2009 Stimulus package, now with more pork. *updated! obama signs. (sad face)* [Mobile/Archive]

View Full Version : 2009 Stimulus package, now with more pork. *updated! obama signs. (sad face)*

Pages : [1] 2

RAMSTORIA

02-02-2009, 04:35 PM

OP

The $1.17 trillion stimulus bill passed by House Democrats on Wednesday bears little resemblance to the bill originally proposed by President Obama, with less than 5 percent of the funds now going to repair America’s deteriorating infrastructure.

GOP critics point out the bill is loaded with tens of billions for items ranging from Amtrak subsidies to sexually transmitted diseases to the National Endowment for the Arts -- much of which won’t actually flow into the economy until long after economists expect the current economic crisis to subside.

In late November, Obama promised: “It will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America, and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges,” modernizing schools and stimulating development of alternative forms of energy.

Even some Democrats are now objecting that the measure contains too few highway and mass transit projects. Moreover Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Economy.com, says most of the infrastructure spending in the plan won’t occur until 2010 or later.

Provisions of the bill that many legislators are questioning:

$1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades.

$2 billion to help subsidize child care.

$400 million for research into global warming.

$2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere.

$650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.

$600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.

$75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking.

$21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration.

$2.25 billion for national parks. This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

$335 million for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. $4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The bill allows nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money, which means a substantial amount of it will be captured by ACORN, the controversial activist group currently under federal investigation for vote fraud. Another $750 million would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN – meaning cities and states are barred from receiving that money. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., charges the money could appear to be a “payoff” for the partisan political activities community groups in the last election cycle.

$44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department.

$32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste.

$87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states.

$53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.

$13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes.

$20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment.

$10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the cost of college tuition.

$20 billion over five years for an expanded food stamp program.

Republican leaders say the stimulus package will add 32 new government programs at a cost of $136 billion. They object that many of the programs, once established, are likely to continue indefinitely.

Most media outlets are reporting the cost of the package at $819 billion. As Newsmax revealed yesterday, however, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the interest on the debt generated by the bill’s spending will cost another $347.1 billion, making the total cost approximately $1.17 trillion.

Of course, the measure contains hundreds of billions in tax cuts and infrastructure projects that conservatives will find palatable. But as House Minority whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., told the media Wednesday, “This was not a stimulus bill. It was a spending bill.”

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/stimulus_pork_spending/2009/01/29/176503.html

I know I know, it's Newsmax. But that doesn't make the list of pork on there any less disturbing. The only one I'd disagree with is the billion to Amtrak, as this is supposed to be for improving infrastruction and creating jobs. But the rest of it is just pork and you have to wonder how $75 million for anti smoking programs is going to stimulate the economy.

Update 1 from Sen. Coburn

Initial Coburn Amendments to Stimulus bill:

1. Require that all money in the bill given to states be a loan that must be repaid.

2. Strike $246 million “Hollywood earmark” for the purchase of motion picture film.

3. Strike “biggest earmark of all time” – $2 billion for FutureGen clean coal power plant.

4. Sense of the Senate that the Congress should support President Obama’s “Plan for Restoring Fiscal Discipline.” (Specifically relating to cutting costs and inefficiencies of government.)

5. No funds shall be used for casinos, aquariums, zoos, museums, golf courses, or swimming pools (mirror House language).

6. No more than $1 billion may be spent on projects for federal agencies inside the beltway.

7. Require that any contract that is awarded must be competitively bid.

8. Convert $9 billion for broadband into loans for internet service providers/telecom companies to build infrastructure in market-sustainable areas.

9. Prohibit any Corps construction funds appropriated in this Act from being used for initial construction projects until all unfinished Corps projects have been completed.

10. No funds from the Federal Building Fund may be used to construct new federal buildings until the government reduces its inventory of surplus/excess real property by 50 percent as of the date of bill passage.

11. None of the funds made available for the National Park Service may be expended unless such funding directly reduces the deferred maintenance backlog.

12. Strike authority for the Director of Indian Health Service to spend all health information technology funds ($85 million) at his discretion, regardless of current law (competitive awards, bidding, etc).

13. Cut $3.25 billion in funding for Workforce Investment Act programs since WIA has not been reauthorized and GAO has found duplicative job-training programs across 8 different federal agencies.

14. No funds in the Act may go to a public or private institution of high education that has an endowment of more than $15 billion and/or spends more than $100,000 on lobbying annually.

15. Make the “making work pay” tax credit non-refundable (the plan to give $500 or $1,000 checks of every family).

Wasteful and Non-Stimulus Spending Provisions

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Dept. of Energy defunded last year because the project was inefficient
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film
• $650 million for the digital television (DTV) converter box coupon program
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship)
• $448 million for constructing the Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters
• $248 million for furniture at the new Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees
• $400 million for the CDC to screen and prevent STD’s
• $1.4 billion for a rural waste disposal programs
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion
• $75 million for “smoking cessation activities”
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings
• $500 million for state and local fire stations
• $650 million for wildland fire management on Forest Service lands
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities
• $1.2 billion for “youth activities,” including youth summer job programs
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property
• $500 million for building and repairing NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD
• $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service
• $5.5 million for “energy efficiency initiatives” at the VA “National Cemetery Administration”
• $850 million for Amtrak
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint
• $75M to construct a new “security training” facility for State Dept Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.
• State Medicaid Bailout: $87.7 billion Through 3 different mechanisms, the bill would provide additional federal funds to state Medicaid programs over the next 3 years. This is nearly $70 billion more than the governors asked President Obama for in December, and should be a loan to be repaid by the states.

Questionable Policy

• Eliminates fees on loans from the Small Business Administration, thus pushing private capital toward unproductive businesses and away from productive businesses.
• Increases the definition of “youth” for certain summer job programs from age 21 to age 24.
• $160 million to the Job Corps program at the Dept. of Labor, but not for job programs – rather, to construct, alter or repair buildings.
• Requires a government study on the impact of minimum wage laws on the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.
• $79 billion State Fiscal Stabilization (slush) Fund to bailout the States by providing billions of dollars for “education” costs of any kind.
• $47.843 billion is appropriated for a variety of energy programs that are primarily focused on renewable energy development and energy conservation/efficiency. Not one dollar is appropriated to make fossil fuels more affordable in the near future. More than $6 billion of these funds go to environmental clean ups.
• Increases eligibility for “weatherization” assistance to households 200 percent above the poverty level.
• The “Making Work Pay” credit of $500 to every individual making less than $75,000 (or $1000 to couples making $150,000 or less) would pay people whether they are productive or not – akin to welfare.
• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP – food stamps) would temporarily suspend the 3-month limit for non-working adults to receive SNAP benefits, thus giving incentives not to find a job.
• Installs government as the creator of broadband deployment regardless of whether the specific local/regional market can sustain it.
• Funds new “green jobs” job-training program without eliminating inefficient job-training programs or consolidating duplicative job-training programs.
• $890 million to the Social Security Administration without any provisions to reduce improper payments, or any plan to increase solvency of the trust fund.
• Nothing requires the products that are purchased with these funds be here in America. Lithium ion batteries, for instance, are primarily made in Asia.

There's some info from Sen. Tom Corbon put out yesterday on some of the more pork in the bill.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=RightNow.Home&ContentRecord_id=3db704c6-802a-23ad-406c-a424db591389

update 2, passes house.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Handing the new administration a big win, House Democrats passed President Barack Obama's $787 billion plan to resuscitate the economy on Friday despite a wall of Republican opposition. The bill was approved 246-183 and sent to the Senate, where a vote was scheduled late Friday afternoon.

That vote was to be held open for hours, waiting for Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown, who was attending a memorial service for his mother and then flying back to cast the deciding vote.

Senate passage would meet a deadline of sending the bill to Obama before a congressional recess begins next week.

The 1,071 page, 8-inch-thick measure combines $281 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses with more than a half-trillion dollars in government spending. The money would go for infrastructure, health care and help for cash-starved state governments, among scores of programs. Seniors would get a $250 bonus Social Security check.

Told that no Republican backed the measure, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reacted by citing another number: "3.5 million jobs that we look forward to saving or creating."

Seven Democrats voted against the bill.

Republicans said the package won't work because it has too little in tax cuts and spreads too much money around to everyday projects like computer upgrades for federal agencies.

"This legislation falls woefully short," said House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio. "With a price tag of more than $1 trillion when you factor in interest, it costs every family almost $10,000 in added debt. This is an act of generational theft that our children and grandchildren will be paying for far into the future."

The final $787 billion measure has been pared back from versions previously debated in order to attract support from three Senate GOP moderates—Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Their help is essential to meeting a 60-vote threshold in the Senate, required to overcome a Republican objection that the bill adds to the deficit.

The bill originally passed the Senate by a 61-37 tally, but Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., suffering from brain cancer, is not expected to vote this time.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who withdrew his nomination to be Obama's Commerce secretary, said he would vote against the bill.

Democrats lavished praise on the measure, which combines tax cuts for workers and businesses with more than a half-trillion dollars in government spending aimed at boosting economic demand.

"By investing in new jobs, in science and innovation, in energy, in education ... we are investing in the American people, which is the best guarantee of the success of our nation," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The plan is the signature initiative of the fledgling Obama administration, which is betting that combining tax cuts of $400 a year for individuals and $800 for couples with an infusion of spending for unemployment assistance, $250 payments to people on Social Security, and extra money for states to help with the Medicaid health program for the poor and disabled will arrest the economy's fall.

Local school districts would receive $70 billion in additional funding for K-12 programs and special education and to prevent cutbacks and layoffs and repair crumbling schools. There's about $50 billion for energy programs, much of which goes to efficiency programs and renewable energy.

Some $46 billion would go to transportation projects, not enough to please many lawmakers.

Negotiators insisted on including a $70 billion tax break to make sure middle- to upper-income taxpayers won't get hit by the alternative minimum tax and forced a reduction of Obama's signature tax break for 95 percent of workers.

The AMT was designed 40 years ago to make sure wealthy people pay at least some tax, but is updated for inflation each year to avoid tax increases averaging $2,300 a year. Fixing the annual problems now allows lawmakers to avoid difficult battles down the road, but economists say the move won't do much to lift the economy.

Republicans pointed out a bevy of questionable spending items that made the final cut in House-Senate negotiations, including money to replace computers at federal agencies, inspect canals, and issue coupons for convertor boxes to help people watch TV when the changeover to digital signals occurs this summer.

"This measure is not bipartisan. It contains much that is not stimulative," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama's rival for the White House. "And is nothing short—nothing short—of generational theft" since it burdens future generations with so much debt, he added.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96AU3H80&show_article=1

signed!

DENVER: President Barack Obama signed into law a $787 billion economic stimulus plan Tuesday, predicting the package of spending and tax cuts marked "the beginning of the end" of America's worst economic slide since the 1930s-era Great Depression.

Speaking in Denver, the city where he won the Democratic presidential nomination last August, Obama said the stimulus package — one of the most costly pieces of legislation in U.S. history — cleared the way for Americans to begin "laying claim to a destiny of our own making."

By signing the bill outside of Washington, a highly unusual move, Obama signalled he would continue taking his message directly to the American people as he tries to stay above the partisan tensions still gripping the Capitol. Opposition Republicans in both houses of Congress were nearly unanimous in voting against the plan that Democrats hope will save or create 3.5 million jobs.

Shortly after signing the bill, Obama issued a long-expected order to boost U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, where a resurgent Taliban has retaken much of the ground it lost early in the seven-year-old war. The additional brigades would add about 17,000 troops to the slightly more than 30,000 U.S. forces currently in Afghanistan.

"This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," Obama said in a statement.

That was a slap at his predecessor, George W. Bush, whom Obama has accused of slighting urgent national security needs in Afghanistan in favor of the war in Iraq.

Obama's stimulus passage, despite stark opposition, was a major legislative victory for the new president, who was closing out his first month in office under a storm of economic bad news and public pessimism.

Even with the promise of a huge infusion for the economy, the stock market tumbled about 4 more percentage points Tuesday as investors continued selling off equities in a retreat to safer ground.

At least one state, Missouri, quickly began putting the promised funds to work. Construction crews began work on a replacement for a rural Missouri bridge minutes after the bill was signed. Officials said they believed it would be the first project supported by stimulus funds.

With the stimulus measure in place, Obama now must take vigorous steps to prop up the deeply troubled financial system, ease the pain of Americans facing home mortgage foreclosures and save the teetering auto industry.

Automakers General Motors Corp. and Chrysler, now kept afloat on a combined $13.4 billion in federal emergency loans, said Tuesday they'll need billions more in government loans than they predicted just two months ago. The two automakers also plan further job cuts and additional curtailment of auto production.

General Motors on Tuesday said it could need up to $30 billion from the Treasury Department to keep operating. Included in that amount is $13.4 billion the company has already received. Previously, GM had said it could need as much as $18 billion.

Chrysler said it needs $9 billion of total government financing, compared to its original request of $7 billion. It has already received $4 billion in government loans.

Both requests, submitted to Treasury on Tuesday, were part of restructuring plans the two automakers owed the government in exchange for earlier loans.

GM also said it would cut 47,000 jobs worldwide and shutter five more U.S. factories in its massive restructuring plan. Chrysler plans to cut 3,000 jobs and eliminate three vehicle models.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters traveling to Denver with the president on board Air Force One that he would not rule out bankruptcy for Detroit automakers, even as the administration looked forward to reviewing the companies' restructuring plans.

Gibbs said it was important for the economy to have a strong and viable auto industry, adding it was up to automakers to make choices about what is most helpful to their recovery.

Gibbs also said the administration was keeping an open mind about a second stimulus effort. He stressed, however, that there were no plans currently in the works for one.

In remarks before signing the bill, Obama cautioned Americans not to expect a quick or dramatic economic turnaround and said government intervention was not at an end.

"I don't want to pretend that today marks the end of our economic troubles," Obama said before signing the legislation. "Nor does it constitute all of what we going to have to do to turn our economy around. But today does mark the beginning of the end."

Obama used the signing ceremony at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science to underscore investments the spending plan will make in "green" energy-related jobs. Colorado is one of the leading U.S. states in the shift to renewable energy sources.

The White House announced a Web site, http://www.recovery.gov, that will allow tracking of where the stimulus money is spent. The White House press office also announced job growth projections for each state and congressional district.

On Wednesday, Obama will be in Arizona to unveil plans to help millions of homeowners avoid looming home mortgage foreclosures.

That will be a next and likely very costly move, designed to further bolster the stimulus program to pump federal money into infrastructure projects, health care, renewable energy development and conservation.

The stimulus plan will have to break through a stone wall of economic troubles. The unemployment rate is now at 7.6 percent, the highest in more than 16 years. Analysts warn the economy will remain feeble through the remainder of the year.

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=20264246

VipFREAK

02-02-2009, 04:41 PM

Hmm... Amtrak not making a profit for 4 decades? I suppose that's a good thing for the people that use it, but who does here...?

If you want to have people stop smoking then put the tobacco industry out of business... :roll:

FloodsAreUponUS

02-02-2009, 04:52 PM

The only one I disagree with is the Amtrak one.

Capitalizt

02-02-2009, 04:54 PM

The only one I disagree with is all of them.

Frogurt.man

02-02-2009, 04:54 PM

If all were going to do is build roads, bridges, and train tracks the stimulus is not going to do a damn thing.

$53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs. Not Pork.

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
$2.25 billion for national parks.

Mmmm smells like bacon..

Ikohn4ever

02-02-2009, 04:55 PM

SpazX

02-02-2009, 04:57 PM

I'd say about $250 billion of the listed stuff actually makes sense. Most of the second half of that list.

There might be $50 billion of stuff that doesn't make any sense on that list (though it's several cheaper items). Take it out, sure, I'd support that, but it's not going to make much of a difference.

Msut77

02-02-2009, 05:01 PM

More pork than what? Some fictitious non pork alternative?

You really think people are going to get outraged over money for healthcare and research etc., you think a pro STD position is gonna sell?

Give the fuck up.

RAMSTORIA

02-02-2009, 05:57 PM

you think a pro STD position is gonna sell?

Give the fuck up.

pro STD... wtf are you talking about?! and what would you like me to give up here? being upset with congress for fattening up bills that are supposed to stimulate our economy by throwing money into programs that wont help the economy? well if youre ok with it thats good, you can continue to reelect your reps, but i think ill continue to be upset and vote against my current reps.

Dead of Knight

02-02-2009, 06:03 PM

http://www.foodmag.com.au/Uploads/PressReleases/food/Images-20080507/Pork.jpg
Om nom nom.

Some of that list is bullshit, a lot of it is not.

Msut77

02-02-2009, 06:10 PM

pro STD... wtf are you talking about?!

Do you even read what you post?

It is bad enough that you use Newsmax as a source but at the very least you can peruse your own links.

RAMSTORIA

02-02-2009, 06:25 PM

Do you even read what you post?

It is bad enough that you use Newsmax as a source but at the very least you can peruse your own links.

sooo being against 300 million in pork for std prevention/education equates with being pro std?

tivo

02-02-2009, 06:26 PM

Some of that list is bullshit, a lot of it is not.

Too much of that list is bullshit. They can start over and try it again.

Msut77

02-02-2009, 06:31 PM

sooo being against 300 million in pork for std prevention/education equates with being pro std?

I would say so.

KingBroly

02-02-2009, 06:55 PM

I would say so.
:-k

$75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking.
They should really stop trying with this. Oh yeah, and it's pork.

$400 million for research into global warming.

$2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere.

$53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.
Somebody's paying Al Gore a lot of money to offset his carbon footprint.

$44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department.
Too easy

Friend of Sonic

02-02-2009, 07:19 PM

I can't believe I'm going to have to suffer through inflation because politicians want to see how much fake money they can create.

rickonker

02-02-2009, 07:27 PM

When there's a recession, remember: the solution is to send millions to the National Endowment for the Arts.

Dead of Knight

02-02-2009, 08:28 PM

Too much of that list is bullshit. They can start over and try it again.

What an appropriate avatar. :lol: Yeah, too much of it is indeed bullshit, but fuck, I'm surprised there's anything decent in there. This is Congress we are talking about.

RAMSTORIA

02-02-2009, 09:18 PM

I would say so.

i guess that means im against the switch to digital television because theres $600 million for that too.

Msut77

02-02-2009, 09:20 PM

i guess that means im against the switch to digital television because theres $600 million for that too.

I guess so.

RAMSTORIA

02-02-2009, 09:35 PM

I guess so.

:roll:

rickonker

02-02-2009, 09:36 PM

I would say so.
Yes you would, and you would be wrong of course.

Msut77

02-02-2009, 09:50 PM

Yes you would, and you would be wrong of course.

You would think that those who take your moronic stance like Vitter would be less pro-STD considering all of the money they spend on hookers.

elprincipe

02-02-2009, 09:58 PM

When there's a recession, remember: the solution is to send millions to the National Endowment for the Arts.

Well, during a recession starving artists are a lot starving-er. Or something.

This whole bill is total bullshit. Even if you agreed we need a stimulus (there is no evidence this has ever worked in history and the same thing was tried, admittedly on a smaller scale, and failed spectacularly just last year), this won't do it since the vast majority of the money is payoffs to Democratic Party interest groups. Even Democratic senators can't stomach such a strong smell of the other white meat. But even if this is pared down it's still a horrible idea that won't solve our problems in the least, but only make them worse while putting future generations in debt. What an irresponsible quagmire.

rickonker

02-02-2009, 10:15 PM

You would think that those who take your moronic stance like Vitter would be less pro-STD considering all of the money they spend on hookers.
There's no need to argue. Anyone anywhere on the political spectrum with any sense can see that you're wrong.

As a reminder to everyone, here is what Msut77 believes: being against 300 million in pork for std prevention/education equates with being pro std

elprincipe

02-02-2009, 10:34 PM

"How the government prolonged the Depression"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html

Msut77

02-02-2009, 10:37 PM

There's no need to argue. Anyone anywhere on the political spectrum with any sense can see that you're wrong.

As a reminder to everyone, here is what Msut77 believes:

Just because you are incapable of making an argument does not mean there is no need to argue.

Does anyone actually believe that STD prevention and education should be left to private groups?

Have any of those you to refer to as "Anyone" failed to have noticed that even when it is left to private groups we get bullshit such as abstinence only education?

If you want to argue with someone who is undeniably wrong, there is prince and the op still pushing the same tired and discredited nonsense about ACORN get a bajillion dollars.

paddlefoot

02-02-2009, 10:40 PM

the park service can kiss my ass, all they do is chop down trees. Like with most big packages, some stuff is good, child health care, some stuff is bad, sod. I mean the democrats were at the mercy of the republicans for so long they have a little breathing room and they are going for it.

Couldn't they pick a better time to go for it? I thought this stimulus was to help get us out of our current situation.

Any numbskull could come up with an $800B plan that gives money to everyone.

rickonker

02-02-2009, 10:56 PM

Msut77

02-02-2009, 11:08 PM

Like I said, there's no need to argue when you've admitted to believing that

It is a disingenuous cop out but I am not denying you said it.

Dead of Knight

02-03-2009, 02:12 AM

"How the government prolonged the Depression"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html

I read that in class today. It was the ONLY editorial in the WSJ today that wasn't complete
http://teeka.fo.cx/albums/auctions/wharrgarbl.jpg

My favorite was this piece of ridiculousness: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353218922437447.html
I didn't know Joe Camel wrote for the WSJ. I was pretty surprised at how asinine most of today's editorials were.

KingBroly

02-03-2009, 03:05 AM

RAMSTORIA

02-03-2009, 03:27 AM

maybe if i write senator boxer she will throw in 100k for me in the bill, i doubt anyone would notice. and msut would support it, because he didnt, it would mean hes against humans.

Dr Mario Kart

02-03-2009, 03:27 AM

I'm definitely in the minority now. I might as well put on my level1 tinfoil hat when I say that World War 2 is what slowed our recovery from the first republican Great Depression. The corporate media over the last 50 years have done a real good job this time.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGuDWjPXRh4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGuDWjPXRh4)

fatherofcaitlyn

02-03-2009, 10:38 AM

It might be a while before I trust anything from Wall Street.

Let me know if there is an editorial where they blame the problem on all of the greedy bastards they handed out the rope for many Americans to hang themselves with or the failure of ratings companies to properly rate investments they didn't understand as complete horseshit.

KingBroly

02-03-2009, 11:34 AM

I think that already happened, but as always, Washington doesn't care what the people think. Once they get to Washington, they don't represent you anymore.

usickenme

02-03-2009, 11:45 AM

Let's be honest, Pork is simply spending you don't like

speedracer

02-03-2009, 12:29 PM

If the Government wanted to stop the recession dead in its' tracks, it would've gotten the bad housing loans off the books as soon as possible. But, being that the Government is made up of mostly idiots, that didn't happen.
But how do you do that *AND* make sure that stockholder capital in these companies is wiped out (as it should be if everyone is playing by the same rules) without nationalizing?

I ask because I agree with your statement, yet I don't see a clear way to fix the problem.

KingBroly

02-03-2009, 12:51 PM

If they bought the bad loans, it would've gotten those things off the books. Basically, it means those people in those houses aren't going to lose their houses (Politicians aren't going to take away peoples' houses after buying them. They'd look too bad). I don't know much beyond that though.

fatherofcaitlyn

02-03-2009, 01:47 PM

I don't see a clear way to fix the problem.

Fire and lots of it.

Msut77

02-03-2009, 03:27 PM

This whole bill is total bullshit.

Some of it is, especially the part the Republicans fought for in bad faith.

Even if you agreed we need a stimulus (there is no evidence this has ever worked in history

No.

and the same thing was tried, admittedly on a smaller scale, and failed spectacularly just last year)

Apples to Crack Rock.

this won't do it since the vast majority of the money is payoffs to Democratic Party interest groups

Keep building that reputation for dishonesty.

Even Democratic senators can't stomach such a strong smell of the other white meat.

Republican Governors, and many more than Democratic Senators mind you have broken with the Party because they actually have to deal with this mess instead of grandstanding.

But even if this is pared down it's still a horrible idea that won't solve our problems in the least, but only make them worse while putting future generations in debt. What an irresponsible quagmire

The thing you should understand but probably cannot is that no one buys your BS.

Msut77

02-03-2009, 03:36 PM

elprincipe

02-03-2009, 11:55 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353218922437447.html
I didn't know Joe Camel wrote for the WSJ. I was pretty surprised at how asinine most of today's editorials were.

That is a pretty bad one. Damn voluntary taxes! As far as I'm concerned, anytime I smell smoke from someone's disgusting tobacco habit they should have to hand me a $20 bill.

HovaEscobar

02-03-2009, 11:55 PM

Just because you are incapable of making an argument does not mean there is no need to argue.

Does anyone actually believe that STD prevention and education should be left to private groups?

Have any of those you to refer to as "Anyone" failed to have noticed that even when it is left to private groups we get bullshit such as abstinence only education?

Well, I'd just like to throw my 2 cents in here.

"Bullshit such as abstinence". Abstinence education seems to be the scapegoat for why education doesn't work. Fact is that sex education was barely taught in schools 60 or so years ago and although now it is, the teen pregnancy and STD rates have skyrocketed.

The root of the issue, to me, is that there's not a good enough punishment for being promiscuous . Obviously not, seeing as people can still have sex with STDs. Nature's one punishment for being promiscuous seems to have disappeared, seeing as now girls can now get child support and various government programs. In the 20s, women who had children out of wedlock with no plans to get married were pretty much screwed, so women didn't do it and they were stigmatized for it. Now we're in a position where women actually aren't *screwed* anymore for being promiscuous , and surprise surprise, no matter how much birth control options there is ( at LEAST 10 by the way ), the safe haven laws, abortion, adoption, more women are opting to raise children unwed than in past times. Probably because of their innate desire to have children*, which makes me believe that giving them and only them a more respectable form of birth control is some kind of sick joke, but that's a story for another day.

It's all related. When you almost give women incentives to be promiscuous and take away stigmas from it, then they'll have more sex. More sex will equal more STDs. I guarantee that if they were to come out and cut these programs and child support that these problems would be solved. I guarantee it.

* Lets make this clear, i do not assume that every woman wants to have children all of the time , but i do assume that those who have little or no ambition would be willing to do it now more than later, those who would most benefit from child support and other government support they wouldn't get otherwise.

elprincipe

02-03-2009, 11:56 PM

Fire and lots of it.

That's your solution to everything ;)

KingBroly

02-04-2009, 12:14 AM

I don't think trying to reinflate the bubble would be much help.

Well, they're about to do it themselves, but in true Government fashion, by spending a lot more money, and wasting a lot more of our time.

Msut77

02-04-2009, 12:43 AM

The root of the issue, to me, is that there's not a good enough punishment for being promiscuous.

Well your honesty is refreshing but hoo boy.

Msut77

02-04-2009, 12:45 AM

Well, they're about to do it themselves, but in true Government fashion, by spending a lot more money, and wasting a lot more of our time.

I am fairly certain that buying up countless homes at the the peak of their inflated value would cost more than is being spent now. The point being is that the government is trying to get other parts of the economy going rather than our eggs in one basket.

BigT

02-04-2009, 02:03 AM

tivo

02-04-2009, 02:17 AM

I'd agree with most of that HovaEscobar. It's the disintegration of the nuclear family with government support. It's too easy for a man to leave his wife and kid(s) because the gov.'s there to fill in. Society no longer looks down on bastards and even praises the struggle of single women and untraditional families and lifestyles. But this is all outside the current talking points. Preventive measures don't work. People will choose to smoke, have unsafe sex, and generally not take care of themselves properly. You can't "prevent" anything from happening and it is therefore a waste of money for the government to interfere into the personal lives of its citizens. The government should instead focus on infrastructure, military, safety/security/law enforcement, and a few other things and release other areas up to the private sector. I don't see why they have to have a finger in everything like the stimulus package outlines. It's the idea that they have all the power and knowledge and that they know the best places to give away tax dollars. Well, the big 3 bailout was horse shit and so is this much more expensive stimulus package. Give Americans back their money and we'll spend it/invest it in areas we support at a much faster rate.

SpazX

02-04-2009, 03:32 AM

Well, I'd just like to throw my 2 cents in here.

"Bullshit such as abstinence". Abstinence education seems to be the scapegoat for why education doesn't work. Fact is that sex education was barely taught in schools 60 or so years ago and although now it is, the teen pregnancy and STD rates have skyrocketed.

The root of the issue, to me, is that there's not a good enough punishment for being promiscuous . Obviously not, seeing as people can still have sex with STDs. Nature's one punishment for being promiscuous seems to have disappeared, seeing as now girls can now get child support and various government programs. In the 20s, women who had children out of wedlock with no plans to get married were pretty much screwed, so women didn't do it and they were stigmatized for it. Now we're in a position where women actually aren't *screwed* anymore for being promiscuous , and surprise surprise, no matter how much birth control options there is ( at LEAST 10 by the way ), the safe haven laws, abortion, adoption, more women are opting to raise children unwed than in past times. Probably because of their innate desire to have children*, which makes me believe that giving them and only them a more respectable form of birth control is some kind of sick joke, but that's a story for another day.

It's all related. When you almost give women incentives to be promiscuous and take away stigmas from it, then they'll have more sex. More sex will equal more STDs. I guarantee that if they were to come out and cut these programs and child support that these problems would be solved. I guarantee it.

* Lets make this clear, i do not assume that every woman wants to have children all of the time , but i do assume that those who have little or no ambition would be willing to do it now more than later, those who would most benefit from child support and other government support they wouldn't get otherwise.

I blame the women too. I mean, guys just can't control themselves, amirite?! And the clothes they wear, they're just asking for it!

If only life was more like the 20s and the women were stigmatized more so if they had a kid out of wedlock they could just be poor while the father went about his business instead of getting government assistance and being less poor while the father goes about his business.

It's funny you even mention the 20s, as that was a very liberal and sexually promiscuous decade for women (until women got to be chattel again for a few more decades). Ever heard of flappers?

HovaEscobar

02-04-2009, 09:07 AM

I blame the women too. I mean, guys just can't control themselves, amirite?! And the clothes they wear, they're just asking for it!

If only life was more like the 20s and the women were stigmatized more so if they had a kid out of wedlock they could just be poor while the father went about his business instead of getting government assistance and being less poor while the father goes about his business.

It's funny you even mention the 20s, as that was a very liberal and sexually promiscuous decade for women (until women got to be chattel again for a few more decades). Ever heard of flappers?

Well, did you even take my post seriously at all or did you only read through it enough to make sarcastic remarks? "Clothes they wear, they were just asking for it!" Come on. Because sex isn't totally a voluntary thing for the woman also.

Your first statement seems like just a natural reflex to take responsibility from the woman. Women have so much options right now to opt out of parenthood that it's about time they were accountable for their actions. It's not that men could "control" themselves in past times either, it's that women weren't as promiscuous for the reasons I stated above. Men married a lot earlier partly because they wanted to have sex and they knew most women wouldn't do it outside of marriage.

Yes, exactly right, and we didn't have a high teen pregnancy rate, a high single mother rate, high STD rate, etc. Seems like America is so pussified these days that we can't accept anyone being punished for their actions, then we wonder why they continue said stupid actions regardless of their effect on society.

No, I had not heard of flappers. Don't see how they fit into this argument.

And I agree with tivo on the wider frame of this issue.

fatherofcaitlyn

02-04-2009, 10:49 AM

No, I had not heard of flappers. Don't see how they fit into this argument.

Since I'm not familiar with the term ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapper

Sarang01

02-04-2009, 11:08 AM

Here's something to ponder. Why not get the cost of adoption lowered? I mean I'm sure more people might adopt but it's so fucking expensive to do to begin with. Instead it's just easiest to get your wife pregnant or if you're gay, to get them inseminated. I mean in the latter circumstance you don't have to worry about adoption laws banning you from it as well as if you're single and straight in some states now. The cost is still a factor there possibly as well.
Oh and to HovaEscobar. Here's the issue. If you didn't have some subsidy I suspect the only solution would be immigration. I say this as I don't believe enough people with good money would have enough kids to cover the spread of workers needed for businesses. This is coming from a Classical Libertarian such as myself too. I think most Libertarians would end up seeing the same thing and agree with me.
Oh and did anyone hear about how the EU is bitching now because of the "Buy American" clause in the stimulus in terms of buying Steel. They're threatening a Trade War and Obama folded on it. Here's my response to the EU: Fuck YOU! This is for improving the AMERICAN economy not Europe's. If this actually improved the American economy it would improve Europe's in the process.
The last sentence is in response to the EU commenting Europe and the rest of the world is suffering. Never mind the fact this crash was started off by the U.S.

Dead of Knight

02-04-2009, 11:46 AM

Front page of the WSJ today:
The Senate, in debating the economic stimulus package Tuesday, voted to include a tax break for Americans borrowing money to buy a car in 2009. The amendment would allow consumers to write off their federal taxes any car-loan interest payments and excise taxes.
Article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123367018137943377.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_pag e_one

This is the stupidest shit I've ever heard of. THE problem with this country is debt. So let's reward people for getting into debt, while at the same time not giving any incentives to people who were actually RESPONSIBLE and are able to save their money to buy a car outright. Congress just. doesn't. fucking. get it. Time to clean house.

mykevermin

02-04-2009, 12:07 PM

Well, I'd just like to throw my 2 cents in here.

"Bullshit such as abstinence". Abstinence education seems to be the scapegoat for why education doesn't work. Fact is that sex education was barely taught in schools 60 or so years ago and although now it is, the teen pregnancy and STD rates have skyrocketed.

The root of the issue, to me, is that there's not a good enough punishment for being promiscuous . Obviously not, seeing as people can still have sex with STDs. Nature's one punishment for being promiscuous seems to have disappeared, seeing as now girls can now get child support and various government programs. In the 20s, women who had children out of wedlock with no plans to get married were pretty much screwed, so women didn't do it and they were stigmatized for it. Now we're in a position where women actually aren't *screwed* anymore for being promiscuous , and surprise surprise, no matter how much birth control options there is ( at LEAST 10 by the way ), the safe haven laws, abortion, adoption, more women are opting to raise children unwed than in past times. Probably because of their innate desire to have children*, which makes me believe that giving them and only them a more respectable form of birth control is some kind of sick joke, but that's a story for another day.

It's all related. When you almost give women incentives to be promiscuous and take away stigmas from it, then they'll have more sex. More sex will equal more STDs. I guarantee that if they were to come out and cut these programs and child support that these problems would be solved. I guarantee it.

* Lets make this clear, i do not assume that every woman wants to have children all of the time , but i do assume that those who have little or no ambition would be willing to do it now more than later, those who would most benefit from child support and other government support they wouldn't get otherwise.

Pretty patriarchal to blame women for promiscuity. They get the biological short straw already. You disregarded HotShot because of the tenor of his post (get used to sarcasm and ad hominems on here, including from, and perhaps especially from, me), but ignored that his post was getting at your implication that women are the only ones who should be punished for their promiscuity.

And, mind you, that promiscuity is something that should be subject to social/legal sanction. Hope you don't consider yourself a small government Republican if you're thinking we should have a say in other people fucking or not.

That said, promiscuity isn't the issue: pregnancies and disease are the issues. One can be promiscuous and responsible. One can also be promiscuous and irresponsible. Despite the margin of error that exists for even the responsible, promiscuity is not the issue; irresponsibility is.

I'll see your "problems will be solved if we eliminate social programs like TANF," wholly disagree with it, point out that you wouldn't even blink at the difference in your taxes paid and returned if that happened (unlike if we cut military spending by 10%), and raise you a "I hope you're looking forward to paying higher taxes that are demanded by our criminal justice system (police, courts, prisons) in order to accommodate what follows from removing that very social welfare policy."

BillyBob29

02-04-2009, 12:09 PM

Front page of the WSJ today:

Article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123367018137943377.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_pag e_one

This is the stupidest shit I've ever heard of. THE problem with this country is debt. So let's reward people for getting into debt, while at the same time not giving any incentives to people who were actually RESPONSIBLE and are able to save their money to buy a car outright. Congress just. doesn't. fucking. get it. Time to clean house.

Seriously. We aren't trying to solve the problem, we are just trying to make the problem profitable again and basically delay the pain another few years. Our economy is one giant ponzi scheme.

This plan to offer tax breaks and even the ability to write off interest paid on new autos has been one of many plans being thrown around for quite some time.

The first time I saw it mentioned was about 6-7 months ago and at the time it was being pitched as a US automakers only kind of deal.....buy a Ford, GM or Chysler auto and get the tax breaks. Hopefully, if this actually gets included in the stimulus plan it is not just for US autos. I'm actually in the market for a new auto and it would be nice to get some tax credits or the possibility of interest deductions on the RS5 I'm going to be looking at this fall.

Sarang01

02-04-2009, 12:11 PM

Front page of the WSJ today:

Article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123367018137943377.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_pag e_one

This is the stupidest shit I've ever heard of. THE problem with this country is debt. So let's reward people for getting into debt, while at the same time not giving any incentives to people who were actually RESPONSIBLE and are able to save their money to buy a car outright. Congress just. doesn't. fucking. get it. Time to clean house.

Well you DO know that people who pay their Credit Card bills in full on time are referred to as "deadbeats" by the creditors right? That says it all about how priorities are screwed or rather how the economy is fucked up on what it's letting drive it.
edit: I know this probably seems way off stimulus idea but I know a way money could be freed up to lower costs of the stimulus. We need to completely cut private contracting in terms of military spending. I'm referring to Halliburton and Blackwater more then anything.
Also for WIC we need to completely cut Dairy out of it and instead replace it with beans, rice, Quinoa, Broccoli, enriched Rice Milk with B12 as well as Nutritional Yeast with enough B12. This is good enough and would enormously cut costs as opposed to Dairy. All the kids needs are covered. Oh and boo fucking hoo that it's not milk.
Subsidies for the Dairy and Meat industry need to be cut entirely as well as the pay for leaving farm land unused instead of being farmed. This would serve cutting spending and costs on grains and beans in one fell swoop.

JolietJake

02-04-2009, 12:17 PM

Of course credit card companies hate those people, they don't pay any interest. You'd hate them too if you were in that business.

speedracer

02-04-2009, 12:30 PM

Women have so much options right now to opt out of parenthood that it's about time they were accountable for their actions. It's not that men could "control" themselves in past times either, it's that women weren't as promiscuous for the reasons I stated above. Men married a lot earlier partly because they wanted to have sex and they knew most women wouldn't do it outside of marriage.
I think you've been watching too many leave it to beaver episodes. This bygone era where people were more responsible than today is ridiculous. How about a little more support for your position than anecdotal information that you weren't present for? Let's see you support that.
Yes, exactly right, and we didn't have a high teen pregnancy rate,
lol. Prove it.
a high single mother rate, high STD rate, etc.
lol. Prove it.
Seems like America is so pussified these days that we can't accept anyone being punished for their actions, then we wonder why they continue said stupid actions regardless of their effect on society.
Right. Because birth control, abortions, adoptions, and early marriage because of pregnancy has no negative effects on the woman (or man) in question.

Oh wait. Isn't that one of most explicitly strong arguments against abortion, etc? So how do we reason that again?

Where do we get this idea that all of these issues were born out of birth control and abortion? You know, other than because it supports our own wildly intrusive hypothesis of how other people should live their lives?

Gimme a break.

Also, what myke said.

SpazX

02-04-2009, 02:35 PM

Well, did you even take my post seriously at all or did you only read through it enough to make sarcastic remarks?

More or less, yeah, just for sarcastic remarks.

"Clothes they wear, they were just asking for it!" Come on. Because sex isn't totally a voluntary thing for the woman also.

That went with the "men can't control themselves" bit. Sex is totally voluntary for both, hence why birth control and STD protection is both the responsibility of men and women, not just women.

Your first statement seems like just a natural reflex to take responsibility from the woman. Women have so much options right now to opt out of parenthood that it's about time they were accountable for their actions.

I'm not taking responsibility from the woman, I'm saying that it's not solely the woman's responsibility. Your entire post blamed only women for STDs, teen pregnancy, etc. which is really, really, really stupid. Unless of course, you think that these women are somehow contracting STDs and getting pregnant without the help of men.

It's not that men could "control" themselves in past times either, it's that women weren't as promiscuous for the reasons I stated above. Men married a lot earlier partly because they wanted to have sex and they knew most women wouldn't do it outside of marriage.

Men could control themselves then and can control themselves now. Saying that the reason why teen pregnancy and STDs are high is because women aren't stigmatized enough not only puts all of the responsibility on women now, but admits that all the responsibility has always been placed with the women while the men get off scot free - no stigma, no raising children by themselves, no reason to need government assistance. Men have long used the excuse that they can't control themselves and that it's the responsibility of women to make sure everything works out. It's ridiculously stupid. It should be pretty obvious that having safe, pregnancy-free sex (which requires both sexes, in case you didn't know) is the responsibilty of both men and women.

Yes, exactly right, and we didn't have a high teen pregnancy rate, a high single mother rate, high STD rate, etc.

How would you even know that for sure? It's not like they took statistics back then. And here's a helpful hint - the teen pregnancy rate is lower now than it was in the 90s, 80s, and 70s (which is how far the guttmacher statistics go back, anyway).

Seems like America is so pussified these days that we can't accept anyone being punished for their actions, then we wonder why they continue said stupid actions regardless of their effect on society.

It seems like your problem is that you think women are the only ones who should be punished.

No, I had not heard of flappers. Don't see how they fit into this argument.

Because they were women in the 20s who were into sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll (well, then it was jazz, but same difference). They don't fit into A) Your concept of the 20s, or probably the American past in general, and B) Your concept of stigmatized women, which was apparently what kept down STDs and birth out of wedlock. But they refused to be treated as if they were supposed to fit in some little bubble of womanhood while men got to do as they pleased (which is apparently what you advocate).

HovaEscobar

02-04-2009, 03:09 PM

I'll admit I was wrong on some issues, but you have to admit that men should similar choices for birth control to women ( i.e taking the bullet out of the gun instead of shielding it) with the convenience.

Out of curiosity, what do you all suggest would be the cure to this problem of single mothers and STDs?

dmaul1114

02-04-2009, 03:25 PM

Out of curiosity, what do you all suggest would be the cure to this problem of single mothers and STDs?

There is no cure.

Best we can do is have as much education and promotion on safe sex as possible and make sure free contraceptives are readily available--especially in areas with high teen pregnancy and STD rates etc.

fatherofcaitlyn

02-04-2009, 03:53 PM

There is no cure.

Best we can do is have as much education and promotion on safe sex as possible and make sure free contraceptives are readily available--especially in areas with high teen pregnancy and STD rates etc.

Pfft. Education is your solution to everything.

We need to stone or immolate every unwed pregnant person OR woman with a STD.

depascal22

02-04-2009, 04:54 PM

Money that's put into the Arts comes back fourfold. Isn't that the kind of stimulus that we need?

RAMSTORIA

02-04-2009, 06:03 PM

Money that's put into the Arts comes back fourfold. Isn't that the kind of stimulus that we need?

fourfold? really? whered you pull that out of? my guess is somewhere smelly.

im not going to say that the arts dont deserve funding, because they certainly do. as im sure a lot of the pork in here are for various programs that could use money and would be helpful for their various causes, but that doesnt make them any less bacony.

dmaul1114

02-04-2009, 06:15 PM

RAMSTORIA

02-04-2009, 06:26 PM

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I like a lot of things that are included in the stimulus, but have a hard time justifying them as stimulus.

Stuff like funding for the arts, sex education etc. etc. that's been in various versions of this is sorely needed, but are things that should go through the normal appropriations process and not get lumped into the economic stimulus package.

exactly, send the bill through on its own, $300 million for std prevention, $600 million for dtv rebates and see if they pass. some might, others wont. but throwing them into this package and let them slide by because were trying to avoid a massive economic downturn is a slap in the face to the american people.

rickonker

02-04-2009, 06:59 PM

Oh and did anyone hear about how the EU is bitching now because of the "Buy American" clause in the stimulus in terms of buying Steel. They're threatening a Trade War and Obama folded on it. Here's my response to the EU: Fuck YOU! This is for improving the AMERICAN economy not Europe's. If this actually improved the American economy it would improve Europe's in the process.
The last sentence is in response to the EU commenting Europe and the rest of the world is suffering. Never mind the fact this crash was started off by the U.S.

Sarang, you called yourself a "Classical Libertarian"...I'm not sure what that is, but you should know that a "Buy American" clause would hurt the American economy, not help it. I'm not defending the EU on this though because some of them are big hypocrites when it comes to protectionism.

mykevermin

02-04-2009, 07:10 PM

bacony.

Never use this word to describe something you disapprove of. The word "bacony" connotes bacon-like qualities, which is an indicator of excellence.

Dead of Knight

02-04-2009, 07:43 PM

Seriously. We aren't trying to solve the problem, we are just trying to make the problem profitable again and basically delay the pain another few years. Our economy is one giant ponzi scheme.

This plan to offer tax breaks and even the ability to write off interest paid on new autos has been one of many plans being thrown around for quite some time.

The first time I saw it mentioned was about 6-7 months ago and at the time it was being pitched as a US automakers only kind of deal.....buy a Ford, GM or Chysler auto and get the tax breaks. Hopefully, if this actually gets included in the stimulus plan it is not just for US autos. I'm actually in the market for a new auto and it would be nice to get some tax credits or the possibility of interest deductions on the RS5 I'm going to be looking at this fall.

From what I can tell it is for all cars. I am still fucking pissed. I was thinking of purchasing a new car this year (maybe a 50/50) chance and getting it paid in full thanks to my trade in, but of course I would get no incentives for being fiscally responsible. If they are going to go through with this idiotic provision, then they need to include an interest rate deduction for people who pay their cars in full based on a reasonable interest rate. Otherwise the provision is discriminatory against bad decision making (not that all lendees make bad decisions, but it is part of why we're in this crisis).

lilboo

02-04-2009, 09:38 PM

All that and they aren't sending money to people for being sexy?
Well, shucks. I guess I'm out of luck!

RAMSTORIA

02-04-2009, 09:52 PM

Initial Coburn Amendments to Stimulus bill:

1. Require that all money in the bill given to states be a loan that must be repaid.

2. Strike $246 million “Hollywood earmark” for the purchase of motion picture film.

3. Strike “biggest earmark of all time” – $2 billion for FutureGen clean coal power plant.

4. Sense of the Senate that the Congress should support President Obama’s “Plan for Restoring Fiscal Discipline.” (Specifically relating to cutting costs and inefficiencies of government.)

5. No funds shall be used for casinos, aquariums, zoos, museums, golf courses, or swimming pools (mirror House language).

6. No more than $1 billion may be spent on projects for federal agencies inside the beltway.

7. Require that any contract that is awarded must be competitively bid.

8. Convert $9 billion for broadband into loans for internet service providers/telecom companies to build infrastructure in market-sustainable areas.

9. Prohibit any Corps construction funds appropriated in this Act from being used for initial construction projects until all unfinished Corps projects have been completed.

10. No funds from the Federal Building Fund may be used to construct new federal buildings until the government reduces its inventory of surplus/excess real property by 50 percent as of the date of bill passage.

11. None of the funds made available for the National Park Service may be expended unless such funding directly reduces the deferred maintenance backlog.

12. Strike authority for the Director of Indian Health Service to spend all health information technology funds ($85 million) at his discretion, regardless of current law (competitive awards, bidding, etc).

13. Cut $3.25 billion in funding for Workforce Investment Act programs since WIA has not been reauthorized and GAO has found duplicative job-training programs across 8 different federal agencies.

14. No funds in the Act may go to a public or private institution of high education that has an endowment of more than $15 billion and/or spends more than $100,000 on lobbying annually.

15. Make the “making work pay” tax credit non-refundable (the plan to give $500 or $1,000 checks of every family).

Wasteful and Non-Stimulus Spending Provisions

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Dept. of Energy defunded last year because the project was inefficient
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film
• $650 million for the digital television (DTV) converter box coupon program
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship)
• $448 million for constructing the Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters
• $248 million for furniture at the new Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees
• $400 million for the CDC to screen and prevent STD’s
• $1.4 billion for a rural waste disposal programs
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion
• $75 million for “smoking cessation activities”
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings
• $500 million for state and local fire stations
• $650 million for wildland fire management on Forest Service lands
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities
• $1.2 billion for “youth activities,” including youth summer job programs
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property
• $500 million for building and repairing NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD
• $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service
• $5.5 million for “energy efficiency initiatives” at the VA “National Cemetery Administration”
• $850 million for Amtrak
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint
• $75M to construct a new “security training” facility for State Dept Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.
• State Medicaid Bailout: $87.7 billion Through 3 different mechanisms, the bill would provide additional federal funds to state Medicaid programs over the next 3 years. This is nearly $70 billion more than the governors asked President Obama for in December, and should be a loan to be repaid by the states.

Questionable Policy

• Eliminates fees on loans from the Small Business Administration, thus pushing private capital toward unproductive businesses and away from productive businesses.
• Increases the definition of “youth” for certain summer job programs from age 21 to age 24.
• $160 million to the Job Corps program at the Dept. of Labor, but not for job programs – rather, to construct, alter or repair buildings.
• Requires a government study on the impact of minimum wage laws on the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.
• $79 billion State Fiscal Stabilization (slush) Fund to bailout the States by providing billions of dollars for “education” costs of any kind.
• $47.843 billion is appropriated for a variety of energy programs that are primarily focused on renewable energy development and energy conservation/efficiency. Not one dollar is appropriated to make fossil fuels more affordable in the near future. More than $6 billion of these funds go to environmental clean ups.
• Increases eligibility for “weatherization” assistance to households 200 percent above the poverty level.
• The “Making Work Pay” credit of $500 to every individual making less than $75,000 (or $1000 to couples making $150,000 or less) would pay people whether they are productive or not – akin to welfare.
• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP – food stamps) would temporarily suspend the 3-month limit for non-working adults to receive SNAP benefits, thus giving incentives not to find a job.
• Installs government as the creator of broadband deployment regardless of whether the specific local/regional market can sustain it.
• Funds new “green jobs” job-training program without eliminating inefficient job-training programs or consolidating duplicative job-training programs.
• $890 million to the Social Security Administration without any provisions to reduce improper payments, or any plan to increase solvency of the trust fund.
• Nothing requires the products that are purchased with these funds be here in America. Lithium ion batteries, for instance, are primarily made in Asia.

i just updated the OP with info from Sen Coburn so you can see even more pork.

some of my new favorites...

• $890 million to the Social Security Administration
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI
• $248 million for furniture at the new Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters
• $246 million for Hollywood for the purchase of motion picture film.

AWESOME!!!

Msut77

02-04-2009, 10:15 PM

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I like a lot of things that are included in the stimulus, but have a hard time justifying them as stimulus.

Stuff like funding for the arts, sex education etc. etc. that's been in various versions of this is sorely needed, but are things that should go through the normal appropriations process and not get lumped into the economic stimulus package.

Unless Obama plans on teaching sex ed through his youtube addresses and keeping all the cash it is stimulus.

All this bitching is about what 1 or 2 percent of the bill? The faux outrage has gotten a bit sickening.

Blackout

02-04-2009, 10:17 PM

So if all that stuff doesn't get passed, we're going to all end up jobless and eating our children to survive? I was reading a Yahoo article today where Obama said if we don't get the stimulus package, then basically the whole country is going to hell, we're all going to die, etc etc. So here we go again with the trying to scare everyone shitless routine. I really can't see how half of that shit is supposed to help anything, but whatever.

elprincipe

02-04-2009, 10:19 PM

speedracer

02-04-2009, 10:23 PM

All this bitching is about what 1 or 2 percent of the bill? The faux outrage has gotten a bit sickening.
A coupla percent of a number as big as they're talking about is a whole huggy bunch of money.

Msut77

02-04-2009, 10:28 PM

A coupla percent of a number as big as they're talking about is a whole huggy bunch of money.

Its a bunch of money to you or me, government wise its a week or two in Iraq.

speedracer

02-04-2009, 10:31 PM

i just updated the OP with info from Sen Coburn so you can see even more pork.

some of my new favorites...

• $890 million to the Social Security Administration
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI
• $248 million for furniture at the new Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters
• $246 million for Hollywood for the purchase of motion picture film.

AWESOME!!!
It's as if the Republicans become Republicans when they're the minority party...? It's like the rebirth of the paleo-conservative breed on the economic front. Hell, they're even chirping about trying to block this bill, despite being beyond reasonably able to swipe more than handful of Dem votes on any one issue.

Gotta give credit to the Republican leadership on this one. They've landed the first blow in this bill fight and are doing quite well for themselves. Guess I'll have to stop calling the House minority leader "Boner".

Obama's playing catch up on this one. Will be very interesting to see how he handles it. Can Rahm make it happen by his rules? How much capital does Obama really have, and what does he really want?

rickonker

02-04-2009, 10:39 PM

It's as if the Republicans become Republicans when they're the minority party...? It's like the rebirth of the paleo-conservative breed on the economic front. Hell, they're even chirping about trying to block this bill, despite being beyond reasonably able to swipe more than handful of Dem votes on any one issue.

Gotta give credit to the Republican leadership on this one. They've landed the first blow in this bill fight and are doing quite well for themselves. Guess I'll have to stop calling the House minority leader "Boner".

Obama's playing catch up on this one. Will be very interesting to see how he handles it. Can Rahm make it happen by his rules? How much capital does Obama really have, and what does he really want?
I'm no Republican but they generally do a better job as the opposition party than Democrats...which is not saying much. We saw what pussies most Democratic members of Congress are in the last few years.

speedracer

02-04-2009, 10:44 PM

I'm no Republican but they generally do a better job as the opposition party than Democrats...which is not saying much. We saw what pussies most Democratic members of Congress are in the last few years.
Democratic executive with a vicious Republican opposition is the only way to go in the duopoly.

And no kidding about Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the whimpering Dems. Why the hell do Pelosi and Reid still have jobs leading anything?

KingBroly

02-04-2009, 11:17 PM

Well, Pelosi single-handedly won the Democrats the House. She hand-picked a lot of Democratic candidates for 2006, and she was the one yanking the chain behind the scenes getting themselves out of the spotlight so the Republicans could just fall on their asses by themselves. That's the only reason I can figure she still has any pull, oh, and the fact that she can kill zombies by looking at them from 50 yards away.

As for Reid, who knows. If the Republicans run a decent candidate against him in 2010, he's done.

RAMSTORIA

02-04-2009, 11:57 PM

and the fact that she can kill zombies by looking at them from 50 yards away.

http://samuelatgilgal.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/nancy-pelosi.jpg

elprincipe

02-05-2009, 01:45 AM

^^ don't ever do that to us again.

fatherofcaitlyn

02-05-2009, 11:14 AM

I want to argue that pork is bad, but we're still pissing money away on Iraq and Afghanistan.

But ...

It is fun to read people's posts complaining about the fleas jumping off of the fur of the wolf whilst ignoring the wolf eating eviscerating everybody in the room.

KingBroly

02-05-2009, 11:36 AM

I want to argue that pork is bad, but we're still pissing money away on Iraq and Afghanistan.

And Obama's going to continue to piss money away into Iraq and Afghanistan, just like we all knew he would.

Sarang01

02-05-2009, 12:25 PM

Sarang, you called yourself a "Classical Libertarian"...I'm not sure what that is, but you should know that a "Buy American" clause would hurt the American economy, not help it. I'm not defending the EU on this though because some of them are big hypocrites when it comes to protectionism.

Perhaps you realize then I wasn't behind this nonsense bill to begin with as I didn't support the bank bailout either.
I only say "Buy American" because American Tax Dollars are behind it. Do you think the majority of Americans would say "YES buy (shitty) Chinese Steel or European Steel with my money behind it!"? I buy American myself when I can. If not I'll buy Japanese or anything but Chinese if I can help it. I think the Chinese don't make a good product unless an outside company is hiring them for it and I now must add, supervising them like a hawk.
As a Classical Libertarian you should also know I don't believe in mergers and Corporations existing for 30 years at max unless they're on a Public Works project which gives them 5 more years.

gareman

02-05-2009, 03:36 PM

Well, I'd just like to throw my 2 cents in here.

"Bullshit such as abstinence". Abstinence education seems to be the scapegoat for why education doesn't work. Fact is that sex education was barely taught in schools 60 or so years ago and although now it is, the teen pregnancy and STD rates have skyrocketed.

The root of the issue, to me, is that there's not a good enough punishment for being promiscuous . Obviously not, seeing as people can still have sex with STDs. Nature's one punishment for being promiscuous seems to have disappeared, seeing as now girls can now get child support and various government programs. In the 20s, women who had children out of wedlock with no plans to get married were pretty much screwed, so women didn't do it and they were stigmatized for it. Now we're in a position where women actually aren't *screwed* anymore for being promiscuous , and surprise surprise, no matter how much birth control options there is ( at LEAST 10 by the way ), the safe haven laws, abortion, adoption, more women are opting to raise children unwed than in past times. Probably because of their innate desire to have children*, which makes me believe that giving them and only them a more respectable form of birth control is some kind of sick joke, but that's a story for another day.

It's all related. When you almost give women incentives to be promiscuous and take away stigmas from it, then they'll have more sex. More sex will equal more STDs. I guarantee that if they were to come out and cut these programs and child support that these problems would be solved. I guarantee it.

* Lets make this clear, i do not assume that every woman wants to have children all of the time , but i do assume that those who have little or no ambition would be willing to do it now more than later, those who would most benefit from child support and other government support they wouldn't get otherwise.

That's not true at all. Both of my Grandparents had their first children before they were 18. It was simply more acceptable in the 40/50s for women to have children and get married at 16 or 17, then it is now. I wish I could find some real stats but I know teen pregnancy has dropped. Just like how school violence has actually decreased, but we sensationalize when it does happen and pretend that "back in the day" this never would have happened.

fatherofcaitlyn

02-05-2009, 03:39 PM

And Obama's going to continue to piss money away into Iraq and Afghanistan, just like we all knew he would.

Yeah, I know ...

Hopefully, he won't start any new wars like Iran or Russia like John "Fuck it! I'm already dead!" McCain would have.

elprincipe

02-06-2009, 12:05 AM

And Obama's going to continue to piss money away into Iraq and Afghanistan, just like we all knew he would.

The proposed stimulus bill will cost more than the combined cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. That just shows how beyond astronomically high amounts we are dealing with, since Iraq was unbelievably expensive (and continues to be, although hopefully that cost is now going well down).

Msut77

02-06-2009, 01:15 AM

The proposed stimulus bill will cost more than the combined cost of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq will cost 3 trillion plus.

RAMSTORIA

02-06-2009, 01:28 AM

Iraq will cost 3 trillion plus.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home ?

show me otherwise and ill read it.

KingBroly

02-06-2009, 04:10 AM

The proposed stimulus bill will cost more than the combined cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. That just shows how beyond astronomically high amounts we are dealing with, since Iraq was unbelievably expensive (and continues to be, although hopefully that cost is now going well down).

I know. It's already the highest expenditure the US Government has ever had, and that includes social security.

Friend of Sonic

02-06-2009, 07:58 AM

I was watching The Early Show as a I peeled GS stickers from my Game Boy games I got from Gamestop (trying to clean up my game collection and my 150+ games from the 75% off sale were the last games I had left to clean up) and they were during a story on the stimlus. They showed a short clip of John McCain saying, "The stimlus bill would cost each tax payer 275,000."

I'm way too tired to go look this up to see if that's true, so I may come off sounding like John Q Suzy Housemaker, but wtf?! 275,000 dollars?! I make 30k a year, damn it!

KingBroly

02-06-2009, 08:16 AM

I didn't hear the clip but I'm going to guess he meant that much extra during their lifetime.

Msut77

02-06-2009, 11:31 AM

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home ?

show me otherwise and ill read it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846_pf.html

Msut77

02-06-2009, 11:36 AM

I know. It's already the highest expenditure the US Government has ever had, and that includes social security.

I am fairly certain it has been pointed out to you that would only be true if you failed to adjust for inflation or include defense expenditures.

Now you are just being dishonest.

BillyBob29

02-06-2009, 11:57 AM

This stimulus bill will take us to about 70% debt to GDP, which I believe is a post WW2 high. It should also be mentioned that this stimulus plan DOES NOT include the additional spending that is coming up in this "TARP 2" move that is expected to be announced or introduced sometime next week.

Another interesting tidibt, Japan went through 8 stimulus plans in 8 years trying to get out of their economic spiral in the 90's and their plans actually included far more spending on actual infastrucuture than our current pork filled bill does. Today, around 20 years after that whole mess in Japan started, they are sitting with an 86% debt to GDP ratio and have yet to really experience a sizeable "rebound" since the initial crash. But we have "closely looked at the mistakes made by Japan" haven't we Washington??;)

KingBroly

02-06-2009, 12:13 PM

I am fairly certain it has been pointed out to you that would only be true if you failed to adjust for inflation or include defense expenditures.

Now you are just being dishonest.

So...we have 800+ billion from Bush, and now 900 billion from Obama (once again, assuming it passes now and not later). And I'm damn sure we'll get another one of these things in 3 months, so put in another trillion. That's 3 trillion dollars roughly (hell, we might get another one as a "Christmas Bonus").

And we're not putting the cost to run the military in this. If we were, I'd say we put in the paychecks of lobbyists from politicians and Federal parties that happen every week up there.

What did the first bill do? Nothing. What will this one do? Nothing. You will not see ANY effect in your neighborhood when it comes to this money. They're just pissing it away.

Kayden

02-06-2009, 12:16 PM

1,300,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 = 4,333.33

I think he's a little off... Even if you consider half the population as taxable it's less than 9k. Granted, I still don't want to pay either amount for someone to get new grass...

I was watching The Early Show as a I peeled GS stickers from my Game Boy games I got from Gamestop (trying to clean up my game collection and my 150+ games from the 75% off sale were the last games I had left to clean up) and they were during a story on the stimlus. They showed a short clip of John McCain saying, "The stimlus bill would cost each tax payer 275,000."

I'm way too tired to go look this up to see if that's true, so I may come off sounding like John Q Suzy Housemaker, but wtf?! 275,000 dollars?! I make 30k a year, damn it!

I have the craziest solution. How about we, as a whole, STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T FUCKING HAVE!?

This is the reason I don't read the news. There's so much shit that's wrong with the world and the answers are so fucking obvious it's infuriating. Companies lay of 5,000 people, but the top 1% of the company takes home 50% of the profit.
We pay politicians hundreds of thousands of dollars to refuse to agree on an issue for 6 months a year for 4 years and then continue to pay them for the rest of their lives... WHO THE FUCK CAME UP WITH THAT IDEA? I also love how they aren't allowed to give themselves raises... that take effect that term, but "cost of living increases" are just dandy.
Social security needs to be thrown away. If you don't have enough sense to set up an IRA or something, you deserve to wind up on your ass. At least if you die early, your family gets your IRA. You can work from 16-65 and die before your first SS check shows up and the money just goes to someone else. Awesome.

...I fucking hate people.

thrustbucket

02-06-2009, 12:25 PM

I'm currently in the Yucatan and after watching this news I have found a bank (Banco Azteca) that will sell pure silver coins at near market prices. I think I'm going to buy as many as I can.

Msut77

02-06-2009, 12:45 PM

So...we have 800+ billion from Bush, and now 900 billion from Obama (once again, assuming it passes now and not later). And I'm damn sure we'll get another one of these things in 3 months, so put in another trillion. That's 3 trillion dollars roughly (hell, we might get another one as a "Christmas Bonus").

And we're not putting the cost to run the military in this. If we were, I'd say we put in the paychecks of lobbyists from politicians and Federal parties that happen every week up there.

What did the first bill do? Nothing. What will this one do? Nothing. You will not see ANY effect in your neighborhood when it comes to this money. They're just pissing it away.

You really should not try to confuse the bailout and the stimulus.

Ruined

02-06-2009, 01:14 PM

More pork? Yes we can!

RAMSTORIA

02-06-2009, 01:55 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846_pf.html

yeah ive seen that, they have to throw in a lot of stuff and speculation to reach the 3 trillion number. im sure if we tried hard enough we can get this bill up to 3 trillion, we just have to counting other things like interest, inflation, unemployment, welfare benefits, etc.

tivo

02-06-2009, 03:20 PM

mykevermin

02-06-2009, 03:28 PM

That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.

Oh, for fuck's sake...

usickenme

02-06-2009, 04:00 PM

The spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy.

Mitt Romney outlines what the stimulus package should consist of:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/romney.stimulus/index.html

Mitt is an idiot. He writes "these are extraordinary times" and then resorts to ordinary GOP economic policy. There is not one thing that address the current situation.

to summarize his plan

First-tax cuts
Second- spending for the Military
Third-tax cuts
Fourth- eliminate or reduce entitlements
Fifth- tax cuts

On top on this pile of BS Mitts adds giving himself props, retreading Republican campaign attacks on Obama and a few Reagan lines for good measure.

Mitt you suck. There is a reason you lost and MA is in especially deep doo.

BillyBob29

02-06-2009, 04:21 PM

Obviously the stimulus needs to consist of more than tax cuts but Mitt is right when we says this current plan will basically stimulate nothing but wasteful government programs.

This plan isn't anything close to a infrastructure bill, as Obama originally pitched it. It is overflowing with billions of dollars of pet projects that will not stimulate economic growth or help the struggling consumer.

At least a tax cut focused plan would allow people to have a little extra money every 2 weeks to pay off debt........assuming they still have a job of course.;)

usickenme

02-06-2009, 04:32 PM

"overflowing"? Hardly. Are there some questionable items but every list presented by these jokers has amounted to less then 1%.

And some of these actually will stimulate the economy (by example $600 million worth of fuel efficient cars) but not in meaningful or lasting way

KingBroly

02-06-2009, 04:48 PM

You really should not try to confuse the bailout and the stimulus.

The money may be going to different places, but the concept is the same. And the money will be pissed away just like the rest.

Msut77

02-06-2009, 05:04 PM

The money may be going to different places, but the concept is the same. And the money will be pissed away just like the rest.

You contradict yourself in your first statement.

The whole entire point is where the money is going.

HowStern

02-06-2009, 07:33 PM

I just skimmed it quickly and didn't see a whole ton of pork. Most of those things will create jobs. But like I said I only skimmed it. I'm sure there are some "wooden arrow" funds in there that don't belong.

KingBroly

02-06-2009, 08:22 PM

Foolish politicians with their foolish wording trying to foolish fool the foolish fools who read their foolish words. You can't fool me.

Seriously, though. I know this is the no man's land forum, but can we please ban the next person to use that Nancy Pelosi picture? Seriously. It's reducing everyone's life expectancy.

BillyBob29

02-07-2009, 01:31 AM

I got all excited when I read about the incentives /credits to buy a new car in this bill......until I read that all those incentives / tax credits are for cars $45k or less. Booooo!

Capitalizt

02-07-2009, 03:26 AM

bigsick

02-07-2009, 05:24 AM

I'm currently in the Yucatan and after watching this news I have found a bank (Banco Azteca) that will sell pure silver coins at near market prices. I think I'm going to buy as many as I can.

Might want to hurry that up. Silver rounds are 13 bucks and skyrocketing. They will probably hit 20 bucks each very soon. Gold is also extremely expensive.

fatherofcaitlyn

02-07-2009, 09:18 AM

Precious metal nuts. You poor, stupid fools.

If things go really bad, necessities will trump trinkets.

After Katrina, people didn't want gold coins. They wanted blue jeans.

Here are your priorities: 1. Food and water. 2. Shelter. 3. Land to acquire #1 and place #2 (PUN!) 4. Weapons to defend or acquire numbers 1, 2 and 3.

Gold is just like any other currency. You have to find somebody willing to trade it for something else.

KingBroly

02-07-2009, 09:22 AM

So where do pants fall under on the priorities list?

thrustbucket

02-07-2009, 10:11 AM

They are selling libertads fort about $15 (226 pesos) but i was only able to pick up one since they won't take Dollars for them (which is amusing). I'll try to get more if i can acquire some more pesos.

fatherofcaitlyn

02-07-2009, 10:38 AM

So where do pants fall under on the priorities list?

Shelter. As in, sheltering your balls.

Capitalizt

02-07-2009, 11:00 AM

Precious metal nuts. You poor, stupid fools.

If things go really bad, necessities will trump trinkets.

Yes..but if things don't go to complete shit (nuclear war and anarchy), there will certainly be a market for goods and services, and people will be willing to trade necessities for precious metals. Gold and silver are a universal form of money and always have been.. They can always be used as a medium of exchange which is far superior to bartering product A for product B. If you have plenty of jeans but need some food, you'll either need to find someone who happens to have food and needs a pair of jeans (unlikely), or someone who has food and is willing to accept gold and silver as payment (much more likely). If people have lost faith in their government, paper money will be worthless..but gold and silver can always be converted to anything else.

Kayden

02-07-2009, 12:52 PM

You forgot #5. A cemetery to bury people that couldn't do 1-3 or fell victim to those who could do #4.

Precious metal nuts. You poor, stupid fools.

If things go really bad, necessities will trump trinkets.

After Katrina, people didn't want gold coins. They wanted blue jeans.

Here are your priorities: 1. Food and water. 2. Shelter. 3. Land to acquire #1 and place #2 (PUN!) 4. Weapons to defend or acquire numbers 1, 2 and 3.

Gold is just like any other currency. You have to find somebody willing to trade it for something else.

Ikohn4ever

02-07-2009, 02:51 PM

this is what was cut if it passes now

Fully eliminated
• $55 million for historic preservation
• $122 million for new Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters
• $100 million for Farm Service Agency modernization
• $50 million for CSERES research
• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation
• $30 million for SD salaries
• $100 for distance learning
• $98 million for school nutrition
• $50 million for aquaculture
• $2 billion for broadband
• $100 million for NIST
• $50 million for detention trustee
• $25 million for Marshalls Construction
• $300 million for federal prisons
• $300 million for BYRNE Formula
• $140 million for BYRNE Competitive
• $10 million state and local law enforcement
• $50 million for NASA
• $50 million for aeronautics
• $50 million for exploration
• $50 million for Cross Agency Support
• $200 million for National Science Foundation
• $100 million for science
• $1 billion for Energy Loan Guarantees
• $4.5 billion for GSA
• $89 million GSA operations
• $50 million from DHS
• $200 million TSA
• $122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use
• $25 million for Fish and Wildlife
• $20 million for working capital fund
• $165 million for Forest Service capital improvement
• $90 million for State and Private Wildlife Fire Management
• $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start
• $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity
• $2 billion for HIT Grants
• $600 million for Title I (NCLB)
• $16 billion for school construction
• $3.5 billion for higher education construction
• $1.25 billion for project based rental
• $2.25 for Neighborhood Stabilization
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/content/ads/advertisement.gif

• $1.2 billion for retrofitting Project 8 housing
• $40 billion for state fiscal stabilization (includes $7.5 billion of state incentive grants)

i bolded stuff that i felt should remain on here for different reasons, mostly education and job creation.

KingBroly

02-07-2009, 03:32 PM

I don't think more schools is the problem. We need to be building bigger schools. How many schools now open with a larger capacity then they were expecting? I'd imagine a lot.

I find it funny you bolded $100 million for science (a vague as hell term) but not $300 million for the federal prisons.

Also, I could spare that single neighborhood 2 dollars and 25 cents.

mtxbass1

02-07-2009, 05:39 PM

• $16 billion for school construction
• $3.5 billion for higher education construction

I'm really confused as to why they are cutting this. Wouldn't you create more jobs from not only the construction of the schools themselves, but also jobs for the teachers/staff of these schools?

thrustbucket

02-07-2009, 11:23 PM

i bolded stuff that i felt should remain on here for different reasons, mostly education and job creation.

Well as I understand it, the entire original point of this bill was to directly stimulate the economy, which in turn, should create jobs.

Even if items in the bill are "good ideas" to some, it's still pork, and outside the intent of the bill.

There is still plenty of of line items still in the bill that are questionable as far as directly stimulating the economy.

The thing that gets me is that the average life-cycle of a recession is 18 months. Most of the stuff in this bill, it's authors admit, won't have much affect for years. So basically if we just left things alone, things SHOULD start bouncing back in about 6 months. But no - the government needs to "fix" things, like always, and will make everything much worse.

I also don't fully understand why each line item can't be voted on separately. Then again, any common sense efficiencies are something the government usually doesn't do.

Sarang01

02-07-2009, 11:53 PM

Well I don't think the $2 billion on Broadband expansion is a bad idea. Just my opinion though.

I think that $300 million on Federal Prisons should've been cut.

What else? I think that money cut on Health Prevention is ridiculous. "Aquaculture" for that one item cut seems kinda ambiguous.
WTF is the "Project based rental"? Are we talking the projects or projects?

Msut77

02-08-2009, 12:33 PM

The thing that gets me is that the average life-cycle of a recession is 18 months. Most of the stuff in this bill, it's authors admit, won't have much affect for years. So basically if we just left things alone, things SHOULD start bouncing back in about 6 months. But no - the government needs to "fix" things, like always, and will make everything much worse.

This is not going to be an "average" recessions, its already been over a year and cost more jobs than other recessions and things are only going to get worse.

The second part of thrusts post is just proof that to many this is not about the stimulus or the merits of any particular program that they feel should be cut but their Jihad against the federal government.

mykevermin

02-08-2009, 12:51 PM

fatherofcaitlyn

02-08-2009, 04:26 PM

Yes..but if things don't go to complete shit (nuclear war and anarchy), there will certainly be a market for goods and services, and people will be willing to trade necessities for precious metals. Gold and silver are a universal form of money and always have been.. They can always be used as a medium of exchange which is far superior to bartering product A for product B. If you have plenty of jeans but need some food, you'll either need to find someone who happens to have food and needs a pair of jeans (unlikely), or someone who has food and is willing to accept gold and silver as payment (much more likely). If people have lost faith in their government, paper money will be worthless..but gold and silver can always be converted to anything else.

People will only trade for precious metals if their necessities are met.

A starving person won't trade his last meal for gold.

A thirsty person won't trade his last gallon of water for gold.

A modest person won't hand over his only clothes for gold.

If they are deficient in a necessity, a person will work to clear up that deficiency first.

HowStern

02-08-2009, 05:55 PM

Kayden

02-08-2009, 06:58 PM

But an immodest person would trade all his clothes for a gold cockring. :lol:

People will only trade for precious metals if their necessities are met.

A starving person won't trade his last meal for gold.

A thirsty person won't trade his last gallon of water for gold.

A modest person won't hand over his only clothes for gold.

If they are deficient in a necessity, a person will work to clear up that deficiency first.

thrustbucket

02-08-2009, 09:27 PM

We've been experiencing slowed/negative growth since late 2007, and yet, the past three months have been the absolute worst in economic/employment metrics. To think we're on our way back up anytime soon is quite wrong.

Maybe you are right. But do you honestly believe that the government doing what it's doing (conjuring more money up out of nothing and putting us in record debt for the future, while showing all debtor nations that they have no reasons left to invest in the dollar) is going to fix things?

dmaul1114

02-08-2009, 09:37 PM

Bailing out the banks was necessary.

A lot of the stuff in the stimulus bill I don't think will help short term, but it could make things better long term. At least the things tied to education and job creation.

thrustbucket

02-08-2009, 09:39 PM

Well I disagree. I think it made things worse for a number of reasons I've stated already.

Only time will tell who's right.

Really hope you prove me wrong on this one though.

elprincipe

02-09-2009, 12:07 AM

Bailing out the banks was necessary.

Completely disagree.

A lot of the stuff in the stimulus bill I don't think will help short term, but it could make things better long term. At least the things tied to education and job creation.

Why do you think more money for education is going to make our education system better? Education spending has skyrocketed in the United States over the last 40 years, but our results in comparison to the rest of the world seem only to get worse.

http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/images/b2179_chart4.gif

Our education system will not produce better results by getting more money. That much has been proven over decades. The rational approach is to change the structure of the system, not to put more money into a poorly designed system.

dmaul1114

02-09-2009, 12:12 AM

Completely disagree.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. The credit system totally collapsing would have been disastrous. It's bad enough even with the bailouts. But no point arguing with a libertarian on these type of issues as we'll never see eye to eye.

Why do you think more money for education is going to make our education system better?

I was thinking more in terms of building more schools which creates a lot of jobs rather than any benefits of education getting better. I was talking about the economy rather than education.

Education could get better with smaller class sizes, but it would have to be coupled with reforms which are needed more than money. Better pay for teachers in some areas, more accountability for performance of teachers etc. etc.

lilboo

02-09-2009, 12:14 AM

:lol: @ education.

Tell me: Why are we like one of the 3 countries in the world to use the metric system.
I'm really curious about that. I know it's slightly off topic, but since we are talking about our already fucked up education system..

dmaul1114

02-09-2009, 12:15 AM

People just don't like change, that's all there is to it.

elprincipe

02-09-2009, 12:15 AM

We'll just have to agree to disagree. The credit system totally collapsing would have been disastrous. It's bad enough even with the bailouts. But no point arguing with a libertarian on these type of issues as we'll never see eye to eye.

I'm not a libertarian. I also don't think the credit system would have totally collapsed. But of course we'll never know, since what happened happened.

I'll forego the education part; suffice it to say that I think a radical overhaul (the replacement of our public school system with a private school system) is the answer.

dmaul1114

02-09-2009, 12:18 AM

Yeah, that's also an agree to disagree. I think a private school only system wouldn't work.

The public system just needs tweaked.

thrustbucket

02-09-2009, 02:01 AM

We'll just have to agree to disagree. The credit system totally collapsing would have been disastrous. It's bad enough even with the bailouts. But no point arguing with a libertarian on these type of issues as we'll never see eye to eye.
That may be. But you do realize that the bailout to "save" our credit system comes at the cost of putting an already tenuous situation with our world creditors at a much higher risk, right?

You can only give the finger (bailouts/printing money) to your creditors (in this case, several foreign countries) for so long, before they decide you are too much of a liability.

Do you have any idea what will happen when/if other nations start deciding to stop buying our debt; or worse - ignore the dollar for their goods we depend on? It makes allowing our own banks to "fail" about as serious as a high school prom being canceled in comparison. Every time we do these 800 billion dollar bailouts we don't just take a step, but a flying leap, towards it.

I guess it's just a matter of opinion which is worse out of letting banks fail and pulling the trigger on the total economic failure russian roulette pistol.

But I can promise you this: This is the first of several bailouts. Once it's started, and widely viewed as the only solution, they will keep coming; especially under this administration.

Education could get better with smaller class sizes, but it would have to be coupled with reforms which are needed more than money. Better pay for teachers in some areas, more accountability for performance of teachers etc. etc.
I agree with that.

gareman

02-09-2009, 03:36 AM

I'm not a libertarian. I also don't think the credit system would have totally collapsed. But of course we'll never know, since what happened happened.

I'll forego the education part; suffice it to say that I think a radical overhaul (the replacement of our public school system with a private school system) is the answer.

Hey check this out.

http://news.illinois.edu/NEWS/06/0123lubienski.html

It also says in my Psych textbook that private school graduates have a higher risk for criminal, binge drinking, and drug use during college than their Public school counterparts. Grade-wise the stats are about even.

fatherofcaitlyn

02-09-2009, 10:23 AM

But an immodest person would trade all his clothes for a gold cockring. :lol:

If it is warm enough outside, yes.

speedracer

02-09-2009, 11:20 AM

That may be. But you do realize that the bailout to "save" our credit system comes at the cost of putting an already tenuous situation with our world creditors at a much higher risk, right?

You can only give the finger (bailouts/printing money) to your creditors (in this case, several foreign countries) for so long, before they decide you are too much of a liability.

Do you have any idea what will happen when/if other nations start deciding to stop buying our debt; or worse - ignore the dollar for their goods we depend on? It makes allowing our own banks to "fail" about as serious as a high school prom being canceled in comparison. Every time we do these 800 billion dollar bailouts we don't just take a step, but a flying leap, towards it.
The creditors will only call on the notes if they feel that they can do better elsewhere or they can lower their risk. They certainly can't do better elsewhere. Britain? A one trick (financial) pony that's cratering. France? A work force that no one wants to deal with. China? They don't exist independently of America's economy. The Asian dragons? Dead in the water. Despite this mess, America is still by orders of magnitude the best place to put money and will be for a very distant foreseeable future. No one matches our ability to innovate, create, and add value. Nor our ability to morph our work force to fit the needs of a changing market place. A couple of weeks ago, I read a piece in the Economist about the European policy makers worrying about their ability to keep up with America when the world comes out of the recession. From the inside, yea, we look up shit creek without a paddle. From the outside, the world wonders where the hell we got that sweet ass canoe in the first place, forgetting the paddles.

HowStern

02-09-2009, 11:40 AM

Completely disagree.

Why do you think more money for education is going to make our education system better? Education spending has skyrocketed in the United States over the last 40 years, but our results in comparison to the rest of the world seem only to get worse.

http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/images/b2179_chart4.gif

Our education system will not produce better results by getting more money. That much has been proven over decades. The rational approach is to change the structure of the system, not to put more money into a poorly designed system.

Yes, the system has to be redesigned completely but also I bet there are variables that weren't taken into consideration in that chart. Like how class sizes keep growing for one. That alone would make it so the added money is enough to just keep everyone on level with the constantly growing student body.

edit: wow, wait....That chart starts in 1970. With all the new technologies made available since thenand the growth of class size spending has only gone up $5,200 over a 25 year period. That is far from "skyrocketing"

fatherofcaitlyn

02-09-2009, 12:55 PM

edit: wow, wait....That chart starts in 1970. With all the new technologies made available since thenand the growth of class size spending has only gone up $5,200 over a 25 year period. That is far from "skyrocketing"

That is an increase of 128% over 25 years. That's nearly 3-4% growth if the graph is adjusted for inflation. If it isn't, ...

speedracer

02-09-2009, 12:56 PM

Yes, the system has to be redesigned completely but also I bet there are variables that weren't taken into consideration in that chart. Like how class sizes keep growing for one. That alone would make it so the added money is enough to just keep everyone on level with the constantly growing student body.

edit: wow, wait....That chart starts in 1970. With all the new technologies made available since thenand the growth of class size spending has only gone up $5,200 over a 25 year period. That is far from "skyrocketing"
Good post. That chart is friggin absurd. Four data points makes for a cognizant position? Really? Are we that OCD?
That is an increase of 128% over 25 years. That's nearly 3-4% growth if the graph is adjusted for inflation. If it isn't, ...
Given the data represented, I can't imagine the author took something as "difficult" as inflation into account. Judging from the footnotes, it seems to be pretty raw data. Looks like someone has an axe to grind. The "link"... what a joke.

KingBroly

02-09-2009, 03:28 PM

Wait a minute. Did I just hear that this bill includes his health care reform plan? The one that digitizes and federalizes all medical records for a bureaucracy to oversee?

Dr Mario Kart

02-09-2009, 03:48 PM

Kids of the same age happen to read around the same level when you average them altogether. Shocking. With that said, averages are largely irrelevant. We want the people who are actually bright to be able to get ahead. The curriculum needs to be tough, with the very purpose being that people will and should be left behind. Focus needs to be skewed towards the end of the distribution curve while the averages are left alone.

Money spent does matter, but it has to be spent correctly.

gareman

02-09-2009, 03:53 PM

Wait a minute. Did I just hear that this bill includes his health care reform plan? The one that digitizes and federalizes all medical records for a bureaucracy to oversee?

A bureaucracy already sees over medical records and care. Don't you think that insurance companies run by MBAs telling what meds should be paid for, what surgeries people need, and how long someone needs to stay in the hospital, all the while trying to turn a profit and market their product isn't littered with bureaucracy?

My girlfriend has insurance and I use state and federal government for my medical care, and I have to jump through far less hoops (if any) and have far less red tape than she does. I would say the only downside to government programs that I use, as opposed to her private health care is that I have to wait an average of a half a day to a day longer for doctors appointments. I get my prescriptions faster, and often, believe it or not, have far more doctors to choose from.

KingBroly

02-10-2009, 12:18 AM

We're talking about privacy for patients and the Federal Government controlling your medical decisions. Here's the link if you want to look at the article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

I don't the Federal Government can keep anything secret when it comes to ordinary citizens. Also, no one's talking about this. The fact that it was thrown in there with the rest of the crap and it doesn't even raise an eyebrow is frightening.

dmaul1114

02-10-2009, 12:25 AM

Medical records are great, but the government should have not access or involvement beyond providing assistance, tax breaks etc. to offices to adopt them.

My doctor went all electronic years ago and it's great as he has all my records on his laptop he carries around so we can look through my history etc. right then without digging up files, worrying about things getting lost etc. He can send prescriptions to my pharmacy from that laptop, do referrals etc.

It would be great if all medical offices were like that. But I'd agree that I don't see how it has anything to do with stimulating the economy. I guess the argument is it makes things more efficient and can lower medical costs some which equals more money in people's pockets. But I don't necessarily buy that. It's a good thing, but I don't think it will help the economy--just the quality of medical care.

Kayden

02-10-2009, 12:27 AM

So you're saying we should stop dumbing down curricula for people that actively avoid learning and spend our efforts on intelligent people?

It's too good of an idea to work. Morons are the majority and they don't like the thought of their little mongoloids not being given the chance to ignore lessons tailored to their 75 point IQs.

Kids of the same age happen to read around the same level when you average them altogether. Shocking. With that said, averages are largely irrelevant. We want the people who are actually bright to be able to get ahead. The curriculum needs to be tough, with the very purpose being that people will and should be left behind. Focus needs to be skewed towards the end of the distribution curve while the averages are left alone.

Money spent does matter, but it has to be spent correctly.

Kayden

02-10-2009, 12:28 AM

When is money saved by a business ever passed on to the consumer?
Medical records are great, but the government should have not access or involvement beyond providing assistance, tax breaks etc. to offices to adopt them.

My doctor went all electronic years ago and it's great as he has all my records on his laptop he carries around so we can look through my history etc. right then without digging up files, worrying about things getting lost etc. He can send prescriptions to my pharmacy from that laptop, do referrals etc.

It would be great if all medical offices were like that. But I'd agree that I don't see how it has anything to do with stimulating the economy. I guess the argument is it makes things more efficient and can lower medical costs some which equals more money in people's pockets. But I don't necessarily buy that. It's a good thing, but I don't think it will help the economy--just the quality of medical care.

elprincipe

02-10-2009, 12:48 AM

Hey check this out.

http://news.illinois.edu/NEWS/06/0123lubienski.html

It also says in my Psych textbook that private school graduates have a higher risk for criminal, binge drinking, and drug use during college than their Public school counterparts. Grade-wise the stats are about even.

Interesting article. I would like to know more about the controlling they did for demographic differences. Thanks for the info.

elprincipe

02-10-2009, 12:50 AM

elprincipe

02-10-2009, 12:53 AM

Good post. That chart is friggin absurd. Four data points makes for a cognizant position? Really? Are we that OCD?

Given the data represented, I can't imagine the author took something as "difficult" as inflation into account. Judging from the footnotes, it seems to be pretty raw data. Looks like someone has an axe to grind. The "link"... what a joke.

You all are so quick to want to dismiss perfectly good data that you missed the large words "CONSTANT 2006-07 DOLLARS." Sheesh. There's plenty more data in the study (and other studies) that you can read, but I didn't want to post 50 graphs in this threat and instead picked one that showed my point well.

Dr Mario Kart

02-10-2009, 01:33 AM

The education system is pretty broken, there is no doubt. The 2 charts that would better show it are worldwide per capita spending (which show us leading most), and a worldwide ranking for some educational metric or another (which show us not leading)

However, for those individual countries, I have no doubt that they are spending more per capita than THEY used to to, and secondarily: Those places that are beating us are largely into their social programs, from some form of national health care to robust public transportation to free or greatly reduced education clear through the university level.

usickenme

02-10-2009, 02:11 AM

We're talking about privacy for patients and the Federal Government controlling your medical decisions. Here's the link if you want to look at the article:

.

People like you and the article's author really have no clue how the current health care system really works.

usickenme

02-10-2009, 02:15 AM

I think a radical overhaul (the replacement of our public school system with a private school system) is the answer.

that is as retarded as your "chart" which proves nothing.

RAMSTORIA

02-10-2009, 03:18 AM

in case you missed this...

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

its an opinion piece, but the provision is still in the stimulus.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

a step towards social medicine? sounds more like fascist medicine.

Dr Mario Kart

02-10-2009, 03:31 AM

RAMSTORIA

02-10-2009, 04:10 AM

Someone needs to explain how tax breaks are a stimulus at all. Thats the only real pork in this bill. The package as a whole is going to fail solely because of that. There is nearly no such thing as wasteful spending in this scenario. That guy being paid to repair the DC grounds after the inauguration? He is going to spend 98-100% of his paycheck, guaranteed. Someone has to administer each and everyone of these programs.

is the guy that repairs the grounds at the national mall going to spend his pay check, sure. is it going to create new jobs? doubtful, and if it did, theyd be temporary ones for what, a few days to re-sod the grass.

600 million for eco-friendly cars, sure thats great for detroit and all, but does that mean GM is going to suddenly hire back thousands of workers, again, doubtful.

moodyseconomy.com? lets see what their chief economist has to say...

Fiscal stimulus does carry substantial costs. The federal budget deficit, which topped $450 billion in fiscal year 2008, could reach $2 trillion in fiscal 2009 and remain as high in 2010. Borrowing by the Treasury will top $2 trillion this year. There will also be substantial long-term costs to extricate the government from the financial system. Unintended consequences of all the actions taken in such a short period will be considerable. These are problems for another day, however.

these are problems for another day... wow that sounds promising.

The House stimulus plan will not reverse the current recession, but it will provide a vital boost to the flagging economy. With the stimulus, there will be 4 million more jobs and the jobless rate will be more than 2 percentage points lower by the end of 2010 than without any fiscal stimulus. Without stimulus, unemployment will rise well into the double digits by this time next year, and the economy will not return to full employment until 2014.

so, with this trillion dollars we are printing we get lower unemployment for the next few years, ie 9% instead of 11%. he doesnt state when the economy will return to "full employment" with the stimulus, 2013 maybe?

the bill should be a fine combination of tax cuts and precision spending, certainly not what it is now.

Dr Mario Kart

02-10-2009, 04:20 AM

Nearly everyone can agree that the current stimulus package is garbage, but for different reasons.

Having to balloon the deficit or printing money to cover the costs dooms the entire thing. Every solution out of this mess begins with taxing the rich. Not because we can, but because we must. The disparate accumulation of wealth is the root cause of the collapse. There is no longer any demand in the system because the people that buy things are tapped, their home equity is tapped, their savings are gone - All redistributed to the top ever so slowly since Reagan. This is the natural result of anything that even approaches free market capitalism.

I'm starting to think that this country is done. Obama came too late, and is catering too much to the people who helped cause the problem.

The spending part of the bill isnt nearly big enough to have a meaningful impact, the bailout (which is a separate bill, I know) is the worst possible option.

I dont know if there is enough willingness in the world to buy enough of our treasury bonds/financing our debt for what we need to do. Since we're not raising taxes, we're going to print. A lot of foriegn owned USD is going to be used to buy assets in the US, from real estate to commercial capacities. Theres a point where theres no reason to loan us money when they can just buy us straight up. When the bottom falls out this time, it wont be our country anymore.

KingBroly

02-10-2009, 05:16 AM

People like you and the article's author really have no clue how the current health care system really works.

And you have no idea how badly Government interference ruins everything. Well, you're staring it in the face, and you think it's paradise. Well, WAKE THE fuck UP! Someone's about to bite you square on the ass. Maybe then, when it's too late, you'll repent.

Kayden

02-10-2009, 10:30 AM

Who's up for nuking Washington?

Strell

02-10-2009, 10:38 AM

Who's up for nuking Washington?

And let all those Super Mutants move in? Are you crazy?

Kayden

02-10-2009, 11:01 AM

You're saying it wouldn't be an improvement?

And let all those Super Mutants move in? Are you crazy?

fatherofcaitlyn

02-10-2009, 01:04 PM

You're saying it wouldn't be an improvement?

It is a well known fact that Super Mutants do not age.

With the current situation, new representatives are all but guaranteed every 40 years.

With immortal Super Mutants, we would have to enact term limits.

Also, would a Super Mutant with multiple heads and consciousnesses or a Super Mutant with multiple bodies yet a shared consciousness be allow to hold multiple seats?

Kayden

02-10-2009, 01:39 PM

Does it matter? The most pressing agenda they'd have to debate is who to eat. Stay the fuck outta DC and we wont have a problem.

It is a well known fact that Super Mutants do not age.

With the current situation, new representatives are all but guaranteed every 40 years.

With immortal Super Mutants, we would have to enact term limits.

Also, would a Super Mutant with multiple heads and consciousnesses or a Super Mutant with multiple bodies yet a shared consciousness be allow to hold multiple seats?

Msut77

02-10-2009, 03:18 PM

And you have no idea how badly Government interference ruins everything. Well, you're staring it in the face, and you think it's paradise. Well, WAKE THE fuck UP! Someone's about to bite you square on the ass. Maybe then, when it's too late, you'll repent.

No offense, but no one should take you seriously.

I for one have had enough of the shitty advice from those who spout nothing but Rush style conservative dogma.

Looking at you as well RAM.

Your opposition is based on faith and not reality or facts, you even go so far as to co-opt the language of religious fundamentalists.

RAMSTORIA

02-10-2009, 03:33 PM

The spending part of the bill isnt nearly big enough to have a meaningful impact,.

id say its more than enough if it was allocated properly.

I for one have had enough of the shitty advice from those who spout nothing but Rush style conservative dogma.

Looking at you as well RAM.

Your opposition is based on faith and not reality or facts, you even go so far as to co-opt the language of religious fundamentalists.

i for one have had enough of the shitty advice from those who spout nothing but olberman style liberal dogma.

looking at you msut.

all you ever do in the forum is criticize people for discussion and ideas. but you never bring anything to the table yourself. kind of like the democratic congress the last 6 years.

Kayden

02-10-2009, 03:36 PM

So... it's religion that says it's a bad idea for the government to dictate medical treatment based on criteria --not even vaguely outlined-- to be defined at a later date by the government?

I thought common sense should tell you that's a bad idea.

I wish I could get a job like that. Sure I'll work for you! As long as you hire me for a sum of yet undetermined amount to do duties I have yet to decide on.

No offense, but no one should take you seriously.

I for one have had enough of the shitty advice from those who spout nothing but Rush style conservative dogma.

Looking at you as well RAM.

Your opposition is based on faith and not reality or facts, you even go so far as to co-opt the language of religious fundamentalists.

Msut77

02-10-2009, 03:42 PM

id say its more than enough if it was allocated properly.

There are award winning Economists who say otherwise. It probably isn't enough and since a respectable percentage is going to tax cuts, which won't do much there might be other bills in the future.

mykevermin

02-10-2009, 03:46 PM

id say its more than enough if it was allocated properly.

Based on what criteria? It's big. It's "huge." It's gi-nor-mous.

But what's more wasteful? A bill half the size that has no effect on the market trends, or a bill twice the size that gets the job done?

(of course, that's rhetorical, given that the bank bailout from the Bush administration didn't seem to have much of an effect, but we don't know that for certain.)

You must enjoy the degree of political theater going on: $700B in freebies to banks and lenders because they fucked up everything: that gets an OK and a quick, painless pass from the GOP. $820/838B in spending from a Democrat President? NO WAI.

Msut77

02-10-2009, 03:49 PM

So... it's religion that says it's a bad idea for the government to dictate medical treatment based on criteria --not even vaguely outlined-- to be defined at a later date by the government

He wasn't talking about just medical care as it really is conservative dogma that "government interference ruins everything".

We already have a screwed up healthcare system, it cannot get worse than it is now with several layers of corporate bureaucracy deciding treatment and accompanying criteria.

BTW there are any number of quotes about how useless personal definitions of common sense are, find one.

If you follow many peoples "Things I believe which I don't feel I have to back up", then keep it to yourself.

RAMSTORIA

02-10-2009, 03:54 PM

Based on what criteria? It's big. It's "huge." It's gi-nor-mous.

You must enjoy the degree of political theater going on: $700B in freebies to banks and lenders because they fucked up everything: that gets an OK and a quick, painless pass from the GOP. $820/838B in spending from a Democrat President? NO WAI.

thats the criteria im talking about baby.

i wish i could say i enjoy the political theater, but its actually very depressing.

edit: oh and i was firmly against both bills, so its not like i was ok with the first and dont like this one simply because of the democrats. ;)

mykevermin

02-10-2009, 03:56 PM

that's some pretty loosely applied and arbitrary criteria, though.

Msut77

02-10-2009, 03:56 PM

all you ever do in the forum is criticize people for discussion and ideas. but you never bring anything to the table yourself.

I criticize the clueless and the dishonest.

I have no problem having an actual discussion but right now you are just blatantly lying.

Kayden

02-10-2009, 04:00 PM

Where's your proof? ;)

I criticize the clueless and the dishonest.

I have no problem having an actual discussion but right now you are just blatantly lying.

RAMSTORIA

02-10-2009, 04:09 PM

I criticize the clueless and the dishonest.

I have no problem having an actual discussion but right now you are just blatantly lying.

lets take a look at this thread for example...

More pork than what? Some fictitious non pork alternative?

You really think people are going to get outraged over money for healthcare and research etc., you think a pro STD position is gonna sell?

Give the fuck up.

Do you even read what you post?

It is bad enough that you use Newsmax as a source but at the very least you can peruse your own links.

You would think that those who take your moronic stance like Vitter would be less pro-STD considering all of the money they spend on hookers.

Just because you are incapable of making an argument does not mean there is no need to argue.

Does anyone actually believe that STD prevention and education should be left to private groups?

Have any of those you to refer to as "Anyone" failed to have noticed that even when it is left to private groups we get bullshit such as abstinence only education?

If you want to argue with someone who is undeniably wrong, there is prince and the op still pushing the same tired and discredited nonsense about ACORN get a bajillion dollars.

Some of it is, especially the part the Republicans fought for in bad faith.

No.

Apples to Crack Rock.

Keep building that reputation for dishonesty.

Republican Governors, and many more than Democratic Senators mind you have broken with the Party because they actually have to deal with this mess instead of grandstanding.

The thing you should understand but probably cannot is that no one buys your BS.

Well your honesty is refreshing but hoo boy.

I am fairly certain that buying up countless homes at the the peak of their inflated value would cost more than is being spent now. The point being is that the government is trying to get other parts of the economy going rather than our eggs in one basket.

Unless Obama plans on teaching sex ed through his youtube addresses and keeping all the cash it is stimulus.

All this bitching is about what 1 or 2 percent of the bill? The faux outrage has gotten a bit sickening.

Its a bunch of money to you or me, government wise its a week or two in Iraq.

I am fairly certain it has been pointed out to you that would only be true if you failed to adjust for inflation or include defense expenditures.

Now you are just being dishonest.

You contradict yourself in your first statement.

The whole entire point is where the money is going.

No offense, but no one should take you seriously.

I for one have had enough of the shitty advice from those who spout nothing but Rush style conservative dogma.

Looking at you as well RAM.

Your opposition is based on faith and not reality or facts, you even go so far as to co-opt the language of religious fundamentalists.

so its what, 2 and a half posts that actually contribute to the discussion and a dozen of criticism of other members. thats a pretty good ratio. why cant you be more like myke or dmaul and disagree, without being a complete ass, and then offer some counter points.

nasum

02-10-2009, 04:13 PM

In case it hasn't been brought up yet, there's a provision in the bill that would take out the $7,500 first time home buyer's tax credit (paid back over 15 years as $500 each year intrest free) and replace it with a $15,000 tax credit if you buy a home and use it as your primary residence. I just bought a house on 1/30/09 so this would work out quite well for me.

This "economic crisis" isn't so much of one if you're positioned well. The drop in housing prices means that those who have good credit can now buy a home at a ridiculously low price (mine was nearly 25% less than original asking price and was purchased at $45k below market value), I was also able to buy a new washer/dryer for around %50 off since there isn't a huge market for new appliances at the moment. Contractors are lowering their rates because they're in a cutthroat business, so I'll be able to get my backyard excavated and make a walkout with a hot tub under the upstairs 4 season porch.

All in all, right about now is when you can start creating vast amounts of wealth for yourself, as long as you have some to start with at least, by increasing your investments and taking care of your finances. If you own stock on a dividend reinvestment program, your dollar cost average in ownership of that stock will skyrocket and when things start to turn around again your gains will be huge. When the treasury has to promote bond auctions since no one wants to invest, they're going to have to do so with some pretty big returns. At that point grab yourself a couple of Series EE bonds and sit on them until they double in value (typically around the 25 year mark with a good enough intrest rate).

thrustbucket

02-10-2009, 04:17 PM

lets take a look at this thread for example...

so its what, 2 and a half posts that actually contribute to the discussion and a dozen of criticism of other members. thats a pretty good ratio. why cant you be more like myke or dmaul and disagree, without being a complete ass, and then offer some counter points.

That's par for the course for msutt. He's a troll. Maybe, on a good day, 1/10 posts is actually contributional. The rest are just flames for other forum members, far left slogans, and dailykos mantras.

Msut77

02-10-2009, 04:22 PM

lets take a look at this thread for example...

Ok.

Seeing what you quoted you sound even more dishonest and whiny than usual, if anything I showed patience with Broly.

It is exactly as I stated I criticize the clueless and the liars, I am sorry if your feelings get hurt in the process.

I notice you don't even argue that I am wrong when I call you and others dishonest or even that I made a factual error, you just think its mean.

BillyBob29

02-10-2009, 04:37 PM

This "economic crisis" isn't so much of one if you're positioned well.

Obviously.

That is true of every economic crisis. There are always those that are well positioned going into the free fall that eventually profit tremendously from the eventual upturn. Those people aren't the ones suffering and frankly they aren't the backbone of the economy.

The problem with this recession is that it is much more widespread in terms of who it directly affects than any recession or downturn since the Great Depression. This recession is killing the backbone of our economy and it is getting worse everyday.

RAMSTORIA

02-10-2009, 04:42 PM

Ok.

Seeing what you quoted you sound even more dishonest and whiny than usual, if anything I showed patience with Broly.

It is exactly as I stated I criticize the clueless and the liars, I am sorry if your feelings get hurt in the process.

I notice you don't even argue that I am wrong when I call you and others dishonest or even that I made a factual error, you just think its mean.

you called me a liar when i state that you cricize more than you discuss. i retorted with numerous quotes of you criticizing rather than discussing and your response is that i think youre mean? i didnt say its mean, i called you an ass, theres a difference. you showed patience with broly? how generous of you... you still only brought a fraction of discussion to the table.

that's some pretty loosely applied and arbitrary criteria, though.

indeed. all im saying is, theres what, nearly 500 billion in spending in this bill, the rest in tax cuts. if the spending portion was entirely used for the creation of jobs i think it would do far more for th economy than what its current form. theres so many provisions in there that arent going to create new jobs and are just mini-bailouts for varios agencys and lobbiest. the bill is over 600 pages long, that should tell you how ridiculous the allocation of spending is getting.

Msut77

02-10-2009, 04:46 PM

you called me a liar when i state that you cricize more than you discuss

Actually you said I "never" discuss, even giving you a bit of leeway to account for hyperbole you were still being blatantly dishonest.

RAMSTORIA

02-10-2009, 04:53 PM

Actually you said I "never" discuss, even giving you a bit of leeway to account for hyperbole you were still being blatantly dishonest.

yup, sometimes people overstate things to make a point. kind of like when you said this bill is the equivilant to 1 to 2 weeks in iraq. obviously its not, but you said it to make a point. just like when i said you never bring anything to the table, it was to make a point. fine, ill admit i was wrong, you bring something to the table around 15% of the time.

Kayden

02-10-2009, 05:09 PM

you'r opinun are rong

dmaul1114

02-10-2009, 06:10 PM

thrustbucket

02-10-2009, 06:29 PM

The cover of this weeks Newsweek reads: "We Are All Socialists Now."

Welcome to the club cons! :D

Haven't had a chance to read it yet since I literally just grabbed it out of the mailbox. But from a quick skim it looks to discuss how we're moving toward center-right socialism like much of western Europe.

Yay.

Something like 9 states now have declared some type of sovereignty (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/browse_thread/thread/f89b0d55b62da093). Presumably so they are set up to essentially "walk away" from the 20 trillion in debt the Fed has gotten itself into, in a worse case scenario.

If Newsweek is being accurate, it just raises the probability of split offs from the Union from the realm of "crack-pot theories" to possibilities.

RAMSTORIA

02-10-2009, 06:45 PM

washington eh? well i guess i could move there.

dmaul1114

02-10-2009, 06:47 PM

Still haven't read it, but looks like at least the main part of the cover story is on their website.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663

KingBroly

02-10-2009, 07:01 PM

I guess Arizona would be an okay place to go. Why isn't Texas on this list? And why is Michigan on it? They've needed money for years.

As far as this Health Care "Reform" goes, I find it sad that people (reading comments at various places) are somehow justifying letting old people die when they could get care. It's quite disgusting. It's also shady that this is even in the Senate version of the bill.

And making everything digitized isn't going to speed up anything. You're still going to have to double check everything like you do now. And then comes up the questions of identification, privacy of your records, etc. But you have to deal with the Feds, too. Basically adds a Post Office type of situation there. Nothing going on behind the scenes, and nothing you can do to make it go any faster.

Kayden

02-10-2009, 07:01 PM

One of those things that makes you go: ...uh oh...
Yay.

Something like 9 states now have declared some type of sovereignty (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/browse_thread/thread/f89b0d55b62da093). Presumably so they are set up to essentially "walk away" from the 20 trillion in debt the Fed has gotten itself into, in a worse case scenario.

If Newsweek is being accurate, it just raises the probability of split offs from the Union from the realm of "crack-pot theories" to possibilities.

dmaul1114

02-10-2009, 07:10 PM

And making everything digitized isn't going to speed up anything. You're still going to have to double check everything like you do now. And then comes up the questions of identification, privacy of your records, etc. But you have to deal with the Feds, too. Basically adds a Post Office type of situation there. Nothing going on behind the scenes, and nothing you can do to make it go any faster.

As I said before electronic records and modernization of medical offices are greatthings . My Dr. has had them for years. He has a laptop with all my history in his office right at his finger tips every time I'm in there, no digging for files etc. That's proved useful for some recurring problems I've had.

I can request referals and refills on their website, make appointments on there etc. So technological advances are a good thing for medicine.

I don't know that it makes things faster, but it is more efficient, easier to see drug allergies, past problems etc. with digitized records.

But I don't see how it will stimulate the economy. It's something medical offices should be doing, but not related to the economy etc.

RAMSTORIA

02-10-2009, 07:11 PM

Still haven't read it, but looks like at least the main part of the cover story is on their website.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663

just read it, its basically a summary of the last 6 months, whats happened and where were headed places the blame on both republicans and democrats, but this this part caught my eye, and then they both rolled.

Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending.

he throws it in there so casually, evidently its as big a concern as entitlement programs are for our budget.

dmaul1114

02-10-2009, 07:28 PM

nasum

02-10-2009, 07:35 PM

Obviously.

That is true of every economic crisis. There are always those that are well positioned going into the free fall that eventually profit tremendously from the eventual upturn. Those people aren't the ones suffering and frankly they aren't the backbone of the economy.

The problem with this recession is that it is much more widespread in terms of who it directly affects than any recession or downturn since the Great Depression. This recession is killing the backbone of our economy and it is getting worse everyday.

Well that's the thing of it all. I would go so far as to say that I belong to that group known as the "backbone". I'm by no means wealthy, but I've watched my money carefully for many years (can't help it, I'm an accountant) and the way things are trending right now I'm going to come out ok as long as I have job security. As long as a person keeps cool during this time and doesn't binge shop you're going to be ok.

RAMSTORIA

02-10-2009, 07:45 PM

It is in the sense that we're going to see global warming driving carbon cap and trade systems, furel efficiency reforms, energy reforms, alternative fuel development etc.

Maybe that's what he meant. Regardless of whether we should be so concerned about global warming, the world is and it will be a major issue governments are trying to deal with as we go forward. And it will play a major role in how governments around the world are taxing and spending.

dont get me wrong, global warming (whether its real or not, lets not get into that) is going to cost the country a lot of money down the line. i just wouldnt throw it in as a critical econmic player at this time, especially not compared to something like entitlement programs. itll cost money, billions for sure, but i just rolled my eyes at the way the author threw it in there, all of a sudden & out of nowhere.

bigdaddy

02-10-2009, 07:50 PM

My grandpa came up with a good idea, for the 3-5 trillion that is now being talked about for "bailouts" just give everyone $100,000 and then they can put it towards a car or a house. Would help a lot. :)

thrustbucket

02-10-2009, 08:26 PM

I guess Arizona would be an okay place to go. Why isn't Texas on this list? And why is Michigan on it? They've needed money for years.

I have heard numerous times (usually from Texans) that when Texas joined the union, begrudgingly, they made sure there was a huge clause saying they could succeed at any time for any reason. So it's already there.

My grandpa came up with a good idea, for the 3-5 trillion that is now being talked about for "bailouts" just give everyone $100,000 and then they can put it towards a car or a house. Would help a lot. :)

I've said that a few times. An article I read the other day that I now can't find claimed that this 10 trillion number being talked about would pay off 90% of Americans mortgages.

It's far more important that we keep people in debt and keep the mechanisms of lending healthy though.... :roll:

Friend of Sonic

02-10-2009, 09:06 PM

I know if I got a 100,000, it's going to a house and then I would work as hard as I could to pay it off ASAP, save on the interest cost.

But I don't think everyone would be as responsible. I could see a lot of people driving Ferrari's to pick up their food stamps.

dmaul1114

02-10-2009, 09:25 PM

Still haven't read it, but looks like at least the main part of the cover story is on their website.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663

Read that and the rest of the related articles and columns. Good read. Here are the other pieces that go along with the above essay.

Another article that goes along directly with the above one:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183664

Column arguing our best days aren't necessarily behind us:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183667

Column from Samuelson (pretty conservative guy from what I've read) arguing that we shouldn't turn the bailouts into a morality play over whether Wall Street and bankers deserve to be rescued:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183717

Column on the difficulties in calculating unemployment rates:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183558

Column by Fareed Zakaria (probably my favorite of the Newsweek writers) on how and why Canada isn't being hit as hard by the economic crisis:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183670

Article about US attitudes toward the rich:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183718

Column defending bankers:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183680

And for more current news, here's the Washington Post article on Geithner's bank bailout plan and the Dow falling 382 points today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/10/AR2009021001228.html?hpid=topnews

Capitalizt

02-10-2009, 09:29 PM

woweee....So today the treasury secretary says he will need to spend at LEAST $1.5 trillion before this is over. Combine that with the $1 trillion congress is spending on stimulus and the $3 trillion the federal reserve printed last month..

Did you know if you were born in the year 0 (when Jesus was born) and spent $1,000,000.00 every day from then until today..(thats one million dollars per day for 2,009 years), you STILL would not have spent $1 trillion? (only around $730 billion).

Now try to imagine spending 4X that amount in 2 months..
That's the amount of money we're talking about here.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2uhx090.jpg

dmaul1114

02-10-2009, 10:02 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/10/stimulus.gop.pac/index.html

A conservative PAC is threatening to back primary challengers to any GOP senators who vote for the stimulus bill.

The Crotch

02-10-2009, 10:13 PM

I... don't think there actually was a year zero. I think it just went 4-3-2-1-1-2-3-4-etc.

...

What? I'm reading the articles dmaul linked, okay? Don't have time for an analysis.

Msut77

02-10-2009, 10:18 PM

kind of like when you said this bill is the equivalent to 1 to 2 weeks in Iraq.

I was referring to any particular program being complained about.

fatherofcaitlyn

02-10-2009, 10:18 PM

I... don't think there actually was a year zero.

It's OK. There wasn't actually a Jesus, either.

Msut77

02-10-2009, 10:28 PM

KingBroly

02-10-2009, 10:38 PM

I have heard numerous times (usually from Texans) that when Texas joined the union, begrudgingly, they made sure there was a huge clause saying they could succeed at any time for any reason. So it's already there.

That's um...that's definitely a new one on me. You'd think that link would've pointed that out if it were already in place. Maybe I missed it.

So...are we going to demand the hanging of our public officials when they pass this garbage bill (which they will, and oh yes, it's garbage) and the market drops another 500+ points? Every time there's been Government action (or inaction as it originally was) the market has tanked. I see nothing to sway my confidence in that regard.

The Crotch

02-10-2009, 10:43 PM

It's OK. There wasn't actually a Jesus, either.
But... why would Dogma lie to me?

dmaul1114

02-10-2009, 10:45 PM

I was waiting for someone to break out the Jesus unit of measurement.

It might be better to consider it in terms of the size of the entire US economy which is worth about a Mega-Buddha.

Sen. Mitch McConnell broke it out last week. Capitalizt just stole it.

I just saw it in the "perspective section of the current newsweek" and a google showed the quote was all over the news. :D

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/02/04/trillion.dollars/index.html

HovaEscobar

02-10-2009, 10:47 PM

http://i41.tinypic.com/2uhx090.jpg

I love how Jones looks in that.

I'm not big into politics, but I'm wondering, is there ever gooing to be a happy ending to this story or will congress just spend more and more money regardless? I wonder if Obama has considered why this won't work. I, and I hope I'm wrong about this, see this mostly as congress using the economy as an excuse to extort us for money to support their causes. A lot of the things on that list probably won't effect the economy at all and I wish they'd just let everything die on its own.

KingBroly

02-10-2009, 10:49 PM

I'm going to have to say the latter. Congress does enjoy spending our money like it's theirs.

thrustbucket

02-11-2009, 12:51 AM

So...are we going to demand the hanging of our public officials when they pass this garbage bill (which they will, and oh yes, it's garbage) and the market drops another 500+ points? Every time there's been Government action (or inaction as it originally was) the market has tanked. I see nothing to sway my confidence in that regard.

There will be no such uprising until people are starving to death.
Sadly.

I know if I got a 100,000, it's going to a house and then I would work as hard as I could to pay it off ASAP, save on the interest cost.

But I don't think everyone would be as responsible. I could see a lot of people driving Ferrari's to pick up their food stamps.

Nah it would be more fair to just give everyone a rebate that can only be used for certain items like first houses and debt.

elprincipe

02-11-2009, 06:33 AM

So...are we going to demand the hanging of our public officials when they pass this garbage bill (which they will, and oh yes, it's garbage) and the market drops another 500+ points? Every time there's been Government action (or inaction as it originally was) the market has tanked. I see nothing to sway my confidence in that regard.

Oh, rest assured it will tank further if the crap that is being discussed is passed in final form. And unemployment will increase and we'll go deeper into recession. It's nice that Congress is spending the tax money from decades into the future on bullshit that will make the problem worse. Maybe the silver lining is that after all this doesn't work in the least, maybe we'll finally throw the two bastard parties out.

KingBroly

02-11-2009, 09:46 AM

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02112009/news/politics/congress_hopping_carts_154496.htm

$300 million for environmentally sound Golf Carts. How does this create jobs again?

fatherofcaitlyn

02-11-2009, 09:58 AM

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02112009/news/politics/congress_hopping_carts_154496.htm

$300 million for environmentally sound Golf Carts. How does this create jobs again?

Well, you have to build the Golf Carts aka NEVs. That requires somebody to fill a position or build a robot to fill the position.

In downtown areas and school zones with severe speed limitations, these vehicles can replace regular cars.

There is nothing really wrong with these vehicles unless you need something that can do 70mph or drive 300+ miles.

If my next job is on the same side of the Ohio River as I live, I would have no problems using one of these as a daily car.

fatherofcaitlyn

02-11-2009, 10:02 AM

Watching Squawk Box again ...

They accidentally had somebody on that mentioned the Weimar Republic. I can't believe they let somebody on that said there was a downside to massive government spending.

Then, they had on Eric Cantor and the Republican plan to revitalize the economy by giving tax cuts to small businesses.

The talking heads were so polite to not call him out on the first bailout or the previous six years of massive government spending in Iraq or Afghanistan.

speedracer

02-11-2009, 10:24 AM

I have heard numerous times (usually from Texans) that when Texas joined the union, begrudgingly, they made sure there was a huge clause saying they could succeed at any time for any reason. So it's already there.

That's um...that's definitely a new one on me. You'd think that link would've pointed that out if it were already in place. Maybe I missed it.

[theCalifornianInMe] It's a lie. There was a federal procedural problem when Texas joined (not enough votes on the floor or something dumb like that) and over the years the myth has grown legs and now hick dumbfucks walk around pretending they can just walk away whenever they want. They're retarded.

Hawaii is the only state that has a genuine claim to be able to walk away. The vote to join the union in Hawaii was demonstrably and pretty obviously stolen by the pro-union faction.

Geithner has scared the living shit out of me.

FloodsAreUponUS

02-11-2009, 10:41 AM

So after reading this thread, people are talking about states leaving the union?

Whats next pigs fly?

dmaul1114

02-11-2009, 01:24 PM

Well, you have to build the Golf Carts aka NEVs. That requires somebody to fill a position or build a robot to fill the position.

In downtown areas and school zones with severe speed limitations, these vehicles can replace regular cars.

There is nothing really wrong with these vehicles unless you need something that can do 70mph or drive 300+ miles.

If my next job is on the same side of the Ohio River as I live, I would have no problems using one of these as a daily car.

Yeah, that's the thing with a lot of the items in the bill that seem silly. They create (or keep) jobs to manufacture and generate revenue to the company selling them.

Not saying it's the best use of money to stimulate the economy, but I can see how that is at least somewhat beneficial for the economy, unlike some of the earlier stuff like sex education, condoms etc.

Really, it just seems like the bank bailouts are key. The banking system needs to be stabilized, the stock market needs to stabilize and return to growth. Once that happens people will begin to regain confidence and other parts of the economy will rebound (unemployment, consumer spending etc.).

Maybe some more needs to be done by the government to help create jobs, fix infrastructure (kill two birds with one stone) but I'm not convinced we need as much spending in the stimulus bill as it currently stands. I do think we probably need all the banking funds Geithner proposed as the banking system is still in world of shit with all the toxic assests etc.

RAMSTORIA

02-11-2009, 01:31 PM

Yeah, that's the thing with a lot of the items in the bill that seem silly. They create (or keep) jobs to manufacture and generate revenue to the company selling them.

Not saying it's the best use of money to stimulate the economy, but I can see how that is at least somewhat beneficial for the economy, unlike some of the earlier stuff like sex education, condoms etc.

thats one of my concerns with some of the provisions. that they are more like mini-bailouts that are great for the companies that get them, but are they going to create jobs or just pay for current jobs? my guess itll be more of the latter.

dmaul1114

02-11-2009, 01:36 PM

The other thing there is:

Is paying for current jobs meaning retaining jobs that would have been cut?

That would also be a good thing, but no way to know whether or not that is/was the case.

I don't really have a problem with the ones that do that and accomplish another goal. i.e. create or maintain jobs to fix infrastructure, or work on greener vehicles etc. As again it's killing two birds with one stone.

FloodsAreUponUS

02-11-2009, 01:54 PM

The stock market wont return to growth without consumer confidence.
And thats not gonna happen without jobs, and people spending money.

dmaul1114

02-11-2009, 02:01 PM

I agree. I just see the key thing as fixing the credit system so money is flowing again. A lot of businesses are going under as they can't get loans for new projects, loans to cover payroll etc. etc.

So fixing that is key as that will help businesses create and keep jobs etc.

I do think the government needs to do things to create jobs and so on, I just said I'm not sure the bill needs to be so big--while the banking bailout probably does need to be huge.

KingBroly

02-11-2009, 02:01 PM

The stock market has been pretty stable since the DOW hit 8,000 way back in...October I think. It's basically been fluctuating heavily between 8,000 and 9,000 since then. Sometimes a little above, sometimes a little less. Oil's around $40 a barrel, gold is over $900 (nearing $945 as I type). The only thing that is very bad right now is the consumer mindset.

However, in a year, it's going to be worse because inflation's going to be really high. Thanks in part, to the bill they're trying to ram through both houses right now.

fatherofcaitlyn

02-11-2009, 03:03 PM

So after reading this thread, people are talking about states leaving the union?

Whats next pigs fly?

Let me preface secessionist talk with my personal belief is that people in general can wake up and improve their circumstances without violence.

That being said ...

Is any group of Americans outside of hardcore Republicans and Democrats being represented?

We have wars the majority of people don't support, but cost billions to keep running.

We have crumbling roads people want fixed, but are left in disrepair.

We have an education system producing illiterates, but continue to fund it.

We have a prison system that produces hardened criminals and more gang members, but continue to fund it.

We have vehicles that pollute the air and have technology that makes them obsolete, but continue to fund the polluting companies.

We have virtually no rail system, but continue to fund expensive yet damaged highways and cars.

We have a permanent underclass of citizens whose potential is determined by how many gunshot wounds they can survive or excellence in an arbitrary sport and the government is OK with that.

We have areas in the country the police refuse to patrol and continue to fund police.

Said police can choke new producers on camera and there is no punishment.

We have a medical system that impoverishes all but the elite and cures little, and we allow doctors and hospitals to maintain monopolies and charge exorbitant rates.

We have bankers that have all but broken our monetary system and the solution our government has is to give them more money.

I'm sure anybody can add more to the list, but I'm just demonstrating there are plenty of reason to quit a federal government that takes so much in money and returns so little in services.

RAMSTORIA

02-11-2009, 03:30 PM

Let me preface secessionist talk with my personal belief is that people in general can wake up and improve their circumstances without violence.

That being said ...

Is any group of Americans outside of hardcore Republicans and Democrats being represented?

We have wars the majority of people don't support, but cost billions to keep running.

We have crumbling roads people want fixed, but are left in disrepair.

We have an education system producing illiterates, but continue to fund it.

We have a prison system that produces hardened criminals and more gang members, but continue to fund it.

We have vehicles that pollute the air and have technology that makes them obsolete, but continue to fund the polluting companies.

We have virtually no rail system, but continue to fund expensive yet damaged highways and cars.

We have a permanent underclass of citizens whose potential is determined by how many gunshot wounds they can survive or excellence in an arbitrary sport and the government is OK with that.

We have areas in the country the police refuse to patrol and continue to fund police.

Said police can choke new producers on camera and there is no punishment.

We have a medical system that impoverishes all but the elite and cures little, and we allow doctors and hospitals to maintain monopolies and charge exorbitant rates.

We have bankers that have all but broken our monetary system and the solution our government has is to give them more money.

I'm sure anybody can add more to the list, but I'm just demonstrating there are plenty of reason to quit a federal government that takes so much in money and returns so little in services.

our new slogan... "The United States, still better than Mexico!"

BillyBob29

02-11-2009, 03:34 PM

our new slogan... "The United States, still better than Mexico!"

LOL.

thrustbucket

02-11-2009, 03:42 PM

our new slogan... "The United States, still better than Mexico!"

Having just returned from 10 days in Mexico, that statement doesn't quite carry as much weight as I would have thought before. I'd move there if I could find a way to support myself there.

RAMSTORIA

02-11-2009, 03:47 PM

Having just returned from 10 days in Mexico, that statement doesn't quite carry as much weight as I would have thought before. I'd move there if I could find a way to support myself there.

i was leaning more towards chile.

Strell

02-11-2009, 03:56 PM

bla bla bla

You're listing a ton of things that can be handled by individuals.

Is any group of Americans outside of hardcore Republicans and Democrats being represented?

Your big bag pessimism doesn't make room for lobbyists for every corporation out there? C'mon, that was a freebie you could have made yourself.

We have crumbling roads people want fixed, but are left in disrepair.

Yet later you talk about damaged highways and such being funded. So this is contradictory.

We have an education system producing illiterates, but continue to fund it.

Solution: Help your own children. Parents can do it if they actually care. You're so proud to display your fatherhood status in your username, so you OUGHT to have those instincts.

We have vehicles that pollute the air and have technology that makes them obsolete, but continue to fund the polluting companies.

So ride your bike, take a bus, walk to your job, move closer to it, etc etc. Don't bitch for the sake of bitching about something you can at least attempt to fix.

We have a permanent underclass of citizens whose potential is determined by how many gunshot wounds they can survive or excellence in an arbitrary sport and the government is OK with that.

Extreme non-sequiter on the last part. At least link this back to education, not some built-in bias about "them minorities and their basketball."

We have areas in the country the police refuse to patrol and continue to fund police.

Suspicious at best, though I'm sure there's a particle of truth here.

Said police can choke new producers on camera and there is no punishment.

Who might turn around and sue them, so there's equal deterrent.

We have a medical system that impoverishes all but the elite and cures little, and we allow doctors and hospitals to maintain monopolies and charge exorbitant rates.

I'd aim this more at big pharma rather than hospitals. Generally you can go to a hospital and get some care. Big pharma refuses you unless you cough up the cash beforehand.

I'm sure anybody can add more to the list, but I'm just demonstrating there are plenty of reason to quit a federal government that takes so much in money and returns so little in services.

And the people who vote those people in shouldn't share some of the blame?

Our country isn't perfect, no. But it's highly preferable to lots of other places. That's not a solid argument I know, and that's only a sliver away from the 'ole "GET OUT IFFN YA HATE IT" mentality, but it really is true.

Best way to get some perspective is to travel or talk to people from other countries. Helps me out a lot.

You can forego "why didn't you respond to other topics I brought up" while you're at it - I omitted ones I tended to agree with our couldn't think up a satisfying response to.

FloodsAreUponUS

02-11-2009, 04:06 PM

Let me preface secessionist talk with my personal belief is that people in general can wake up and improve their circumstances without violence.

That being said ...

Is any group of Americans outside of hardcore Republicans and Democrats being represented?

We have wars the majority of people don't support, but cost billions to keep running.

We have crumbling roads people want fixed, but are left in disrepair.

We have an education system producing illiterates, but continue to fund it.

We have a prison system that produces hardened criminals and more gang members, but continue to fund it.

We have vehicles that pollute the air and have technology that makes them obsolete, but continue to fund the polluting companies.

We have virtually no rail system, but continue to fund expensive yet damaged highways and cars.

We have a permanent underclass of citizens whose potential is determined by how many gunshot wounds they can survive or excellence in an arbitrary sport and the government is OK with that.

We have areas in the country the police refuse to patrol and continue to fund police.

Said police can choke new producers on camera and there is no punishment.

We have a medical system that impoverishes all but the elite and cures little, and we allow doctors and hospitals to maintain monopolies and charge exorbitant rates.

We have bankers that have all but broken our monetary system and the solution our government has is to give them more money.

I'm sure anybody can add more to the list, but I'm just demonstrating there are plenty of reason to quit a federal government that takes so much in money and returns so little in services.

I just cant even attempt to swing at this softball.

:EDIT: Thank you Strell.

fatherofcaitlyn

02-11-2009, 04:34 PM

had a giant disconnect with an earlier post

Here's the take home message:

Some citizens aren't happy with the US.

Some citizens don't believe the US can turn itself around and are looking to abandon ship.

There are several reasons. Most are bullshit. Some are racist. Some are contradictory. Some slivers of society believe all, a few or one reasons.

That's why I prefaced the long post.

Strell

02-11-2009, 04:43 PM

Here's the take home message:

Some citizens aren't happy with the US.

Even in a perfect world, there'd still be someone bitching.

HUMANS aren't happy. Just because it makes you feel better to specialize that disappointment toward a country and its government doesn't make you somehow some big guru on life.

Some citizens don't believe the US can turn itself around and are looking to abandon ship.

Which is a personal choice, so what the hell does it have to do with anything? "Well it's because the government is so terrible." So? They are going to find the same load of shit in the next country - there's not some magical place you can escape to where everything is suddenly better.

Guess what - the government doesn't give a shit if you leave.

There are several reasons. Most are bullshit. Some are racist. Some are contradictory. Some slivers of society believe all, a few or one reasons.

That's why I prefaced the long post.

And that's why I responded to it. You putting a few conciliatory words to try and attempt to make your position look strong doesn't change the fact that it's a weak position to have no matter HOW well you argue it.

Don't blame your crappy logic on me with some pompous "big disconnection" rhetoric - you've made a poor bed and get to sleep in it now.

If your whole point is "the US sucks and I'm mad about it," then you're not going to get very far in ANY argument, no matter what is being said on either side. Not only have you already chosen a position, but you've chosen an emotionally-laden value one, which only serves to prevent you from looking at anything with a truthful lens.

Don't pretend that your disapproval is going to get fixed, nor that it serves as some overriding mechanism to broadcast the haterade. You've got free will, cash, and a big open world, so you can either fess up now and live with your decisions, or attempt to make the best of the scenario you've got going.

Here's something to think about: a lot of the problems we face with our government can be helped IMMENSELY through our own power if we attempt to make those intersections as painless and few as possible. Hate the healthcare system? Exercise and eat right. Hate the education system? Work on your own and help your children. Yes, there's some things you can't effectively fix without government involvement, but there's a hell of a lot more good you can do with willing hands than with a big mouth or cold keyboard.

We could wake up tomorrow to find that the government had created gold-farting cinnamon rolls that could keep us full for months AND fix the economic crisis, as well as to find a brand new 52" TV in our living rooms that double-served as blowjob machines, and still some fucker out there would be pissed his TV doesn't also brew beer. It's an endlessly moving target an in endlessly unsatisfied world.

KingBroly

02-11-2009, 05:12 PM

In a world economy like this one, if we go down, we're taking everyone else with us. Hell, some countries are definitely going to be there to break our fall if it comes to that (Spain). So if they want to leave, there isn't going to be much choice as to where they go.

I get the feeling that we're in a repeat in 1994 here. The Government is overreaching like crazy right now, and the "plan" they're giving us is not going to do much, if anything.

Also, watch out for Putin in the next couple of months. He's going to do something big that people aren't going to like.

Kayden

02-11-2009, 05:16 PM

His roads and highways statements aren't at all contradictory, at least here in Minnesota. The road I drive to work has 3-6" deep holes in it all over the place. So the roads aren't being fixed. Conversely, you probably heard about the 35W bridge sinking? Well now the mantra of the month is, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN BRIDGES!" We're paying millions of dollars per bridge to inspect and repair them, which isn't in itself bad. HOWEVER, in a lot of cases, the bridges are scheduled to be REPLACED, in some cases, immediately after the repairs are completed. Some of the replacements are being PUSHED BACK so they can repair them and then tear them down. Best of all, some of the fucking repairs cost more than making new bridges.

None of that even factors in the massive delays caused by closing down the only means across a river for 50 miles.

I think what needs to happen is every elected official needs to have a small explosive device planted in their head upon taking office. Any time his constituents are displeased, they can click a link on a web site. If his approval rating falls below, say, 30%, his fucking head explodes. They'd clean up the big chunks, but leave the stains. That way the next mother fucker to sit in that office KNOWS. DO YOUR FUCKING JOB AND NOT LINE YOUR POCKETS. After they get enough taste of their colleagues' gray matter. they'll wise the fuck up.

The Crotch

02-11-2009, 05:22 PM

I think what needs to happen is every elected official needs to have a small explosive device planted in their head upon taking office. Any time his constituents are displeased, they can click a link on a web site. If his approval rating falls below, say, 30%, his fucking head explodes. They'd clean up the big chunks, but leave the stains. That way the next mother fucker to sit in that office KNOWS. DO YOUR FUCKING JOB AND NOT LINE YOUR POCKETS. After they get enough taste of their colleagues' gray matter. they'll wise the fuck up.
I think I read that in a Dilbert cartoon once...

Strell

02-11-2009, 05:37 PM

His roads and highways statements aren't at all contradictory

"We spend too much money on roads to fix them" is in direct opposition to "we have failing roads we don't spend money on."

at least here in Minnesota.

C'mon, you know this is anecdotal.

Down here in the big T to the X, roads are ripped up and repaired and repaved and whatever other bullshit they have to do for years at a time. It's ridiculous. The big main street here is constantly under construction. For some reason, they couldn't just widen it AS they fixed it - they fixed it, got angry it wasn't wide enough, demolished what they had JUST fixed, widened it, got angry AGAIN, and repeated the cycle another four times. I am just barely exaggerating - they probably weren't mad at all when this all happened.

There was one intersection that was in some state of disrepair and disimprovement for over ten years (by which I mean they were trying to improve it but failing), which wouldn't have bothered me if it weren't literally one of the BUSIEST in the entire city. It was like getting a new set of Legos for a castle and putting it together, waiting a year, taking it apart, putting it back together EXACTLY only this time it took three times as long because you didn't have the instructions, getting bored two years later and taking it apart, telling yourself "this time I'm SURE I know what I want" and SUPERGLUEING it all together, and then making it that much more difficult to demolish, repair, and remake a few years later.

If I'd had a swear jar in my lifetime, that would have been the reason.

My city has this unbelievable fetish love affair with medians - perfectly good neighborhood streets suddenly are closed off for two weeks to make a silly stupid little concrete platform. This happens for no reason, out of nowhere, in places it's not required, and ruins various commutes with startling efficiency.

And then a few years later it's demolished, just to be recreated.

Point being that while I understand the wasting of money with roads, it's all dependent on where you live. The roads here - once finished and no longer fucked with - are actually quite top notch, until some fat bastard decides he wants to spend money fixing some shit that didn't need its shit fixed at all to begin with. It does piss me off to no end to see a perfectly fine road be torn up for god knows what reason, and finding out my city greenlit several million dollars to improve some fucking road no one uses or doesn't need any fucking around with.

Look, let's not get me wrong, alright? I'm not so idealistic or blind as to suggest that one can't bitch about this country. HOWEVER, I am one to suggest that there are certain things within our own power that we simply neglect or ignore to do. Probably the easiest, least-explanation-needed example is sex ed. Should I ever have kids, I'm going to be completely and totally honest, upfront, and transparent with them about it. They'll know the ins and outs by middle school and be far more educated than all the people who leave it up to the gub'ment. I completely have the power to function on that, and in this economy, it almost makes me wish we could collectively agree as a nation to suspend all spending on it, place the blame on the parents, and use the money elsewhere.

But that requires leaning too much on people who are lazy, embarrassed, and don't know shit.

Pookymeister

02-11-2009, 05:39 PM

The negotiators took out the $15,000 tax credit for homebuyers. Fuckers

Kayden

02-11-2009, 05:45 PM

Yea... if there were any fiscal issues, it would have come from the 12 people that bought a house last year... that didn't foreclose.

dmaul1114

02-11-2009, 05:47 PM

"We spend too much money on roads to fix them" is in direct opposition to "we have failing roads we don't spend money on."

I think he was making two separate points and just phrased them poorly.

I think he was trying to say we spend to much on building and expanding roads vs. building rail systems and other public transportation and more fuel efficient cars.

And despite that, we don't spend enough maintaining the roads we have. Roads are shitty and full of potholes here in the DC areas as well (at least in the Maryland suburbs).

Maybe that's not what he meant, but that was how I took it knowing his general stance of transportation issues.

nasum

02-11-2009, 05:50 PM

The negotiators took out the $15,000 tax credit for homebuyers. Fuckers

GOD DAMNIT!
I really wanted that.

I mean seriously, what's the first thing people do when they buy a house? Usually get some new appliances, remodel something, get new carpet, better hardwood floors, etc... All of that money would go to contractors for the work, manufactureers of the appliances/carpet/floors/tubs/etc... This is the only good thing in the whole bill that could actually stimulate anything.

RAMSTORIA

02-11-2009, 05:52 PM

Kayden

02-11-2009, 05:58 PM

I fail to see how that would do anything. If anything I see it just making things worse. They'll just try to exploit the position for as much as they can because they don't have to worry about keeping a job they know they wont have.

On top of that, they'll still get life long pay for less work.

My way sends a message; it's fairly fucking obvious these pricks don't understand practical.

or we could just be more practical and have reasonable term limits for congress, two terms sounds good to me.

Pookymeister

02-11-2009, 05:59 PM

GOD DAMNIT!
I really wanted that.

I mean seriously, what's the first thing people do when they buy a house? Usually get some new appliances, remodel something, get new carpet, better hardwood floors, etc... All of that money would go to contractors for the work, manufactureers of the appliances/carpet/floors/tubs/etc... This is the only good thing in the whole bill that could actually stimulate anything.

And I know people were waiting on this to go out and start looking for a place. Now it isn't an incentive anymore.

Kayden

02-11-2009, 06:12 PM

Pooky are mod?! unpossible!