This bill is ridiculous because the total money spent for this bill will go up too 887 billion dollars including interest payments. For example this bill contains 600 million dollars in spending for government vehicles. Are you kidding? How does 600 million dollars spent on Government vehicles stimulate the economy? 400 million dollars spent on climate research. How does this put people to work? 335 million dollars on Aids research. Ok I'm fine with that except 335 billion dollars on Aids research does not belong on this bill!

The government doesn't even have any money to spend and yet we are gonna pass an 887 million dollar bill! This could cause stagflation in our currency!

Obama wants bipartisanship. This bill was totally written by the Democrats with no input from the republican party. I hope the Republicans and the conservative democrats reject this bill from Obama signing it. All this bill contains is a bunch of pork which means useless spending.

This bill even contained doing work on the National Mall in Washington DC before Obama took the mall construction off the bill. This sounds like more of a government stimulus than a stimulus for the American People(this bill)!

what would you propose in its stead, tv?

what would you propose in its stead, tv?
I'm no governenment expert but the government should do some kind of tax cuts too stimulate the economy.

I'm no governenment expert but the government should do some kind of tax cuts too stimulate the economy.
i had a feeling you'd say that. we spent the last eight years doing tax cuts. if they worked wouldn't we all have bentleys and personalized theme parks by now?

obviously the tax cuts CAUSED this. it's inexplicable to me that people are really proposing tax cuts as a solution, but it occurs to me tax cuts do seem to be the answer to everything on the right side of the aisle.

Um...tax cuts were imposed during Bush's first year in office on the top 1%. Then he got us into 2 wars and his answer was more tax cuts. So, how to pay for 2 wars plus all the other things that has been neglected for decades-like our roads and bridges (remember I-35 in Minneapolis?), and so many other things. So, more tax cuts would be the government would have even LESS $$$$ to pay for things that this country SO DESPERATELY needs. And there are tax cuts in this bill-just not for the rich.



Cat

i had a feeling you'd say that. we spent the last eight years doing tax cuts. if they worked wouldn't we all have Bentleys and personalized theme parks by now?
obviously the tax cuts CAUSED this. it's inexplicable to me that people are really proposing tax cuts as a solution, but it occurs to me tax cuts do seem to be the answer to everything on the right side of the aisle.
No, we wouldn;t have Bentleys and theme parks because not everybody makes that kind of money on their job.

No, Tax cuts didn;t cause this recession the housing bubble burst and thats what caused the recession and Lehman Brothers going out of business too.

here's a different perspective of someone who's skeptical of the bailout, on the left side...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/greider

Let me be clear. The scandal is not that government is acting. The scandal is that government is not acting forcefully enough--using its ultimate emergency powers to take full control of the financial system and impose order on banks, firms and markets. Stop the music, so to speak, instead of allowing individual financiers and traders to take opportunistic moves to save themselves at the expense of the system. The step-by-step rescues that the Federal Reserve and Treasury have executed to date have failed utterly to reverse the flight of investors and banks worldwide from lending or buying in doubtful times. There is no obvious reason to assume this bailout proposal will change their minds, though it will certainly feel good to the financial houses that get to dump their bad paper on the government.

and someone on the right...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012802938.html

As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose a stimulus plan. In fact, on this page in October, I declared my support for a stimulus. But the fiscal package now before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month, or even two, if that's what it takes to produce a much better bill. We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake.

Start with the tax side. The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each employed person. That's not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year's tax rebates led to additional spending.

there's a lot of good ideas out there. reflexive tax cuts are not among them.

This bill is ridiculous because the total money spent for this bill will go up too 887 billion dollars including interest payments. For example this bill contains 600 million dollars in spending for government vehicles. Are you kidding? How does 600 million dollars spent on Government vehicles stimulate the economy? 400 million dollars spent on climate research. How does this put people to work? 335 million dollars on Aids research. Ok I'm fine with that except 335 billion dollars on Aids research does not belong on this bill!



600 million on new vehicles?  That sounds like a lot of new cars are going to be built.

400 million on climate research?  well that should keep a few researchers in work plus all their support staff.

ditto on the AIDS research.

Um...tax cuts were imposed during Bush's first year in office on the top 1%. Then he got us into 2 wars and his answer was more tax cuts. So, how to pay for 2 wars plus all the other things that has been neglected for decades-like our roads and bridges (remember I-35 in Minneapolis?), and so many other things. So, more tax cuts would be the government would have even LESS $$$$ to pay for things that this country SO DESPERATELY needs. And there are tax cuts in this bill-just not for the rich.



Cat
Yeah but passing an 887 billion dollar on pork is gonna solve this recession? I don;t think so. The bill is terrible from what I have heard so far as I said in my intro in this thread. I agree we need money for our roads and bridges but it is not in this bill that I have seen. We don;t need 887 billion dollars to stimulate the economy.

The bill that the Republicans are working on as John Boehner(republican-Ohio) said cost half of what this bill costs to stimulate the economy. I don;t know the details of the bill that the Republicans are working on but its proof we don;t need to spend 887 billion dollars on pork.

600 million on new vehicles?  That sounds like a lot of new cars are going to be built.

400 million on climate research?  well that should keep a few researchers in work plus all their support staff.

ditto on the AIDS research.
i was gonna mention that. on a conservative message board i like to go to and make lots of enemies sometimes, they were complaining about things like port and shipping container upgrades, repairing courthouses, lengthening airport taxiways, and building mass transit. i mean sorry yall, it cant all be SUVs, mcmansions and taco bells! jeez. the more people complain about the stimulus package, the more i realize there's a lot to like, a lot of needed bread-and-butter maintenance we've been putting off for decades because as we all know, highways and trains are socialist. ::)

i'm thinking the pork that got added (and of course the definition of pork varies depending who you talk to) probably got added to ensure the votes. we learned two things in the vote -- a. that the votes are there, and b. that the republicans just are not going to come on board, period, so they should probably just be ignored. hopefully obama will a. quit trying to give republicans what they want -- because you know collectively the repubs were complaining but individually they were saying, well, i MIGHT vote for it if you give me such and such for my district. so no need to do that next time. and

b. the democrats will exact party discipline instead of bargaining with their own representatives for votes. i'm sorta inclined to say, okay, nice dry run, scuttle the bill in the senate and put it back through the house. this time ignore the republicans and arm-twist the democrats and you can lean the bill up to genuine stimulus and whittle out the pork. and the tax cuts should be eliminated entirely. we're running a trillion-dollar deficit every year and everyone's panicky, they'll just throw their rebate checks in savings anyway.

well, actually, now that i think of it, maybe some tax cuts ARE a good idea, not to get people to spend but to give them savings. banks need liquidity.

here's an idea i just had: tax credits for keeping savings! show the gubmint you have, say, five grand in the bank, the gubmint lets you deduct a certain percentage of it.

600 million on new vehicles?  That sounds like a lot of new cars are going to be built.

400 million on climate research?  well that should keep a few researchers in work plus all their support staff.

ditto on the AIDS research.
Don;t we already have climate researchers? I mean the government complains like crazy about global warming. I would love to know how many jobs exactly AIDS research is gonna create. Again I agree we need AIDS research but not on this bill.

600 million dollars on new vehicles: I don't know about if that government money is being spended wisely I mean 600 million dollars on government vehicles. Like I said this spending the 600 million on vehicles is not for the average american its for the government.

Don;t we already have climate researchers? I mean the government complains like crazy about global warming. I would love to know how many jobs exactly AIDS research is gonna create. Again I agree we need AIDS research but not on this bill.

600 million dollars on new vehicles: I don't know about if that government money is being spended wisely I mean 600 million dollars on government vehicles. Like I said this spending the 600 million on vehicles is not for the average american its for the government.


That's why I said keep researchers in a job.  During the Bush years science spending was cut dramatically.  It's good to see Obama is serious about increasing this.

btw I'd like a link to your figures for the way this bill is to be split.  None of the sites I've found make any mention of this 600 million on government vehicles.  They do however mention that the Replublicans are trying to strip out the proposed spending on rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges and upgrading schools.

That's why I said keep researchers in a job.  During the Bush years science spending was cut dramatically.  It's good to see Obama is serious about increasing this.

btw I'd like a link to your figures for the way this bill is to be split.  None of the sites I've found make any mention of this 600 million on government vehicles.  They do however mention that the Replublicans are trying to strip out the proposed spending on rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges and upgrading schools.
I have seen the 600 million dollars spent on government vehicles on tdbit on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on "CNN".

Not a good thing for the republicans to take the spending on roads and bridges out.

If anyone is interested what the bill REALLY says instead of relying on, "I heard this was in it" or "I heard that"-go right to the source. The House website doesn't have it on their website yet but I found it here:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/house-stimulus-bill-full_n_160569.html

About half way down the page.



Cat

I would say just about everything in the bill amounts to jobs here in the US,  instead of tax breaks that are sent to offshore accounts or private islands in the Caribbean.

I would say just about everything in the bill amounts to jobs here in the US,  instead of tax breaks that are sent to offshore accounts or private islands in the Caribbean.



Or buying junk made in China.



Cat

Any bill of this size is going to have pork in it.  I don't like it either, but that's the way it is. 

I wish Obama was more forceful with Republicans.  To Republicans "bipartisan" has no meaning other than give us everything we want and now.  Obama said he won, perhaps he can act more like it.  Christ, the Republicans act like they're still in charge of the place.  They see conciliation not as cooperation but as weakness.  You show bullies weakness and they'll keep kicking you.  I'd tell them to f**k off, shut off their mikes, and refuse them rooms in the Capitol for their meetings.  They respond only to force.

Anyway, when they say "we need tax cuts," they don't really mean it will help the economy.  They're only in office to make their friends richer at the expense of the rest of us.

::)

Any bill of this size is going to have pork in it.  I don't like it either, but that's the way it is. 

I wish Obama was more forceful with Republicans.  To Republicans "bipartisan" has no meaning other than give us everything we want and now.  Obama said he won, perhaps he can act more like it.  Christ, the Republicans act like they're still in charge of the place.  They see concilliation not as cooperation but as weakness.  You show bullies weakness and they'll keep kicking you.  I'd tell them to f**k off, shut off their mikes, and refuse them rooms in the Capitol for their meetings.  They respond only to force.

Anyway, when they say "we need tax cuts," they don't really mean it will help the economy.  They're only in office to make their friends richer at the expense of the rest of us.

::)
i'm thinking the same thing, but obama may be smarter than the rest of us. now that he's extended an olive branch and gotten thorns in return, he looks completely justified in blowing off the republicans in the future, but come the mid-term elections the democrats can credibly claim to have taken the high road and can now commence switching off mics. republicans will be unable to make any such claims, and will only have any leg to stand on if things improve by 2010, even just a little. their only hope is that utter calamity befalls us between now and then. unfortunately the dems still need to compromise in the senate because i believe the pubblies can still filibuster, i forget the exact seat breakdown though in the senate.

The repubs are underestimating Obama and the public, and overestimating themselves. 

i'm thinking the same thing, but obama may be smarter than the rest of us. now that he's extended an olive branch and gotten thorns in return, he looks completely justified in blowing off the republicans in the future, but come the mid-term elections the democrats can credibly claim to have taken the high road and can now commence switching off mics. republicans will be unable to make any such claims, and will only have any leg to stand on if things improve by 2010, even just a little. their only hope is that utter calamity befalls us between now and then. unfortunately the dems still need to compromise in the senate because i believe the pubblies can still filibuster, i forget the exact seat breakdown though in the senate.



The Dems have 57 seats plus with the 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders & Joe "Turncoat" Lieberman) gives them 1 vote short of a filibuster-proof Senate. 



Cat

The Dems have 57 seats plus with the 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders & Joe "Turncoat" Lieberman) gives them 1 vote short of a filibuster-proof Senate. 



Cat


I call him "Traitor Joe," sounds kind of like the grocery store!
8)

I call him "Traitor Joe," sounds kind of like the grocery store!
8)



Traitor, Turncoat. Same difference. It all means that Joe is a jerkoff if you ask me.



Cat

if that's true, you can bet the republicans will filibuster.

looks like we do nothing but let the collapse unfold. that sucks.

weren't the pubblies talking about some "nuclear option" back in the day when they were busy creating this whole disaster? might need to do the nuclear option, if it's the only thing standing between us and letting the repubbles drive the country off the cliff for good.

Traitor, Turncoat. Same difference. It all means that Joe is a jerkoff if you ask me.



Cat

What is Joe?
???

What is Joe?
???



He is a JERKOFF!!!!




Cat

He is a JERKOFF!!!!




Cat

Speak up when you say that!
;)

if that's true, you can bet the republicans will filibuster.




Not necessarily.  They would ALL have to tow the right wing line.  There are still a few moderate repugs who might support cloture, like Olympia Snow of Maine, or Arlen Specter of PA.

All 177 of them voted against it.  It included tax cuts for the rich, but not enough tax cuts for the rich.  How much tax cuts for the rich is enough tax cuts for the rich? 

Enough? What are you Mother Theresa?

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/twak.gif

All 177 of them voted against it.  It included tax cuts for the rich, but not enough tax cuts for the rich.  How much tax cuts for the rich is enough tax cuts for the rich? 

Enough? What are you Mother Theresa?

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/twak.gif


When the rich suffer...everyone else does!

I hope that they can give my family a bailout because I'm getting tired of my family stealing money from me. (I would call it borrowing, but they haven't paid me back the last two times they borrowed money from me).

I might as well give my parents all my money...but then they'll want more. Then I'll have no money. http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif

The whole "stimulus bill" concept is corrupted and flawed.  All we are doing is either (a) borrowing more money from foreign interests or (b) printing money which simply devalues the dollar.  It is all smoke and mirrors.

This bill will go down in history as a colossal folly, supported by both sides of the aisle.  And future generations will be stuck with the bill, as they always are when government spending gets completely out of control.  Inflation is going to go rampant when this "money" hits the streets.  People on fixed incomes will take a huge kick in the 'nads, and people who actually worked hard to build up a little savings will see their savings dissipate.

The American economy is characterized by a severe lack of savings, and this bill takes us even further in the wrong direction... more debt, less savings.

I have an idea.  Why stop at $885 billion?  Let's shoot the lock off... go for an $8 trillion stimulus.  That would be enough money for every man, woman, and child in the USA to buy an AWESOME flat screen TV and collection of DVD's.

The bill will be loaded with enough pork to start a ribfest too.

The whole "stimulus bill" concept is corrupted and flawed.  All we are doing is either (a) borrowing more money from foreign interests or (b) printing money which simply devalues the dollar.  It is all smoke and mirrors.

This bill will go down in history as a colossal folly, supported by both sides of the aisle.  And future generations will be stuck with the bill, as they always are when government spending gets completely out of control.  Inflation is going to go rampant when this "money" hits the streets.  People on fixed incomes will take a huge kick in the 'nads, and people who actually worked hard to build up a little savings will see their savings dissipate.

The American economy is characterized by a severe lack of savings, and this bill takes us even further in the wrong direction... more debt, less savings.

I have an idea.  Why stop at $885 billion?  Let's shoot the lock off... go for an $8 trillion stimulus.  That would be enough money for every man, woman, and child in the USA to buy an AWESOME flat screen TV and collection of DVD's.

The bill will be loaded with enough pork to start a ribfest too.


That was my thinking, but I'm not edumacated enough to make an edumacated statement like that :D

At least the recession is making people learn that money for the most part is finite and they should probably SAVE some of it :D

If McCain was president and passed this behemoth of a pork bill, the Democrats would rightfully call it corporate welfare.

Now that Obama is passing it with a Democratic Congress, the silence is deafening coming from "advocates of the people."

This is a tremendous waste of money, and amazingly, Obama has found a way to spend even more than Bush did in 5 years on Iraq in the space of 1 year.

Say hello to a massive amount of inflation, folks.  Anytime you increase the money supply to this extent, you seriously devalue your currency and scare off foreign investors.

Maybe it's time for "free market capitalism" to call it a day.  Certainly, it was better at providing a better life to more people than Soviet communism, but we are witnessing our own system collapsing under its own weight.  It has failed.  The stimulus package is tantamount to keeping a braindead patient on a breathing machine. 

To employ another analogy, another round of tax cuts for the rich is like the junkie telling you he needs just one more fix and then he'll go straight.  Let's be disciplined and tell them no.

Maybe it's time for "free market capitalism" to call it a day.  Certainly, it was better at providing a better life to more people than Soviet communism, but we are witnessing our own system collapsing under its own weight.  It has failed.  The stimulus package is tantamount to keeping a braindead patient on a breathing machine. 

To employ another analogy, another round of tax cuts for the rich is like the junkie telling you he needs just one more fix and then he'll go straight.  Let's be disciplined and tell them no.


But again, this crisis is actually the result of bad regulation, not the lack of it.

Some areas have been deregulated more than they should have been, but other areas have been regulated in impractical and illogical ways.

If we had a purely free market, this crisis wouldn't have happened.  Granted, I'm not saying we should have a market devoid of regulation, but with the way things currently are, we should probably remove certain regulations (like the CRA).

Still, I would agree with you concerning the tax cuts.  We shouldn't be cutting taxes.  We should be cutting spending.

But again, this crisis is actually the result of bad regulation, not the lack of it.

Some areas have been deregulated more than they should have been, but other areas have been regulated in impractical and illogical ways.

If we had a purely free market, this crisis wouldn't have happened.  Granted, I'm not saying we should have a market devoid of regulation, but with the way things currently are, we should probably remove certain regulations (like the CRA).

Still, I would agree with you concerning the tax cuts.  We shouldn't be cutting taxes.  We should be cutting spending.


Well, my favorite economist, Nobel winner Paul Krugman, disagrees with you.  I'll go with him on this.

Well, my favorite economist, Nobel winner Paul Krugman, disagrees with you.  I'll go with him on this.


Krugman is a Keynesian.  I generally prefer Adam Smith.

Krugman is a Keynesian.  I generally prefer Adam Smith.


Since when did "The Wealth of Nations" become "The Debt of Nations"? 

Smith would turn in his grave if he could see how the United States went to being a rich country with a lot of poor people in in 1979 to a poor country with a few rich people in 2009.  He would be a fan of Paul Krugman, not Steve Forbes.

Since when did "The Wealth of Nations" become "The Debt of Nations"? 

Smith would turn in his grave if he could see how the United States went to being a rich country with a lot of poor people in in 1979 to a poor country with a few rich people in 2009.  He would be a fan of Paul Krugman, not Steve Forbes.


The reason why America isn't as prosperous as it used to be is partially because of globalization.  It's natural for us to slowly fall in quality of life as it improves in places like China and India, because there are a limited number of resources in the world.

^ in tandem with greed, overindulgence, and incompetent leadership.

^ in tandem with greed, overindulgence, and incompetent leadership.

Well, I won't argue there.  We have managed to speed up our decline.

The reason why America isn't as prosperous as it used to be is partially because of globalization.  It's natural for us to slowly fall in quality of life as it improves in places like China and India, because there are a limited number of resources in the world.


Yes, resources are finite, but this is a bit of a contradiction in that (I'm going to be presumptuous) the typical conservative argument is that wealth is not finite, so there is no reason for our standard of living to decline because that of others improves.


Krugman is a Keynesian.  I generally prefer Adam Smith.


Adam Smith made several pertinent observations that bear repeating.  First, a nation's wealth is based on it's productive power, not the bullion in it's treasury.  Second, businessmen will always conspire to gain advantage, fix prices, create monopolies etc.  And third, it is the role of the state to mitigate between the contending interests.  James Madison said much the same thing in the Federalist # 10, by the way.   

Yes, resources are finite, but this is a bit of a contradiction in that (I'm going to be presumptuous) the typical conservative argument is that wealth is not finite, so there is no reason for our standard of living to decline because that of others improves.

Adam Smith made several pertinent observations that bear repeating.  First, a nation's wealth is based on it's productive power, not the bullion in it's treasury.  Second, businessmen will always conspire to gain advantage, fix prices, create monopolies etc.  And third, it is the role of the state to mitigate between the contending interests.  James Madison said much the same thing in the Federalist # 10, by the way.     


Great points.  Karma +1.

Yes, resources are finite, but this is a bit of a contradiction in that (I'm going to be presumptuous) the typical conservative argument is that wealth is not finite, so there is no reason for our standard of living to decline because that of others improves.

Good point, but that's mostly relevant to technological advances.  Barring another revolution in energy, there is no realistic expectation that we can create enough resources to compensate for the world's exploding population.

Granted, this is why I'm not a traditional economic conservative, although I do lean somewhat in that direction.

Adam Smith made several pertinent observations that bear repeating.  First, a nation's wealth is based on it's productive power, not the bullion in it's treasury.  Second, businessmen will always conspire to gain advantage, fix prices, create monopolies etc.  And third, it is the role of the state to mitigate between the contending interests.  James Madison said much the same thing in the Federalist # 10, by the way.     


All sound points, which is why I do support a certain amount of regulation in the market.  I just believe that many of the current regulations are ineffective or counterproductive.

Mac, I'm glad to hear that you are not dogmatic about regs.  As to which are good and which not, that can be debated.

Mac, I'm glad to hear that you are not dogmatic about regs.  As to which are good and which not, that can be debated.


Thanks  :)  First and foremost, I'm a pragmatist.  I realize that idealism only gets you so far.

And yes, it is debatable as to what is a good regulation and what isn't, but that's what makes these discussions fun.  ;)

I'm worried this bill will only have short term gains in the economy when it gets passed. Also, we could be in this recession for longer because like I keep on saying this bill could kill our currency. The jobs that this bill contains are only temporary jobs I mean these temporary could expire or run out at anytime.

This is not a bipartisin bill at all it was written all by Democrats(Harry Reid , Nancy Pelosi) with nothing written by Republicans. Shouldn;t have Obama like written some of this bill anyway in instead of Nancy Pelosi? I'm happy with John McCain's(Rep.-Arizona) stance on this bill with saying this is not a bipartisin bill.

I understand Obama is gonna go and campaign in Florida and Indiana for this bill but how much is that gonna help his case for Americans to get behind this bill? I mean Obama's a good speaker when he does speeches but I don;t know. I just think this bill is for what Democrats contains things that Democrats couldn't get passed under the Bush Administration(January 2001-January 2009.) I mean witness Nancy Pelosi being one of the writers of this bill. I think Obama should have written this bill with John McCain instead since they do get along with each other and both understand what the American People want(the 2 of them together.)

I think its better not to pass any bill rather than this bill.

I mean one of the senate people(a Republican from Maine-Susan Collins I think) and Obama are saying we don't have time to waste in passing the bill and this is politics as usual if we are bickering about the contents of this bill. Well, I think its politics as usual if we are wasting money, and possibly damaging our currency if this spending is for a temporary band-aid just to fix the economy.

The Republican party cannot be trusted with money.  I wouldn't even let them use the vending machines in the lobby!

Like in 1933, if the economy gets bad enough, there is no such thing as a "good" bill.  No matter what the government does, things will get worse before they get better.  That's why I think the New Deal was worth it, even if it didn't solve the depression.  If Roosevelt did what the revisionist right-wingers say he should have done (cut taxes for JP Morgan) we might haven't even been able to win WWII, which would have been just fine with Morgan and Prescott Bush!
::)

Why should it be a bipartisan bill?  The Republicans spent 14 years swaggering, inflicting neo-fascism on the country, beating on Clinton even as he did their bidding, and boasting as late as 2005 of building a "permanent majority."  To them, "bipartisan" means: Give us everything we want now! 

The people are sick of the Republicans.  They have not earned a place at the table.
::)

The Republican party cannot be trusted with money.  I wouldn't even let them use the vending machines in the lobby!

Like in 1933, if the economy gets bad enough, there is no such thing as a "good" bill.  No matter what the government does, things will get worse before they get better.  That's why I think the New Deal was worth it, even if it didn't solve the depression.  If Roosevelt did what the revisionist right-wingers say he should have done (cut taxes for JP Morgan) we might haven't even been able to win WWII, which would have been just fine with Morgan and Prescott Bush!
::)

Why should it be a bipartisan bill?  The Republicans spent 14 years swaggering, inflicting neo-fascism on the country, beating on Clinton even as he did their bidding, and boasting as late as 2005 of building a "permanent majority."  To them, "bipartisan" means: Give us everything we want now! 

The people are sick of the Republicans.  They have not earned a place at the table.
::)
Ha, Max this is why we why we have Democrats and Republicans so they can negotiate together what the American people want but this bill is not it in my opinion. The republicans even say this bill is excessive spending and I agree with them.

I think the reaons why the Republican party is getting such a backlash is because of the ecomonic catasrophe that was created in the tail end of George W. Bush's last term before Obama took over. Also, because if the whole Florida recount thing in 2004 for the election of President when Bush won, people were uncertain if Bush really won because of the recount.

You think damaging our currency possibly which is a good possibility just to pass a bill for the sake of passing a bill is good? Do you know about the mid 90's Asian market crisis, that is where we could be headed if this bill passes. What about stagflation or rapid inflation on the prices of goods?

Thats funny though that wouldn;t you trust the Republicans in using vending machines in the lobby though. I guess you would just rather trust the Geico Gekko using vending machines like he did on the latest Geico Gekko commercial than a Republicanl!!! Just a little light humor for this thread!

Notice how all of the sudden Republicans are whining about bi-partisanship?  For the past 8 years they have dumped on the American public and locked stepped there way through the Constitution, and they still are doing it.  You can't tell me that some of these republicans want to go home and explain their no votes.  They will be tarred and feathered if they leave DC limits.  The are little wimps doing what they are told.


Ha, Max this is why we why we have Democrats and Republicans so they can negotiate together what the American people want but this bill is not it in my opinion. The republicans even say this bill is excessive spending and I agree with them.

I think the reaons why the Republican party is getting such a backlash is because of the ecomonic catasrophe that was created in the tail end of George W. Bush's last term before Obama took over.


The economic catastrophe was created by the Republicans, who may I add didn't have any qualms about handing a bail out to the banks, unimpeded by oversight, no questions asked.

Notice how all of the sudden Republicans are whining about bi-partisanship?  For the past 8 years they have dumped on the American public and locked stepped there way through the Constitution, and they still are doing it.  You can't tell me that some of these republicans want to go home and explain their no votes.  They will be tarred and feathered if they leave DC limits.  The are little wimps doing what they are told.

The economic catastrophe was created by the Republicans, who may I add didn't have any qualms about handing a bail out to the banks, unimpeded by oversight, no questions asked.
Thats true there should have been oversight in that the money from TARP should only be used for banks lending out money I think. Thats true liked I said the catasrophre was created under George W. Bush who is a Republican. Ha! it happened under Bush's so he's responsible. I should also add though the Democrats have made up the majority of the Senate since 2006 but still Bush should and is held responsible for this whole mess.

I just hope the Democrats don't make this mess worse than it already is though and thats a possibliity!

I just hope the Democrats don't make this mess worse than it already is though and thats a possibliity!




Change that to "I just hope Congress doesn't make this mess worse....."  and we can agree on that

I was talking to a friend last night about the Rothschilds.  I know they probably don't have as much power as they used to.  Anyway, I saw they interviewed one member of the family and he was talking about food riots, depression and complete meltdown.  Coming from anyone else I could brush this off as speculation.  Coming from a member of that family it's downright scary.

The economic catastrophe was created by the Republicans, who may I add didn't have any qualms about handing a bail out to the banks, unimpeded by oversight, no questions asked.


Thank you!  You have touched upon what has been bothering me with all this whining I'm hearing from the Republican side about the stimulus bill.

Karma. ;)

The economic catastrophe was created by the Republicans, who may I add didn't have any qualms about handing a bail out to the banks, unimpeded by oversight, no questions asked.


Well, it wasn't totally the fault of Republicans.  It would've also helped things if Barney Frank hadn't lead a good portion of his party toward blocking any regulation of Freddie Mac.

Granted, the Republicans do deserve the lion's share of the blame due to things like the Iraq War.

I really hope everything doesn't descend into total chaos because from chaos... anything can arise. We could wake up one day in the Handmaid's Tale or something.

The lack of regulations covering "credit default swaps", which were probably the most destabilizing aspect of what caused the credit crunch, is unbelieveable.  It is hard to believe that these instruments were intentionally unregulated.

Derivatives markets (such as where you can buy and sell stock options) are strictly regulated, and selling options where you have unlimited risk is not allowed, unless you put up a HUGE amount of collateral.  The credit default swap people were not required to put up collateral or anything.  Stupid stupid stupid.

I agree that a big part of this problem traces to not enough regulation, and the Credit Default Swap is the key area of the problem.

The economy has been destroyed by 28 years of Reaganomics.  A good many Democrats are culpable from Bill Clinton to Barney Frank because they supported Reaganomics-friendly legislation. 

Heck, no amount of money was ever to great to flush through the Iraq sieve, but families are turned down for food stamps every day because their monthly incomes are $10 over the limit!
::)

I really hope everything doesn't descend into total chaos because from chaos... anything can arise. We could wake up one day in the Handmaid's Tale or something.


Perish the thought. :o

I really hope everything doesn't descend into total chaos because from chaos... anything can arise. We could wake up one day in the Handmaid's Tale or something.


It Can't Happen Here - Sinclair Lewis

The economy has been destroyed by 28 years of Reaganomics.  A good many Democrats are culpable from Bill Clinton to Barney Frank because they supported Reaganomics-friendly legislation. 

Heck, no amount of money was ever to great to flush through the Iraq sieve, but families are turned down for food stamps every day because their monthly incomes are $10 over the limit!
::)
No, I don;t think it was Reagan or Clinton that are responsible for todays ecomony. I think Allen Greenspan had a huge role in creating this problem I mean he let the banks oversee themselves which as we know now they can't do. I think Barney Frank could be blamed for the "Housing Bubble" but still Bush was in charge that is the thing.

No, I don;t think it was Reagan or Clinton that are responsible for todays ecomony. I think Allen Greenspan had a huge role in creating this problem I mean he let the banks oversee themselves which as we know now they can't do. I think Barney Frank could be blamed for the "Housing Bubble" but still Bush was in charge that is the thing.

And Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II all kissed Greenspan's wrinkly old butt!  Everybody thought the guy was the an economic Einstein.  If it looked like Greenspan was wrong, it was obvious we weren't following his prescription the right way! Turns out he was just a semi-psychopathic azzhole who was once Ayn Rand's lap dog.  We must plow his ideas under, just like Stalin's and Mao's.  It's a bunch of unworkable sheeshe based on chalkboard diagrams and delivers human misery in the end.

As for Bawney Fwank, I got no use for the guy no more.

::)

And Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II all kissed Greenspan's wrinkly old butt!  Everybody thought the guy was the an economic Einstein.  If it looked like Greenspan was wrong, it was obvious we weren't following his prescription the right way! Turns out he was just a semi-psychopathic azzhole who was once Ayn Rand's lap dog.  We must plow his ideas under, just like Stalin's and Mao's.  It's a bunch of unworkable sheeshe based on chalkboard diagrams and delivers human misery in the end.

As for Bawney Fwank, I got no use for the guy no more.

::)


I don't particularly care for Rand either.  Still, we can't simply blame deregulation for all this.  By the same token, we can't simply blame regulation either.

We basically had a perfect storm of bad regulation and deregulation where there should have been regulation.

Also, Greenspan clearly underestimated the greed of bankers.

Well the bill passed. I'm not that thrilled about it but there is some good stuff in that bill(all 1,071 pages of it.) There is tax cuts and creation of jobs in the bill. What worries me is the government keeps out printing money they don;t have and we can see some kind of faster inflation in our currency than normal. Plus, 4 generationsd of people are gonna paying for this bill. I still think is gonna be 4 or a 5 year recession regardless of this bill anyway, I mean you can;t just keep throwing money at a recession and expect the economy to prop-up in a snap.

Other things of this bill that are on my mind:

Lou Dobbs on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" reported that there is 200 billion dollars of pork in this bill. Chuck Schumer(Democrat-New York) says Americans don;t care about pork in the bill. I think thats pretty far from the truth.

How many Democrats and Republicans senators actually read this bill from back to front? I say zero. I mean to read 1,071 pages of it thats way too much. I have heard that there was 500+ pages of this bill maybe from another news channel. John Boehner(Republican-Ohio) actually threw the bill on the senate floor in an amusing moment.

John Boehner(Republican-Ohio) actually threw the bill on the senate floor in an amusing moment.



Too bad he didn't flop on the floor and hit himself with it.

Too bad he didn't flop on the floor and hit himself with it.
Now that would have been SNL material!!

Lou Dobbs on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" reported that there is 200 billion dollars of pork in this bill. Chuck Schumer(Democrat-New York) says Americans don;t care about pork in the bill. I think thats pretty far from the truth.

At another forum I go to, someone put it well.  They basically said that people do care about the pork that goes to their district.

Both Democrats and Republicans reward their politicians for sending pork their way.  Because of this, we have a bunch of Congressmen who say they're against pork, until the topic of pork for their own district comes up.  The end result is that everybody sends pork to their district so that they can appease their constituents.

As much as Congress and the president are to blame for many problems in this society, in the end, we can only blame ourselves for electing people based on what pork they give us.

That, in a nutshell, is the quintessential problem with the voting public in America.  We say we hate pork, but most of us act in ways that imply the exact opposite.

At another forum I go to, someone put it well.  They basically said that people do care about the pork that goes to their district.

Both Democrats and Republicans reward their politicians for sending pork their way.  Because of this, we have a bunch of Congressmen who say they're against pork, until the topic of pork for their own district comes up.  The end result is that everybody sends pork to their district so that they can appease their constituents.

As much as Congress and the president are to blame for many problems in this society, in the end, we can only blame ourselves for electing people based on what pork they give us.

That, in a nutshell, is the quintessential problem with the voting public in America.  We say we hate pork, but most of us act in ways that imply the exact opposite.


Either gimme a job so I can make some damn money or skip the middle man and give me some damn money.  Either way, I gotta have the damn money, call it pork if you want, I don' care!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_porc.gif

Bill Clinton in an interview with CNN said Obama was correct in doing this stimulus bill.

Bill Clinton in an interview with CNN said Obama was correct in doing this stimulus bill.


He's also saying "don't blame me for the economy."  He's washed his hands of the whole thing.  Who can blame him.

He's also saying "don't blame me for the economy." 

Sometimes old Bill acts kinda obtuse.

It's like you find your favorite vase smashed on the floor and your little boy says, "Don't blame me!"

:P

Sometimes old Bill acts kinda obtuse.

It's like you find your favorite vase smashed on the floor and your little boy says, "Don't blame me!"

:P


But wait a sec, when bubba left office the economy was in good shape AND there was a fed budget surplus that could should have been used to reduce the national debt.

But wait a sec, when bubba left office the economy was in good shape AND there was a fed budget surplus that could should have been used to reduce the national debt.


'zactly.  I was just saying when you say something's not your fault when it really isn't your fault people might start to think it's your fault!

:D