[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

$335 million of stimulus going to sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the CDC.

I'm not sure this is an effective way to get us out of Obama's recession.

That's your opinion.

I believe sex is the best stimulus. It can sure stimulate my economy and get me out of a depression.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Right, I just thought it was an interesting example of how the media's framing of it can influence perceptions. Even just in the headlines: "Obama tells GOP no compromise on tax rebates" versus "Obama, Visiting G.O.P. Lawmakers, Is Open to Some Compromise on Stimulus."

Open to hearing it, not open to actually doing it. Phony all the way

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_ha...o_barack_obama

President Barack Obama got the $825 (or $1.2 trillion over a decade) stimulus package through the House of Representatives but the 244 to 188 vote is a hollow victory indeed. Without a single Republican voting for the bill, his high-profile visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday came to exactly naught - at least on the House side.

Obama vowed to change Washington and usher in a new post-partisan era. The the mood music and optics were pitch perfect as he trekked up to the Hill. Republicans praised his gesture, welcomed his sincere demeanour and appreciated his willingness to listen.

Problem was, he wanted only to listen and did not want to act on what Republicans said. When he was asked if he would re-structure the package to include more tax cuts, he reportedly responded: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part."

He apparently added: " I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."

That's fine. No doubt Obama will indeed get beaten up on Fox News. But his failure to get even the squishiest moderate Republican - including the 11 entertained in the White House by Rahm Emanuel last night - to back him is not merely a big score for Rep Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, and the rest of the GOP leadership.

It also shows that it is not just Fox, the loony Right or Rush Limbaugh - or however else you might want to characterise the opposition in order to marginalise it - who had grave misgivings about the content of the bill.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm sorry if you took it as an "attack."

Again, you need to be specific. Does a "bipartisan" approach demand that Obama compromise on everything? Of course not.

Of course not. It doesn't mean saying he's willing to listen, but in the end he "won" and there really wouldn't be any kind of compromise either. That's his idea of bipartisan compromise and it's 100% bogus.

There have also been numerous statements by Republicans (primarily in the Senate) in the articles linked to in this thread that express appreciation for how far Obama has gone to reach out to the opposition.

They've been given order to make Pelosi the "bad guy". It's part of their script. The thing is, Obama "reached out" but didn't actually touch anything. It was an empty gesture and ended with not a single Republican voting for the Democrat's PORK bill (something else Obama said he wouldn't stand for before the campaign, but was more than willing to do after).

This is all about perception, and for that reason, "WHO points something out" is crucially important. If you can't admit that, then there's no point in discussing it with you further.

You don't have to tell me it's all about "perception" That's what Obama is hoping as well. He's hoping he can APPEAR bipartisan in public by "listening" and "reaching out" while doing nothing to actually compromise. It's another one of his pseudo-McCain con jobs. Between that and his taking the Limbaugh "hook" into his mouth (the President fighting with talk show hosts is a losing position all around), it doesn't look like he really knows what he's doing.

[ort888]

You should go on a hunger strike or something.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by ort888 

You should go on a hunger strike or something.

How about you just send me a check so I can buy food. I don't feel like running my business anymore and would prefer that you and your family support me and my lazy ass. In fact, why don't you just get a second job, because I think I need all the cable channels, a new house and lots of video games while I am not working. I guy can never play enough CoD.

While you are doing that, you can go and buy new light-bulbs for me, rummage through my trash for recyclable items, change all my computer equipment over to the latest and greatest energy saving **** and finally, stick your mouth on my car exhaust to see if I am polluting too much of your precious air.

I could really use a $17K stimulus check. That is what they are spending $850B some odd money on right? Giving it to the people that would actually spend it on creating jobs? You know, the ones of us that are getting raped by this "stimulus."

Oh wait, probably not.

Unfortunately that means I won't be able to fund your trip on the latest bike path, or on that Amtrak train that hasn't made money in 40 yrs. Sorry.

[ort888]

It sounds like you need a hug.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

You should go on a hunger strike or something.

Obama proving himself to be a phony whose lack of experience might end up costing him big in 2010 is nothing to lose a meal over, trust me.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Obama proving himself to be a phony whose lack of experience might end up costing him big in 2010 is nothing to lose a meal over, trust me.

Just for that, you're not getting a hug.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Open to hearing it, not open to actually doing it. Phony all the way

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_ha...o_barack_obama

Wow, Stupendous are you so desperate to prove your "Obama isn't inviting us in" crybaby rant that you have to quote a news source from another country?? Fox, Rush, Hannity or the other tin foil hat Republican "news" stations in America didn't bash President Obama enough for you or what?

With the Republicans not voting for the stimulus bill tonight, it just cemented how irrelevant the GOP has become. President Obama could have easily rammed this stimulus bill through, but he didn't. He asked for the GOP's input and even conceded parts of the bill to include more tax cuts the GOP insisted on being included. How does the GOP return the favor? They vote against it, which is fine. As I've said before, we don't need the Republican's to get something passed. We have a majority and the votes behind us. Before you bring up a filibuster threat, it won't happen. The GOP is too broken/powerless to agree on a filibuster, plus it wouldn't look good for re-election during the mid-terms; and if they do filibuster, then the Democrats can (but won't) suspend filibuster like Bill Frist did in 2005. Because unlike the Republican's, we've read and respect the US Constitution. Either way, you guys lose and America wins.

All the Republican's did by voting against the bill was strengthen it. Now all the concessions that we made to the GOP can be stripped out of the bill, e.g. tax cuts. And everything we stripped out to attract GOP votes; e.g. infrastructure money, birth control money, national mall renovation can be put back in.

Let's see, all the GOP accomplished tonight was a stronger stimulus bill, established how the GOP is powerless and doesn't matter anymore and cemented huge losses in the mid-terms for any GOP member running.

All and all, it's a good night for democracy.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by ort888 

It sounds like you need a hug.

Nope. I just want your side to stop ****ing me in the ass and telling me it is good for me.

[subego]

It took me about thirty seconds of thinking which part of his side was ****ing you in the ass. Kidney? Spleen? Liver? Is it like Quato in Total Recall?

Then I got it.

Carry on.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is it like Quato in Total Recall?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

With the Republicans not voting for the stimulus bill tonight...

They can't be held liable for its dismal failure.

Now all the concessions that we made to the GOP can be stripped out of the bill, e.g. tax cuts.

You mean "we" as in "you" assuming the whole of your identity is that little letter after your name, are stripping out the very platform that helped Obama win the election; Tax cuts? You're right, that could be brilliant!

And everything we stripped out to attract GOP votes; e.g. infrastructure money, birth control money, national mall renovation can be put back in.

"infrastructure money" is $30 billion or about 3% of the stimulus. Our unemployment rate is only a little higher than it was in '93 when Clinton passed $16 billion in stimulus spending, but with the proposed 3 million jobs Obama is going to "create/save" we're going to spend over $200k per job.

Birth control money??? National Mall renovation? I thought this was supposed to be an economic stimulus, not a battery of pet projects. This isn't a stimulus bill, it's a cruel friggin' joke and the finger to tax payers. Period. After all, Japan has given us such a useful model of how running up your national debt to stimulate the economy is a failed proposition. I was really hoping the overwhelming majority of Democrats would be good stewards of their mandate through pragmatism. I've been duped... bamboozled... hoodwinked... run amuck...

Apparently, they've learned nothing from the Republicans who I agree are a broken, powerless party. If the Republicans can find better hopes for their future than Jindal and Palin, there might be another major shift in power come 2010 and Obama will have to reconsider the notions of the "pesky" right. Republicans may have helped strengthen this bill as you say kobi, but in due time this bill will have strengthened the Republican party. Might make 'em act like Republicans for a change. Change you can believe in.

[stupendousman]

I had a long response typed out, but the forum puked up a "server busy, try again" error and I lost it.

Ebuddy pretty much said everything I was going to as well. The Republicans are in a no-lose situation. Either Obama was actually going to compromise and they were going to pass a bill that was bipartisan as he had promised over and over (and ended up not even making an honest effort at) which still might not do anything but which would be fairer and less wasteful, or Obama was going to prove himself to be a liar and pass a wasteful spending bill which isn't likely going to have any effect at speeding up the recovery which gives Republicans something to campaign against in 2010.

Obama is making the same mistakes Clinton did in 1992. Obama needs to stop playing to the far left in his party - as he's said, he's already won, and as such doesn't need to coddle them. Post 94" Clinton figured it out. A President is normally most effective when he triangulates between the extremes. It might not please your "base" or the opposition, but typically you end up pleasing your true constituents, the rest of America.

Here's one guy's idea for what a true bipartisan bill could have looked like. It wouldn't please everyone, but it would at least be an honest effort:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html

[besson3c]

National Mall renovation does provide construction jobs the same way that rebuilding schools and updating buildings for energy efficiency does. That doesn't bother me so much. I'm not sure about the birth control money. I can see how there is a relationship between unplanned pregnancies and economic strain, but I don't think that simply funding more birth control is the answer. I'm glad that Obama took this out of the bill.

A bill like this is never going to be perfect in everybody's eyes, and we are definitely not the only country haggling over the best way to provide stimulus (Canada is doing the same). My biggest disappointment is no Republicans supporting this, although maybe Obama's meeting with them is something that can be built on for the future. I hope he doesn't give up on this. I also hope that Republicans don't simply vote on party lines solely to be obstructionists. I have no idea whether they are or not at this point, though...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A bill like this is never going to be perfect in everybody's eyes, and we are definitely not the only country haggling over the best way to provide stimulus (Canada is doing the same).

I don't think anyone expects it to be "perfect". I don't. Despite Obama promising to cross out all pork, I'm realistic and understand that there's essentially no way to do that totally. I wouldn't hold him to a zero pork pledge as long as it was apparent that there was a real, honest effort made.

When even the CBO (controlled by the Democrats) comes out and gives the thumbs down to plan, it's coming out failed instead of flawed which most probably could live with.

My biggest disappointment is no Republicans supporting this, although maybe Obama's meeting with them is something that can be built on for the future. I hope he doesn't give up on this. I also hope that Republicans don't simply vote on party lines solely to be obstructionists. I have no idea whether they are or not at this point, though...

It's not "party lines". The contraceptive spending was just the tip, you've also got almost a half billion dollars for STD prevention and other stuff that has no real logical pinning to "stimulus" but instead are generic spending bills being pushed through. This bill is an economic loser, and I'm pretty sure no Republican wants his name attached. Especially since all the excess, illogical spending is targeted toward Democrat constituencies.

It's a shame that Obama couldn't have actually kept his campaign promise and fought for a bill that actually had something that could be supported in a bipartisan way. You don't get support with lip service, and apparently Obama will have to learn that if you just talk the talk, and don't walk the walk, no one will listen. The economy better pick up quick for Obama's (and the country's) sake. Otherwise, he's got a tough next couple of election cycles ahead of him.

[besson3c]

Isn't STD prevention just the condom thing that was thrown out?

Is it possible to pass a bill like this and continue to refine it later? There is also the issue of timing, maybe it is better to get something out there now than something more polished out later?

[Wiskedjak]

Wait. Obama wants to prevent STDs?!?!

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

Nope. I just want your side to stop ****ing me in the ass and telling me it is good for me.

Well, we all got quite a pounding for the last 8 years so lube up big boy...

Don't worry though. Unlike the republicans, the democrats will snuggle with you afterwards.

[ort888]

Wait Stupendousman, I'm confused. Do you think Obama is living up to his campaign promise of being bipartisan or not? Can you sum up your feelings on the matter one more time?

[besson3c]

I'm disappointed in the Republican leadership over this.

There may very well be better ways to stimulate the economy, but why aren't they explaining to the public exactly what they would change in the bill and why? All I've heard from them as far as alternatives are more tax cuts? Jon Stewart is right, this is like Grandma prescribing chicken soup for every possible sickness you could catch. What measurable improvements have there been to Bush's tax cuts that would apply here? Do tax cuts just sort of magically and unconditionally work, or only up to a point? Isn't this simply more trickle down nonsense? Weak, weak weak... Comon Republicans, we need you to vet this bill and step up and provide us with some *real* alternatives. None of this philosophical gut feelingy nonsense - something practical and concrete that can be used *now*.

There may be no connection between birth control and trying to prevent STDs to stimulating the economy, or there may actually be a connection, I don't know. My perception is that many Republicans in here and Republicans such as Sarah Palin fail to measure cause and effect properly, they seem more interested in attacking what *appears* to be wasteful spending based on their gut feeling (for example, Palin's attacking fruit fly research when this supported medical advancements in an area she had championed).

If there is a measurable impact on STDs and unwanted pregnancies and economic strain and/or expenses, this part of the stimulus package should be supported. What makes me inclined to not support this part of the package is my knee jerk reaction against anything that sort of reeks of sex ed (especially churchy stuff). However, I now realize that I ought to learn more about this part of the bill before clinging to my opinion.

[ort888]

Maybe someone will finally teach me about sex.

[besson3c]

Well, I can teach you a little bit. One thing I know from personal experience is not to have sex with a toaster or a floppy drive. By toaster, I mean real toasters, not Cylons.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Isn't STD prevention just the condom thing that was thrown out?

No. It's was a separate measure and it's still in the bill.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-for-std-pre/

Is it possible to pass a bill like this and continue to refine it later? There is also the issue of timing, maybe it is better to get something out there now than something more polished out later?

How do you polish a turd? You can't go back and take spending back. You can try I guess, but I've never seen it done. The "issue of timing" is exactly what Obama and the Democrats are trying to use in order to push forward this new budgetary spending that has nothing to do with stimulus. The specter of the worsening economy is being used to scare people into accepting a "turd" entirely of the Democrat's making. Of course, you could just strip the bill of all the pork and make it law with common sense non-partisanship like Obama promised with Republican votes. I'm pretty sure that the latter is a much better plan. The fact that it won't happen isn't anyone's fault other than Obama's. You can't blame "Republican Leadership" for not voting for something they really had no part of, disagreed with vehemently, and the other side really did nothing but talk about acting in a bipartisan manner. When you control all sides of the equation, you have all the power.

It wouldn't really be that big a deal if Obama hadn't got elected based on his promise to "change" Washington while being as or more partisan than the people he replaced. It would also be different if he'd waited a year or so before being so blatantly partisan, which would suggest he was at least trying to keep his promises.

[besson3c]

Well how much do we allow either party to manipulate us with the urgency of this? I mean, Bush/Paulson were hammering the press with insistence on how "urgent stimulus is needed that can't be delayed another moment" and blah blah blah. Either this is true or it isn't, but it would seem to me that whomever is behind shotgun legislation like this it is going to be flawed once vetted further due to its rushed nature.

I don't know whether this manipulation is warranted or not, but if it is I hope that the little details can be tweaked once the meat and potatoes of the package has been approved.

[besson3c]

So Stupendousman, since the Republican party doesn't seem to be offering much in the way of concrete improvements to the bill (other than more tax cuts), how else do you see the bill as a turd? Take out the bit about STDs and you're cool with it?

What I'm wondering is if you are clinging to the myth that Republicans are better about preventing wasteful spending and are just against this bill because the Republicans are? I don't mean to attack you, but if you are going to insist on repeating your viewpoint over and over again perhaps it's only fair to insist that you give us concrete examples of where the bill can be improved, and exactly why what is in there is wasteful?

You'll notice that almost everybody else is not offering these sorts of comments because they realize that they are not smart enough about these sort of things or have enough data to really have a solid opinion that is based on more than their gut feeling.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do tax cuts just sort of magically and unconditionally work, or only up to a point?

Take a step back from politics for a second. What would stimulate your little personal corner of the economy more, if I give you money, or take money away?

There's a bunch of things about Republicanism/conservatism that are counter intuitive, but their obsession with tax cuts shouldn't be one of them.

I'm not even necessarily against the bill. Obama called in every favor to get elected (as does everyone who ultimately wins the seat) so there's a lot of people who require "a little sumptin for the effort", but it patently isn't a stimulus package.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Take a step back from politics for a second. What would stimulate your little personal corner of the economy more, if I give you money, or take money away?

There's a bunch of things about Republicanism/conservatism that are counter intuitive, but their obsession with tax cuts shouldn't be one of them.

I'm not even necessarily against the bill. Obama called in every favor to get elected (as does everyone who ultimately wins the seat) so there's a lot of people who require "a little sumptin for the effort", but it patently isn't a stimulus package.

That depends. If we are talking about income tax, the same percentage of my paycheck is going to be taken out, I'll just get more back in the form of a return when I go to file my taxes, right? It is also true that unless to futz with the tax code some more, the greater benefactors of tax cuts across the board are going to be the wealthy, and that these theories are based on the idea that this will trickle down. When has this worked in recent history?

Yes it is true that this represents money being given to people, but which is better: creating new jobs and putting money into the economy now or simply giving people a little more money back when they file their taxes?

[besson3c]

I really have a hard time thinking that this isn't just Republican philosophy and whatever gives some of them stiffies over the thought of tax cuts that is trumping what is practical and concrete for right now. There are times when one has to put aside their high minded philosophies and opinions relating to morality, and simply find something that produces the results that are needed. I have no doubt that there are solutions that are totally compatible with a free market approach and all of the stuff that Republicans value, I just have a hard time seeing how some tax cuts alone are supposed to put the economy back on track? If tax cuts alone aren't enough, what is? We need to hear these ideas...

Of course, keep in mind that these ideas cannot be an overhaul to Medicare or Social Security or something, as these are obviously much larger projects. What will work the best for right now?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes it is true that this represents money being given to people, but which is better: creating new jobs and putting money into the economy now or simply giving people a little more money back when they file their taxes?

AFAICT, for the past 100 years, there have been only three ways our government has genuinely stimulated the economy through taking away rather than giving back (I'm not counting the Federal Reserve).

In order of likelihood/desirability:

1) Rebuilding infrastructure (totally nerfed in the stimulus package).
2) Defense related technological innovations (like GPS or the internets).
3) Killing Prussians and taking their stuff.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There may very well be better ways to stimulate the economy, but why aren't they explaining to the public exactly what they would change in the bill and why?

So, you mean to say they're just complaining without offering any real alternatives? Kinda like what they accused liberals of doing for the last 8 years?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How do you polish a turd?

See Mythbusters. They were able to get turds up to a pretty nice shine.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

Take a step back from politics for a second. What would stimulate your little personal corner of the economy more, if I give you money, or take money away?

For myself, I'd love to be given more money. But, if I'm afraid that I might lose my job, I'm just going to *save* that money rather than spend it. Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy if the economy is failing because consumers are afraid of losing their jobs.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So Stupendousman, since the Republican party doesn't seem to be offering much in the way of concrete improvements to the bill (other than more tax cuts), how else do you see the bill as a turd? Take out the bit about STDs and you're cool with it?

The Stimulus Time Machine - WSJ.com

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill's $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010. This is highly embarrassing given that Congress's justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner.

Condoms and STD's are just a small part of what makes the bill a total turd.

What I'm wondering is if you are clinging to the myth that Republicans are better about preventing wasteful spending and are just against this bill because the Republicans are?

No. Did you not see upper in the thread where I conceded that the Republicans haven't really given a real good plan either? Despite that, at the very least, the Republican's ideas would strip a lot of the pork and regular budgetary spending out of the bill and just leave the stuff that the CBO says might be reasonably linked to actual economic stimulus in addition to keeping his promise to try to actually encourage bipartisanship. I understand that 'bipartisanship' DOES NOT mean giving the other side everything it wants, either. But when you're dealing with the following, you like aren't going to get anything resembling what Obama promised any time soon:

TheHill.com - Pelosi dismisses need for bipartisanship

Having a crappy stimulus package, then Obama refusing to compromise and totally turning his back on the central theme of his campaign, which was to end partisanship, pork and the traditional way "things are done in Washington", would give a normal person pause to think that Obama's critics were 100% right. I think that's a bad way to start a new administration.

You'll notice that almost everybody else is not offering these sorts of comments because they realize that they are not smart enough about these sort of things or have enough data to really have a solid opinion that is based on more than their gut feeling.

I can't answer for "everybody else". If you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about the content of the stimulus package, and Obama's lack of cooperation, maybe you should just abstain from the debate? I've looked into the issue and I don't like what i see. If someone can provide an alternate viewpoint with a logical argument, they are welcome to join in. I haven't seen that here yet though, on this topic.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are times when one has to put aside their high minded philosophies and opinions relating to morality, and simply find something that produces the results that are needed.

I'll give it to you straight, as I always try and do. If any high minded philosophy needs to be abandoned, you need to abandon the one you quote above. This whole endeavor has very little to do with stimulating the economy and has everything to do with horse trading and the balance of power.


Every member of the House is running their 2010 campaign at this very moment, and has been since November 5th.

Voting for a "stimulus" package is a total gamble WRT this. Even if it was the best idea in the world (say, if the plan were to... cut taxes ) the economy could still be in the shitter come 2010, and then this gets used against them. They want something more tangible. In fact, if they're going to stick their neck out and vote on this total gamble, they might demand something more tangible.

As Speaker, it's Pelosi's job to herd these cats. In theory, her power base is pretty consolidated, and she could tell those who get in her face to suck it, but there's one leeetle problem.

Anyone who did the math (among whom were certainly all the Democrats in the House) realized that it was impossible for this bill not to pass, no matter what was in it. They knew it before the piece of **** was even written. If either the Senate or Obama got too much in the way of the first bill, it would blow the party apart. This is especially the case for Obama. As is true for anyone who becomes President, he called in a lot of favors and now owes a lot of people.

Barring a well timed terrorist attack, there isn't going to be a better time for the House to get done what they need to get done to get reelected, and everybody in Washington knows it.

This isn't to say there isn't anything in the bill that will attempt to stimulate the economy, but I'd wager at least half the bill got chewed up by the above.

Likewise, I'm not (yet) teeing off on Obama for letting this slide. Unlike Pelosi, he hasn't consolidated his power base yet, which realistically he needs to do before he starts getting cozy with the Republicans. As I said a few posts up, Democrats are going to give Obama a much rougher time than people give credit. Party unity isn't a Democrat strong suit.

[besson3c]

stupendousman: so, any solutions other than just tax cuts? The WSJ article and your post seems like more criticism of the bill. We get it, there is pork in it. So, where should that money go instead?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll give it to you straight, as I always try and do. If any high minded philosophy needs to be abandoned, you need to abandon the one you quote above. This whole endeavor has very little to do with stimulating the economy and has everything to do with horse trading and the balance of power.


Every member of the House is running their 2010 campaign at this very moment, and has been since November 5th.

Voting for a "stimulus" package is a total gamble WRT this. Even if it was the best idea in the world (say, if the plan were to... cut taxes ) the economy could still be in the shitter come 2010, and then this gets used against them. They want something more tangible. In fact, if they're going to stick their neck out and vote on this total gamble, they might demand something more tangible.

As Speaker, it's Pelosi's job to herd these cats. In theory, her power base is pretty consolidated, and she could tell those who get in her face to suck it, but there's one leeetle problem.

Anyone who did the math (among whom were certainly all the Democrats in the House) realized that it was impossible for this bill not to pass, no matter what was in it. They knew it before the piece of **** was even written. If either the Senate or Obama got too much in the way of the first bill, it would blow the party apart. This is especially the case for Obama. As is true for anyone who becomes President, he called in a lot of favors and now owes a lot of people.

Barring a well timed terrorist attack, there isn't going to be a better time for the House to get done what they need to get done to get reelected, and everybody in Washington knows it.

This isn't to say there isn't anything in the bill that will attempt to stimulate the economy, but I'd wager at least half the bill got chewed up by the above.

Likewise, I'm not (yet) teeing off on Obama for letting this slide. Unlike Pelosi, he hasn't consolidated his power base yet, which realistically he needs to do before he starts getting cozy with the Republicans. As I said a few posts up, Democrats are going to give Obama a much rougher time than people give credit. Party unity isn't a Democrat strong suit.

You're probably right.. It would be naive of me to think that somebody has gone line by line through the thing to eliminate pet projects and political favors. I'm sure that there is some cruft in there. What I haven't decided yet is whether or not this fat was left in in the interest of saving time for the sake of prudence, or whether the fat is in there just because of all of the things you've brought up here?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

For myself, I'd love to be given more money. But, if I'm afraid that I might lose my job, I'm just going to *save* that money rather than spend it. Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy if the economy is failing because consumers are afraid of losing their jobs.

If you're that worried about losing your job, you probably should save it. Allowing that to happen would be the government doing right by you in my book.

The basic thesis here is that the government can't stimulate the economy. There are the exceptions of the Fed, and the three examples I gave upthread. The Fed is out of rope. We're not going to invade Europe. We can't bet on a technological breakthrough.

Infrastructure works, but that's a pretty craptacular overhead to job creation ratio.

The government can regulate the economy, it can prop it up, but it can't really stimulate it. If it could, we'd just do that all the time.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I haven't decided yet is whether or not this fat was left in in the interest of saving time for the sake of prudence, or whether the fat is in there just because of all of the things you've brought up here?

In essence, I'm arguing that everyone* is doing what they feel is prudent. You're no good to anyone if you get kicked out of the game.

Even if Obama agreed 100% with the Republicans, his hands were tied. I'd do exactly what he did in this instance.

Now his hands are less tied, and one would presume he didn't become President so he could kowtow to Pelosi.

As to an actual percentage, I'm cynical, and am highly dubious of the government's ability to stimulate the economy in the first place, so I'd bet 70-90% is bogus. Even with rose-colored glasses, I can't imagine it being any lower than 50%. I was listening to Candy Crowley on the Coop last night, and she was able to shoot down 300B as bogus right off the cuff.

Also, don't forget the extra 300B in interest we're going to have to pay. It's more like a 1.1T "package".


* This is why the Republicans didn't go along for the sake of bipartisanism. There's no incentive. Voting no on a bill that you know will pass is valuable currency. Just like the Democrats weren't willing to stick out their necks without a little sumptin' for the effort, the Republicans aren't going to either.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you're that worried about losing your job, you probably should save it. Allowing that to happen would be the government doing right by you in my book.

My point is that the economic issue is now beyond bad decisions by some companies. We're to the point where companies are starting to lay off people because people aren't buying stuff because they're afraid of being laid off.

[subego]

Yes. I understood that. The rest of my post addresses government's limited role in fixing this situation.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

stupendousman: so, any solutions other than just tax cuts? The WSJ article and your post seems like more criticism of the bill. We get it, there is pork in it. So, where should that money go instead?

I don't have the answers. The reason for me creating this thread wasn't actually to give commentary on the new spending bill other than what I said - that in his first days in office Obama has appeared to abandon his entire campaign promise of being an agent of "change" in the way things are done in Washington and instead he's engaging in all the bad practices that politicians who get into power find themselves doing.

I linked to a proposed 'bipartisan' plan which would give both sides some of what they wanted. If Obama really meant what he said when campaigning, that's the route he'd go. Not that the plan is necessarily any better - but it's clearly not any worse than the wasteful spending bill we currently have and would have support from all sides. McCain would have done much better at serving the needs of both sides, simply based on past precedent of a career doing just that. I believe Obama fooled the public into thinking that he was a McCain-style "maverick" when he's never been anything other than a partisan fighter pushing for the further reaches of the left rather than a moderate consensus builder.

IMO, Obama is an arrogant phony who looks to be shaping up to be everything his critics accused him of during the campaign, which he refuted vigorously with false promise that he's stop making an honest effort to keep just days into his term in office. I don't think that bodes well for the country.

[besson3c]

Okay, thanks for your honesty. I was asking because I was wondering if there was anything that could actually be debated in this thread. Debating your feelings (or anybody else's feelings) is literally pointless.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, thanks for your honesty. I was asking because I was wondering if there was anything that could actually be debated in this thread. Debating your feelings (or anybody else's feelings) is literally pointless.

I'm not expressing my "feelings". I noted an Obama campaign promise, which actually was the theme of his entire campaign. I provided evidence that Obama had essentially abandoned this promise just days into office, showing him to be the phony his critics painted him as during the election. My "feelings" are irrelevant in this regard.

To be sure, there's no law or regulation which requires him not to act in the partisan manner he has. In fact, in doing so he's not doing anything that a lot of his predecessors have done. The point isn't that he doesn't have the right to shut-out the other side or be blatantly partisan - HE DOES.

The point is that as a central theme to his campaign (due to the fact that his opponent held strong qualities that where liked by the electorate) was that he was not going to do what he's been doing because he was all about "change" and not towing the party line. The only "change" he's making is taking Washington further to the left. That most certainly isn't what he was selling during the campaign, or what the electorate likely thought it was buying when they went to the ballot box. That's sad because he could have strived to do the right thing.

If he really didn't plan on doing all those things that he knew people admired John McCain for which he claimed as his goals, he shouldn't have lied about it during the campaign. If he did plan on doing them, and really does believe what he said then, then he's failing miserably at executing his stated goals.

[ort888]

I think you misunderstood the theme of his entire campaign.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If he really didn't plan on doing all those things that he knew people admired John McCain for which he claimed as his goals, he shouldn't have lied about it during the campaign. If he did plan on doing them, and really does believe what he said then, then he's failing miserably at executing his stated goals.

Apparently, the problem with the term "bipartisan" is that it's *very* subjective. All we can safely say is that your definition of "bipartisan" is clearly different from Obama's. I suspect it is also different from the definition held by most who voted for Obama and similar to the definition held by most who voted against him. It seems to me that just including the other party in *any* discussion about policy is "bipartisan". The very fact that Republicans were in the room for Obama to say "I won" to, tells me that at least *some* degree of bipartisanship was taking place. The fact that *any* Republican positions are included in the bill tells me that at least *some* degree of bipartisanship was taking place.

You're defining "bipartisan" through partisan eyes.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're defining "bipartisan" through partisan eyes.

NO HIS FEELINGS ARE IRRELEVANT! God, Obama makes me so MAD!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not expressing my "feelings". I noted an Obama campaign promise, which actually was the theme of his entire campaign. I provided evidence that Obama had essentially abandoned this promise just days into office, showing him to be the phony his critics painted him as during the election. My "feelings" are irrelevant in this regard.

To be sure, there's no law or regulation which requires him not to act in the partisan manner he has. In fact, in doing so he's not doing anything that a lot of his predecessors have done. The point isn't that he doesn't have the right to shut-out the other side or be blatantly partisan - HE DOES.

The point is that as a central theme to his campaign (due to the fact that his opponent held strong qualities that where liked by the electorate) was that he was not going to do what he's been doing because he was all about "change" and not towing the party line. The only "change" he's making is taking Washington further to the left. That most certainly isn't what he was selling during the campaign, or what the electorate likely thought it was buying when they went to the ballot box. That's sad because he could have strived to do the right thing.

If he really didn't plan on doing all those things that he knew people admired John McCain for which he claimed as his goals, he shouldn't have lied about it during the campaign. If he did plan on doing them, and really does believe what he said then, then he's failing miserably at executing his stated goals.

And like has been pointed out several times, there is no "evidence" - this is just quasi-scientific spin. There is too much that is not known for there to be concrete evidence. Therefore these are your feelings.

Like I said dude, pace yourself. Your audience is growing numb.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not expressing my "feelings". I noted an Obama campaign promise, which actually was the theme of his entire campaign. I provided evidence that Obama had essentially abandoned this promise just days into office, showing him to be the phony his critics painted him as during the election. My "feelings" are irrelevant in this regard.

To be sure, there's no law or regulation which requires him not to act in the partisan manner he has. In fact, in doing so he's not doing anything that a lot of his predecessors have done. The point isn't that he doesn't have the right to shut-out the other side or be blatantly partisan - HE DOES.

The point is that as a central theme to his campaign (due to the fact that his opponent held strong qualities that where liked by the electorate) was that he was not going to do what he's been doing because he was all about "change" and not towing the party line. The only "change" he's making is taking Washington further to the left. That most certainly isn't what he was selling during the campaign, or what the electorate likely thought it was buying when they went to the ballot box. That's sad because he could have strived to do the right thing.

If he really didn't plan on doing all those things that he knew people admired John McCain for which he claimed as his goals, he shouldn't have lied about it during the campaign. If he did plan on doing them, and really does believe what he said then, then he's failing miserably at executing his stated goals.

Straw man.

Stupendousman, It's clear that no matter what Obama does or doesn't do that you'll approve of it. That's your right and I respect that.

It's also clear that you didn't understand Obama's campaign platform, it wasn't change from the Democratic party platform, it was change from the last eight years of the Republican failure. Which is exactly what President Obama is doing, in a little under two weeks, he's changed Bush's orders on the environment, he's signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, he's issued executive orders to close Guantanamo within a year, and above all else got the Stimulus Bill through the House. If that's not change from the Republicans, then what is?

Where you fail is in your argument that Obama, claimed John McCain's goals to win the campaign. If John McCain's goals were the right direction for the country, then John McCain would have won. McCain lost because he had no fruitful ideas for Americas future. McCain was and is a step back for the country, his ideas represent every failure the Republican party did the last eight years. Obama's ideas and goals is what the American people voted for......not John McCain's.
I'm sorry that your guy McCain, lost but to claim that Obama stole his ideas and used them as his own to win the election, is just wrong.

Don't listen to me, listen to the 8,000,000 voters who prove your theory wrong.

Next is your claim that the only change Obama is taking Washington further left.

I don't dispute it, left is the only direction for Washington to go. The world has been witness to what a "right" America looks like, and it's a failure. The right has raped and pillaged this country into a shell of what it once was. The right has promoted fear and propaganda and used it to rob our country blind. The right protected and helped businesses bankrupt America, while taking jobs away and sending them overseas and rewarding the businesses for doing so. The right are the ones that have killed and tortured in Americas name with one hand, while throwing out the rule of law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus and everything else that got in the way.

As the 8,000,000 votes proved on Nov 4, 2008; the "right" is not the future of this country, the future of this country is putting faith and renewal back into the US Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the rule of law. The future of this country is doing what is correct for the betterment of the people, not the betterment of business, who are lining the pockets of the GOP.

Again, I'm sorry your guy lost but you need to get over it.

[olePigeon]

I run a home business with my brother. I'm thinking of writing a letter to the Congress. Tell them I need one million dollars, otherwise I'll have to cut my workforce by half. If we get the stimulus money, we could double our workforce and keep hard working Americans employed.