»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Is the New Bill Stimulating or Pork?
| The Alley |
|
Is the New Bill Stimulating or Pork? |
|
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy 
|
Have any thoughts on the matter? WILL it matter? How soon will we see results? Dig in! There's alot to talk about! Jeff (I'm still data grazing) |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Jeff Feezle - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
(CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama issued a warning Sunday to officials around the country who want to fund projects with federal dollars: no more business as usual. Decisions on projects won't be made "simply based on politics," President-elect Obama said on "Meet the Press." In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama said: "What we need to do is examine: What are the projects where we're going to get the most bang for the buck? How are we going to make sure taxpayers are protected? "You know, the days of just pork coming out of Congress as a strategy, those days are over." "We are not going to simply write a bunch of checks and let them be spent without some very clear criteria as to how this money is going to benefit the overall economy and put people back to work. We're not going to be making decisions on projects simply based on politics and -- and lobbying." http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/07/obama.economy/index.html President-elect Barack Obama warned Capitol Hill lawmakers yesterday that he will bar all pork-barrel projects from the massive economic-stimulus package he is asking them to pass. http://www.nypost.com/seven/01072009/news/politics/obama_bans_stimulus_package_pork_149013.htm So is there pork in the stimulus package? Is Obama comlying with his statements about DEFINITELY eliminating pork? Let's ask the Wall Street Journal... There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons. Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator? Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators. As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more. Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party? As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html According to a recent CNN article, other abuses of taxpayer dollars found within the report include: “a proposed $20 million minor league baseball museum in Durham, North Carolina; $6.1 million for corporate jet hangars at the Fayetteville, Arkansas, airport; $20 million for renovations at the Philadelphia Zoo; and a $1.5 million program to reduce prostitution in Dayton, Ohio.” http://blog.thehill.com/2008/12/20/a-pork-barrel-stimulus-package-rep-michele-bachmann/ Electronic Medical Data Base Patriot II? A provision that provides for an electronic data base of citizen's medical records including mental health treatments, abortions, lawsuits and sexual details for service providers which can be accesse d on a "need to know" basis and shared between those "needing to know." This provision cannot be "opted out" of by the citizenry, and has all the markings of a Patriot Act II (or III, I've lost count). It appears some in the medical community are behind this provision, and using of course their legislative lackey for this controversial measure which would be fought tooth and nail with little chance of passage if submitted as an independent bill in light of many Americans fury still over some of the provisions in the Patriot Act itself which unconstitutionally remain, so instead have taken no chances in pushing for it to be included within the Stimulus Package as pork. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1428340/obamas_stimulus_package_pork_pg2.html?cat=9 So what say you? Almost everything listed is worthwhile but the question is.....does ir stimulate the economy? As Obama stated, "We are not going to simply write a bunch of checks and let them be spent without some very clear criteria as to how this money is going to benefit the overall economy and put people back to work. We're not going to be making decisions on projects simply based on politics and -- and lobbying." Do these items put people back to work or was Obama's condemnation of pork simply a campaign promise never intended to be upheld? Based on Obama's record of pork legislation for his home state and wife's hospital during his term as Senator, it would appear the latter is more likely. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Those were some of the quotes I was looking for: Obama saying he wouldn't endorse bills with pork in them anymore. On a different tact, what parts of the stimulus bill WILL immediately stimulate the economy? This happens to be the largest bill ever submitted in the history of world economy! We should get it right. Is it just coincidence that this bill is made up of social engineering proposals that the Dem's couldn't thru Congress while the Repubs had majority? At first blush, it SURE looks like an opportunistic money grab for political payoffs. Just throwing this out there: Imagine if you had a major plumbing problem, one that required a person yanking out most of their pipes and redoing their house. Contractor says they have to do a little at a time, but need to start now or else the whole plumbing will collapse upon itself. After a year, you ask the contractor how much has he done. He says: 7% after 1 year, and the rest of project will take 10 or more years total. Would you be happy with this results in an EMERGENCY REPAIR? Or, looking at it another way: you are doing a major project at work, your boss ask you at the end of the year how much you've done and you reply: 7%. And you've had everybody in the office working on it, too. I'm thinking you'd be fired... If Obama is the Doctor, isn't he treating symptoms which have nothing to do with the illness? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You mean like so many of the Republicans were?  |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
you mean, fired, or just inadequate? You know me: I say to fire and replace all of them, inept as they are. The Republicans, not just Bush, were an embarassment during their last 8 years with spending. The darn thing about it is, these were programs trying to reach bi-partisan Dem programs as well, and of course, the Dem's green-lighted all of those. I think both 'parties' as such, suck right now. They're mostly old, clueless, totally loyal to their party only (not their constituents) and that's why its up to us to expose them for the political frauds they are. I truly expected Obama to be more of a rogue 'do the right thing' kind of guy, but he just buttered all the slices in the bread loaf for Dem's. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Oink.  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Who cares? I think you’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter what the money is spent on as long as the recipients are American, the package is, and always has been, designed to put money into the economy to kick-start consumer spending. The clue is in the name - A stimulus package. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Who Cares? Uh, is 60% of the public who don't like the bill or or unsure of it's impact TOO SMALL of a percentage of the population for you to care about? Since when does 'content' NOT matter?? Especially on a bill of this size? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Who cares? We do, grinch...the people that live here. No, the stimulus package was not only designed to put money into the economy. It was also supposed to be for job creation, which was actually supposed to be it's primary mission, according to Obama. The old give a man a fish - teach a man to fish theory. Millions to study STD's don't really do that, neither does giving money to the Endowment of the Arts, or raising the allowance of governmental car pucrchases....etc etc etc. There are dozens of things in there accounting for many millions of dollars which may be good programs but have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. It's more like a shopping list of items Democrats want to buy and they see an excellent opportunity by attaching them to a "stimulus" package, much in the same way politicians attach their pay raises to bills the public needs. Who cares? We should all care whether or not Obama is the real thing and is serious about all of the "change" he promised or if it's just politics as usual with another face in charge. Since we, the taxpayers here, are footing the bill we have a small right to know. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Uh, if the 60% don’t understand the simple economic principle behind the package why the heck should I care what they think? quote: Since 1776 and the birth of modern economic principles. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Really, Mike? Why, then, do you suppose so much of the bill is devoted to tax cuts? Isn't it something like a third of the money? How many jobs do you really expect tax relief to directly create? Grinch is right. It's a broad brush, but essentially you should expect anything that has to be funded in the next few years to, instead, be funded immediately. Saving money for future use, after all, is exactly what the government is trying to discourage. Get the money flowing now and hope it encourages both businesses and consumers to do the same. The jobs will follow. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I’d go even further than that Mike, I’d say that if you want to criticise WHAT your Government is spending your money on you have an obligation to understand WHY they’re spending it in the first place. Once you work that out the ‘why’ you’ll realise that the ‘what’ doesn’t really matter as long as the money stays within the American economy. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Just food for thought: Have you heard of ANY Federal (not state) employees being laid off? Since these social programs will largely grow the Government and NOT the private sector, how exactly does this 'grow jobs?' Everybody else is on the bubble, afraid of losing their jobs, so Obama pushes for federal bureaucracy as a solution. Why shouldn't govt' workers be laid off, as well, instead of hiring more bureaucrats? Brilliant. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
'what is in it' doesn't really matter? Oh please. Tell me that IF the Republicans did a broadbased stimulus package aimed at growing their agenda, you wouldn't be stomping your feet. I seem to recall the bank bailout, which WAS critical at the time, to fall under Liberal criticism because it wasn't analyzed sufficiently. Obama is saying the same thing: ram this project through! We can't wait! Analysis is Paralysis!! Do it now! Someone please explain the logic in only 7% of the projects being shovel ready by 2010, and yet Obama doesn't have time for some degree of Congressional hearings on the topics inside of it. How can it be THAT pressing, if 93% of the bill isn't even going to be injected until AFTER 2010? That's Obama spin on the term: 'immediate.' Oversight,.....anyone.....anyone? Have we not learned ANYTHING from the bank bailout and the way the banks gave hunks of the bailout for bonuses for CEO's? Summer houses, porches, cruises. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Huh? Everyone knows I don't much care for socialism. I'm the guy who would do away with Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, remember? But I fail to see how the bulk of the Stimulus Bill can be classified as social programs? Buying new cars? Rebuilding our public roads and schools? Increasing scientific research? More funding for the arts? I personally know people in every one of those fields, from auto manufacturing to bricklayers to bio-scientists to classical pianist. With an unemployment rate that just crossed into double digits, I assure the people of Michigan can use an infusion of cash into those industries. Personally, I don't think we can buy our way out of a recession. When bills come due, someone has to pay them. I think the government can make it worse, but I have serious doubts they can make it any better. On the other hand, as long as the money is going to be spent any way, spending it now instead of two or five years down the road is the lesser of evils. Doing something, even if it's not entirely right, is better than doing nothing. quote: Ahh. So your real complaint is just more partisan politics? Did you really expect the Democrats to grow the Republican agenda? They're going to spend the money where they feel it needs to be spent, and that's obviously going to be a reflection of their agenda. Had the Republicans held the majority, they would have done the same. They lost that opportunity, though, largely due to a very unpopular President. Que sera sera. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Let me repeat Obama's words for you, Ron.. President-elect Barack Obama issued a warning Sunday to officials around the country who want to fund projects with federal dollars: no more business as usual. let them be spent without some very clear criteria as to how this money is going to benefit the overall economy and put people back to work So you think none of this money is for funding projects? You think this money going to put people back to work? Oh, really? The government buying more vehicles will put people back to work? Studying STD's and global warming is going to put people back to work? Increasing food stamps and unemployment benefits will put them back to work? Funding the National Endowment of the Arts will create more jobs? Which jobs are going to follow from this money flowing? What happens when the people getting prolonged unemployment checks reach the new end of it. Do they then automatically have a job? How about the money to reduce prostitution in Ohio? Talk about no stimulus! No job creation there...just the opposite, I'd say. How many jobs are going to be created by those new corporate jet hangars? There are certainly points in the package that WILL create jobs and be beneficial to the economy. No one is complaining about them....it's the rest of this Democratic get it while you can shopping spree that is the concern. How you can justify it is beyond me. How about that electronic medical data base? Many of you have been very vocal about the evilness of the patriot act and I don't hear anyone complaining here. What a surprise.... Threadbare is right. If this were a Republican bill, many trying to justify it now would be screaming their collective heads off at the pork attached to it. Unfortunately for you, Pelosi summed it up clearly with her "we won the election. We wrote the bill" piece of intelligent drivel. Can't really blame the republicans for the contents after that, which must be very disheartening to some. Just throwing money into the economy is not enough on it's own to solve anything. The money will settle eventually and the unemployed will still be unemployed and the poor will still be poor. Uh, if the 60% don’t understand the simple economic principle behind the package why the heck should I care what they think? That's right, grinch. You shouldn't care. The flip side of that is why should they care what YOU think? I’d say that if you want to criticise WHAT your Government is spending your money on you have an obligation to understand WHY they’re spending it in the first place. That's exactly what this thread is about, grinch. Why are they spending much of what they are spending, while will not create jobs or be little more than a bandaid to stop the bleeding for a short time. maybe they just don't like Ohio prostitutes...that must be it! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Doing something, even if it's not entirely right, is better than doing nothing. Don't carry that philosophy to the poker tables, Ron. I have an idea. How about doing something that IS right? and that's obviously going to be a reflection of their agenda. Truer words were never spoken and that's what should scare you. Of COURSE this is a partisan issue here. The same people lambasting Bush and the Democrats for 8 years are the same people praising the stimulus package and ignoring the deliberate pork distribution in it. Coincidence? I doubt it....WE WON THE ELECTION. WE WROTE THE BILL...certainly nothing partisan in that statement, is there, Ron? btw, let me know how much the hiring of bio-scientists and classical pianists reduces the Michigan unemployment rate. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, if you feel that tax breaks are so beneficial for this package, why is only 1/3 of it allocated to them? “We presented President Obama with our ideas to jump-start the economy through fast-acting tax relief, not slow-moving government spending programs,” said House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. The government wouldn't be able to spend at least one-fourth of a proposed $825 billion economic stimulus plan until after 2010, according to a preliminary report by the Congressional Business Office that suggests it may take longer than expected to boost the economy. The government would spend about $26 billion of the money this year and $110 billion more next year, the report said. About $103 billion would be spent in 2011, while $53 billion would be spent in 2012 and $63 billion between 2013 and 2019. • Less than $5 billion of the $30 billion set aside for highway spending would be spent within the next two years, the CBO said. • Only $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending would be delivered into the economy by the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, just 7 percent. • Just one in seven dollars of a huge $18.5 billion investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be spent within a year and a half. • About $907 million of a $6 billion plan to expand broadband access in rural and other underserved areas would be spent by 2011, CBO said. • Just one-fourth of clean drinking water projects can be completed by October of next year. • $275 billion worth of tax cuts to 95 percent of filers and a huge infusion of help for state governments is to be distributed into the economy more quickly. [Note: The CBO's analysis applied only to 40 percent of the overall stimulus bill, and doesn't cover tax cuts or efforts; a CBO report outlining all of its costs is expected in the next week or so.] On a side-note, itseems like Robert Reich has the answers concerning where the money should go..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4 [This message has been edited by Balladeer (01-31-2009 06:09 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: This ain't poker, Mike. But let's pretend for a minute that it is? Imagine you're in a game with a couple of guys and there's no ante or blind. You go through five or six decks and every single hand both of these turkeys just throw in their cards any time you try to toss some money into the non-existent pot. You really going to sit there and play another five or six decks with them? This is an example of when it's better to do something (ante up, boys!), even if it's wrong (lost that ante again?), than to sit there and do absolutely nothing. 'Cause the latter eventually means there won't be a game for anyone to play. When push comes to shove, I don't think it's going to matter a twit how many jobs the stimulus bill creates. Not really. A job, after all, is only defined by the next paycheck. When the money stops flowing, the jobs will just go away again. What's going to really matter the most is that the government did something BIG and enough people (a key phrase, that) believed it would help. It's become a cliché since it was first said, but fear is indeed the thing we most have to fear. You want to really help our country right now? Pretend the stimulus package will work. And spend accordingly. If enough people (there's that phrase again) pretend it will work, it will work. The government buying more vehicles will put people back to work? Mike, ANYONE buying more vehicles will help people in Michigan. Studying STD's and global warming is going to put people back to work? How do you want to define work, Mike? Paying someone to do something? Scientists have to eat, too. Increasing food stamps and unemployment benefits will put them back to work? No. What it might do, however, is keep the people down at the local grocery store working. Along with a few more people in the chain of support. Funding the National Endowment of the Arts will create more jobs? Which jobs are going to follow from this money flowing? My friend, the classical pianist, might get more work. So will the agency that helps book her gigs. And the guy who owns the building where they play. The ticket takers, the ushers, the guy behind the concession stand, the garage mechanic who fixed my friend's car so she could get to the auditorium. And, by all means, let's not forget the guy who sprayed the auditorium for bugs? quote:Okay, I'll give you that one, Mike. But, then, I'm also the guy who thinks victimless crime is an oxymoron. We could probably pay for about half the stimulus package is we just started taxing prostitution and marijuana. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, Ron...where do I start? On the poker, if there is no ante or blinds, then it;s a fact that you can't win if your opponents throw away your cards...but you won't lose, either. In this case, the money is already in the pot. Are you going to call with a mediocre hand or wait for a good one? Your examples are a little weak for me. I doubt seriously that any one person, or several people, or even the government will put people back to work in Michigan by buying a car. They going to reopen a plant and put on a crew to make my car? A salesman might get a benefit from it but that's about it. The scientists and pianists that might be hired certainly won't bring down the unemployment rate, either. Pretend the stimulus package will work. And spend accordingly. If enough people (there's that phrase again) pretend it will work, it will work. Oh, man, don't even get me started. You want to talk to me about positive results through positive thinking? Sell that one to the left and media for what they have spewed for the past eight years. They have used negativity as their major weapon in their fight against Bush, with complete disregard about what it might have done to the country or our troops in the field. Now that they are in charge, you want to say be positive and it will work? They have been painting the bleakest picture of life in the United States for the past year in preparation for the election. They have tried to drill in everyone's head how big of a mess the country is in and how miserable we are and how the country is headed for hell if THEY don't save us. Now, all of a sudden, it's "think positive thoughts"? That could be a skit on Letterman. When push comes to shove, I don't think it's going to matter a twit how many jobs the stimulus bill creates. I have no answer for that one except to say I can't believe you said it. You must have soem reason but it escapes me completely. So when Obama claims his package is designed to create jobs, I must assume you are saying that really doesn't matter? True, when the money dries up, jobs go away but shouldn't the money have a better chance of not drying up if more people have jobs? You have lost me with that declaration....but, then, I get lost easily. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But, Mike, Ron is talking about economics, not positive-thinking-guru's talk. You're right, positive thinking does nothing. Positive actions, however, do. The only way people will invest is if they think they will get a return. That's the whole point of the stimulus. As far as I can tell, the stimulus is designed to motivate people to trust, not the government, but the future of their investments. I don't get the Dayton prostitution crackdown either. Will it work? I don't know. I do know that it only has to work slightly for the Dems to reap the benefits. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As far as I can tell, the stimulus is designed to motivate people to trust, not the government, but the future of their investments. I have to respectfully disagree with that statement, Brad. I'm not sure what you mean by "their investments". What investments do people out of work have? If you are referring to their houses or property, they certainly are putting their trust in the government to save them...and that's exactly what the government wants. Obama, Pelosi, Reed and the gang want to be the saviors of the country. They want the people to put their trust in the government - theirs. In a land where government is now going to be the major owners of so many companies of industry, banking and real estate, how could the populace NOT be forced to put their trust in the government? Yes, it is a no-lose situation for the Democrats. If any part of it succeeds, they get the credit. If it doesn't, it's because Bush left the country in such bad shape they had no chance. Such a deal..... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Is it because I understand the basic economic principle behind the stimulus package and they obviously don’t? quote: They’re spending all of it to stimulate confidence in the economy and kick-start consumer spending. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, grinch, that must be it. You are smarter than 60% of the American people....congratulations. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You're probably right, Mike. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure we're not going to put people back to work by NOT buying cars. The government is simply setting a good example. So long as the Feds are going to buy cars, it makes sense to do it now instead of down the road. Besides, if they don't buy today, a few years from now their only choice might be Toyota or Honda. quote: It's not about positive thinking, Mike. It's about having confidence in our country's economy. There are systemic problems right now, to be sure. And they need to be addressed and corrected. But the actual problems with our economy are small compared to the fear they've engendered in the general population. People are afraid to spend money. The role of government -- and the reason the stimulus package has to be BIG and immediate -- is to calm those fears. quote: That's one perspective, I guess. It sort of ignores the fact that Bush once enjoyed the highest approval rating of any President since the polls started nearly a hundred years ago. His rating was something over 80 percent, I think? So, in the course of six or seven years, those two people out of ten convinced six of the remaining eight to change their minds? The result was that George Bush also took the record, at just over 20 percent I think, for the lowest approval rating in history? I don't know, Mike. From where I sit, it seems Bush was the architect of his own fate. If people were spewing a lot of negativity, as you say, isn't it at least possible they were right? Isn't it possible that George W. Bush was just a really, really bad leader? Not that it matters any more. We endured Bush. Now we have to survive him. And even if you believe that two people out of ten somehow destroyed the Republican regime, and even if you convinced me you are right, I'm not sure that would justify using the same tactics to destroy the next administration. At some point, I think we have to start caring about the country, not politics. quote: What's the average tax rate these days? Fifteen percent? You really think you can pay a guy $1,000 a week by taking $150 from him? That's just a Ponzi scheme. It works for a while, but it can't last. Any jobs the government creates are necessarily dependent on all the other jobs. The government can't buy us out of a recession. Ultimately, the economy has to support jobs, not the government. Which matters pretty much not at all to Joe Smith, who just got laid off. Giving him a job helping to repave I-94 will help Joe feed his kids, and that's the only thing he cares about. I'm cool with that, too, because I-94 really needs a facelift badly (Michigan winters are not kind to our roads). And if Joe has to buy a new car to get to work every day? That's good, too. The current unemployment rate in Michigan just topped ten percent. One person out of ten is out of work. That's a problem, especially if you're that one in ten. But here's the thing: nine out of ten people are scared to death they'll be next, and that's a problem of an entirely different order. In an economic system resting on the shoulders of consumer spending (and I would argue whether it should be in a different thread), a population afraid to spend money is a death knell. Giving Joe a job is important to Joe, but it's important to you and I only if it gives us the confidence to believe our jobs are safe. That's the true purpose behind the stimulus package. quote: LOL. That hardly qualifies as a place of honor. Forty percent of our population is smarter than sixty percent of the American people, Mike. And there are times I'm convinced my neighbor's dog is smarter than sixty percent of America. I know he's smarter than my neighbor. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So long as the Feds are going to buy cars, it makes sense to do it now instead of down the road. That could be true, Ron. The question is - is it a valid part of the stimulus package or it is pork? Don't worry about out government leaders driving Hondas or Toyotas. Won't see that day! People are afraid to spend money. The role of government -- and the reason the stimulus package has to be BIG and immediate -- is to calm those fears. I'll agree with that, Ron. The question is not whether or not we need a stimulus program. The question is should a lot of pork be in it, especially when Obama vowed that wouldn't happen. Bush once enjoyed the highest approval rating of any President since the polls started nearly a hundred years ago. Wanna see something interesting? Check out the daily headlines during that time and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they were negative of Bush. If people were spewing a lot of negativity, as you say, isn't it at least possible they were right? It wasn't so much PEOPLE, Ron. It was leftists and the mainstream media doing the spewing, ad nauseum. I'm not sure that would justify using the same tactics to destroy the next administration. i don't see anyone trying to destroy the current administration, Ron. I'm certainly not. I am asking for some accountability, though. I'm asking for some indication that the man means what he says. What do we have so far? (1) He stated no one who lobbied for certain areas would be able to hold governmental positions dealing with that same area - then he appointed one, anyway (2) He claimed all forms of torture would stop and prisoners at Gitmo would be given the same rights as any criminal - then he made exceptions (3) He stated emphatically that he would sign no bill that crossed his desk with pork in it - he signed the pork-filled stimulus package. In only his first three weeks, he is batting a thousand - or zero, however you prefer to look at it. That's the true purpose behind the stimulus package. and a good purpose it is, Ron. That still isn't the question, which is does the pork belong in there? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
btw, if you get time, I'd like your views about that electronical medical data base. (1) should it be part of the stimulus package? (2) is it invasive of personal rights? Seems to me I recall you didn't think too highly of the patriot act and I'm wondering how you feel about this one? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Thanks Mike, though I’m not sure if I should be offended by your low estimation of my intelligence - I’d have estimated it closer to 98%. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
....which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Those are interpretations, Mike, not facts. In my opinion, number one is questionable, number two is flat out wrong, and number three is an exaggeration. Filled? I don't consider most of the points you've raised in this thread to be pork. Most are things where we really do need to eventually spend the money. I would certainly prefer NO pork, but it's not a term so easily defined that everyone is going to agree what is and isn't pork. If the President says he won't sign a bill with pork and he then signs a bill, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he didn't consider any of the items in the bill to be pork. And, yes, before you ask, I gave President Bush the same benefit of the doubt when he told me there were WMD in Iraq. Let's hope this one turns out better than that one did. quote: My first reaction, Mike, is to scream bloody murder. I don't like it on general principal. And I think it would take a whole lot of convincing to change my mind. But . . . I'm willing to listen. I'll admit I don't know enough about it to make an intelligent decision and, though I scanned it, I don't have time to read the whole bill, or even just the sections dealing with "Health Information Technology." I do, however, understand the logic behind the idea. The cost of health care is ridiculous. If computers can bring down that cost a little, as IT has clearly done in so many other industries, I can certainly understand people leaning in that direction. Almost all the doctors seem to agree that digitizing and centralizing medical information that is already "out there" (albeit on hard copy) will make their jobs easier. I think it's questionable whether making their jobs easier will necessarily make their jobs less expensive, and even if it does, I think it's questionable whether it's worth the very real dangers to civil rights. In short, I think we're giving up too much in hopes of getting too little. It's a bad idea. *** Grrr. My link above doesn't work. I sure hope the guys who designed their search function aren't the same guys in charge of the Heath Information Technology? If anyone is interested in reading the bill, go to this page (and even that one might change soon). Look for the "Economic Stimulus" line and click on the link for "H.R.1" On the next page, click on the link for "Text of Legislation." Then click on the link for the second version of the bill, "H.R.1.EH." |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Oddly it didn’t surprise the people at Mensa either Mike, nor did it impress them much by all accounts. Apparently I just managed to scrape into the top 2%, the really intelligent folk make me look like Forrest Gump. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
number one is questionable, Last year the Pentagon paid the Raytheon Corp., its fifth largest contractor, a cool $10 billion for its missiles, missile shields and a constellation of electronics. This year President Barack Obama is putting Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist in charge of the Pentagon's day-to-day management. In Washington that almost qualifies as business as usual, except for a small detail: on the campaign trail, Obama vowed to stop the revolving door that lets onetime lobbyists go to work for the Federal Government and oversee contracts that could harm — or help — their former employer. And one of the first things the new President did in office was seemingly make good on that promise, signing an Executive Order barring former lobbyists from joining his Administration to work at agencies they recently lobbied. Not surprisingly, Obama's good-government backers were less than pleased to see the President, only a few days after signing the blanket ban, issue a waiver permitting William Lynn to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense. The lobbying loophole was allowed, Administration officials explain, because Lynn is "uniquely qualified" for the job. The episode is a painful lesson for Obama. Even though his team asserts that it has put into place the toughest rules ever against lobbyists going to work for the Federal Government, the only thing most folks will remember is that Obama made an exception to that rule for one of his top officials. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1874165,00.html A lobbyist who joins the Obama administration also is forbidden from working on issues they previously were involved with, he said. Any person who leaves the administration will be barred from lobbying the government for two years. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYSQ9OT7ErVU&refer=home What do you find questionable, Ron? number two is flat out wrong, Under the plan being crafted inside Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obama-plans-guantanamo-cl_n_142593.html The president-elect reportedly wants to establish a new justice system - a "third way," you might say - for prosecuting the most dangerous of Gitmo’s detainees. Instead of trying to prosecute men like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh within the confines of the dubious military commissions plan, the Obama administration would bring them here to the States and prosecute them in semi-secret terror-law courts, overseen by civilian judges with FISA-like terror-law backgrounds. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/11/opinion/courtwatch/main4591623.shtml So what is it that you see wrong, Ron? He went from open trials and constitutional rights for all to a new justice system with semi-secret terror-law courts number three is an exaggeration. Ok, I'll grant you that "filled" is too strong a word but there are certainly multiple examples of pork displayed in the package. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he didn't consider any of the items in the bill to be pork. In that case you are calling him a complete idiot, not even to see prostitute removal, STD research, honeybee study and the like as pork. Do you really think he is that dumb? Most are things where we really do need to eventually spend the money. That's fine, Ron, but I think you overlooked the word "emergency" in the emergency stimulus package.It's not supposed to be for things the government will "eventually" buy, unless you want to agree with me that it's simply a democratic "shopping list". Why not let the prostitutes run wild a little longer, the politicians drive their almost-new cars a little longer and put those millions toward tax relief and housing benefits? The cost of health care is ridiculous. If computers can bring down that cost a little, as IT has clearly done in so many other industries, I can certainly understand people leaning in that direction. Ok, let me rewrite that one.... The threat of terrorism is ridiculous. If selective wiretapping can bring down that threat a little, as it has clearly done in other countries, I can certainly understand people leaning in that direction. Were those your thoughts on Bush's wiretapping program? Also, i didn't see you mention whether or not you felt this belonged in an emergency stimulus package. At any rate, thank you for your thoughts  Grinch, ok, you have me in complete awe of your mental capabilities. Be careful because if you could not type on your keyboard due to pulling a muscle while patting yourself on the back, we would all be deprived of the incredible knowledge you are kind enough to share with us from time to time.  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No need to worry Mike, my computer has the latest voice recognition software which would allow me to respond to your posts even if I had both hands tied behind my back. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. When even the New York Times is uncertain, you have to wonder why bother . . . Also, all this is supposed to create or save three million jobs. Do simple division and cut each a check and then beg for leftovers at their door. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. Why did you leave out one sentence that was otherwise embedded right in your quotation, Mike? "Realists at the Pentagon and elsewhere put it slightly differently, saying the President was simply acknowledging that people who know how to run the Pentagon generally have been involved in the process." And this one, while it wasn't plucked out of supporting quote, is equally pertinent, I think. "To ease some Senators' concerns, he (Lynn) has promised to sell all his Raytheon stock and have his dealings at the Pentagon for the first year subject to an ethics review." What I find questionable, Mike, is that this can so easily be construed as "business as usual." Obama's plan to avoid any potential conflicts of interest (which, incidentally, I never supported) has hit some snags. I don't think that means he's abandoned the idea or the ideal. And I certainly don't think it means Lynn is going to be allowed to cheat the American people. quote: First, let me say I don't think that's the best way to handle terrorists. Second, let me point out the contention is only "reportedly" made. Third, we should note that closed court rooms, especially in matters of national security, are certainly not without precedent. Fourth . . . what in the world does any of that have to do with stopping all forms of torture and then making exceptions? quote: Without more information, Mike, I don't see those issues as pork. Do you really think I'm that dumb? Personally, there are a LOT of things the Feds fund that I believe lie way outside the mandate of government. I'd certainly be happy to discuss the role of government in scientific research, for example. But that discussion has nothing to do with this particular bill. If it is something that will be funded, this bill is as good as any other and possibly better than most. quote: And I honestly don't think you understand what the adjective is modifying, Mike. It is NOT modifying the line items being funded, but rather the economic situation the bill is trying to address. I would go so far as to guess there is not one single thing being funded by this bill that qualifies as a true emergency. Not one. Collectively, however, they represent a possible answer to a national emergency. A Hail Mary, if you will. quote: That's not a bad analogy, Mike, and I certainly understand your point. However, remembering that I said I was opposed to both, we should nonetheless remember that a comparison between computers and wiretapping should reflect that the former is legal while the latter is not? Both, in my opinion, are an abuse of power. quote: Again, Mike, anything belongs in an economic stimulus bill so long as it circulates money domestically. And, please, guys. Can we talk about the topic and not each other? If I have to spend all my time editing these threads, I'm not going to have any left to participate. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
gain, Mike, anything belongs in an economic stimulus bill so long as it circulates money domestically. Ok, Ron, in view of that statement, there's really very little more I can say. We will just have to agree to disagree. Hopefully the senate won't agree with you. Gee, if circulating money is the key, let's take those billions, divide it up between the populace and people will have enough money to buy cars, pay mortgages, send kids to college and the problem is solved. Just cut out the middle man, which happens to be the local and state governments. Ok, I will stop the banter but I'm sure you have seen that Grinch and I have not done it in a mean-spirited way here. I think we were having a little fun with it but perhaps it sets a bad precedence....grinch, stop it! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: No, no, no, Mike! The very LAST thing you want to do is divvy the money up equally. Do the math yourself. Call it $888 billion, divided by the US Population of just under 304 million people. That works out to slightly less than $3,000 a person. You really think that's enough to buy cars, pay mortgages, and send kids to college? Looking at the stimulus package on a per capita basis only serves to destroy the illusion. Not what we want. Circulating money isn't the key, Mike. Building confidence is the key. Spending a whole lot of money is just a way to try to build that confidence. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
anything belongs in an economic stimulus bill so long as it circulates money domestically. Circulating money isn't the key, Mike,Building confidence is the key. Ok, confidence it is, then. Do people get confidence by seeing taxpayer dollars go to some of the things in this package? 60% of the public doesn't. The Republicans don't. More than a few of the Democrats don't. Confidence would come from seeing the money go to pertinent areas which would stimulate the economy and provide for job creation, not from allowing the government to spend millions on their vehicles , hiring more concert pianists, or keeping hookers off the streets. Nor does confidence come from seeing a president promise no pork in bills allowing pork in bills right after he said the opposite. Confidence will come from seeing a president whose words and actions match. We are not seeing that yet, on several levels. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You know what I think is ridiculous? Right now there is legislation in Pennsylvania for a Universal Health Care plan. Price tag for this cradle to grave coverage? A 10% tax from wages (on top of the 3% current state income tax), plus an additional 3% tax on all other personal income. So what I now have provided by my employer, for only $7.50 per month from my paycheck, will cost me over $350. per month in new taxes if this bill passes. I struggle as it is to even afford home heating oil, and my paycheck would be reduced at least 10% if this bill passes? I wonder how long it would be before even that is insufficient, how long before that tax is increased and increased and increased. And what level of care would be provided under such a plan. From some of the horror stories I've heard from countries that have it, I'd say not very good. And with rationed care, administered by the government, would most of us be going to that grave earlier than if we maintained our current level of care? And whom exactly would this plan benefit? Currently in PA, all children up to the age of 18, and older, I believe, if they are in college, can already apply for S-Chip, regardless of family income and private health insurance availability (a most recent change in the plan). The poor adults have Medicaid. The older folks have Medicare. So it seems this would be for the folks who are adults who don't have health care provided by their employers. Wouldn't it be cheaper for them, and the rest of us, if they just bought their own private coverage (I've seen commercials recently for private insurance for $50 a week) with assistance from the government if needed through tax credits, or if the employers were required to provide some level of coverage, with tax incentives from the government? I hope the Republicans in the PA House & Senate shoot this down. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. According to Obama if we don't spend a 920 billion now that we don't have the sky will fall. Is that a rush job or not? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No more than Pelosi announcing that if the bill is not passed immediately 500 million Americans will lose their jobs. Maybe she needs a refresher course in math?? When all else fails, try fear-mongering. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Pay back is tough, and the last eight years have just made it tougher. Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Ron (02-06-2009 12:09 PM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
All can talk about pork and parties until there's none left or right or hiding anywhere in the fine print, but I still think the most solid black spot on our economy is what too many Americans have demanded or have become reliant upon: "Bread and Circuses." The gov has been supplying what the first order of gov (We The People) have been settling for, longer than any of us have been alive. and of course there is pork and there will always be pork whether it's on a stimulus plan or not. Food (the agriculture industry) tops water, cars, guns, and even our values as our most precious commodity. Mega-Agribusinesses are and will be locked in on subsidies. and we've been dependent on countries that couldn't produce their own for a time, and many have figured out how they can. which means more money will go into ag-subsidies, or there's another industry that will go up in dust, again. |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
I really liked the idea of scrapping the whole bill and just giving tax payers a six moth vacation from paying taxes. Too simple I guess. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "People are afraid to spend money" Or are they afraid to spend money they still don't have and/or banks are not willing to lend them because those banks are too concerned about their own liquidity? If it is so important to get money spent now why is so much of the package for spending that wouldn't happened until 2010 or 2011? What if people never the less persist in putting aside more than 1% of their earnings as savings, ( I heard concern on NPR because it has now risen to slightly over 2%)? For years I’ve heard dire warnings about people living beyond their means, (for example, a good or bad percentage of Boomers even with Social Security not having enough to live on in retirement). Now we want to encourage it. . [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (02-06-2009 09:14 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Sigh. Because, John, it's not about the government spending what is essentially a little bit of money. It is, rather, about the government setting an example and convincing the population it's safe for them to spend what everyone hopes will, in the aggregate, be a whole lot more money in a much more immediate time span. The government cannot buy the country out of a deep recession. At best they can delay it. The people, on the other hand, might just be able to turn a bad recession into a milder one. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Sigh. Because, John, it's not about the government spending what is essentially a little bit of money. It is, rather, about the government setting an example and convincing the population it's safe for them to spend what everyone hopes will, in the aggregate, be a whole lot more money in a much more immediate time span." Sigh . . .are they afraid to spend money they still don't have and/or banks are not willing to lend them because those banks are too concerned about their own liquidity? . . . What if people never the less persist in putting aside more than 1% of their earnings as savings, ( I heard concern on NPR because it has now risen to slightly over 2%)? And how is Obama's new fear over hope style helping confidence? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The Congressional Budget Office, which is non-partisan, believes the package will ultimately cause more harm than good. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long -haul/ This chart is very interesting.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Bingo! quote: In my opinion, John, that will be a good thing in the long run. Before we can get to a long run, however, we have to get through the short one. quote: Duh? Did somebody not already know that, Mike? Of course, that's not quite what the CBO said, either. There's a subtle difference between "hurt the economy more in the long run that if he were to do nothing" and "more harm than good." I don't see how there can be any doubt in anyone's mind that running up the national debt isn't, in the long run, a very bad thing. It was a bad thing when we spent nearly $600 billion dollars in Iraq, and it will be a bad thing when we spend that and half again as much to stimulate the economy. Excessive debt is not a good thing. In the long run, we desperately need to balance the budget and pay down the national debt. But, as I said to John, we have to get through the short run before we can chart a course through the long run. The CBO, in that article, was also clear that -- in the short run -- the stimulus package will likely produce a positive return. "The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent." Don't get me wrong, guys. Philosophically, I have always come down on the side of "hard love." I think when someone screws up they have to pay the consequences. I believe that every attempt to escape those consequences inevitably costs even more. I am not personally in favor of a stimulus package, nor do I think it's going to work. I say that, however, with what I think is a good understanding of what "pay the consequences" is ultimately going to mean. People are going to find themselves homeless in record numbers. People are going to starve. People are going to die. In the Midwest, it's already happening. For many, many families this is going to go far beyond tightening the belt, well into the realm of tightening the noose. I honestly don't think we can escape that. I'm willing, however, to let our government prove me wrong. The stimulus package may be able to buy us a few years. When you see someone going over Niagara Falls, throwing them a life preserver seems pretty futile. You still have to throw it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I remember when I was in 7th grade when you bought a marshmellow cup there was a card with a cartoon and a cute saying inside the package. One was a picture of a man who had just jumped off the roof of a tall building and, halfway down, said "So far, not so bad at all!" The caption on the bottom read, BE AN OPTIMIST! Somehow I'm reminded of that card about now.... Really, Mike? Why, then, do you suppose so much of the bill is devoted to tax cuts? Isn't it something like a third of the money? It appears you were misled by the Democratic claims, also, since the chart shows the actual tax cuts in the package barely over one fifth. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I can't get the chart to come up on my computer, so I'm having trouble understanding your point. The CBO is a non-partisan agency. The Washington Times, however, is an extremely right wing paper which is not famous for its accuracy and which was at one time funded by Reverend Moon. It may still be for all I know. I would be much more inclined to look at the conclusions you draw with such confidence if the information source you drew them from were not so heavily biased. If Ron's comment is accurate, then the comment the Washington Post made about the CBO's conclusions was at the least somewhat slanted. I'm willing to believe that there are or may be flaws in the proposal. When I'm offered information of this sort, though, while I still believe that there may be flaws, I find that there must be something terribly wrong with the critics as well, if they're trying to mislead me about what those flaws might be. I'm interested in trying to get some sort of a glimpse of reality here. Being told that the Republicans are suddenly the party of fiscal responsibility here is not something that I believe at all. Forget for the moment the cost of the war over the past few years. The cost of the tax cuts for the upper classes has not only cut the income for the country at a time when that income was needed, but every buck of those tax cuts seems to have cost the country an additional $.30 in loss to the economy. Whereas at one point tax cuts (yes, tax cuts to the wealthy) would make us money over time, we are apparently at a point of the laffer curve where they now cost the country money when applied to the very wealthy. I gave you references on this months ago to articles in the Economist and other places as well. Tax cuts to the middle class may help at this point, but direct grants for food stamps and welfare and for jobs doing public works where people are put to work directly at the middle and the bottom of the pyramid puts money into circulation pretty much right away. Those folks need to buy food and gas and clothes, and those thing have a very quick multiplier effect of the economy. A buck targeted there can get back a dollar thirty to a dollar seventy in economic effect reasonably quickly. If there are glitches and hold-ups and problems with this stuff, boy do I want to know about it. Especially if it comes from doing things the way we've been doing them for the past eight or ten years. There's got to be some changes from that stuff. At least that's what I think. I also say Boo! to the Washington Times, and thumbs up to your use of The Atlantic a few weeks ago. Even though they've drifted rightwards over the past 10-15 years, they're still good with research, and if they're somewhat to the right, they're well thought out, and the balance that off from time to time. Best to you, Mike. Hope everything's going great. Greetings from here on the left coast. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Did anyone know that this was also stuffed into the so-called "Stimulus" Bill? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDx fbwhzs So much for "change we can believe in" and "transparency in government". |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Denise, I think we already talked about Health Tech a few posts back in this thread? So, yea, we knew it was "stuffed" into the bill. Since we found out about it, and you found out about it, and clearly the Senators get a chance to vote on it, I'm curious how much more transparency you think we need? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
This goes so far beyond the health tech issue, Ron. It is essentially nationalized health care made law via the stimulus bill, I heard no senator or congressperson discussing it, or objecting to it being in the bill in the first place. What I object to is that we had to "find out" about it, not from those in power who are trying to slip it in through the back door, but from alternative news sites. I didn't find out about it until after the Senate voted on the bill. I wonder what else is hidden within this 900 + page bill. I wonder how many, even in Congress, have had time to read and digest it all. I wonder why the urgent rush for passage. If given time, to see all it really contains, and the potential implications, would it go down in flames? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The full text of the bill is on-line, Denise? quote: I don't know, Denise. Maybe? I do know that given too much time, it won't make any difference. There's a reason it's called an Emergency Stimulus Package. Sitting and watching your neighbor bleed to death, because you want to make sure you provide the "right" first aid and avoid making a mistake, usually isn't the best course of action. Of course, I agree we shouldn't rush to pass just any old legislation so we can appear be doing something. Just like I would agree that jumping up and down on your neighbor's chest isn't good CPR and likely won't staunch the flow the blood from an open wound. The better move has to be walking between the extremes of doing anything and doing nothing. Which, of course, is why our legislators make the big bucks. It's fine to disagree with what they decide. I just don't see any reason to sarcastically quote comment slogans as if your disagreement with their decisions somehow proves those slogans never had any merit? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
bob, I don't know why you can't get the chart to come up. I have no problem with it. You may continue to keep up with the tactic of shooting the messenger if you like but the facts are going to remain the same, regardless of the carrier. After all of this fear-mongering conducted by Obama and Pelosi recently about the end of the country as we know it if his bill is not passed IMMEDIATELY it was interesting to see Geitner come out yesterday and say that, basically, they weren't ready or even sure exactly which way they wanted to go. That's why the market responded by dropping almost 400 points after his speech. There is something I find ironic about all of this. In other situations, such as the battle against global warming, when told there may be price tags involved or even certain hardships endured in the name of this endeavor, the battle cry was "We're doing it for the children! We need to do it for future generations." However, here we have this stimulus package which everyone with more than one gray cell knows may be an immediate band-aid but will lead to something very detrimental in the future and I must suppose that the battle cry has changed to "to hell with the children. We need this now and they will have to shoulder the burden themselves." Tell me there is no irony in that. Of course, if you believe what Obama claims that the United States will never recover if his bill is not passed immediately, that it will be the end of the country as we know it, then it's true there's no reason to think about the children at all but I believe anyone who thinks that, including Obama, is shortchanging the American people, the folks who survived two world wars, a depression and Jimmy Carter. Personally, I believe Obama is misrepresenting claims to the American people, and doing it on purpose. Aside from the destruction of the country, he has also made claims in every speech he has given lately about the situation he has created which was cause by eight years of failed policies. Even you Democrats out there have to recognize that as completely inaccurate. The housing crisis, the loan crisis, the fall of Fannie and Freddie have roots that occured well before the past eight years and you all know it. He is doing his best to mislead the public and shift as much blame as he can to the right, which means he is doing little more than just playing politics with the situation. I had hoped for more from him. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Everything they have done in the past few weeks is a repudiation of those campaign slogans, in my opinion, Ron. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Hidden? Do you mean the one that’s written in black and white and available for anyone to read. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+1: |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Things can be there to be read but in such a way as intended to be obscured or not understood, (like the tax code). The market tanked yesterday because a lot of very smart and experienced people have no idea what the Treasury is planning despite the Secretary's announcement. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Or maybe it tanked because the very smart and experienced people who created this mess in the first place realised that the government wasn’t going to fully fund their favoured solution. - The creation of a bad bank using tax payers money to buy up all the bad debt. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm sure very few people have had time to read and digest all that this bill contains. That it is available to be read online is next to meaningless given the rush to have it passed into law. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, How long did you think would be a proper amount of time to wait? What was the solution you would offer instead? Do you actually believe there to be a problem? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Perhaps people are figuring out there is no plan on how to handle the financial crisis. That perhaps we are a bit too much worried about not wasting a crisis for political advantage rather than preparing a detailed plan of attack to deal with the problem. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
amen, Tim. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I did get the chart to come up, finally. I saw that you faulted the Congressional Budget Office for the interpretation of the data (by close to 20%) after quoting them as the non-partisan source. I suspect That their figures were in fact accurate but the Washington Times may have had something to do with the interpretation. If I am wrong, I am sorry. If you are the messenger, you should rest assured; I would never shoot you, though if there are any coconut cream pies about during your more fanciful sallies, you might think to stay out of pie range. And what is that, you ask? Pie are squared, of course. The corners are sharper that way. Facts are things one must adapt to after appropriate evaluation. Weapons of Mass Destruction; Yellow Cake Uranium; Saddam and Osama, terrorist allies forever; the atom bomb from Bagdad. Some truths are a little less robust than others and perhaps questions need to be asked, don't you think? When the democrats were saying that this was coming and things needed to be done well in advance of this contretemps on the hill, Republicans were whistling or humming loudly with their fingers jammed in their ears up to their elbows. They were in major denial that there was any problem with the economy, even though it was clear enough for an economic idiot like me to see several years back, and to be writing about as long as I've been contributing to these pages. Had some attempt been made to address the structural problems at that time, this sort of thing wouldn't — or let's say "might not" — have been necessary. The problem was not unpredictable, and in fact was predicted. One thing it was not was sudden. quote: When was it that I first suggested that somebody had to pay the Mastercard bill, Mike? I said that eventually somebody would have to, and that our kids were already going to be footing the bill. It was only going to be growing larger. If I remember correctly, you challenged me; you thought the economy was fine, and the outlook was great, and that I was simply trying to spread doom and gloom to win an election. I'm open to being corrected on details, if I don't have things exactly right here. I believe the gist is accurate. The Mastercard bill hasn't gone down since, only up. It turns out that the management of the economy has been something of a problem for much of the last 25-30 years —including, if it makes you feel better, much of the Clinton era, when the economy was run in too conservative a fashion—and we've got to dig our way out now, or dig our way out of a deeper hole later on. The choice made consistently over the past several administrations has been to wait until later. Thus, here we are. I don't know why you tossed in the remarks about Jimmy Carter. I disagree, but have no wish to fight. quote: While you can see that I believe that the current crisis had it's roots well before the previous administration, and you can see that I even went so far as to lay some of the blame at Clinton's feet, you should also note that I believe it went back further than that. While Clinton did some things I don't like economically — NAFTA, the way it's being run currently being at the top of the list — you should note that Free Trade has been one of the Republican dreams for years, and that the Republican congress was solidly behind it, while the Democrats gave Clinton at least something of a difficult time because the unions were giving them a tough time. The blame still rests in large with Clinton. I will not go into the various antics of prior Republican administrations at this point. I leave for the airport soon for another trip east. I will say that when Clinton left office, he left us with a fairly stable economy and with a projected surplus. Pretty solid. In eight years, the last administration seems to have worked hard to dismantle as many public sector activities as they could and to turn the various watchdog responsibilities of the government over to the industries which were supposed to be watchguarded. Logging, environment regulation and quality, military procurement and support, health procurement turned over to the drug companies. And so on. This is part of the Republican anti-government agenda. Allowing people with an anti-government agenda to govern has never made a lot of sense to me, by the way. It's like putting the folks at the Hemlock Society in Charge of the psychiatric Hospitals. But then I only have one vote. Oddly enough, after eight years of being run by the anti-government party, the government looks like it's been in the hands of suicidal maniacs bent on showing the country that government doesn't work. To my mind what this shows is that putting people who want things to fail in charge of an important enterprise is a recipe for disaster. So you see, you can't really blame the Republicans for doing what they promised when they were elected in 2000, to bring private enterprise into government. We should blame ourselves for not understanding that once we brought private enterprise into government, that they would be in business for themselves and not for us, and they wouldn't care how large a debt the country would run up, so long as they made an obscene profit without necessarily delivering the proper goods. After all, we sold them the right to regulate themselves too, and they seem to have found a way to profit from that as well. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Do you mean the one that’s written in black and white and available for anyone to read." Pray Your Members of Congress Took Speed Reading Lessons (UPDATED: It’s Worse) http://www.sundriesshack.com/2009/02/12/pray-your-members-of-congress-took-speed-reading-lessons/ . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
They were in major denial that there was any problem with the economy, Oh, for a second there, Bob, I thought you were referring to Barney Frank in 2004 speaking of the impending Fanni Mae crisis he was warned about. You will have your views and I will have mine, Bob. You may continue with the "past eight years" chant along with Obama in perfect harmony and that's fine. if it comes down to pie-throwing, make it lemon meringue, please. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. 2004, which anyone can watch and listen to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Huan, If your members of congress are stupid enough to read it from scratch every time there’s a change instead of just reading it once and then reading the amendments as they’re issued then they probably need more than speed reading lessons. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The tactics used by the Democrats has been shameful in my opinion. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I dunno about you Denise, but I'm feeling stimulated already. Just my four cents!  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Professor Michael Porter is boyish in his enthusiasm. His work may be taught at most business schools in the world, but he's no ivory-tower pedant Professor Porter, who sweeps his hands expansively through the air while talking at a hundred miles a hour, has been called "the doyen of living management gurus", a pillar of Harvard Business School and author of textbooks on competitive advantage and strategy. Professor Porter has also advised various governments on economic policy and in the past was picked out to lead a presidential commission by Ronald Reagan. So when he expresses concern that the US government's economic stimulus package has not targeted the right areas, it's worth listening to his arguments. In his opinion, much of it displays "the usual pork-barrel, favourite projects" and he insists that America ought to be identifying the fundamental challenges facing its economy and the country and investing in those. He professes to have enormous respect for President Obama's economic team, but tempers that with a concern that he "would like to see some more business expertise and credentials in his people". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7872874.stm For those of you who claim there is little or no pork in this package, there are a whole lot of economy professors who disagree with you. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
“The problem is that no one has really defined well what ‘stimulus’ means,” said David Lanoue, chair of the political science department. “There’s almost no kind of spending that wouldn’t have some stimulating effect on the economy. So it’s really a ‘bang for the buck’ question.” Lanoue said the contraception’s inclusion and its removal may be an example of the difference in agendas between Obama and Democrats in Congress — Obama’s focusing on economic recovery, Democrats want to implement a wide scope of policy changes in response to a voter mandate. “I don’t think the Democrats envisioned this as simply a stimulus bill — they envisioned it as a stimulus and economic security bill,” Lanoue said. “The Democrats are in control of all the levers for the first time since 1994. And their attitude is that elections have consequences. We won the election, we won the election before that — it’s time for our views to take hold. Obama’s major focus is obviously on getting economic recovery started. His presidency going to be judged by that.” http://www.cw.ua.edu/professors_discuss_economic_stimulus_package-1.1357116 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So the bill was passed and not one congressman read it. They were told to vote on it without even reading what was in it. Th entire event had a secrecy level to it conducted by the Democrats, which is completely contrary to what Obama had told Americans on the campaign trail would never happen under his administration, that everything would be above board and available and the American people would be able to review all bills before they were passed, saying he was getting away from the "secrecy level" of the Bush administration....another campaign promise down in flames. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Anybody seen a sof marsh harvest mouse lately? Pelosi's district is getting 30 million from the package, naming it as the reason. Reid is getting millions for his district. I'm beginning to feel sorry for Obama. Pelosi and Reid have run amok and packing what may be a sincere effort on his part with more self-beneficial pork than one would find on every hog farm in Nebraska. Every American should be completely outraged by their actions, regardless of party affiliations. The largest spending bill in history...and not one congressman read it before voting on it....think about that, people. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Call me curious... but what would you do? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What happened to the promise that everything to be voted on would be on the web for public view for 48 hours prior to any vote? Not even the lawmakers themselves had sufficient time to review the finalized version. They didn't even get a copy of it in a computer file as they have in the past that would enable them to search through it by keywords. They got paper copies that even had items crossed off and replaced by handwritten marginal notes. And not only did Specter, Collins and Snowe vote for it in the Senate, they also agreed, as a part of their vote, to allow only 90 minutes of debate on the bill prior to the vote. Listening to Pelosi and Schumer denigrate the Republicans for being non-cooperative and partisan was enough to make me gag. They were the ones who completely shut the Republicans out of any input into the bill at all, from beginning to end. And hearing Obama say that there were no earmarks in this bill only confirms to me that he is either stupid or a liar, and I tend toward his not being stupid. But maybe there is a third alternative that escapes me. I would, at the very least, have allowed input from the minority party, and open and above board debate, and would have allowed enough time for the finalized version to be viewed not only by all the lawmakers involved, but by the public as well. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Are you sure? As I understand it they got it in two parts - both PDF documents. Not that it matters, anyone who had a problem with the bill or the way it was formulated, debated or delivered would, presumably, have voted against it or abstained. As the majority voted for it we can only assume that they didn’t have a problem with any of the above and were happy as it stood. It’s evidence of democracy at work. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It doesn't do much good receiving the files AFTER the vote because they didn't receive them prior to it. If debate and Republican input had been allowed, perhaps compromise could have been reached and a better bill produced. But they didn't need a single Republican vote anyway. I'm glad Obama and Congress didn't get the 'cover' they were seeking. Now when this fails, it will be on them and them alone. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As the majority voted for it we can only assume that they didn’t have a problem with any of the above and were happy as it stood. No, they didn't have a problem with it at all. They didn't read it. They voted for it because it was a democrat package....period. it’s evidence of democracy at work. Actually it's evidence of a confidence game at work, not democracy. The largest spending bill in history, voted on by Democrats who didn't even see it before hand and rejected by Republicans who were not given the chance to study it before voting on it. Pelosi and Reid have managed to make Bernie look like an amateur, with his paltry 50 billion ponzi scheme. They have taken billions of tax money and shared a good part of it returning favors, paying off debts, enriching their own districts with a bill congressmen were not allowed to see and in which the American people are completely in the dark about. I can bet you dollars to doughnuts that all of you who are supporting their actions would be screaming bloody murder if it were a republican congress demanding a bill be passed that democrats were not allowed to study beforehand. You would be yelling dirty tricks and you know it. They say a confidence scheme is not great unless the victim doesn't know he's been taken. Well, in that they have been successful. They have saddled the taxpayers and their children with billions of unnecessary debt for their own purposes and done it in a way where many Americans, and even foreigners, call it democracy at work. It is nowhere close to democracy at work, in fact, it is the exact opposite. It is the type of action you would expect to see from a third world dictatorship. Welcome to the St. Valentine's Day massacre - 2009. [This message has been edited by Ron (02-14-2009 05:08 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Are you sure? I thought that the bill came in two parts - a 577 page tax package which was distributed early on Thursday and a 496 page appropriations section distributed and posted on the web in PDF format at 10:45 pm. Not that it matters, as I said anyone opposed to it for any reason voted against it, everyone else was happy to vote for it as it stood. quote: A bill was proposed, debated, amended, voted on, debated again, amended again and voted on again, sounds like democracy to me. You can’t please all of the people all of the time Mike - just because things didn’t go the way you wanted them to doesn’t mean democracy doesn’t work, in fact when that happens it’s good evidence that it does. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What is a plausible alternative to Obama stating several times that this bill has NO earmarks in it, an obvious falsehood, other than his being stupid or a liar, Moonbeam or SEA? I'm interested in hearing your opinions to that question, for whatever they may be worth. ~Sigh~ing at my opinion and stating it is worth what was paid for it isn't an intelligent response. And stating that if he says its not an earmark because he has declared that whatever he wants isn't an earmark isn't a good enough answer either. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Can you supply a couple of examples of those earmarks Denise? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Examples have already been given, grinch, in several places in these threads. Perhaps you can take the time to read them or maybe you can e-mail Professor Porter at Harvard and ask him what he means... So when he expresses concern that the US government's economic stimulus package has not targeted the right areas, it's worth listening to his arguments. In his opinion, much of it displays "the usual pork-barrel, favourite projects" Must be some reason why the BBC picked up on that, I would think. Trying to pretend there aren't any is really ludicrous in light of the fact that so many people, including over 100 economists, have stated there are. The whole thing leaves me with a glad/sad feeling. Glad that it will mark the end of democratic rule and sad for what the country is going to go through because of it. While you will be observing we will be living it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Cut the pork in stimulus compromise By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist The stimulus bills passed by the House and Senate contain billions in non-essential spending. That pork should be slashed from the compromise bill that's on its way to President Barack Obama. But don't bet on that happening. The Democrats -- led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- are using the economic meltdown to seize an opportunity to permanently grow the size of the federal government and of federal spending. So billions have been stuffed in the stimulus bills for construction projects that won't happen for years, for projects that should be financed by the cities and states, for disease-prevention efforts. While most of these projects and programs may be "good causes," they are not the kind of targeted and quick spending the current economy needs. Instead, the federal government will be borrowing billions it shouldn't, then having to repay all that money with interest in the coming years. Obama ought to insist, privately if he must, to get some of that unnecessary spending out of the stimulus compromise. That would be a dramatic and much-needed change from the way Washington has been run in the past. Submitted by Yael T. Abouhal http://voices.kansascity.com/node/3680 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Even the AP isn't buying Obama's claims regarding the stimulus, not to mention his claims about his appointments. Obama and the Democrats are playing the politics of fear, here. They want to push their spending party through and get it signed right away, under the guise of emergency assistance, before the people of America have a chance to object. This idea that the bill is bipartisan is absurd. As Mark Impomeni mentioned on Randi Rhodes' show yesterday, the conspicuous lack of support from the man who loves Democrats too much, John McCain, is telling. Anyone paying attention has already seen hundreds of examples of wasteful spending in the nearly trillion dollar package, and that is directed spending. Don't forget the billions in discretionary spending. The Senate compromise version contains $1,100,000,000 in supplemental discretionary grants for airport spending, for example. Gee, I wonder who might have pushed for that? http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/02/10/obama-claims-stimulus-pork-free-ap-disagrees/ If you need more examples, grinch, simply type stimulus pork into your google search. You'll find more than enough examples. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In an interview with Liberadio that was picked up by the Nashville Post, Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee said he was encouraged by the Obama administration to fight against some of the bill's more controversial provisions when it was in the House. "I probably shouldn’t tell you this, but I actually got some quiet encouragement from the Obama folks for what I’m doing," said Cooper, a relatively conservative "Blue Dog" Democrat who opposed the stimulus bill. "They know it's a messy bill and they wanted a clean bill." Cooper added that he "got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don’t care what’s in the bill, they just want it pass and they want it to be unanimous." "We’re just told how to vote," he continued. "We’re treated like mushrooms most of the time." The White House "want[s] to keep the Speaker happy and the traditional Democratic leaders, but they've let them know privately they're not interested in all this pork," he said. Contacted by Politico, the White House press office and the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not immediately offer comment on Cooper's claims. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/04/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4774878.shtml Even some of the Democrats are honest.... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
300M for electric golf carts? 150M for honeybee insurance? Watch this one, sir, and you will have more than enough examples.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M7D9cQv-TU |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I don't think Obama is in charge of anything right now. . |
||
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
He's in charge of the crusade to lift a nation's collective mind out of negativity John. That's all he's really in charge of. I think he knows it. I think he's also the right man at the right time. I think he knows that too. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: quote: That wouldn’t work. You see pork and earmarks aren’t the same thing in political parlance Mike, pork is a provision tagged onto a bill that bears no relationship to the subject of the original bill. Normally they’re added as a sweetener or incentive to persuade politicians who don’t care about the original bill to vote for it. The rule of thumb is that if a provision bears no relationship to the purpose of the bill in which it sits then the chances are it’s pork. Earmarks on the other hand are directions within a bill to allocate funds or benefits to a specific source which excludes fair competition or denies access to funds or benefits to others. For example: If the stimulus bill had a provision to allocate funds to Ball-A-Deer Inc. to promote writing ballads on the internet that would be an earmark in that it specifically allocates funds to Ball-A-Deer. If however there was a general provision to allocate funds to promote writing ballads that wouldn’t be an earmark - you might think it was a stupid provision but it’s not an earmark. So is the above general provision pork? If the bill’s original purpose is a general provision for writing ballads it isn’t pork, even if the bill needs Mike, who runs Ball-A-Deer , to vote for it. If however the bill’s main purpose is to improve the flood defences of New Orleans the chances are it’s pork. So what is the purpose of the stimulus bill? It’s been promoted as a bill to stimulate the economy and create or save jobs, you maintain that it contains multiple examples of pork and earmarks. So far however I haven’t read one that meets the criteria for either, there are lots of examples that you think are stupid but none that are at odds with the original purpose of the bill or that are specific to an individual or group to the detriment of others. 300M for electric golf carts? People are employed to make golf carts, people buy golf carts and everyone who makes golf carts is eligible to benefit - neither pork nor earmark. 150M for honeybee insurance? People are employed to raise honeybees, people buy honey and everyone who raises bees for honey is eligible to benefit - neither pork nor earmark. You could of course say that both provisions are stupid but I’ve a sneaky suspicion that anyone who builds golf carts or raises bees for honey isn’t likely to agree with you. btw, I haven’t found the ballad writing provision in the stimulus bill yet - if I do I’ll let you know. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I think you just put your finger on the fatal flaw Grinch. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Believe me, if I lived in Pelosi's district and if I had raised money for her election campaign, you could very well see the ballad writing provision in the bill. But, then again, I write, use pens that other people manufacture, use paper that I have to buy, a computer that I use to put it online, and one day would hope to employ a publisher, press agent, editor....who knows how many people would benefit from my ballad-writing? According to the laughable examples you have given, it would be a great thing to have me in that bill somewhere. This should lay to rest any rumors that Obama is a muslim. Since pork is a cultural taboo and prohibited under Islamic law, there is no way he could be. At any rate, it's all academic now. Congress has passed it, thanks to Pelosi and Reid using tactics that has caused Congress to reach it's lowest approval rating in history since they assumed control. Obama will sign it because he has the two power mongers he is afraid to cross and all of you who feel it is a porkless, amazing creation that will solve the crisis (real or imagined) we live in, can cheer, click your heels, sing songs about the saving of America, or do whatever people do hide their true feelings. To those of you who are honest enough to see the flaws, the pork and the manipulation and still feel that the good will outweigh the bad, that doing something is better than doing nothing, then thank you at least for your honesty and we will just have wait and see what the future brings. I think Obama is a decent sort. He is just linked up with Pelosi, Reid and Frank, who are not. Well, they have what they want and they will live or die, politically, with it. It is their baby. Unfortunately it is the American people who will have to raise it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No Mike, if it mentioned you by name that would be an earmark and wouldn’t have any place in an earmark free bill. As to whether the bill is going to fix the current problems on it’s own I’d have to say no, in my opinion, it won’t. It’s too small for a start and contains too many tax cuts and not enough emphasis on job creation. Not to mention the inclusions in the bill that I think are rather stupid. But it’s a start and a lot better than doing nothing. I fully expect another similar package before the end of the year as well as a specific bill injecting cash into the car industry. If either of them contain pork or earmarks I'll be the first one denouncing them. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Irwin Stelzer is a business adviser and director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute If, like John Maynard Keynes, you believe that spending, any spending, will revive a flagging economy, the freshly minted, 1,000-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, calling for $504 billion in deficit-financed spending, is for you. Well, not quite. It seems that most of the money will not be spent very soon. About 30% won't hit the economy until 2011, and the balance is likely to be tied up in the procurement processes of the federal and state governments until well into 2010, and beyond. Besides, much of the spending will end up boosting other economies — subsidies for wind machines will benefit workers in the other countries in which such machines are manufactured, not our very own horny-handed toilers. And much of the spending will not create jobs for the unemployed: laid-off car workers do not have the skills to design the software to manage the "smart grid" that is the apple of the greens' eye. If you have not jumped onto the new Keynesian spending bandwagon, but believe with Christina Romer, chairman of Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, that tax cuts are more certain than spending to turn the economy round, you should love this bill, with its $286 billion in tax cuts and credits. Well, not quite. True, individuals earning less than $75,000 a year and families earning less than $150,000 will receive credits of $400 and $800, the earned income-tax credit for working families with three or more children is increased, and there is something for pensioners, disabled veterans, families of college students and a host of others. Reflection suggests, however, the tax-cut contingent is doomed to disappointment. Much of the money will be saved or used to pay down credit-card balances, not bad things, but not very stimulative. Much will be spent in Wal-Mart, earning Congress the applause of Chinese trainer and t-shirt manufacturers. And much will never be claimed: the specific subsidies for college education are simply too small to have much effect on college enrolments. The explanation for these omissions was simply stated by the president, responding to those who want even more tax cuts and some supply-side stimulus, "We won." Not very satisfying intellectually, but who needs intellectually satisfying arguments when his party controls the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives? http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article5734337.ece |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
I listened to an elected Democrat in MD on a talk radio interview yesterday stutter trying to defend his position on voting even though he hadn't read the whole bill... Saying it was better than doing nothing. I had to turn the radio off...because he wasn't the only elected official to have done that overnight saying they were or had been working on the bill for 3 months so it didn't matter what was in it just that it had to be passed "now"! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Perhaps not, Mike, but those laid-off car workers certainly have the skills necessary to manufacture those wind turbines Mr. Stelzer wants to send offshore. Doesn't he know that wind energy is near the top of Governor Granholm's wish list? Didn't anyone tell him that Michigan is uniquely qualified to both manufacture the equipment and then deploy it? "Studies show that the wind potential of Lake Michigan is in the range of 4 to 6 wind class with 7 being the highest. In the central part of Lake Michigan this wind power is estimated to be about 182 GW. A tenth of this wind power potential is equivalent to some 20 nuclear power plants." Michigan Alternative and Renewable Energy Center (MAREC) |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You aren’t having much luck when it comes to choosing who to quote Mike, first flim-flam Jim and now flip-flop Irwin. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article5580664.ece There are a couple of additional things you should know about Stelzer, the first is he worked for Enron and was well known for defending and supporting them in print when all the smart people were criticising their business practices. The second is that he lives in London, which probably explains why he’s giving out all those mixed messages, commonly known as changing his mind to match his mood or making it up as he goes along. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Keep shooting the messengers if you like. You say nothing to discredit the message. There WAS one good sentence in your link...Democrats are, in the end, Democrats and unlikely to be swayed by such as Harvard economics professor Robert Barro, who points out that it might be better to “emphasise reductions in marginal income-tax rates”. Democrats are Democrats...that says it all. I have to include this, just for the irony of it.. In a bow to political reality, lawmakers included $70 billion to shelter upper middle-class and wealthier taxpayers from an income tax increase that would otherwise hit them, a provision that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said would do relatively little to create jobs. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29179041/ Now THAT'S funny! Whatever happened to the favorite democrat chant about republicans favoring the rich??You all can talk all you want about defending the package. The facts are this.. (1) Obama declares an emergency so vast that the country will not survive without his plan, even though scores of economists disagree. (2) He turns it over to Pelosi to write it and get it through congress. (3) The Democratic congress passes it without reading it, in the interest of getting something done NOW. (4) We are stuck with it. As I said, Obama and gang have perpetrated the biggest confidence game on the American people in history....and some applaud it. Let's see how long the applause lasts. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I thought I did? I didn't know who Stelzer is (thanks, Grinch), but I knew he didn't know what I knew about Michigan. And I'm not even a business adviser, let alone a director of economic policy. quote: If it's a confidence game, Mike, I'm afraid it will have to be the second biggest. Or did you forget the WMD we still haven't found? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don’t need to Mike, he argues against himself quite admirably in the link I supplied. quote: What happened to the republican chant that democrats always punish the rich Mike? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! Not even close, grinch. Actually the republican chant is that democrats are for bigger government. Democrats have used the "tax breaks for the rich" their rallying cry for years. My friend BobK has used it here very, er, liberally. They've used it in every political campaign from Hillary to Gore to Kerry to Obama. Of course you know all that. It's just not in you to acknowledge that it IS quite switch for them. I understand...believe me |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Heck Mike I’ll happily acknowledge it - no skin off my nose admitting the peccadilloes of a party I don’t belong to or vote for. I’ve told you before I’m an equal opportunity critic. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Just checking in to report: I'm still feeling pretty stimulated.  I'd forgotten how much I love this city  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88989 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It would be harder to find a campaign promise that he HAS kept...did we really expect anything different? Fortunately, Denise, your article contains a video of Obama being caught in the lie. Otherwise, we would have the same old shoot the messenger routine over the site that displays it that we get, ad nauseum. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You and I would call it a lie, for sure, Michael. Obama would probably just change the definition of "day" or "five" to mean something other than what they actually mean, just as we have seen pork and earmarks being redefined to make it appear that when he said there are no earmarks in the stimulus bill that he might actually be telling the truth, despite, among other outrages, groups, including ACORN, getting BILLIONS of our hard-earned money. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Where in the bill does it specifically allocate BILLIONS to ACORN Denise - or is that just a lie? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
"despite, among other outrages, groups, including ACORN, getting BILLIONS of our hard-earned money." "Where in the bill does it specifically allocate BILLIONS to ACORN Denise - or is that just a lie?" Neighborhood Stabilization Program Community Development Block Grants Self-Help and Assisted Homeowners Opportunity Program Acorn will be well paid for its assistance to the President's campaign. The above is a pork trough of billions awaiting for Acorn and its associated groups. The Republicans, in an attempt at pure partisanship attempted to remove the pork. The Democrats in a show of true bipartisanship kept the pork in the bill. One must reward one's friends. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
You forgot to mention the fact that Acorn isn’t specifically mentioned in any of those provisions Tim so I’ll ask the question again. Where in the bill does it specifically allocate BILLIONS to ACORN. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
That is a relief to know those billions will not be going to ACORN and related groups. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Where in the bill does it specifically allocate BILLIONS to ACORN" So they won't be getting any right? Is it specifically stated by name who will be getting tax cuts; is my name on the list? . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
These things are just confusing to me: 1. If the bill is not online, why were people complaining that it was too long to read -- online? Is this a spirit versus letter thing? 2. Is ACORN the only game in town when it comes to community investment? Why not start your own community investment organization? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, the final bill was not online unitil the end. When it was , it was in a format that did not permit using the search function. You can imagine that, for a study of it, it would be beneficial to be able to type a topic in the search function and allow the computer to bring up those pages relating to the topic. Well, the Democrats obviously thought of that and did not allow that to happen....sneaky little fellows, aren't they? Is ACORN the only game in town? Nope, just the biggest one that would receive the most. Why not start a community investment organization? You mean like Wells Fargo who, when asked for bailout money, was told they didn't qualify because they were not a bank so they went out and bought a bank and then got a share of the bailout? Good idea.. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Now, that's something worth complaining about. It's also something that can be fixed the next time around. Whether ACORN gets money or not misses the point of what they do. I get it if you want to attack them for fraud (which, if true, should be punished and ... fixed) but the way the word is used above sounds more like a scare word than anything else. OMG, the red shirts are coming, the red shirts are coming! Speaking of fear mongering (I think it's around here somewhere): quote: --Joseph Farah Actually, check out Yglesias, he has a poll showing a plurality of Americans in favor of -- choke, gasp -- socialized medicine. Also, the article on Schumer in the Atlantic is interesting. He wants the Dems to shift to the middle class, the 'real' middle class. I apologize for sounding facetious but honestly isn't there anybody else out there that thinks thirty days is, well, a month? 47 to 95 remain. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Now, that's something worth complaining about. It's also something that can be fixed the next time around. You don't get it, do you, Brad? It was not a mistake.It's nothing to be fixed. It was done intentionally by Pelosi to make it more difficulty for the Republicans to study thoroughly with the little time given to them. Accuse Acorn of fraud? I'd have to stand in line behind the various states that have already brought charges against them. ACORN - you know, that organization Obama worked for, training them on the tactics of how to make banks give out unsecured loans? The ones who sent their people out by the thousands to get him elected? The ones who falsified the voting records? He;s taking care of them now. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I guess I don't because that would be pretty stupid and against the law. But let's assume that you're right and that's the game their playing. You complain. You fix it. Is that so hard to understand? The outcome, regardless of intent, is the same. quote: Again, I don't get it. I haven't seen ACORN convicted of anything (I checked last week). Indeed, they still seem to be going strong. But ACORN does have specific goals that don't specifically involve helping Dems (They are closer to the Dems because ACORN's goals and the Dems' goals are similar -- no conspiracy). You can be against those goals but let's not pretend that what's happening depends on backroom deals in non-tobacco smoke-filled rooms. There may be backroom deals, I don't know, I do know that the outcome remains the same. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I guess I don't because that would be pretty stupid and against the law I guess I just don't have the ability to make you understand, Brad, or understand why you are trying so hard to not see it for what it is. It's not against the law. Me making my mortgage payment in pennies is not against the law, either. They had over 1100 pages of governmental legalese and limited time to digest it. A search funtion would have allowed them to do it more efficiently and faster. That ability was denied them. It wasn't illegal - it was simply shady, despicable and shoddy. It was typical of something Pelosi would do. Perhaps Democrats would applaud such an wonderful trick she perpetrated and be proud of it. That wouldn't surprise me - but YOU do. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Um, since when is a PDF or ASCII not searchable..? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/arra_public_review/ I opened the PDF and ran a search for 'Pork', and there's none in there. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nice to see you again, reb If you ran a search for pork and couldn't find any, that's proof it's not searchable [This message has been edited by Balladeer (02-16-2009 10:39 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Let's hope our legislators know how to use a browser. 'Cause, if not, we can be sure that will be the fault of the Democrats, too. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: You are so right Mike. And guess what, I see now why the French and Brit subs collided in Mid-atlantic - it wasn't European incompetence, no, it was those sneaky little Democrats up to their dastardly sonar jamming tricks again. quote: How do you know? [This message has been edited by moonbeam (02-17-2009 09:08 AM).] |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Misdeeds and corruption occur in politics because we are willing to stick our heads in the sand when it is our party who engages in inappropriate behavior. We beat the drums to accuse the opposition and then when confronted with the similar behavior on our side of the isle, we rise up in righteous indignation that anyone could possibly suggest we are capable of misbehavior. (although sometimes, we ignore misdeeds of the other side if it is to our benefit) This is perhaps why our system works best when checks and balances are fully working and works worst when one side holds the stronger hand. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Yanno Mike.... Little elves don't sneak into the Capitol building and magically write up 1400 page bills overnight and leave them for a vote the next morning. quote: What wasn't searchable was the HAND marked up copies of the bill from the final conference report that were scanned and posted in jpeg format in a PDF so that everyone could see them. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, on Pelosi for making sure everyone had acess to the hand-marked-up conference report! |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
When each body of the legislature enacts a bill, it must be done on the open floor. The stimulus package didn't have much input from the Republicans (virtually none in the house), but the separate bills were available. Most damage comes in the legislative process at the end of sessions or when an "emergency" exists. That is because conference committees do not operate in the light of day. Behind closed doors they can add whatever little tidbits they desire. You add to the situation, the Republicans weren't involved in the conference committees, the situation is further exasperated. The 10% that is added or changed in conference is hidden in the 1000+ pages. If one has any knowledge of the legislative process, that is one of the danger areas, the conference committee, because it so so easy to hide nice little tidbits that are going to come back and bite someone in the backside. For anyone to say they knew what tidbits were hidden in the bill by the conference committee except for the conference committee is living on a different planet than I inhabit. Such tactics occur in all legislatures; committed by both Republicans and Democrats. We just did it on a wee bit bigger scale dealing with the largest spending bill ever passed. Just admit it happened, because it did. It happens on a smaller scale on a routine basis all the time, most generally in budget bills at the end of sessions in both the federal and state legislatures. Or hide you head in the sand and say it didn't happen because we have entered the brave new world of bipartisanship. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So then, Tim... If you're looking at a page that consists of printed text, and, hand-written markups with pen and ink.... those hand-written markups don't jump off the page and clearly denote what's been changed? C'mon guys... If you're against the stimulus package on ideological grounds -- like the fact that it spends money here instead of Iraq -- just complain about that. Don't try to invent procedural issues to cavil about. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Oh Rebel, you cometh not a moment too soon. My Hero |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel . . .” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html So it's not like intent was secret . . . . |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Rebel, I would say you pretty much proved my point. I hadn't brought up the handwritten notes that were on the five copies provided to congress late in the evening with the vote to occur the next day. The lobbyists had better access to the final bill than congressmen. But to have the largest spending bill in our history presented in its final form with handwritten notes and not presented in time so those voting could adequately review what was contained therein? Yep, we do indeed live in parallel universes. I object when Republicans act in that fashion; I object when Democrats act in that fashion- because it is politics behind closed doors of which I am not in favor. Spin it any way you want and call it quibbling. As stated, anyone who feels the passage of the stimulus package was an example of democracy at its finest lives in a different universe than I. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Oh Rebel, you cometh not a moment too soon. My Hero . How about that, reb. You're a hero...even to those who claim to be completely non-biased If you're against the stimulus package on ideological grounds - You must have skipped the first 5 or 6 pages of this thread. We HAVE complained about it on a variety of grounds, mainly because it declares a crisis which many professors of economics claim does not exist, because it is a Democrat wish list filled with items that do nothing to spur the economy but spreads money to their districts and friendy groups as paybacks, and a variety of other reasons. Invent procedural issues? Obviously these issues were valid anough to be spoken of on every major network and I can assure you I didn't invent them. Hey, if you're for the stimulus bill because it's a partisan democratic endeavor, just say so. Nitpicking on other issues doesn't work any better than moonbeam's sarcasm. Close your eyes (and hold your nose) to everything else and you will still be Moonbeam's hero |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: But Tim? It didn't matter. Remember the mantra? The Republicans weren't allowed any input in the process. Not one of them voted for the initial bill (thereby illustrating that there isn't one Republican willing to stand up to the weakest Republican leadership in a century -- this bodeth not well for Republicans I fear) -- why would any of them vote for 'secret' modifications that would be non-Republican anyway? They had no need for time to read in order to vote nay. But, I kid, I kid the Republicans. It's not like Congressmen have staffers, or interns that they could divy up those midnight parcels amongst and ask for a report on anything that might cause the party or district some heartburn. And -- since the Republicans in the House were'nt allowed ANY opportunity to have input (clearing my throat) let's see, what happened in the Senate? Oh... compromise -- to get Republicans to vote for the bill.... hmmm..... seems like changes and modifications were running the other way TIM -- towards the conservatives. So, nope, your point is categorically not proven here. _________ Mike -- I know that YOU didn't invent the procedural snafu -- it was invented by the aformentioned weakest Republican leadership in a century -- because they really don't have any meat and potatos to gripe about here. If they can't get how dis-interested the American people are in this inside baseball stuff then they are everybit as much the charicatures SNL made them out to be on Saturday night. First -- they didn't have any input -- then -- they didn't have time to read it. Politically astute. And, You mean there are professors who actually claim that the banking industry hasn't melted down? That the real estate bubble didn't burst? That people in Elkhart, Indiana aren't fighting for computer terminals at the library to file for unemployment? That the auto industry is fine? That ... oh heck, I'm not going to type all night. Seems to me there were some nut-cases out there who claimed the Bush administration was behind the 9-11 attacks too... hmm.... maybe we should get them together with your economists? quote: Being completely non-biased I'll take that compliment right handed... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And, You mean there are professors who actually claim that the banking industry hasn't melted down? That the real estate bubble didn't burst? That people in Elkhart, Indiana aren't fighting for computer terminals at the library to file for unemployment? That the auto industry is fine? That ... oh heck, I'm not going to type all night. Once again, your cynicism won't carry the day. The professors, along with everyone else, know that there are problems to overcome. No, they don't believe that this is the "crisis that will destroy the United States" unless Obama's bill is passed immediately. Unemployment? Yes, although lower than in Jimmy Carter's reign. They do not question a critical situation - they question Obama's plan as being the answer, a plan which includes many things that won't even be initiated for a year or two, a plan that contains a myriad of things having nothing to do with stimulating the income, a plan that has more pork than Green Acres. What pork? Apparently you haven't spent much time reading this thread. Actually, there is quite a bit of information in it. Such as this... The White House "want[s] to keep the Speaker happy and the traditional Democratic leaders, but they've let them know privately they're not interested in all this pork," he (democratic respresentative from Tennessee Jim Cooper) said. Even decent democrats acknowledge the pork in the bill. You want to tell him he's wrong? Oh, and as far as those professors, here's one.. Professor Michael Porter is boyish in his enthusiasm. His work may be taught at most business schools in the world, but he's no ivory-tower pedant Professor Porter, who sweeps his hands expansively through the air while talking at a hundred miles a hour, has been called "the doyen of living management gurus", a pillar of Harvard Business School and author of textbooks on competitive advantage and strategy. Professor Porter has also advised various governments on economic policy and in the past was picked out to lead a presidential commission by Ronald Reagan. So when he expresses concern that the US government's economic stimulus package has not targeted the right areas, it's worth listening to his arguments. In his opinion, much of it displays "the usual pork-barrel, favourite projects" and he insists that America ought to be identifying the fundamental challenges facing its economy and the country and investing in those. He professes to have enormous respect for President Obama's economic team, but tempers that with a concern that he "would like to see some more business expertise and credentials in his people". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7872874.stm Yes, I know. What does a professor ofthe Harvard business school know? Quite possibly more than you and I. There are more than one hundred economists who have come forth to state that Obama's plan will not solve the situation. You are going to tell them they're idiots? Be my guest. If you would like to enlighten us on why you think it's a good plan, I'd be happy to listen. Otherwise, just knocking the people who oppose it for kicks serves no purpose. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Um... Mike? Where does Porter say there isn't a crisis? Your thesis; quote: So then -- you agree with Porter -- we need fewer tax cuts and more spending on healthcare, education, reasearch and development? Here, here -- I'm all for that my good man! just wait a little longer than three weeks though to say it hasn't been done... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: As if I haven't been saying it for ten years Mike..... /pip/Forum6/HTML/000685.html Depreciation, depreciation, depreciation... get rid of it. Give tax credits for business investmenst instead. Depreciation makes it look, on the books, that investing in plants and equipment has no value -- that the only real value is brand name, shelf space, and market share.... which is why jobs keep vanishing to overseas manufacturing. In the short term though -- which is what an emergency indicates, putting money into the economy is what is needed to at least stop the bleeding of 500,000 jobs per month. the breakdown... http://www.recovery.gov/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree with Porter when he says that "the US government's economic stimulus package has not targeted the right areas" and that it is filled with routine pork-barrel projects. Not sure I get the three week reference. The bill was only signed today. Our brave new world has just begun. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The three week reference Mike is that it's only been three weeks and one bill through Congress. Do you think this is the only bill that's going to be going through for the next 4 years? Does Porter? What Porter is calling 'Pork' Mike -- is what this bill was designed to do in the first place -- fund the shovel-ready jobs and shore up local and state governments that are in dire straits due to revenue shortfalls from the econmic woes that are a CRISIS. This bill is not a long-term strategy and was never intended to be -- it was intended to be a hit-the-ground running off the jump-ball. More spending is coming. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
We will have to disagree. I will not convince you and I have heard nothing to change my view. The only thing I am relative certain is if the parties had been reversed, I would still object to the manner in the bill was passed. If you want to tell me that if the Republicans had done the same to the Democrats your view would be the same, then our difference is our understanding of politics and the legislative process. I will rely on my life experiences in that regard. If you would object to the Republicans operating in such a fashion, then your arguments are based upon partisanship. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
it was intended to be a hit-the-ground running off the jump-ball. Really? Then why are so many parts of it not due to be initiated before 2010-2011? Actually, what Porter called pork is....pork. Dumping money into the economy is good. Dumping it in the right places is better. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Because that's when they CAN be initiated. What you and he are calling pork is a pretty good meal for those state and local governments. Are you suddenly too kosher to stomach repairing and maintaining bridges? If we waited for 6 months then they would wait for six more months and be that much further out Mike. The best is the enemy of the good. Porter wants the best, I want the best, you want the best -- Porter's best and mine are closer to being in line than your best I'm sure -- but, what does he know? He's a Harvard economist. The best can come later. Right now there are people who need unemployment benefits extended, houses that need to be bought, foreclosures avoided, jobs saved. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Congress is doing great things to stimulate the economy. Since their grilling of business executives using jets, sales of over 40 jets have been cancelled and over 100 people laid off. Business conventions have gone down so drastically that resort areas have petitioned congress to basically "shut up". Suzie Ormond went on Oprah and told the audience to "stop eating in restaurants", apparently with no regard for restaurant owners, managers, waiters, cashiers, busboys or anybody else. Can you imagine how many thousands of restaurants are burning Suzie and Oprah in effigy? It's going to get worse...... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, the insulting begins. You think I have a problem with repairing bridges, reb? What I have a problem with is getting hookers off the streets, spending millions on golf carts, more millions on bee insurance, millions on uppgrading governmental offices, billions to groups like ACORN, etc etc etc. You completely ignore a democratic congressman who speaks of all the pork in the plan, ignore the fact that he acknowledged that even the White House was concerned about the amount of pork in the plan, and continue on your merry way speaking of their being no pork in the plan. I think perhaps they know better than you. Porter's best and mine are closer to being in line than your best I'm sure As sure as you know there's no pork in the bill? You have no idea what my best is, reb, so your assumptions are unwelcome and invalid. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Balladeer: quote: Balladeer: quote: I don't think you're in any position to call people for being insulting Mike. But for the record you're putting words into my mouth again. I've never claimed to be "completely non-biased". And you still haven't told me where all the anti-Republican remarks you tell me I have made, are. But notwithstanding this, I wasn't of course applauding Rebel for his political or economic stance (which in point of fact I don't entirely agree with), but for this: quote: |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well Mike, one thing I'm not going to speculate on is why you want to keep hookers on the streets, but, since I imagine you are a fan of food, and agriculture in general -- I'm not at all sure why you think it would be a good thing to lose a third of our crop producing capability due to the loss of pollenization that looms in a future without bees -- that have just been dying since 2006 -- along with the bee-keeping industry that will immediately start hiring back bee-keepers and replenishing hives with the money that's in the stimulus bill. And -- I imagine that YOU might want to try to use your new neighborhood plug in vehicle as a golf cart -- but I don't think the country club is going to let you since they are designed for street use. Here's a 2500 dollar tax credit that encourages people to buy a product (makes jobs) reduces our dependence on foreign oil (that's the part you don't like right?) and reduces our carbon footprint -- keeping Florida out of the ocean -- you gotta love that I'm sure if you went through the whole list you'd find something that I might think smells a little like bacon -- but, I'd just reasearch it and find the beef. But, you know that already. quote: I already gave you the opportunity to agree with Porter's 'best' and you passed on it -- only citing; quote: -- that you both disagree with certain portions of the stimulus bill. If you're claiming that after 10 years we all don't know your politics and ideology -- why have you been bothering to tell us? Do you think you're that bad at expressing your own opinions my good man? Or has your position been evolving along with Greenspan's? (edited to include link) [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (02-18-2009 08:15 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Do you think you're that bad at expressing your own opinions my good man? Could be that I am, reb. I've never claimed to be a great orator. I simply state things like I think they are. Interestingly enough, there are actually some people here that do understand them. If you are not one, we can both live with that. No one has said that some action is not needed. You speak of knowing the answer for the past 10 years about what needs to be done. That's fine, but the question still is why do you think THIS stimulus bill in it's present form is the solution to those problems. We speak of the pork and you bring up bridge repair. We speak of earmarks and you bring up unemployment. No one claims that the infrastructure repairs and jobs produced is not a good thing. No one claims that bringing down unemployment is not a good thing. The question, which you avoid, is why THIS bill is the one so vital that the US cannot exist without it. You avoid once again even the democratic distaste for the pork in it and pretend it doesn't exist. Yes, LR, after 10 years we all know your politics and ideology, also, and Denise hit it right when she said that, if this were a republican congress trying to shove through a bill like this and in the manner they did, you would be screaming bloody murder at the tactics and politics of it. Of COURSE yould find the beef in any objection or example of the pork....at least the beef as you know it. If it were a republican bill, you would look at the beef and undoubtedly find the worm larvae. Go ahead and disregard the input of all of the economy experts who have spoken out against it, the facts they have cited and all of the evidence to the contrary. You are for the bill in it's current state because it's a democrat bill...period. If the past 10 years has taught us anything, it's that. If you don't have the straightforwardness to acknowledge that, then by all means continue extolling the virtues of million dollar golf carts,$650 million for digital TV coupons, $150 million for the Smithsonian, $87 million for a "polar ice breaking ship", and all of the rest of the pork which others have no problem admitting to but you say doesn't exist. The question is...if a tree falls in the forest, did a Republican chop it down? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well, there's 2006 and I thought we were criticizing the Dems for being weenies, for not standing up to the Bush administration. The reason they went limp was a power play of course. They knew they had the momentum and didn't want to rock the boat. With that said, unlike LR (Hey, can you stick around?), I'm not sure where you stand, Mike, on this whole thing. 1. Do you think we need a stimulus plan? 2. Is it this particular plan that bothers you? Republicans are not giving a clear picture here. I hear both arguments, but as far as I can tell, the only thing uniting them right now is the attempt to discredit Obama as quickly as possible. I'm not saying that that's what you're trying to do (nor for that matter do I think Denise, Tim, or anybody else here is trying to do that), but the level of rhetoric in that last month everywhere sure points in that direction. I don't know. Again, it all comes down to how serious you think the crisis really is. If you think this is just a bump in the road toward "business as usual" or a "return to normalcy", it's hard to fault GOPers for the tactics they use. That's what an adversarial game is. On the other hand, if you think the situation is the worst in seventy years, are these strategies in the best interests of the country? Again, I don't know. I don't want to play "the best interest of the country" card because I do remember hearing that refrain played over and over again during the last administration. I also remember arguing that that rhetorical move requires a declaration of war, something that never happened. On the other hand, I don't see how we can have a substantive discussion without first agreeing on the problem. And what about clarifying the limits of executive power? [This message has been edited by Brad (02-18-2009 05:43 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm not sure where you stand, Mike, on this whole thing. 1. Do you think we need a stimulus plan? 2. Is it this particular plan that bothers you? Those are excellent questions, Brad. I won't pretend to be any economy expert or smarter than anyone else in that field. To me, the plan and the way is was shoved down the throats of the American people hit me wrong. When you are not an expert, go to the experts. These are some of the people I went to in order to find out if I was off-base or not... This is how it began... President-elect Barack Obama warned Capitol Hill lawmakers yesterday that he will bar all pork-barrel projects from the massive economic-stimulus package he is asking them to pass. The proposed plan, which Obama says will cost around $775 billion, will not allow lawmakers to insert pet projects, as they often do on spending bills. Speaking at his transition office in Washington, Obama said his program "will have a higher standard of accountability, transparence and oversight." http://www.nypost.com/seven/01072009/news/politics/obama_bans_stimulus_package_p ork_149013.htm Well, how did that work out? With only eight hours to comb through the thousands of pages that make up the Economic Stimulus Recovery package, Republicans have already spotted a few items of pork which have been released to the public by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office on February 13, 2009. After the stimulus package came under scrutiny and was found to have included millions for STDs and contraceptives, the pork has been slimmed down somewhat. So far, it is known that the package contains: * Tax benefits for Golf Carts, Electric Motorcycles and ATV. * $300 million for Federal Employees Company Cars which will acquire vehicles with higher fuel economy, including hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles. * $1 billion for ACORN--Eligible block grants to carry out community development. * $50 million For an Arts Endowment. * $165 million for Fish Hatcheries. * After the stimulus package is passed and signed by President Obama, watchdog groups will go over it line-by-line and if Democrats in the House and Senate still think that pork can be hidden, those running for office in 2010 may have to justify their votes in favor of the stimulus package. http://www.examiner.com/x-2547-Watchdog-Politics-Examiner~y2009m 2d13-Stimulus-package-still-has-plenty-of-pork Here you have an interesting article by Russell Rogers, professor at George Mason University, which ends like this... I'm not saying that economy policy is irrelevant. Economic policy matters because it affects the long-run growth of the economy. I'm all for policies that make us more productive or innovative by changing incentives. But those policies take time. There's little any economic doctor can do to move our $14 trillion organism of an economy in the next few months. Politicians who work in the Oval Office—or those who seek to work there—would be wise to remember that patience is a virtue. Focus on the policies that lead to growth over time. Expecting results overnight is bound to lead to disappointment. Russell Roberts is a professor at George Mason University and a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He hosts the weekly podcast series, EconTalk. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18159629 Here are just a few more, Brad, of the hundreds of economists who have spoken out against it.... *The Nobel laureate and University of Chicago economics professor Gary Becker worries that increased government spending in the form of a gigantic stimulus package would “crowd out” private sector spending. He also says he believes that a recent report from Mr. Obama’s transition team economists may “overestimate the effects of this stimulus package on the economy, and that the same techniques would similarly overestimate the employment effects of other types of government spending and tax reduction policies.” *Robert E. Lucas, a Nobel laureate at the University of Chicago, wrote that Fed policy (as opposed to, presumably, fiscal policy) is the best means for digging the country out of recession. *Jonathan Bean at the Independent Institute and David R. Henderson at the Hoover Institution both looked at whether fiscal stimulus actually cured previous economic downturns, and by extension, whether it is likely to have any effect this time. Mr. Bean noted that many economists and historians now believe the New Deal — which some see as the model for extricating America from the current recession — actually prolonged the Great Depression. Mr. Henderson looked at studies done by President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to head the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, that showed that fiscal policy has had little effect in ending previous recessions. Four of ASU's most prominent economists have joined with hundreds of others in their field to argue against the federal stimulus package now finishing its journey through Congress. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, on Monday placed a full-page ad in several of the nation's largest-circulation newspapers questioning President Barack Obama's contention that there is relatively unanimous support for government intervention in the economy. On the ad were the names of more than 200 economists from across the country. Among them were Edward Prescott, an ASU economist and Nobel laureate, and three of his colleagues at Arizona State University. "We're pretty free-market over here," said Stephen Happel, an ASU economics professor, "and, you know, we think the stimulus package is anything but." ASU, including the W.P. Carey School of Business where they all work, is one of many public institutions that stands to benefit greatly from the roughly $800 billion plan. The package includes huge sums in aid for ailing state economies, like Arizona's, that could offset tens of millions of dollars in higher education budget cuts. Regardless, the ASU economists who signed the Cato Institute's statement - Prescott, Happel, Nancy Roberts and Allan DeSerpa - argue that the federal government's plan could be a waste of nearly a trillion taxpayer dollars. "We're spending all this time nitpicking at this stimulus package," said Roberts, an economics professor. "You know, should there be money in there for National Endowment for the Arts? Should Amtrak be in there? What about child care? When, in fact, it's really begging the question, should the federal government be doing any of this at all?" The Cato Institute argues that massive government intervention has repeatedly failed to boost struggling economies in the past. "Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best way of using fiscal policy to boost growth," the institute's statement said. http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/135282 Ok, so how do I feel about it? I believe that action is necessary, but not this plan and not with this speed. Obama going on national tv to tell the public that, without the IMMEDIATE passage of this bill, the nation would be damaged to the point of irreversability strikes me as the tactics of a used-car salesman or someone needing to make the sale while you are still in the showroom. Democrats have a long record of declaring crises and even White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel spelled it out by saying "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." Good grief, man! He even told the people what was happening and they still support it. I find that amazing. So Obama turns it over to Pelosi to draft and she comes up with a wealthload of pork to inject into it, gets it past the house, sends it to the Senate with almost no time to read it before voting. It stinks, Brad. If the bill were that good and above board there wouldn't be a need for such tactics. Pelosi is as giddy as a schoolgirl who has just gotten away with putting something over on a hated rival. They have injected a ton of things in there costing many billions of dollars that do not belong there at this time and running up big bills that are going to have to be paid by SOMEBODY. When your grandkids come to you and say "Were you people NUTS???", what will your answer be? I think Obama is a decent sort. Yes, I still accuse him of the scare tactics he is using with regards to this bill but I believe he has the best interest of the nation at heart. Problem is that he is a non-entity. He is the cheerleader shaking his pom-poms out there to get crowds cheering from city to city while the players, the real team, are playing the game. The democratic congressman I mentioned earlier who said that Obama was concerned about the amount of pork Pelosi stuck in the bill was right but...so what? They will send him to another city to do what he does best...give a speech. Democrats said that, if Hillary had been elected, they would have had the distinction of having the first woman president. Well, guess what? They DO have the first woman president - Nancy Pelosi. What do I think would work? Lower taxes and less burden on the government. Keep the golf carts, the STD prevention, the beautification of the governement buildings and all of the other things off the democratic wish list and get back to the basics without the pork. I find it interesting that when Ronald Reagan inherited the Jimmy Carter fiasco with double digit unemployment and the country in recession mode, he came up with four points to turn the country around and they worked. Obama and team, instead of learning from that, are doing exactly the opposite of those four points. He succeeded - how do you think it will work for them? Right now I believe the Democrat administration has the country just the way they want it....hands out, saying "Where's mine?" And I do not think this will end well. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Let's tell some of these people that we need to slow down. I'm sure they don't mind waiting Mike. Some high profile January Layoffs: 1/28/2009 Starbucks 6,700 Restaurants 1/28/2009 Boeing 10,000 Aerospace 1/28/2009 Time Warner 1,500 Media 1/27/2009 Target 1,000 Retailing 1/27/2009 Masco 600 Construction 1/26/2009 IBM 2,800 Software 1/26/2009 Texas Instruments 3,400 Semiconductors 1/26/2009 Lincoln National 540 Insurance 1/26/2009 Caterpillar 20,814 Capital Goods 1/26/2009 General Motors 9,758 Durables 1/26/2009 Home Depot 7,000 Retailing 1/26/2009 Pfizer 19,800 Pharmaceuticals 1/26/2009 Sprint Nextel 8,000 Telecommunications 1/23/2009 Abercrombie & Fitch 50 Retailing 1/23/2009 Deere & Company 662 Capital Goods 1/23/2009 Harley-Davidson 1,100 Consumer Durables 1/22/2009 Microsoft 5,000 Software 1/22/2009 Huntsman 1,665 Chemicals 1/21/2009 Burlington Santa Fe 2,500 Transportation 1/21/2009 UAL 1,000 Transportation 1/21/2009 SPX 400 Conglomerates 1/21/2009 Intel 5,000 Semiconductors 1/21/2009 Walt Disney 600 Media 1/21/2009 Wynn Resorts 53 Leisure 1/21/2009 Eaton 5,609 Capital Goods 1/20/2009 Clear Channel 1,850 Media 1/20/2009 Deere & Co. 160 Capital Goods 1/16/2009 ConocoPhillips 1,300 Oil & Gas 1/16/2009 Hertz Global Holdings 4,000 Business Services 1/16/2009 WellPoint 600 Health Care 1/16/2009 Advanced Micro Devices 1,700 Semiconductors 1/15/2009 Xerox 275 Business Services 1/15/2009 MeadWestvaco 2,000 Materials 1/15/2009 Autodesk 750 Software 1/15/2009 Marshall & Ilsley 830 Banking 1/15/2009 General Electric 1,000 Conglomerates 1/14/2009 Ecolab 1,000 Chemicals 1/14/2009 Delta Air Lines 2,000 Transportation 1/14/2009 Motorola 4,000 Technology 1/14/2009 Google 100 Software 1/13/2009 KeyCorp 200 Banking 1/13/2009 Newell Rubbermaid 75 Household 1/13/2009 Cummins 1,300 Capital Goods 1/12/2009 Textron 2,665 Conglomerates 1/12/2009 Mosaic 1,000 Chemicals 1/12/2009 Best Buy 500 Retailing 1/12/2009 Precision Castparts 40 Defense 1/9/2009 Oracle 500 Software 1/9/2009 Smithfield Foods 75 Food 1/9/2009 Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold 2,750 Materials 1/8/2009 Union Pacific 230 Transportation 1/8/2009 General Dynamics 179 Defense 1/7/2009 Walgreen 1,000 Retailing 1/7/2009 EMC 2,400 Technology 1/6/2009 Alcoa 13,500 Materials 1/5/2009 Cigna 1,100 Health Care 1/5/2009 United States Steel 4,225 Materials Now the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) said that in Dec. 08 our workforce was 155.4 million people with 11.1 million unemployed, or about 7.2% But in reality it's much higher than that because during the Clinton administration the BLS changed the way it counted the unemployed by eliminating discouraged workers (people who were not employed and had given up looking for a job, or those who were employed only part - time in a field not of thier choosing ie. pHD's pumping gas and bagging groceries). Now at the time Rush L cried foul at this practice and called it cheating -- with which I agreed because even Rush, like Ron's broken clock, is occasionally right. However, the Bush administration that was going to restore integrity to the White House, never reversed this practice. Therefore the BLS last month removed 637k people from the unemployed list who were still not, at the time employed. Also part-time workers who said they wanted full time employment (counted as fully employed) grew by 621k. Now if we take these figures and add them to government workers -- (which the Heritage Foundation count as unemployed during the FDR administration) then the unemployed in the last month of the Bush admin jumps to over 20% as well. Of course -- we remember who the Heritage foundation is -- they are the people who have been retained by the Tobacco industry to tell us that smoking is safe, and by the oil industry that global warming is a scam. This is the foundation that was founded by Paul Weyrich, seen in this video clearly explaining his views on democracy -- a must see. Now -- they want to revise history and tell us that the new deal didn't work. That's all for now... Brad I'll be back |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's all well and good, LR. No one is denying there is an employment problem, a housing problem or a banking problem. The question is (1) will Obama's plan solve that and (2) is there any justification for all of the non-essential spending it contains. Btw, add Cessna to your list, which laid off 40 workers due to the cancelled orders generated from the congressional grillings of executives.They sent Obama a letter today and I don't think it was a belated Valentine card. btw again, there is one organization not on your list...government. They are hiring.... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't think anyone knows that, Mike. Including all those economists you recently cited. What we do know, pretty much for sure, is that none of the other plans passed by Congress are going to solve our problems? quote: You'd have to be more specific, Mike. The entire Federal budget is non-essential. There's things some people want to spend money on, some things no one wants to spend money on, and a very few things that almost everyone wants to spend money on. Buy it's all based on want, not need, and all of those wants are based on someone's justifications for why you and I should want it, too. However, ignoring the ambiguity of the question, yea, I think almost everything mentioned in this thread can be justified in either the short term or in the long term. For example, those electric vehicles you keep bringing up will put a few people to work in the short run, but "may" provide a new infra-structure for the future -- one NOT based on fossil fuels. IMO, investing in battery technology (or in this case, encouraging people to invest in it) is key to this country's economy. We ain't got enough oil to compete; we might have enough brains, though. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
All this time I thought the plan was geared toward the current situation, not the long term. Even LR mentioned that and you yourself said that, in the long run, we are in trouble. If you want to justify golf carts, for example, of forebringers of our break from the dependence of oil, that's fine with me. Should that be in this plan at this time? Are people worried about oil now or finding work? I have no doubt you gentlemen can come up with all kinds of reason, or excuse, for everything that is in the bill.,,but should all of these things be in THIS bill at THiS time, when we are going to have to borrow the money to finance this endeavor? If you are going to the store with a specific amount of money to buy food you need to survive, are you going to buy a box of frosting, just in case your wife decides to bake a cake some time in the future? This was not supposed to be a democratic wish list, Ron. It was supposed to be a plan designed exclusively to offset our current situation. The proposed plan, which Obama says will cost around $775 billion, will not allow lawmakers to insert pet projects, as they often do on spending bills. Speaking at his transition office in Washington, Obama said his program "will have a higher standard of accountability, transparence and oversight." Those are Obama's words, not mine. He claimed there would be no pet projects and you are making an attempt to justify them. If you want to claim that the entire federal budget is non-essential, then why would you, or even Obama, consider this plan essential? That sounds like a little bit of a cop-out to me, with all respect, and a lot of justification stretching. There is non-essential spending in the bill. Why anyone goes so far to try to deny it is beyond me. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And, all this time, Mike, you were right. The goal of the bill is to spend money. In the short term. As in, NOW. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that everything we spend money on has to be only for short term gain. quote: Someone has a golf cart for a pet? Honestly, Mike, I don't care whether an expenditure is for someone's pet project. Every project is someone's pet. Things just don't write themselves into a bill. There are, no doubt, a ton of items in the bill I don't think are worth the money. Encouraging further research into battery technology isn't one of them. No, it's not essential. But, yea, it is a good idea and if we need to spend money to stimulate the economy let's spend it on some good ideas. As for the President's statements, I'm going to agree with you that he has to live with them. I seriously doubt this bill (or any) is going to be as squeaky clean as I suspect Obama would have liked. He's discovering, I imagine, that he only gets to run one branch of the government and he probably shouldn't make promises for the branches not under his control. While one might argue he only promised "higher standards," and the bar certainly wasn't very high, I agree the spirit of his promises are certainly being tarnished. I think he, you, I, and the rest of the American public should continue to demand more and expect better. quote: To me, Mike, essential means you must have it. There is no choice involved. For example, defense spending is not essential. A lot of countries decide to spend little or nothing on their military. The only reason we spend a whole lot of money on this non-essential is because the majority of people in the country don't like the alternatives. There is absolutely nothing in the stimulus bill that is essential. Every item in it has alternatives. The question is whether you, I, and the rest of America like those alternatives. quote: See, Mike, I think this is the key thing you've apparently missed. For most of the last two years, the Republicans and Democrats have been explaining to the American people what they want to spend our money and resources to promote. Last November, the public weighed those arguments and made a choice. Unfortunately, it was a pretty overwhelming choice. A Democratic wish list is exactly what this was supposed to be, Mike. That's what American clearly said it wanted. Or did you really think all those Democratic politicians elected into office were going to start pushing Republican agendas? If you really want to blame just one person for the power shift in Washington, Mike, I think you know who that one person should be? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Um. Yeah. Bush and the GOP's pushed for what they wanted, got it, and they sat there, holding it, like the most enormous pinwheel candy sucker America has ever seen, and now they've had to hand it off to the Dems for their lick at it. they've all got candy on their face and the public may be suckered into believing relief is in the form of a stimulus package, but I think the only true (long term) relief is a non-partisan plan that calls for America to work together again to produce our own stability and future. Broad prospective, because I'm short on time, but I'll second Reb's link: Why the Economy is Toast. Catch yall laterz. Welcome back Reb!!! ciao for now, reg |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There is no doubt who that one person is, Ron..Bush. And the Democrats were not elected because they had a candidate with great experience. They had a candidate who was not Bush...that was enough. The public didn't weight the arguments and make a choice. They simply voted non-Bush, along with the ones who thought they were going to get a one thousand dollar check when Obama got in. Whatever happened to that one, anyway? A Democratic wish list is exactly what this was supposed to be, Mike. That's what American clearly said it wanted. We will have to continue to disagree, Ron. America did not say it wanted a democratic wish list. It said it wanted the democrats to solve it's problems, which is different from watching them go on a shopping spree while the country is going broke. America elected them because it believed, or at least hoped, that they would do the right thing by them....not feather their own nests, districts, and friends' bank accounts with national funds used in the name of emergency spending. Look at the percentage of Americans who are against this bill. Look at the percentage who don't even know what's in it (around 99%, I would estimate) and who are just hoping it's in their best interests. The democrats have had a great opportunity. They were given power by default and have had a chance to show the American people what they could do. What they have done so far is to propel congress to the lowest approval rating in the country's history and come up with a bill that is so filled with pork that even some of the democrats have a hard time with it. Their greed and their power crusade is slowly destroying their creditability and the country will suffer because of it. If there is nothing in the stimulus bill that is essential, then what is Obama saying when he claims that, without it, the country will go to ruin and never recover? I think he must consider SOMETHING essential there. I agree that Obama is finding out that he heads only one portion of the government but, if he can't even control Pelosi and Reid, how is he going to control anything else? I actually feel sorry for the man, in a way. They are running amok under his name and he will be the one to take the fall if things don't work out while Pelosi will be smiling and saying "Don't look at me. I'm not the President", when, in fact, she is. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: --Andrew Sullivan I think that sums up where we are right now. Nobody is really happy with the bill, but nobody knows what's going to happen next. I may have posted something about this from Samuelson, I think. The economic situation has been in I-don't-know land for quite a few years now. Oh and Mike, it's not just America's economy that's tanking, it's everybody's. For Friedman fans, what happens now? What happens when protectionist proponents start upping the ante? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Oh and Mike, it's not just America's economy that's tanking, it's everybody's. Brad, does that mean Bush collapsed the economy of the entire world???? Ron, your comments have been rolling around in my brain the entire day while working. I'm having a hard time with them. For example, defense spending is not essential. A lot of countries decide to spend little or nothing on their military. The only reason we spend a whole lot of money on this non-essential is because the majority of people in the country don't like the alternatives. Do you actually believe that? really? Without our military we would be speaking German, Japanese or Arabic. Without our military there would be no United States, we would not have won World War 1, the allies would not have won World War II and we would have been under Nazi rule for the past 60 years. Can you possibly believe that, if we did not have the best military in the world, no one would be interested in taking us over, with our riches and natural resources? How in the world can you come up with that conclusion? People don't like the alternatives? You mean like living under foreign rule? Do you blame them? The countries that spend little or nothing on their military have little to defend. Would you equate us to them? There's a reason why rich people put more locks on their doors than the poor. Even the lady we both admire stated there should only be two objectives off the government (1)maintain a strong military and (2) collect taxes. To me, Mike, essential means you must have it. There is no choice involved. There is always a choice, Ron. One may call air essential, but one can jump in the ocean and drown if they want to. Food is essential but you can starve yourself to death. Your statement would be more correct if it read, "There is no choice involved, unless you want to survive." Without a strong military, we would not survive. Are you sure you want to call that non-essential? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That is sometimes the alternative. Fine. "Unless you want to survive" it is, then. quote: Of course we would survive, Mike. Germans survived, didn't they? Japanese survived. Even Jews survived. It probably wouldn't be the kind of survival you'd like, but it would still be survival. For most. You're going off on tangents, though, Mike. The point is that you're trying to herd everyone else into using your definition of essential. Or, at least, your implied definition, since you haven't actually given one directly. What parts of the stimulus bill aren't "essential?" I doubt there is any one part that is essential "unless you want to survive." Just as there is no single part of the military that is essential "unless you want to survive" (well, except maybe the Marines). I mean, why is it that every branch of the service has its own air force? Except for the Air Force, which I guess can't have its own air force since it IS its own air force? Yea, I suspect there's a lot of non-essential stuff. quote: Pelosi and Reid don't work for President Obama, Mike. Indeed, our system of government is designed to specifically avoid exactly what you are suggesting. If you need to blame someone for Pelosi and Reid, you need to blame the voters who put them in Congress and their fellow legislators who are the only ones with the direct power to rein them in. The President's principle tool in our system of checks and balances is the veto. And you know what, Mike? I would personally LOVE to see Obama veto any bill that has even a smidgeon of pork in it. If he did that -- AND if the American people supported him in it -- things would finally change in Congress. That's not very pragmatic, however, and I don't know if any man has the courage to do it. Sure would be something to watch, though. quote: It feels a bit like déjà vu, doesn't it, Mike? You pretty much just described the situation in September, 2001. Except it was the Republicans instead of the Democrats, and it was the Executive branch instead of the Legislative. Following the immediate aftermath of 9/11, President Bush's approval rating topped out around 90 percent, the highest of any president in the 70 year history of the Gallup Poll. Bush had the opportunity, Mike, to unite this country as no man has done since George Washington. Unfortunately, I think we both know that didn't happen. Having enjoyed the highest approval ratings of any President, Bush left office with a rating of about 22 percent -- the lowest of any President in history. By way of comparison, both Reagan and Clinton left office with a 68 percent approval rating. Recent one-term presidents, George H.W. Bush left office with a 54 percent rating and Jimmy Carter escaped with a 44 percent rating. Even Richard Nixon squeaked through with 24 percent. Yea, Mike, the public had a candidate who was not Bush . . . and that was enough. It's got to be a little frustrating to realize we get to blame the next eight years on George, too? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What parts of the stimulus bill aren't "essential? Ron, I'm not trying to herd anyone anywhere. I agree with you. I don't find any part of it essential, either. My only "gripe" was that you referred to the military as non-essential to the country and somehow gave the impression that the non-essentiality of the military went along the same lines as the non-essentiality of the stimulus bill, or , in other words, if you consider the military actually essential, then you must do the same for the stimulus bill. Nice to see that you actually don't find the stimulus bill essential on it's own merit. Not sure I understand your trip back to Bush, Reagen and Carter unless you are saying that, if Obama goes down, it won't be the first time in history. I agree with that, too. All politicians work for the voters? Blame the voters when the politicians turn out to be nogoodniks? Please...... Sure, Obama has veto powers. Would he use them? Maybe in a few years when he actually does have some experience. He wouldn't dare now, and he knows it. They would just spank him like a small child. It's got to be a little frustrating to realize we get to blame the next eight years on George, too? ...and don't think they won't! Hopefully they will only have four and not eight |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: That's not an outrageous thing to say. What country is the engine that runs the world? Who ran that country? But it wasn't Bush as such, I think it was a bizarre passivity that left both the Dems and GOPers struck dumb by an Executive run amok. Why do you think I keep bringing up constitutional reform for the executive? Why do you think I bring it up now after Bush has left office? Because it wasn't a personality, it was systemic ambiguity that caused this problem. And that's gotta change. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "But it wasn't Bush as such, I think it was a bizarre passivity that left both the Dems and GOPers struck dumb by an Executive run amok." An Executive which had no luck trying to bring more control and regulation to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Which anyone can see on U-Tube. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: This doesn't even pretend to be objective. "Anyone can see" is the fallacy called argument by authority. Anyone can see it, therefore it must be true. It may or may not be true. Each argument must be considered on it's own. The authorities considered here seem to come pretty exclusively from the right. Would anybody care to guess what the left wing folks would say to this? In fact most of the press and opinion that seems to get quoted here seems right wing. This isn't a bad thing but it does seem to belie the claim that the press is pretty uniformly liberal, doesn't it? Those who claim that the election was won by Obama because the electorate thought "anybody but Bush" seem to be attempting to rewrite history. 1) Don't I recall that these are the sane folks who were defending almost everything that Bush did throughout at least the last year, when I've been present to witness and take part in these discussions? If they feel that there was something wrong with Bush, why were they defending him and approving the policies that they claimed the whole country supported — that any real American would support — the whole time? It seems that they have changed their position without having actually acknowledged the true magnitude of the disaster that the last eight years have been for the country. And 2) They suggest that the last election was anybody but Bush when I seem to recall that they actually supported a candidate from the Republican Party that they insisted provided a clear alternative, at least at the time. They weren't talking about Anybody But Bush then. Only now, when they seek to minimize the accomplishment of the President's accomplishment and the extent of his mandate do they seek to do so. If the President's bill is flawed, and it certainly must be, then it seems to me that it would be more useful to talk about the flaws in the bill itself, and to raise some sort of suggestions for ways the parties might work together in a more cooperative fashion. This sort of division was wretched when the Republicans were doing it during the last administration and surely it's no better today when the Republicans see the Democrats as doing it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I have no doubt you said something relevant in that offering because you normally do, but it may take a few readings to find out what it is. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I wonder if Einstein was from the right or from the left? And if he had decided to change sides, how much would that have affected the speed of light? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Einstein was a genius. Geniuses don't get involved in politics...they just try to survive politicians. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
The concept of determinedly left and right politics, like the promotion and encouragement of all extremes, was "invented" by, and is perpetuated by, those with power and/or intelligence in order to manipulate those without much power and/or intelligence to ensure a permanent core base of support for a particular cause or person. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, you may be right, moonbeam, but that could be a touch of over-analyzation, too. Left and right are labels. We live with labels and have since the beginning of time. We use labels for groups, nationalities, jocks/nerds, and even hair color. Are blondes really that dumb? Are redheads really that feiry? Using labels are a part of the communication humans use to converse and have been used since Adam and Eve were referred to as "leafies" (maybe) While I'll agree that some of them may be caused by manipulation in order to give masses a specific mind-set (like brunettes creating the mind-set that blondes are dumb), I don't see that happening with respect to the political labeling. Right indicates conservatives, left indicates liberals. Conservatives don't complain about being called right-wingers and liberals don't complain about being referred to as left-wingers, any more than they complain about having a donkey as their political symbol. There are no built-in insults in either label, so behind-the-scenes manipulations to use them makes little sense. It is simply labeling for convenience sake.How did this "right" and "left" labeling get it's start? Rumor has it that it was fashioned after observing the movement of a clock hand. When the hand moved to the right, all was as it is supposed to be. If it moved left, it was going backwards. Like I say, that's just a rumor with no basis in fact, and may not even be true....maybe. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Obama said Friday that residents of the U.S. Gulf Coast still are trying to rebuild three years after Hurricane Katrina and have not received the support they deserve from Washington. His words amounted to sharp, though indirect, criticism of former President George W. Bush's oversight of the Katrina recovery efforts. Katrina was blamed for more than 1,600 deaths and $41 billion in property damage. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-20-obama-stimulus_N.htm?csp=34 How much of the stimulus bill was set aside to help counter the effects of Katrina? Three guesses..bee insurance? Sure. Hookers off the streets? of course. Golf carts? Why not? Victims of Katrina? maybe next time... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
BTW, Chris Dodd told Bloomberg news today that the nation's banks may have to be nationalized. One of the best things to invest in right now is Vaseline. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I would find it helpful if Mike or somebody who feels that this stimulus bill is bad for the country might be specific about what exactly they think is bad. Petroleum jelly, Mike's last specific suggestion, is probably one administration behind, considering the profits the oil companies made over the last eight years due at least in part to the policies of the Bush Administration. The democrats should not be left out of blame on that one entirely either, I must hasten to add, and I once again suggest the same book by Greg Pallast that I recommended prior to this past trip to Upstate New York. It ruffles feathers on all sides of the aisle. I am astonished at the sudden inability of folks to tell the difference between left and right, though I hope it is the beginning of a period of willingness to seek common ground between us. I think there is more actual common ground than folks at the more extreme ends of either party would have us think, and that we may have to find it on our own, despite them. Anyway, if there are actual specifics in the spending package that are difficult, maybe we can talk them out together and reach some sort of consensus attitude on them together. Money will have to be spent on the stuff that's been neglected. We've allowed termites to get at the foundation of the country while we've indulged ourselves in country-club memberships that we can't afford. We've forgotten that we need to get the kids educated and that it's polite to keep our religion the bedrock of our lives and not to push it off on other people. If we set a good example, then other people will come to us. We've forgotten that it's not a sin to be poor and that the poor and disadvantaged need to be treated with dignity. There but for the grace of God, as folks used to say. These too are solid American values. I'm getting too vague. Bring in the stuff that you don't like about the spending bill. Let's look together. I won't claim to have all the answers, or even to agree with everything that's there. But that sort of dialogue seems to offer some change of bringing us together, and I confess a weakness for that sort of thing. Maybe we can work on skill at accomplishing it together. At least it's a proposal. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I think you, and perhaps others too, missed my earlier point, Bob. I can tell the difference between left and right just fine, but will typically choose to ignore it. It doesn't matter to me whether Einstein was conservative or liberal, and I don't think it greatly matters to the speed of light, either. You earlier said that "the authorities here seem to come pretty exclusively from the right," and suggested we should hear what the left wing folks had to say. That's fine. But, I don't care if a source is right or left. I only care if they're right or wrong. Einstein, whatever his philosophical leanings, was a whole lot more right than he was wrong. Ultimately, that's all that matters. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, I've been reading a recent biography of Maimonades, the philosopher, who makes the point that Spinoza makes. I am able to say so because the biography tells me so, not because of any depth of philosophical savvy, but it's a point that I'd thought about previously and one with which I am in agreement. Good and bad, they say, are consensus values. They depend on the culture and the time and the place and what the folks think is right. I am against cannibalism and feel quite good about this value. I would not fit in well with certain cultures in New Guinea and in the Amazon Basin who not only disagree with me, but feel there's something especially appropriate in the practice. I happen to feel my values are superior, as, I suspect, do they. "Right" and "wrong" in this case are synonymous with "good' and "bad," and are matters of local consensus. If things get sticky between those who hold my values and those who hold their values, the differences may be settled by force, and a larger consensus will be imposed. Kuru may have some effect in the debate as well. Actual proof holds little if any sway in the discussion. Einstein's notions about "right" and "wrong" in terms of his theory of relativity, on the other hand, did depend on proof. "Right" and "wrong" in this case are synonymous with "true" and "false." These are subject to scientific test and proof, and this is pointed out both by Maimonades and Spinoza. When most if not all the speakers here voice points of view from one part of the political spectrum, your ability to discriminate the degree of truthfulness amongst them is beside the point. That is, unless you happen to believe that the truth lies only in that spectrum and in no other. In that case, there's no problem at all. You may choose between a whole alphabet of political opinion and choose the truth between A and C. Especially if A and C are all that are encouraged. I think your rhetoric in this case depends on confusion between these two different cases of right and wrong distinguished by the philosophers. You may indeed have a solid point in there someplace, but I'm not sure what it is. Could you try again? Einstein's brilliance was of a limited kind. As long as he was talking about physics, the man really was superb. As far as human relationships and politics went, near as I can tell he wasn't any more expert than anybody else and he knew it. As far as genius goes, I guess, to have some idea where your actual limitations lie may be as good an indication as any. I should be half that smart. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Yes Mike, sure, they are "just" labels. Which surely is exactly the point. Labels are by definition not true. They can't be because they seek to pigeon-hole uniqueness. What they do is to remove a little (or a lot) of a subject's individuality and perhaps humanity. They offer a easy lazy way for people to think about themselves and their lives. And for other people to think about them. "I'm middle class = I will have 2 kids, a 9 - 5 job and live in suburbia." "I'm a Democrat = I dislike all Republican values" "I'm Hutu = I kill Tutsis" Persuading people they are part of a collective (ultimately, and ideally for the perpetrators, without them being entirely conscious of the persuasion) is pretty much vital for the long term survival of a movement. A core set of people who accept their label or badge to the point where they see everything the opposing badge does or thinks as bad or wrong without really engaging their brains, is therefore the covert goal of most centres of power. Do you think that's unduly cynical? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Not really, Bob. That's why, a hundred years later, it's still call the Theory of Relativity? Einstein's notions about right and wrong depended on convincing arguments. His notions held up over time because they worked. You can label your authorities conservative and liberal if you like, but for me it won't make their arguments any more or any less convincing. quote: I absolutely agree with what you mean, Moon, but not necessarily with what you say. And the distinction is probably the difference between what Mike and Bob are saying and what you and I are trying to correct. Labels are useful, and can indeed be true, when they are applied to things. If Bob wants to tell me that this argument is conservative and this one liberal, I'll likely nod my head and agree. Or not. I'm with you, however, when Bob or anyone else starts applying those labels to people. In my opinion, such labels are not only untrue, but they discourage us from taking a deeper look. Oh, he's on the left? I don't really need to listen to what he has to say, then, do I? Labels in the real world are a bit like stereotypes in writing; they have their uses, but should generally be avoided. They teach us nothing. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Story of my life Ron - comes from having a mouth faster than my brain (bigger too). (Gawd I was just itching to put an exclamation after that. You are a nasty killjoy Ron ) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bring in the stuff that you don't like about the spending bill. Bob, the thread is littered with things we don't like. You have search engines. How about YOU bringing in things you don't like about it? If you can't find any, then it will be assumed that you can't find any at all that bear scrutiny. If you can, then we can learn something from your viewpoint. We've done our homework. Feel free to do yours..... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well, Bob, this is trickier than that. You're trying to resurrect the fact/value dichotomy. See Hilary Putnam's essay "The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy." As much as I'd like to discuss this aspect in more depth--Maybe another day?--I'm stuck with the incongruity of your example with the point you are trying to make. First, let me see if I understand your points correctly: 1. Good and bad are normative. The norms are determined by a community. 2. True and false are not. They are determined by the world. 3. Ron mistakes (1) for (2). So far so good. But how does this mesh with a lack of leftist material on this thread? Why is that a bad thing if this thread is subsumed under (1)? I agree that there's not enough leftist material in this thread, but cannibalism, your example, already gives us the reason for that. Leftist material, argument, and stance are not the norm of this community. How do you get leftist material on the table? If I'm right about this community, right and wrong have to be a factor for that to happen. You, we (Bob and Brad) have to look for arguments that work, that get us through this crisis quickly and with as little pain as possible. Let Republican governors knowingly hurt their constituents for a principle that they never followed anyway. Let's get it right (and since nobody really knows how to do that, we're going to have to experiment). |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, quote: Because it has proof, Ron, we are talking still about the Theory of Relativity and not the next most likely contender. We are also talking about a theory that was presented as a theory to cover specific phenomena and not others. Einstein knew its limitations, and he never attempted to call it other than a theory to cover general and special relativity. He was sorely vexed by theories that were somewhat at odds with his own and which also showed experimental validation. He and Heisenberg were unhappy with each other. He and Bohr were friendly rivals through their whole lives. Quantum mechanics still has experimental validation, even if it seems only recently, when folks were actually able to reproduce the defraction grid thought experiment that had for so many years been spoken about as a fait accompli. The Theory of Relativity retains its status because it has not been disproven and because the experimental data on — at a minimum — the degree of deflection of light is exactly as Einstein calculated it would be around stars. We depend on this in much of our astronomical calculations today, and this is how we are able at time to locate binary suns and sometimes planets in distant solar systems. It is also through Einstein's theory of relativity that we have first been able to theorize the existence of black holes and then locate them. Einstein theorized these things, experimental work confirmed his theory. That is why Einstein's work remains a theory and not an interesting footnote, like the Ptolemaic theory of spheres, cycles and epicycles, which was very useful for quite a long period. This is why, I repeat, "Einstein's notions about "right" and "wrong" in terms of his theory of relativity, on the other hand, did depend on proof." Did, and still do. You also seem to be suggesting that there is some hall of certified scientific facts to which scientific theories go when they grow up. I would like to buy a ticket and take a tour; where do I write? Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Brad, It's a pleasure to speak with you again. I've missed our conversations. Let's see if we're talking the same language here. I think, pretty much, yes. "Good and bad are determined by the community?" I think so. I don't know that this should be the case, but that's another question. Different communities have very different ideas about what is the right thing and what is the wrong thing in terms of values. Wars are fought for these issues. The Albigensians were wiped out by the Catholics over this sort of issue in the 13th century. Shi'ia and Sunni. True and false are matters of scientific judgement. These are things that are open to test, confirmation or disconfirmation. They are determined not by the world but by the best feedback we can obtain from it at any one given time, subject to revisitation as our methods of understanding grow more sophisticated. These things, though, admit the outside world into the internal process of reality testing, and bases the decisions on that feedback from the data the world returns to us. And yes, in this situation, though by no means in all or even the majority of situations, I believe that Ron made this error. I usually find myself in agreement with him. Why, you ask, is it a problem to go along with the consensus in this case in determining the course of action the folks here should follow? Why should we trouble ourselves with looking for actual data that we can use as a reality check on our assumptions that one course is better than another? And how does this mesh with the lack of leftist material on this web Site? ... In other words, sooner or later you've got to understand that all the answers that you've tried to apply and all the information that you think you have may be lacking some important dimensions. Even if you begin to look real hard under the street light now, and bring in even more people to shine lights under the street light, you've made some assumptions that haven't worked, and you need to step back and re-evaluate why. You need to ask yourself about the quality of your information. Let me offer an example. Huan Yi, a few postings above, has made an interesting contribution about the Fannies, Mae and Mac. Much of the material from (pardon me for saying it) the right has made a great deal out of this, and representatives of that wing have tried to lay blame — without any contest by the way in these pages — on the Democrats. If the Democrats aren't guilty of this, they've certainly done other things wrong, by the way. My object isn't to prove them faultless. It's to suggest that information isn't getting through here that should be getting through here in evaluating the effectiveness of the policy of each party. What hasn't been offered by the right — not by its supporters here at PiP, but by the news sources that should be supplying them with accurate facts — is what percentage of the loans in the bad market just passed were from the Mac and Mae, and what percentage came from the steamrollered deregulation package driven by the president and his banking and credit card company friends. Nor would the explosion have been possible without the packaging of these mortgages in large funds by these same banking establishments that drove the credit deregulation package through the congress. And repealed the consumer banking protections that had been in place since Roosevelt got them passed during the great depression to ensure that crises such as this didn't happen. Whoops. 15%, by the way, from Mac and Mae, as far as I can tell. The rest from the Republican deregulation package that even the Democrats should be humiliated for not filibustering. And there is one reason why it's important to have information from more than a single side of the political spectrum. In this case, it's the left that's overlooked. When I was in social work school, I had the unenviable task of pointing out conservative values to liberals, of which I are one. I caught a mauling there too. I found two basic principles seem to apply. If you're only talking to those who agree with you, you're starving your audience. If those who disagree with you have no point, you're not listening hard enough. Not paying attention to verifiable truth; and not, for that matter, seeking it out, leaves us certain of ourselves without any particular basis in reality. We become the smokers surprised by COPD or the drivers who think that they drive better with a drink or two to loosen themselves up, and who are sure that seat belts will be a death trap for them if they ever get in a wreck. Sometimes these folks are right. They smoke for a lifetime and run marathons till they're 105. Two drinks turn them into Sterling Moss, and if they have any less they will die simply by turning the key in the starter, and the guy in the passenger seat next to Mr. I Need To Be Free gets cut in half by a rogue seat belt during a fender bender. These things do happen. But this isn't a good way to plan your life, is it? Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Ron (02-21-2009 07:55 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: The reason I made the offer, Mike, is that I found little specific in the upset, and much that was too general to be tackled in a systematic way. At this point, I haven't enough familiarity with the bill to offer specific criticism, nor have I claimed that I did. You, on the other hand, have complained in such a fashion that I thought you actually had specifics. If I'm in error, pardon me; there's nothing particularly wrong with generalized blowing off of steam. I do it myself all the time. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I think we're operating under a different definition of the word theory, Bob. There's an awful lot of collaborating evidence to support Einstein's theories of relativity, especially the Special. There is not, nor is there ever likely to be, proof. But that's neither here nor there. You're still wending your way around my real point. I can't care who Einstein is until long past the point where I care whether his arguments were cogent. Political or philosophical arguments must pass the same test. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, you don't need to read the bill. Type 'stimulus pork' into your search engine and there will be plenty there for you to research. If you want to be involved, then you can make the effort to research, like we did. Saying, "bring them to me and I'll determine if I feel they are valid or not" won't cut it. It's better when we ALL research. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mike, This assumes we all agree that everything is pork. Heck of an assumption, isn't it? Especially since you haven't offered a lot of specifics in the accusations so far. I was, for example, somewhat taken aback to see your comments about Obama's lack of response to Katrina. Last I heard from you — even though I disagreed at the time — the Republicans had done a stellar job and everything was wonderful down there. Any complaints on my part were only Democratic sabotage and fabrications. Do I remember this incorrectly? A couple of years later, I find out you've felt there was apparently a terrible disaster down there, but it's all the fault of the Democrats because they've done nothing about it in the last month. I should pay no attention to the little Republicans behind the curtain. Or something to that effect. Wow! And you say there's nothing in the spending bill about this, and that's a terrible thing. (By the way, if there's nothing in the spending bill to help with that stuff, then it is a terrible thing. We agree on that. The sooner the better for the good of the country.) If not now, then it should happen as soon as the negotiations across the aisles will permit it. I'm sure there will be hold-ups on both sides. Since you report you don't know what's in the bill yourself, a few references from people who at least claim they do know what's in the bill would be useful. Not Fox, please; and The Wall Street Journal, which used to be dependable outside its editorial pages has, since it was bought by Murdoch, ceased to be a reliable source of unbiased information. This is a great loss. The nature of a spending bill is to spend money, however. It's supposed to spend money. The question is not whether it's pork or not. The question is whether the spending is money that will get the economy cranking again in an effective way. Money paid out to poor folks in the form of cash, food stamps, education and the like is a good economic investment, as is money targeted to infrastructure. These things essentially get the economy moving again very directly. The money that we put into these things stimulates the economy quickly because poor folks need to spend quickly; they're one step ahead of the wolf. They need to buy groceries, they need to invest in retraining, they need to buy healthcare and shoes and clothes. They aren't able to save a lot of money for capital investments. Tax cuts for the wealthy has apparently in recent years taken money out of the economy. The treasury has apparently lost money on each dollar of these tax cuts, unlike the tax cuts forty years ago. We really do have different notions here, Mike, about Pork. In this case, the country makes a profit on it. During the last administration, the money was channeled to people who took it abroad or took it out of circulation or took a profit on these government windfalls. We lost $.30 on the dollar of the tax cuts we gave to the wealthy. Not good governance. Here we have some chance — and it's not a sure shot by any means — to turn things around. I personally doubt it can be done in two years or even four, but with luck a good start can be made in that time. Assuming that we as a country can be as good a starter engine as we've been a brake on things. The Good Lord willing and the Crick don't rise. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: ~sigh~ Why do people seem to assume that the usual rules of behaviour somehow don't apply to national and international economies? (Which are after all an amalgam of individual and group choices; essentially human choice). If you or I make a BIG mistake (especially if made wantonly and greedily) we expect to pay for it with punishment, or pain. And generally we learn from that pain. It happens in nature it happens in society it happens in the most personal of arenas. So why not in our economies. You think it's good for the future to "get through" this crisis with as little pain as possible? You don't think that artificial quick fixes, which potentially compound the mistakes already made, may not store up much worse down the line? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
A couple of years later, I find out you've felt there was apparently a terrible disaster down there, but it's all the fault of the Democrats because they've done nothing about it in the last month Ah, my friend Bob, you can twist a statement faster then a drunk can twist a swizzle stick. Please point out where I claimed that the hurricane disaster was the fault of the Democrats lack of action in the past month. I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt by looking at my previous statement in several ways and yet I still can't imagine how you could make a statement like that. What I DID say was that Obama is making speeches about the problems with post-Katrina rebuilding is due to lack of republican action when, in fact, after signing this humongous spending bill covering everything from golf carts to hooker control, he did not include one penny directed to those efforts. He's like the man on the street looking at the woman lying on the street and saying "Gee, somenody should do something." If he were so converned about the republican not helping enough, maybe he could have thrown somebody a bone out of the 800 billion. Wouldn't ya think? This assumes we all agree that everything is pork. Exactly. That's why I suggested you do a little searching to into the pork aspects of the plan. Instead, you spend ten times the amount of time to talk around actually investigating than you would have by actually checking it out yourself. That's fine. Nothing here is obligatory and homework is not a requirement but we are also not going to bring offerings to you on platters with hopes of being receiptients of your judgement. In other words, if you want to be a part of the construction, grab a shovel and dig in..... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
As I’ve pointed out Mike none of the bill can be described as either pork or earmarks - every item meets the criteria of either creating\saving jobs or stimulating the economy and no items discourage competition. /pip/Forum6/HTML/001790-4.html#90 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: quote: Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, Bob, for reaffirming my explanation although I'm not sure why you went through the trouble. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch, that's fine. If your criteria for the importance of the items in the stimulus bill is that they create spending, then fine. That would have to mean there is NEVER pork since anything that could be associated with pork would involve monies spent, which would automatically disqualify it from being pork. Anything the governments does involves spending money so I suppose we have been in a perpetual stimulus package since the beginning of the country. In that case, Bush was an incredible economy stimulator, I must assume you agree with. If, however, you lend any credence to the opinions of the hundreds of economists who claim that pork in the bill actually exists, or credence to the democrats that acknowledge that pork actually does exist,or Obama himself who was reportedly irritated about the amount of pork Congress put in the bill, then perhaps you may want to reconsider. ...or you may continue seeing it anyway that satisfies your intent. Whatever....  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, All bills aren’t designed to stimulate the economy and generate\save jobs. This one was, and as long as anything in it can be shown to fulfil the criteria for which it was conceived it can’t be described as pork. quote: A hundred economists? Out of how many? Don’t answer that because it doesn’t really matter, the chances are that none of them predicted the hole we find ourselves in, or worse still they probably dug half of it, which makes that particular argument from authority pretty redundant. The Democrats? You yourself keep telling people that they don’t know what they’re talking about so why should I listen to them? Obahma? You mean that bloke you’ve been trying to portray as an unqualified President and a possible liar? Nah, I’d rather trust my own judgement thank you very much. There is no pork in the stimulus bill, there are lots of odd provisions but none of them are porcine. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Mike, have you any idea how funny you sound  As someone uninitiated into the arcane mysteries of the P word, the snappy porky dialogue here is wayyy more entertaining than Coronation Street. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Very well could be, moonbeam... What I find REALLY funny is the lengths and double-talk people will employ to not call a horse a horse or the avenues of evasion traveled to get to Bias Boulevard. It's been entertaining and I thank all participants. grinch, you are right. The economists don't matter, the democrats don't matter and Obama's words don't matter. They are all wrong while you are correct. After all, you are MENSA. Always a pleasure hearing from the Two Ronnies |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Sounds pretty much like it to me. Unless you can give me an example of pork I’ve overlooked - I’ve dealt with the golf carts, I’ve explained the bee insurance, is there anything else you've mistaken for pork? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nope, I'm done. There is no doubt you are much smarter than you are making yourself out to be, so obviously you're just having fun trying to pull chains. I'll pass....enjoy yourself |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
A horse is a horse, Michael, and you are one of the smartest men I know. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
That should surely be Pinky and Perky, Mike - ROTF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinky_and_Perky Anyway Grinch, I demand to be the short one who sits in the chair and rabbits on and on about nothing very much. Mike, I didn't mean to offend, but you have to admit that there's something slightly amusing about this mildly unsavoury fixation with pork. Or maybe it's just my awful mind.  Ron, am I allowed to ask Denise if she lives in a convent?  [This message has been edited by moonbeam (02-23-2009 05:10 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, moonbeam, it is in your mind. No, I didn't take your earlier comment to be offensive...but your last one is out of line. Don't let your desire for a comical moment overpower your respect towards others. Me, you can target whenever you want. Denise, thank you  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Moonbeam's comment did not seem out of line to me, unless you're reading it very differently than I am. I thought it was about being sheltered, and I'm puzzled at any other reading you might give it. You and I say things more starchy than that as affectionate Hellos on occasion. Perhaps I was raised in a convent? But I don't follow. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: He was targeting you Mike. Denise said you were the smartest man she knew and Moon was wondering if she lived somewhere where men were thin on the ground. At least, that’s how I read it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The calvary to the rescue? Bob, if you don't get the point to him comment, I'm not going to waste time trying to explain it....the conversation is silly enough. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, the third musketeer show up Yes, I got the point, grinch and, of course, the barb at me was cute. But basically telling Denise that, if she thinks I'm smart, she must not get out very much is basically hinting to her that she must not have a very good idea about what smart is....which, in effect, calls her dumb or, at least, naaive. Since she was not involved in this little string-pulling and simply made that comment shouldn't qualify her as being a target of insinuations like that. Anyway, I'm done with it. The musketeer motive has become so obvious I'm not interested any longer. I'll go watch some Benny Hill re-runs instead. THAT was a funny Brit. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Are you planning a crucifixion Mike? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Somehow I don't see Bob as the cavalry, more the voice of commonsense and sanity. And he's right of course the dig in my question to Denise was directed in a mischievous fashion at you Mike - in so digging it also implied Denise lives a sheltered life, but as that is patently ridiculous and as it was all said in the spirit of joke, I thought it might be ok. Maybe you are right, maybe I just woke up this morning too frisky. (Oh sorry I can't handle the pace - loads of replies while I was busy thinking of something witty to say.) |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Which is probably why I spend so much time editing your posts, Bob. The topic of this thread is not about Denise being sheltered or Mike being more intelligent than other men. Just more cheap shots at posters instead of posts. And since everyone seems more or less guilty, I'm calling this thread done. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
