Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/29/09 01:05 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 1/29/09 01:01 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 1/28/09 11:46 PM, TimeLordX wrote: This looks like pork to me:

Really? To me...

I should also add that some of the things there are aid to the impoverished to help them get out of poverty. This goes without saying as stimulating the economy.

So the government (which is broke) is going to spend money (which it doesn't have) to help the needy get out of poverty?

Am I the only one who sees the lolz in that?

At 1/29/09 12:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/29/09 12:51 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

The dictatorship of the majority. Under this circumstances, the only institution that stands in defense of the Republic is the Supreme Court. Luckily for you, you have a cool Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, as much as a hate the tryanny of the major, this is one of the benefits of a reprsentitive government.
The only problem is that people get to vote for thier senators.

Experience has shown me that, when the president of a nation has also the majority in Congress, the Constitution is not respected much.

There's no special majority for this kind of law, right? Because if there isn't, it should pass with ease, given the majority the Democrats have in the Senate as well.

It's majority for any bill unless the president veto's the bill. Then you need 2/3 majority.

We have certain laws that require a special majority, like proposals for constitutional reform (2/3), impeachments (2/3), the law that says how the tax pie is going to be distributed among provinces and federal govt (absolute majority of the total number of the members of each chamber).

The only real hope to stopping it, is that while the Democrats do hold a large majority in the Senate, it isn't as bas as the House of Representatives. So the only real hope would be that you could get enough moderate Democrats on the Republican side, which will probally not happen.

Yeah, I don't think so either.

At 1/29/09 12:55 PM, homor wrote: we can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to improve.

Actually, that's how fiscal policy basically works.

we need to find a better wat to handle this situation then this crap.

What ideas do you have?

At 1/29/09 01:58 PM, Memorize wrote: So the government (which is broke) is going to spend money (which it doesn't have) to help the needy get out of poverty?

Am I the only one who sees the lolz in that?

I was responding to the so-called pork spending in the Act, not to how the government would help the needy out of poverty. In response to how the government would do that...

Helping the needy get out of poverty would lead to them helping to stimulate the economy, also. While the money used to help them get out of poverty would result in more debt, the money gained from them being able to now pay their taxes, loans, and purchase goods will eventually give the government more revenue than it lost. It ultimately results in a period of debt followed by a period of profit.

But there is no way to get out of debt by increasing spending WITHOUT increasing taxes. Obviously, spending is necessary to stimulate businesses, but cutting taxes at the same time won't bring in enough revenue to fill the debt. Taxes have to be raised, unfortunately.

At 1/29/09 01:01 PM, Achilles2 wrote: Really?

No Wai

To me, all of those look like relief to the lower middle class, relief to those entrapped in the housing crisis,

Yes, relief from the housing crisis they(democrats) were mostly responsible for in the first place.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=n ewsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.x pd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMo nofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx 002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm 109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlEleme ntm0m0m0m

aid to the retired, and reassurance of medical benefits to workers.

Yes, because that'sthe governments job - to ensure everyone lives a comfortable life. Not just some neo-political philosophy of bullshit and dependence.

In the end, these will cause the lower middle class and the retired to have more money to spend and pay their bills,

It's neither yours, mine or the government's concern if people have money to spend. Let people live with their mistakes: the government's only going to fuck up things worse.

which will stimulate the economy.

Yes, because the pitiful amount of money these people get are going to be well-spent. No, it's not going to help. It's going to due more harm because the gov's spending our money(Or rather devaluing the dollar) by excessive spending. Government got us in to this crisis in the first place and now there are those naive enough to believe it can solve it. Oh, I forgot. His messiah Obama is in power now. He'll save us! Never mind the fact he was instrumental in the financial crisis to begin with...

People will also be able to pay off their mortgage,

HAH! You know what will solve the mortgage crisis? Eradicate the GSEs such as Mac and Mae(considering they hold half of the entire nation's mortgage debts, arrest the politicians responsible(Barney Frank), and quit handing out mortgages to low income and bad credit families.

which will stimulate the economy.

Um, it's what got us into the crisis to begin with. Gov throwing large amounts of money and losing tabs on billions of it in the process.

Also, workers rights will be reinforced, which is necessary for a healthier working environment.

More and more I'm being convinced outsourcing is a good thing....

How is any of that pork?

It's pork in the respect it's spending our money on specific projects.

At 1/29/09 03:26 PM, Zeistro wrote:

At 1/29/09 01:01 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

Yes, relief from the housing crisis they(democrats) were mostly responsible for in the first place.

Oh, not this bullshit again. Yes, the Democrats are in part responsible, but pretending that it was all the democrats is more partisan hackery at its finest. This wouldn't have happened either had Greenspan not tried to inflate his way out of the tech boom burst, making credit the price of toilet paper. This would wouldn't have happened had the damned banks not package toilet paper into AAA rated securities, nor would it have happened had the banks done their due diligence and actually checked the information their loan customers were writing on their applications. Hell, last year I was unemployed for six months, and my credit card company doubled my limit! The Democrats do have their share of the blame, but to pretend that this is only the fault of the Democrats is nonsense.

aid to the retired, and reassurance of medical benefits to workers.

Yes, because that'sthe governments job - to ensure everyone lives a comfortable life. Not just some neo-political philosophy of bullshit and dependence.

Do you have any idea how bad this is going to get? I think this 'stimulus plan' isn't going to do shit, though I support the portions devoted to rebuilding our infrastructure, but this goes beyond making sure people are comfortable. Even if the government did nothing, a lot of people who are responsible are going to be suffering before this is over.

It's neither yours, mine or the government's concern if people have money to spend. Let people live with their mistakes: the government's only going to fuck up things worse.

Do you have to work for a living? Have you ever? Do you support yourself, and I mean entirely and not with student loans? If not, then please drop the self righteous nonsense. I don't come in here too often anymore because I easily become sick and tired of college and high school students bleating on and on about personal responsibility when they themselves have not had a real chance to make any serious mistakes yet.

Again, I will state that the government is screwing up with all of this, and I'm afraid of what could happen to our currency if this blows up. At the same time, stop pretending that everyone who is going to be affected by this ultimately deserved this. People who worked hard daily, saved money, and bought a reasonable home are losing their jobs. People who put those savings into investments that were falsely rated are going to lose their retirement money. What mistake did these people make? Assuming that laws were being enforced, that's what. I

People will also be able to pay off their mortgage,

HAH! You know what will solve the mortgage crisis? Eradicate the GSEs such as Mac and Mae(considering they hold half of the entire nation's mortgage debts, arrest the politicians responsible(Barney Frank), and quit handing out mortgages to low income and bad credit families

Yes, but will you arrest those in the financial sector who are responsible as well?

We knew that the mortgage-brokerage industry was corrupt," the first of the retired FBI officials told the Seattle P-I. "Where we would have gotten a sense of what was really going on was the point where the mortgage was sold knowing that it was a piece of dung and it would be turned into a security. But the agents with the expertise had been diverted to counterterrorism." ...

Both retired FBI officials asserted that the Bush administration was thoroughly briefed on the mortgage fraud crisis and its potential to cascade out of control with devastating financial consequences, but made the decision not to give back to the FBI the agents it needed to address the problem. After the terrorist attacks of 2001, about 2,400 agents were reassigned to counterterrorism duties.

Yes, that's right, they've known about this for five years! Corruption is widespread throughout the industry. Or do you only intend on arresting those that don't share your political inclinations?

which will stimulate the economy.

Um, it's what got us into the crisis to begin with. Gov throwing large amounts of money and losing tabs on billions of it in the process.

Also thank the Federal Reserve, which isn't owned by the govnerment.

Also, workers rights will be reinforced, which is necessary for a healthier working environment.

It's pork in the respect it's spending our money on specific projects.

You are aware that our infrastructure does need a good deal of maintenance, right?

At 1/28/09 11:24 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 1/28/09 11:07 PM, TimeLordX wrote: What stimulus? This is the biggest pork sandwich ever. Pork never created new jobs...

Are you even remotely familiar with the bill, or did you take Boehner's word as the Word of the Lord?

While there are things in that package that we can do without, everything in it is aimed at creating new jobs under various methods. Some create millions, others create hundreds, others create tens, but they all create jobs.

i agree that this isn't pork spending...

While it's true that public works do create jobs, more jobs are 'lost' in the sense that they are not made, because the government has to either one, tax the people to get the money for the public works... and government's never create as many real jobs as businessmen. or, the money must be borrowed or simply printed in which case you have the invisible tax called inflation.

encouraging people to spend ignores the fact that recessions are a message from the market that people were spending beyond their means... the fact that the government is encouraging people to spend by giving them money that was spent beyond THEIR means doesn't solve the problem.

in a free market recessions make short work of people who overspend.

The truth behind the consolidated omnibus budget reconciliation act (Cobra)

At 1/29/09 03:26 PM, Zeistro wrote: Yes, relief from the housing crisis they(democrats) were mostly responsible for in the first place.

The American people don't get a flying fuck who caused it. We care about who will end it.

Yes, because that'sthe governments job - to ensure everyone lives a comfortable life. Not just some neo-political philosophy of bullshit and dependence.

No, that's not dependence on the government; it's called the government doing its job. It's supposed to make sure that people have the opportunity to "pursue their full measure of happiness" by creating job opportunities, making sure that people are safe at work, school, etc., making sure that the citizens have a good healthcare system, and so on.

It's neither yours, mine or the government's concern if people have money to spend. Let people live with their mistakes: the government's only going to fuck up things worse.

It's not your concern, but it is mine and it is certainly the government's. Not all people who are poor are 100% responsible for their mistakes, if at all responsible. Not caring about the money people have will result in people having NO money, which will result in $0 revenue, which will result in the collapse of the United States.

Yes, because the pitiful amount of money these people get are going to be well-spent. No, it's not going to help.

Yes, because the way 1,000 people spent their money is the same way 10,000,000 will spend their money.

That was sarcasm.

Also, it will help because people will spend their money wisely. The majority of these people will spend the extra cash on their bills and debts, which will no doubt stimulate the economy. In fact, not paying debts is what got us into this crisis in the first place. Paying back debts will be what helps us get out.

It's going to due more harm because the gov's spending our money(Or rather devaluing the dollar) by excessive spending. Government got us in to this crisis in the first place and now there are those naive enough to believe it can solve it. Oh, I forgot. His messiah Obama is in power now. He'll save us! Never mind the fact he was instrumental in the financial crisis to begin with...

1 Senator can't bring an entire economic crisis onto the United States. But that's beside the point.

The government is the only one who can solve this crisis due to the fact that the crisis is about the loss of money the government has and the loss of jobs and homes the people have---something that is largely regulated by the government.

HAH! You know what will solve the mortgage crisis? Eradicate the GSEs such as Mac and Mae(considering they hold half of the entire nation's mortgage debts, arrest the politicians responsible(Barney Frank), and quit handing out mortgages to low income and bad credit families.

Exactly. But since mortgages have already been handed out to those who obviously can't pay them, give those with debt the boost they need to pay back their debts. If debts are never payed back, then this economy can never come back. That's why I put so much importance on creating new jobs and giving out support to lower income families.

Um, it's what got us into the crisis to begin with. Gov throwing large amounts of money and losing tabs on billions of it in the process.

This crisis was caused by lack of government oversight in the market, which allowed for far too many bad mortgages and loans to be put up and brought. Debts were created and never payed back, companies and banks lost millions, companies and banks collapsed. Due to many of these bad mortgages being related to homes and home owners, this also led to a housing crisis.

More and more I'm being convinced outsourcing is a good thing....

So that the US will have to import more than it exports, thus losing millions in revenue? So that American people lose their jobs, and cannot pay their debts and make little income, which results in losing millions in revenue?

At 1/29/09 02:15 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 1/29/09 12:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/29/09 12:51 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

Experience has shown me that, when the president of a nation has also the majority in Congress, the Constitution is not respected much.

Agreed, but this is our representative government in action. Usually, such power as this never lasts past 1 term.

We have certain laws that require a special majority, like proposals for constitutional reform (2/3), impeachments (2/3), the law that says how the tax pie is going to be distributed among provinces and federal govt (absolute majority of the total number of the members of each chamber).

I forgot to add those, but those are a given. A constitutional Ammendment can be only formed by a 2/3 majority in House and Senate or a 2/3 majority of the state's conventions for such an ammendment.

Impeachment is also the same, in respect to the two houses of Congress. The House of Representatives needs a 2/3 to bring an Impeachment trial forward, and the Senate needs a 2/3 majority to convict him.

And taxes, well thats simply majority. Which means tax and spend, insteand of debt and spend

At 1/28/09 11:28 PM, Mr-Money wrote: What we have here is a complete dictatorship. When not a single Republican votes for it -- and it still passes -- that is horrendous.

Remember that there are 244 democrats to 188 republicans. So, the democrats, by law, had a large enough majority to pass it on to the senate. As well, the alternative proposed by several Republicans lost in a resounding 266-170.

At 1/29/09 02:31 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

Helping the needy get out of poverty would lead to them helping to stimulate the economy, also. While the money used to help

What money?

But there is no way to get out of debt by increasing spending WITHOUT increasing taxes.

Since when has spending ever gotten us out of debt?

Taxes have to be raised, unfortunately.

That's simply talk from those who don't want to cut the massive spending.

For example: If we got our military out of the 134 countries they're in, we would save $1 trillion a year.

Then there's the Federal Reserve (an unconstutional organization created by the government in 1913).
Then there's the Dept of Homeland Security.
Then there's the Dept of Education.
The IRS.

If we would just fix social security instead of waiting around for it to explode like we did with Oil, we could literally end up saving Trillions of dollars.

And we wouldn't have to increase a single tax.

At 1/29/09 04:19 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: While it's true that public works do create jobs, more jobs are 'lost' in the sense that they are not made, because the government has to either one, tax the people to get the money for the public works... and government's never create as many real jobs as businessmen. or, the money must be borrowed or simply printed in which case you have the invisible tax called inflation.

During recessions, the are lots of unemployed resources (the most important one, labor) with increased govt spending in public works, the government is simply taken labor that nobody would use, it's not taking it away from private production. Certain types of taxation (namely, indirect taxes or payroll taxes) would lead to a reduction in private employment, but those kind of taxes aren't going to be implemented. A tax that may be increase is the income tax for those in the highest income bracket, which would bring equality and would not affect efficiency, since it is unlikely that someone is going to work harder if they get a 100 grand raise when they're making half a million. More precisely, the supply curve of high-earners is vertical, tending to be negative.
Inflation should be the least of your worries right now. Firstly, because it is unlikely that you are going to face an inflationary scenario even with a budget deep in the red, even if it's in the trillions. With the current recessive scenario, no businessman would think of raising prices; they're much more scared of losing market-share (or what's even worse, market) and go bankrupt. Secondly, you actually want to have a moderate inflation, since that would mean that the real interest rate of the FED is actually negative, which would be a big stimulus to start spending and getting the economy back in its tracks, and would take you out of the current liquidity-trap status.
Finally, it is the perfect time (for the developed word) to borrow money, because capital is flying out of the emerging world into safer nations like Japan, Germany and the US. Debt is a problem in the US, true, but it's a problem you'll have to deal with in the long term, when the economy becomes stable again.

At 1/29/09 12:51 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 1/28/09 09:36 PM, Al6200 wrote: I don't think that the bailout is that bad of an idea. They way the money is going to be spent isn't great, but it's not all that bad either. Spending more money on college education and infrastructure is prudent, but I wish that there would've been more allocation based on merit as opposed to need, IMO.

For example?

The money is not being used efficiently. The budget of the (entirely need based) Pell Grant is going to get an extra 8 billion USD. For that amount of money you could give every kid with an SAT of 2150 (about 2 standard deviations above the mean) or higher on the SAT a full scholarship to an expensive private college. Putting the money into Pell Grants will just send more poor people to college for free, whether or not they are studying something useful or making a relatively good investment. Giving the money to the most gifted high school students

Furthermore, college education could be better improved (and for free, I might add) by requiring that it should be possible to default on all student loans. Democrats would whine about how it would stop poor kids from going to college. But isn't it better for them to not go to college than to be saddled with a huge debt that they can't pay back.

You read stories all the time about people who easily get 85k of student loans to get a liberal arts degree from a fourth tier college. No one would give a loan to that person and expect them to pay it back, but that's not a problem for an unscrupulous lender if they can't declare bankruptcy.

--

Tax cuts are also a dumb form of stimulus, because all but the poor and working class will save any money that they get. More money needs to be spent directly, like on a national program to go 100% nuclear.

You have the dollar-making machine, you are the richest country in the world, you have never defaulted your debt. Money is fleeing from emerging countries into the developed world: The US, Japan, and Germany mostly.

Fair enough. If I were the leader of Zimbabwe, I'd probably use the euro or dollar as an official currency, just so that people will think that the country is a reasonably safe investment.

At 1/29/09 04:23 PM, n64kid wrote: The truth behind the consolidated omnibus budget reconciliation act (Cobra)

It can't be Cobra...because this looks like it will actually get enacted. Cobra plans always fall apart because somebody gets mad at Cobra Commander and backstabs him at the brink of victory...or he pisses somebody off with his hubris and they backstab him...

Yes...I did watch too much G.I. Joe as a child. Also nice to see somebody trying to remember that you can still have some FUN with these sorts of discussions.

At 1/29/09 01:05 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 1/29/09 01:01 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 1/28/09 11:46 PM, TimeLordX wrote: This looks like pork to me:

Really? To me...

I should also add that some of the things there are aid to the impoverished to help them get out of poverty. This goes without saying as stimulating the economy.

Again, I reiterate: How does becoming MORE dependent on the gov't get one out of poverty? Having the gov't pay for everything isn't much of an incentive to go out there and find a job (or a better one). You want a REAL stimulus? 1. Freeze spending 2. CUT TAXES!

At 1/29/09 10:58 PM, Al6200 wrote: The money is not being used efficiently. The budget of the (entirely need based) Pell Grant is going to get an extra 8 billion USD. For that amount of money you could give every kid with an SAT of 2150 (about 2 standard deviations above the mean) or higher on the SAT a full scholarship to an expensive private college. Putting the money into Pell Grants will just send more poor people to college for free, whether or not they are studying something useful or making a relatively good investment. Giving the money to the most gifted high school students

I don't fully disagree with Obama's plan. As PISA has found out (page 34), the biggest determinant in academic success is socio-economic level. If you base grants in merits only, you'd be subsidizing those who can afford to go to college. What could be done is to establish a grant that is based on academic performance, but favors the poor; eg a person that comes from a family that makes less than 40k a year gets an extra point in his/her GPA.

Furthermore, college education could be better improved (and for free, I might add) by requiring that it should be possible to default on all student loans. Democrats would whine about how it would stop poor kids from going to college. But isn't it better for them to not go to college than to be saddled with a huge debt that they can't pay back.

You read stories all the time about people who easily get 85k of student loans to get a liberal arts degree from a fourth tier college. No one would give a loan to that person and expect them to pay it back, but that's not a problem for an unscrupulous lender if they can't declare bankruptcy.

I see the incentive problem, yes.
Why was the impossibility to default students loans established in the first place?

--

Tax cuts are also a dumb form of stimulus, because all but the poor and working class will save any money that they get. More money needs to be spent directly, like on a national program to go 100% nuclear.

Oh you and nuclear :P
Also, you got the spending/tax-cut difference, here's your Keynesian cookie!
*Keynesian cookie*

You have the dollar-making machine, you are the richest country in the world, you have never defaulted your debt. Money is fleeing from emerging countries into the developed world: The US, Japan, and Germany mostly.

Fair enough. If I were the leader of Zimbabwe, I'd probably use the euro or dollar as an official currency, just so that people will think that the country is a reasonably safe investment.

Been there, done that.

At 1/28/09 09:36 PM, Al6200 wrote:

:: Tax cuts are also a dumb form of stimulus, because all but the poor and working class will save any money that they get. More money needs to be spent directly, like on a national program to go 100% nuclear.

Uh, no they are not. Tax cuts got us out of the malaise of the 70's and into that prosperous decade known as the 80'. "A rising tide lifts all boats"-that's tax cuts in a nutshell.

At 1/30/09 12:10 AM, TimeLordX wrote:

At 1/29/09 01:05 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 1/29/09 01:01 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 1/28/09 11:46 PM, TimeLordX wrote:

Again, I reiterate: How does becoming MORE dependent on the gov't get one out of poverty? Having the gov't pay for everything isn't much of an incentive to go out there and find a job (or a better one). You want a REAL stimulus? 1. Freeze spending 2. CUT TAXES!

Government spends money on projects. Projects require workers. People get jobs working on these projects. I don't see how this is the same as going out and collecting welfare, unless you are implying that working for the government doing necessary work is somehow morally different from doing it for a private corporation. You also seem to lump in people who lost their jobs due to the recession with individuals who sit on their ass and do nothing all day.

Also, I have serious doubts about both freezing spending and cutting taxes. The Bush Tax cuts didn't do crap for us, and our infrastructure is in serious need of repair. Should we wait until another levy breaks or bridge collapses before doing something. I don't like borrowing any more money either, but we can't afford to wait on this. If the infrastructure continues to deteriorate, it will also inhibit transportation and communications further inhibiting business.

--off topic--

Dr. Who fan by any chance?

At 1/30/09 12:12 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

I don't fully disagree with Obama's plan. As PISA has found out (page 34), the biggest determinant in academic success is socio-economic level.
If you base grants in merits only, you'd be subsidizing those who can afford to go to college.

I don't think that this would necessarily be a bad thing. Why not invest the largest sums of money in the most qualified students, and then redistribute their income later? A wealthy man with a great gift in mathematics could probably do way more with 200,000 USD then an engineer-in-training like me, even though I need it more than he does.

Even for the wealthiest of students, 160k USD is not a trivial amount of money (which is where I got the 9 billion figure from).

What could be done is to establish a grant that is based on academic performance, but favors the poor; eg a person that comes from a family that makes less than 40k a year gets an extra point in his/her GPA.

That's not a bad idea. Given equal qualifications, a poor person should probably get one boost to correct for the impact of their education on their academic merits, and then a second boost for the purpose of building equality. I don't have the numbers to know how big such a boost would be, although 1 point on an American GPA is a HUGE boost. At my HS, a 3.5 was a mediocre GPA. A 3.8 was good. And a 4.0 was great.

I see the incentive problem, yes.
Why was the impossibility to default students loans established in the first place?

Lenders go along with it because they get more money. Students go along with it because our society has a mythos of "Education is always a good investment", which reflects the fact that education is useful - but doesn't reflect the reality of the costs of education or the jobs that could be done with less education. The government keeps supporting it because they want more student loans to be given out, to let poor people go to college (even if they don't learn any useful job skills and rake up loads of debt).

Oh you and nuclear :P

Well, it seems like a good idea. It'll create construction jobs for the working class, engineering jobs for the upper middle class, and free radiation for the mutant class.

Also, you got the spending/tax-cut difference, here's your Keynesian cookie!
*Keynesian cookie*

Mmmm... If only the Keynesian multiplier applied to cookies.

At 1/30/09 12:16 AM, TimeLordX wrote:

Uh, no they are not. Tax cuts got us out of the malaise of the 70's and into that prosperous decade known as the 80'. "A rising tide lifts all boats"-that's tax cuts in a nutshell.

Even though the tax cuts were financed with debt?

That being said, I don't necessarily oppose tax cuts. If the government has no useful way to spend the money, or if we want to increase the savings rate - tax cuts are a good idea.

At 1/29/09 11:55 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/29/09 04:23 PM, n64kid wrote: The truth behind the consolidated omnibus budget reconciliation act (Cobra)

It can't be Cobra...because this looks like it will actually get enacted. Cobra plans always fall apart because somebody gets mad at Cobra Commander and backstabs him at the brink of victory...or he pisses somebody off with his hubris and they backstab him...

Cobama Commander's plan may very well fall apart. If this bill doesn't stimulate the economy quickly it's going to be hard to stop the public from getting pissed and drop his approval ratings, which could trigger a media backstab which could blow his odds of reelection. Only way he could win after that would be the way Bush won in '04. Only way he could win then would be if the republicans fail to put forth a candidate that is even remotely electable.

Yes...I did watch too much G.I. Joe as a child. Also nice to see somebody trying to remember that you can still have some FUN with these sorts of discussions.

and now that we think of it... Obama does resemble cobra commander in some subtle way....

As I was at work today, doing my job which consists of sitting around making sure no one tries to vandalize or steal the vehicles I'm guarding, I figured out whole stimulus plot.

It's quite ingenious and the plan is phenomenal. Many people grip that it won't do anything for the economy for 2-3 years, which is PERFECT.

As the economy continues to go down the toilet, Obama continues to blame the usual culprits, Bush and Wall Street. of course, Obama is up for reelection in 2012. in 4 years. If they fix the economy in the next year, something could happen in that time that could undermine the presidency and its chance of reelection. If the economy continues to deteriorate and the mass media continues to keep the people distracted from what is really going on, they'll never notice that this plan will start to help the economy just in time for midterm elections and Obama's reelection.

And the republican opposition? That's part of the plan too. Obama tells the republicans "you can go to hell, this is OUR time! YOU do as WE say!" and the republicans reply with, "ORLY? We'll oppose this bill!" and they do.

And as the plan goes into effect and the economy begins to slowly recover, Obama will point to it and say, "You see that? I did that. The Democrats did that in the face of Republican Opposition." Then the short sighted blind sheep will say, "He's done it! he finally turned the economy around and fixed all of Bush's problems!" then he gets reelected with maybe even a stronger house and senate majority where he can safely pass any law he desires to further consolidate their power and shut out the opposition in our government.

That's my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

At 1/30/09 07:46 PM, Korriken wrote:

That's my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

Then I will offer one in response. The Republicans are being obstructionist to demonize the Obama administration. They really don't care about fiscal responsibility, as they've pretty much demonstrated when they held the reigns of power from 2000-2006. If these Congressmen are really all about fiscal restraint, then they will do everything they can to prevent their districts from receiving stimulus aid.

The truth is that there is probably a lot more about who is getting the benefits than idealogical battle lines. With the Democrats in power, most of the benefits from the stimulus are likely going to benefit the Democratic districts the most. I don't think Obama is trying to strategize for the 20012 election. I think most of this is all about each getting what they can for their districts while scoring political points.

At 1/30/09 12:29 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

At 1/30/09 12:10 AM, TimeLordX wrote:

At 1/29/09 01:05 PM, Achilles2 wrote: At 1/29/09 01:01 PM, Achilles2 wrote::

Government spends money on projects. Projects require workers. People get jobs working on these projects. I don't see how this is the same as going out and collecting welfare, unless you are implying that working for the government doing necessary work is somehow morally different from doing it for a private corporation. You also seem to lump in people who lost their jobs due to the recession with individuals who sit on their ass and do nothing all day.

--off topic--

Dr. Who fan by any chance?

read this: Stimulus or Pork?
I dunno about you, but his doesn't look like much of a stimulus to me...
A real stimulus, in my opinion, would have more items that would help the private sector, not the public sector.
A better idea?

--off topic--
yes I am. Allons-y!

Everyone has failed to mention how the GOP was pussyfooting around with the media, proclaiming how they felt Obama was a great leader and that the stimulus was a brilliant display of bipartisan work. Sounds like this "rejection" had little to do with fiscal ideology and more to do with party politics.

And someone was wondering when government spending ever helped solve a financial crisis? Government spending rarely helps solve anything, if the government is only throwing money at the problem. Government spending ALWAYS works when the government is throwing money into new jobs. Remember WWII? :)

At 1/30/09 10:05 PM, rainmaker wrote: Everyone has failed to mention how the GOP was pussyfooting around with the media, proclaiming how they felt Obama was a great leader and that the stimulus was a brilliant display of bipartisan work. Sounds like this "rejection" had little to do with fiscal ideology and more to do with party politics.

Uhm I don't follow the logic. The GOP hates the stimulus plan because there's no stimulus of the private sector. Saying that they support Obama as the president but being against a bill that Obama himself claims as "not perfect" isn't party politics, it's a package that goes against the Republican party platform.

And someone was wondering when government spending ever helped solve a financial crisis? Government spending rarely helps solve anything, if the government is only throwing money at the problem. Government spending ALWAYS works when the government is throwing money into new jobs. Remember WWII? :)

What you said isn't really coherent and really doesn't make sense to me. Can you rephrase it?

I assume you mean WWII getting us out of the recession, but that spending was on the military, which works like 3 out of 3 times. Government spending on jobs, like what happened in the 70s, not involving the military, is like 0 for 7.

At 1/30/09 10:05 PM, rainmaker wrote: Everyone has failed to mention how the GOP was pussyfooting around with the media, proclaiming how they felt Obama was a great leader and that the stimulus was a brilliant display of bipartisan work. Sounds like this "rejection" had little to do with fiscal ideology and more to do with party politics.

Party politics have dominated in America since the 1800s. I'm not surprised.

And someone was wondering when government spending ever helped solve a financial crisis? Government spending rarely helps solve anything, if the government is only throwing money at the problem. Government spending ALWAYS works when the government is throwing money into new jobs. Remember WWII? :)

I don't know, that's a shady comparison. FDR's spending policies didn't do much at all before we were dragged into WWII. Then again, that was a totally different time period, not a great comparison to the present day.

At 1/28/09 11:49 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/28/09 11:46 PM, TimeLordX wrote: This looks like pork to me:

Doesn't to me (except maybe the Nutrition Programs. Fuck that, parents should be handling that) but the rest of it looks like programs we actually need in an economy where people are losing jobs left and right.

There's $345 million for Agriculture Department computers, $650 million for TV converter boxes, $15 billion for college scholarships. There's $1 billion to deal with Census problems and $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building next year. The Senate would devote $2.1 billion to pay off a looming shortfall in public housing accounts, $870 million to combat the flu and $400 million to slow the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia. There's also $380 million in the Senate bill for a rainy day fund for the Women, Infants and Children program that delivers healthful food to the poor. WIC got the equivalent of a $1 billion infusion last fall.

For example, just one-third of $30 billion proposed by the House for highway construction would reach the economy in the next year and a half, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Full article

At 1/30/09 10:05 PM, rainmaker wrote: Remember WWII? :)

except new exidence shows FDR's extra spending did NOTHING.

so no, goverment spending doesn't help.

At 1/31/09 02:48 PM, Psycho-Medic wrote: more info Timelordx would have been well served to provide.

See, that's a horse of a different color. What TLX was showing me was stuff that did not in anyway look like pork spending, but spending to try and ramp up already existing programs that could conceivably help. I was commenting solely on what he was linking.