuts don't help a country already in recession(we were discussing this point until you decided to try and change the debate). The Japanese GDP data supports that conclusion. Two straight years of -10% GDP growth after a massive tax cut is as clear as it gets.



Still no link. Don't expect us to take your word for it. Why can't you just provide a link? It is not that hard.

[fpickering]

Basically, what you are saying is that it's not the fault of conservatives that they keep voting for people who supposedly aren't conservative.


Correct. I have been voting for the lesser of two evils in the last several elections. Obviously, Conservatives are going to vote for the Candidate that at least shares some common principles.




Your votes (actions) speak louder. Although I can't blame you and virtually every other Republican I know for trying to disassociate yourselves with everything your movement has done.


Again, I am not a Republican. I did not support many of the policies of the Bush Admin as they were not consistent with Conservative values but I can say with 100% certainty that they at least shared some of my beliefs. I cannot say the same for Kerry and Obama.



Nobody wants a nanny state more than conservatives-telling women what to do with their bodies, instructing Churches on which two consenting adults they can marry, listening in on people's phone calls, imposing congress's will on medical cases that they have no clue about (Terry Schiavo), etc.


It is a lot more than simply telling women what they can do with their bodies. If they want to diet or get tatoos and piercings then I would say that you have a point. Unfortunately, you have neglected to mention the fact that there is another person involved who does not get a say.
I would be interested to hear how preventing the murder of babies is an example of the government being a nanny state?

Regarding changing the definition of marriage.. it has to do with the importance that the traditional family (Mother, Father, children) has on society. When there are breakdowns in this traditional family structure, society has been shown to suffer.
I don't want any divergence from the traditional family structure because I believe that it is detrimental to our society.
In any event, attempting to preserve the institution of marriage is in no way an example of a nanny state mentality.

Regarding wiretapping. I am not 100% sure that I was in favor of wiretapping but this is simply not an example of a nanny state behavior.



The Post employs Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Michael Gerson, Kathleen Parker, and soon to be round two with William Kristol. While it would be perfectly understandable for you to claim that this group of nimrods (sans Will) are nothing more than a bunch of tokens to make the right look silly, I dare you to point out any legit lefties at any of your "sources." Your perception is warped.


It is a liberal Rag. Who cares if they employ a few people that happen to be Republican. One of their own admitted that they were biased towards Obama:


"On Sunday, The Washington Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, offered evidence of an "Obama tilt" in her own newspaper."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/10/post-concedes-bias-for-obama/

[fpickering]

Then again, according to you and fpickering, we can't possibly tell if someone is a liberal or conservative until after they've been President for 6 years. So I guess the jury is still out on Obama's political leanings as far as you guys are concerned. :moon2:

What? Show me where I said this.

[akhhorus]

It took you 8 days to come up with this? Pathetic.

Pick one of the following. If you fail to do and once again say that it is a false choice without offering a rational explanation then I will take that as your admission that you are full of it.

1. Obama is a crafty POTUS and knows that there are pet projects in the bill and knowingly lied to the American public about it, knowing that the liberal media would give him a free pass.

2. Obama is an irresponsible POTUS and said that there were no pet projects in the bill despite without verifying what was in the bill.

3. Obama is an incompetent POTUS and is completely out of touch with the American public because he does not consider anything in the thousand pages of legislation as a pet project considering this is supposed to be a stimulus bill when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


Again: you're offering false choices because you have an agenda on this(and thats not an admission of anything). You accused him of lying about a certain comment. You haven't proved that he's lying. All you've proved is that Chuck Schumer thinks that they're pet projects, but thats not Obama. By your standards, I can accuse someone of lying if someone disagrees with what they say. Thats horsecrap.

And for the record, I think Obama said the work "pet projects" because he knew that too vague a term to get pinned down on. And if Obama was flat out lying, the media would call him on it.

Actually, I, unlike you can admit when I am wrong. I admitted that I was incorrect regarding what an earmark is. Again, despite my error, it still does not refute the claim made in my original post.

Only, you didn't admit you were wrong. All you said even close to that was this: "OK, for simplicity sake lets stop talking about the earmarks (aka half of Obama's fallacious statement)" and then tried to blame the website you quoted.

And yes, considering that you're accusing someone of lying, the fact that you were wrong undermines your claim.

Still no link. Don't expect us to take your word for it. Why can't you just provide a link? It is not that hard.

I'm showing you the economic data along with when they cut taxes. Its not that hard to understand. I don't have to have a link that says exactly what you demand it to say when the numbers are the proof.

After their first major taxcut, they have 8-10 quarters of sustained GDP contraction! Thats almost 2 individual recessions by itself. The only way the tax cuts didn't prolong Japan's problem is if you're trying to claim that they made the contractions much better than they would have been(which is impossible).

[fpickering]

It took you 8 days to come up with this? Pathetic.


<sarcasm>
Once again, you offer a comment that is both powerful and relevant to the context of this discussion. I applaud you.
</sarcasm>

Sorry, I cannot dedicate the time to post on this site everyday. Besides, all I really did was copy and paste what I had previously posted. I did so because it in effect will force you to concede the point or simply reveal that you are not willing or capable of being intellecutally honest.

You have once again failed to offer a reasonable explanation to why Obama said that there were no pet projects in the bill in lieu of my 3 suggestions. Therefore, I accept your surrender in this point.



"if Obama was flat out lying, the media would call him on it."


It depends on whom you are including in the words "media". If you are referring to Conservative talk radio and certain internet sources, then they have called him on it. If you are referring to anyone else, then they have given him a pass. Much like the pass he received during his campaign for POTUS.


Only, you didn't admit you were wrong. All you said even close to that was this: "OK, for simplicity sake lets stop talking about the earmarks (aka half of Obama's fallacious statement)" and then tried to blame the website you quoted.


I did admit I was wrong in a couple of posts. Here is an excerpt:

"You're right, I may not have known the detailed intricacies regarding earmarks but I do know that you still have done nothing to refute the original post in this thread.:



I'm showing you the economic data along with when they cut taxes. Its not that hard to understand. I don't have to have a link that says exactly what you demand it to say when the numbers are the proof.

Still waiting for a link. Don't expect us to take your word for it!

[akhhorus]

<sarcasm>
Once again, you offer a comment that is both powerful and relevant to the context of this discussion. I applaud you.
</sarcasm>

For someone who keeps making irrelevant comments and constantly trying to change the context what he was saying, you have no room to complain. I answered your pathetic attempt at a logical trap.

Sorry, I cannot dedicate the time to post on this site everyday.

I've seen you in the political forum 4 or 5 times since I posted that response. So, no points this round.

Besides, all I really did was copy and paste what I had previously posted. I did so because it in effect will force you to concede the point or simply reveal that you are not willing or capable of being intellecutally honest.


Except that you're not clever enough to create a trap for that.

You have once again failed to offer a reasonable explanation to why Obama said that there were no pet projects in the bill in lieu of my 3 suggestions. Therefore, I accept your surrender in this point.


I'm not surrendering. You're just incapable of responding to what I said. As I said: the term pet project is so vague that you can't claim someone was lying over it(which is why he used it probably).

It depends on whom you are including in the words "media". If you are referring to Conservative talk radio and certain internet sources, then they have called him on it. If you are referring to anyone else, then they have given him a pass. Much like the pass he received during his campaign for POTUS.


Hilarious. All the media spends the last 3 weeks presidential campaign discussing the cup of coffee Obama had with Bill Ayers, and yet they're biased for him.

I did admit I was wrong in a couple of posts. Here is an excerpt:

"You're right, I may not have known the detailed intricacies regarding earmarks but I do know that you still have done nothing to refute the original post in this thread.:


Then you're still wrong here. You made a claim with two parts. One of them you were clueless about what it actually was, but it took a long time for you to realize that. The other is so vague that you would have to know whats in someone's head to possibly prove a lie.

Still waiting for a link. Don't expect us to take your word for it!

You can keep banging your head against this wall all you want. I've proven the point that was made.

For someone who's been holding up Wikipedia as a source, you have no room to demand a specific source that says specifically what you demand it to(and we both know that even if I had such a link, you would reject it out of hand).

[fpickering]

For someone who keeps making irrelevant comments and constantly trying to change the context what he was saying, you have no room to complain. I answered your pathetic attempt at a logical trap.



I've seen you in the political forum 4 or 5 times since I posted that response. So, no points this round.



Except that you're not clever enough to create a trap for that.



I'm not surrendering. You're just incapable of responding to what I said. As I said: the term pet project is so vague that you can't claim someone was lying over it(which is why he used it probably).



Hilarious. All the media spends the last 3 weeks presidential campaign discussing the cup of coffee Obama had with Bill Ayers, and yet they're biased for him.



Then you're still wrong here. You made a claim with two parts. One of them you were clueless about what it actually was, but it took a long time for you to realize that. The other is so vague that you would have to know whats in someone's head to possibly prove a lie.



You can keep banging your head against this wall all you want. I've proven the point that was made.

For someone who's been holding up Wikipedia as a source, you have no room to demand a specific source that says specifically what you demand it to(and we both know that even if I had such a link, you would reject it out of hand).


Once again, I see that you typed a lot of words but unfortuantely there is absolutely no substance there.

I will summarize my response in the interest of highlighting the points you failed to substantively address.

1. You cannot or will not offer a reasonable explanation to why Obama said that there were no pet projects in the bill.

2. Obama has been given him a pass by the MSM. Do you want more proof? How about another lie that was largely unreported:
His promise to not utilize Presidential Signing Statements. Whoops! At least that promise lasted almost two months!

3. I did admit I was wrong in a couple of posts regarding the official definition of "earmark".

4. I am still waiting for a link.

[akhhorus]

Once again, I see that you typed a lot of words but unfortuantely there is absolutely no substance there.

I'm still waiting for you to make or stick to an argument, so why don't you examine your own posts for flaws, thanks.

I will summarize my response in the interest of highlighting the points you failed to substantively address.

1. You cannot or will not offer a reasonable explanation to why Obama said that there were no pet projects in the bill.

I don't need a reasonable explanation. You accused him of lying about it without any proof that he was knowingly lying about it. All I have to prove if that you can't prove that Obama is lying. You haven't offered any proof that Obama believes that they're pet projects.

2. Obama has been given him a pass by the MSM. Do you want more proof? How about another lie that was largely unreported:
His promise to not utilize Presidential Signing Statements. Whoops! At least that promise lasted almost two months!


You mean the inconsistency that was in every media outlet, even those traditionally labeled as liberal claptrap?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/09/obama_pulls_back_from_signing.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-promises22-2009mar22,0,3877052.story

3. I did admit I was wrong in a couple of posts regarding the official definition of "earmark".


Lmao.

4. I am still waiting for a link.

I've explained and showed the economic numbers. You're purposefully hairsplitting and ignoring the point. Something you've pathetically tried to do whenever cornered in your rantings and it undermines any credibility you're trying to build. None of this has to do with your original accusation about Obama "lying" about Japan's economic problems and their failed solutions(especially since you again can't prove that he's lying without knowing his intent). Looking at the timing of Japan's tax cuts and the resulting depressionary spirals of GDP means that you cannot possibly accuse anyone of lying about saying that Japan's massive tax cuts made the problem worse(whether or not you want to accuse the tax cuts of prolonging it or making it worse).