Here goes another $32.8 billion.....

[bga1]

Sorry to post again but there's a lot going on right now. This is amazing stuff. See this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_go_co/children_s_health

How can we do this? I have no idea. Again, this seems compassionate, but it's really just crazy- we can't afford this. Not at all. And this isn't even a part of the "stimulus" package!!

[Gopher4Life]

One more step in the direction of Socialist America. The Dem's poorly hidden agenda during this so-called economic recovery is to diminish the private sector in any way possible and place more power into the hands of the central goverment.

[bga1]

One more step in the direction of Socialist America. The Dem's poorly hidden agenda during this so-called economic recovery is to diminish the private sector in any way possible and place more power into the hands of the central goverment.


I just saw another note today where, hidden in some of the sitmulus legislation on education was a bill that said the government couldn't spend any $ on schools where there were religious activities in the building. Vague enough so that the government could exclude schools from cash that ALLOW religious groups to meet in the building. Part of the power grab is continued secularization- bit by bit.

[monk10]

I just wanted to check if this is the thread where I dumb things down to wide generic statements, or is it in the other four threads?

[Goldy74s]

Monk, this is a thread where you can post anything or nothing on this topic. Complicated is fine. Go ahead.

[Oscar Munson]

This is the thread where bga and G4L make asses of themselves. Oh wait, that is every thread.

[Costa Rican Gopher]

This free for all is disgusting no doubt, but it's hardly a partisan issue. Dems and Reps alike should have wised up long ago. It won't matter much longer as we're all soon to be NAU Citizens carrying Amero dollars anyhow. The Dems and Reps are the same. One party, using an age old "divide & conquer" tactic to divide the masses.

[Jike Spingleton]

funds may not be used for “modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities — (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.”

You're overreacting....again. It seems pretty clear to me from the wording that they aren't putting any money toward buildings where teaching religion is the primary use.

[GoldenHerbs]

This free for all is disgusting no doubt, but it's hardly a partisan issue. Dems and Reps alike should have wised up long ago. It won't matter much longer as we're all soon to be NAU Citizens carrying Amero dollars anyhow. The Dems and Reps are the same. One party, using an age old "divide & conquer" tactic to divide the masses.


Divide and Conquer is the oldest trick in the book and it works so perfectly to the masses of sheeple.

[Omega015]

Looks to me like the Dems are going to get exactly what they wanted. They added more and more stuff to this bill intentionally so that when $100b or so was stripped out of it, the bill was back to Obama's original number in the $850b range. The Repubs get to feel good about stripping out the fat, and Obama got his original number.

I'm with Stephen Colbert on this bill, if the Repubs don't want this spending, then man up and don't take any of the money for your state or district.... but we know that won't happen. They want the money, they just don't want to vote for it.

[Schnoodler]

You guys need to revisit history. We are so far to the right of where we were a hundred years ago it's amazing. The socialist party was a force in this country at one time. It was real, not some made up imagined soundbitish Limbuaghesk gobbily gook like you guys want to spew constantly.

[Goldy74s]

??

[bga1]

Looks to me like the Dems are going to get exactly what they wanted. They added more and more stuff to this bill intentionally so that when $100b or so was stripped out of it, the bill was back to Obama's original number in the $850b range. The Repubs get to feel good about stripping out the fat, and Obama got his original number.

I'm with Stephen Colbert on this bill, if the Repubs don't want this spending, then man up and don't take any of the money for your state or district.... but we know that won't happen. They want the money, they just don't want to vote for it.

The R's are not nearly satisfied. All the Dems needed were Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Spector to join. Those are three RINOs who you knew would cave easily. The word is that this is all they willget with the bill as it is. It will be enough to pass it but it will not buy Obama the political cover he wished for. This thing will be fully on his and the Dems head. Very, very little of the money will actually be in serious play this year. So how this has anything to do with stopping the recession is a mystery to me. This is 90% about advance big government social programs from a veritable Democrat buffet of wishes.

There's little point to Republican states not taking the money as it will be spent anyway and likely in even worse ways.

[bga1]

This is the thread where bga and G4L make asses of themselves. Oh wait, that is every thread.


Welcome back Buckysdead.

[Jike Spingleton]

This thing will be fully on his and the Dems head.


Rush Limbaugh and his nation of idiots rejoice.

[bga1]

Rush Limbaugh and his nation of idiots rejoice.

There is no rejoicing in a failure such as this. I am hoping there is at least some short term relief arising from this package which assuredly is a long term disaster.

[Oscar Munson]

Welcome back Buckysdead.

Nice try but no.

[jamiche]

The R's are not nearly satisfied. All the Dems needed were Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Spector to join. Those are three RINOs who you knew would cave easily. The word is that this is all they willget with the bill as it is. It will be enough to pass it but it will not buy Obama the political cover he wished for. This thing will be fully on his and the Dems head. Very, very little of the money will actually be in serious play this year. So how this has anything to do with stopping the recession is a mystery to me. This is 90% about advance big government social programs from a veritable Democrat buffet of wishes.

There's little point to Republican states not taking the money as it will be spent anyway and likely in even worse ways.

I think it's a no win situation for Obama, beej. He's trying to include the repubs, responding to their input, and they knee cap him anyway. The dems have the votes and should go with their plan and live with the consequences. Tough to make big spending charges stick after eight years of record deficits. I expect that you will continue to express "concern" about the spending, though I never read any of your "concerns" on spending when that "good man" was prez.

[gopherjay]

Neither have the ability to take care of this country nor can be trusted, both parties have out lived their ability to deal with the modern world. Until a third party rises, we will be stuck in incompetence, greed, immorality and self service. This country is being crafted to compete with the second tier countries with respect to education and the standard of living. We will shortly be a follower instead of a leader.

[bga1]

I think it's a no win situation for Obama, beej. He's trying to include the repubs, responding to their input, and they knee cap him anyway. The dems have the votes and should go with their plan and live with the consequences. Tough to make big spending charges stick after eight years of record deficits. I expect that you will continue to express "concern" about the spending, though I never read any of your "concerns" on spending when that "good man" was prez.

If he's trying to include the Repubs I would be interested as to your take on how the sow of a stimulus bill arose out of the House. There wasn't a thing in there that Repubs would advocate for. If you are going to defend him by saying that Obama has no control over Pelosi, then that's another issue.

[jamiche]

If he's trying to include the Repubs I would be interested as to your take on how the sow of a stimulus bill arose out of the House. There wasn't a thing in there that Repubs would advocate for. If you are going to defend him by saying that Obama has no control over Pelosi, then that's another issue.

He has actively reached out to senate repubs, giving them extraordinary input into the stimulus bill, and still only got three votes. I was gone on vacation and haven't followed his outreach, if any, in the House.

Where was your outrage when your hero was running up massive deficits, never vetoing a spending bill until his last few months in office? You guys had your turn and the country is in the worst economic shape of my lifetime. Nuff said.

[Goldy74s]

So the "Brewster Defense" (it is all Mason's fault) will be good for how long in the case of Bush/Obama? It is good for five maybe six years for Brewster (according to some), but how many years will it float for Obama? My guess would be that it may float for four years.

[jamiche]

Bush left the country in much, much worse shape than he found it. Placing the blame on Bush's policies and practices will have credence for quite a while.

[Goldy74s]

I would think a man with Obama's family tree would want to establish himself as being responsible for his own actions.

[Schnoodler]

I would think a man with Obama's family tree would want to establish himself as being responsible for his own actions.


What do you mean?

[Gopher4Life]

jamiche,

>>Bush left the country in much, much worse shape than he found it.<<

In fairness, he had to deal with 9-11. Given the seriousness of that event, I have no reason to believe that Gore or Kerry would've done any better.

As you know, I supported going to war...as did nearly all of our Congress. However, I've been appalled by the way the war has been protracted and the unbelievable price tag (so far). Minus 9-11 and the war, Bush might have led much differently while President.

In many ways, Bush abandoned conservative principles once he won re-election. In doing so, he guaranteed Democratic victory in 08. For that, he should be your hero.

[Schnoodler]

There's almost always a silver lining isn't there?

[Gopher4Life]

Yes, for the short-sighted, every move toward socialism looks pretty darn good.

[Schnoodler]

You're so ignorant it's getting old man. Just like you.

[Gopher4Life]

I guess that makes you childishly naive, no? If you can't see that European-style socialism is just around the corner, I'm not the ignorant one.

[Schnoodler]

blah blah blah socialist, blah blah blah socialist, blah blah blah socialist.

Just cut and paste that G4 it'll be a lot easier for you.

[Gopher4Life]

Wow, I can't top that. I guess you win.

[Schnoodler]

It's about time. Thanks for the concession speech.

[jamiche]

jamiche,

>>Bush left the country in much, much worse shape than he found it.<<

In fairness, he had to deal with 9-11. Given the seriousness of that event, I have no reason to believe that Gore or Kerry would've done any better.

As you know, I supported going to war...as did nearly all of our Congress. However, I've been appalled by the way the war has been protracted and the unbelievable price tag (so far). Minus 9-11 and the war, Bush might have led much differently while President.

In many ways, Bush abandoned conservative principles once he won re-election. In doing so, he guaranteed Democratic victory in 08. For that, he should be your hero.

Bush never was a conservative. He was a radical.

[Gopher4Life]

Radical?

He said he was a conservative, but he became lost. It turned out he was part puppet and part stubborn.

[JimmyJamesMD]

Can someone please explain to me how this "Stimulus Bill" is going to stimulate the economy over the long run? My Finance/Economics degree is really failing me on this one. I just don't understand.

[Schnoodler]

The multiplication effect of money. Money circulates and goes through many hands before the governmetn gobbles it back up. the two thoughts are to put the money in the hands of those who can create jobs (supply side) or to get the money into the hands of those who have the lowest tax rates and the propensity to spend directly into the economy. this creates greater expansion as the money will circulate more before the process of returning it to the government via taxation.

the difficulty we have now is that unlike the 70's there is no demand. blindly throwing money at the supply side will not create jobs since job creation is still dependent on demand. So where does that money go then, luxury goods which will help but less so as the money circulates less before taxation eats it.

so how then do you get expansion from spending. Creating jobs is still the goal, and without demand, without a private sector to rely on for this task, infrastructure spendeng is the only way. Thus money for parks, roads, any building project. it really doesn't matter as long as there is a long lasting improvement. Other things that can work in this climate, and less desirable than infrastructure is short term stimulus to stop gap progarams like Unemployment. It doesn't leave behind an improvement like infrastructure spending but the money gets a full ride before it gets gobbled up via taxation as the first or second times around the money is lightly taxed. And of course all that money will flow through the gas stations, grocery stores, and such on it's way back to the government. Hopefully they also pay dividends in keeping other associated costs lower.

In micro theory more closely associated with finance this is all gobbily gook.

so the answer is found in the expansion/contraction theories on money.

[JimmyJamesMD]

I am now on board with the entire Stimulus Bill.

Thank you.

[bga1]

JJ- Schnoodler is a pretty knowledgable guy on economics. However, there's a lot he didn't tell you here. Maybe you don't care, but there's a very good share of this spending that won't stimulate a thing. Much of it will occur in years to come when we may be well removed from this recession. Also, remember that a dollar spent by the government must be a dollar removed from the people at some point. There is no magic wand.

Then realize that spending programs once installed are almost impossible to get reduced. Many of these "stimulus" items are actually long term entitlement programs that will make government permanantly bigger by an estimated $300 billion per year. Those dollars will have to be extracted from taxpayers.
Finally, realize the deal with the devil being made here. This will help some short term- how much, no one knows. But it will most certainly do long term damage as verified in the past week by the CBO.

Here's a funny but perplexing note in an article this morning by Mort Kondrake ( a slightly left leaning moderate):

<"Both Republicans and Democrats are citing work by Obama's chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer.

She wrote in a 2007 paper that tax cuts "have very large and persistent output effects" and Republicans assert her model shows that $1 of tax cuts produces $3 of growth.

However, in a paper on the White House Web site, she asserts that $1 of spending produces $1.50 in output, whereas tax cuts produce $1. Who knows which is right?">

[Oscar Munson]

Only a truly delusional wingnut would refer to Mort Kondracke as a left leaning moderate. The right wing echo chamber has officially rotted your brain, seek help immediately.

[bga1]

Only a truly delusional wingnut would refer to Mort Kondracke as a left leaning moderate. The right wing echo chamber has officially rotted your brain, seek help immediately.

Thanks for the validation Oscar. Any doubts I have are now erased. If I am a little insane by your view, now I am certain that I am good to go for the next 10 years at least. :)

Seriously Oscar- listen to Mort sometime -he's a counterpoint to Fred Barnes on the Beltway Boys.
He's well reasoned most of the time but often tilts a hair left.

[Gopher4Life]

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

Bless his deceitful little heart, Obama is already in over his head.

[Schnoodler]

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

Bless his deceitful little heart, Obama is already in over his head.


G4L are you telling me that the cato institute, the home of autrian economic thought does not believe in keyensian economics. That's startling news. Thanks for being a dope.

[Gopher4Life]

I'm telling you that Obama is playing a lot of people for the suckers they are. And some of you are letting him get away with it.

[Schnoodler]

I'll continue with mainstream economic thought, you continue with baseless bashing. It's a workable dynamic.

[Gopher4Life]

You haven't demonstrated any elevated thought so far. In fact, you're acting fairly naive about hidden agendas, language of bills, political deceit, and slides toward socialism. But please continue.

[monk10]

In before socialism comment.

Edit: DAMN TOO LATE