The Die Is Cast: Obama's Stimulus Package Passes The House Without A Single Republican Vote

Keep deleting my posts Killfile and your ass might just get suspended.

We'll see. For what it's worth, I'm also aware that Tyler isn't a fan of people who aren't Tyler predicting what actions Tyler might take against someone:

He says:

I don’t know if it’s being abused frequently, but STOP DOING IT. Please. I have never seen someone write, “I told Tyler, you’re probably going to get _____” and felt it was necessary [or on-topic, usually], much less seen it improve the situation. Say that they’re violating the CoH – that’s fine, but there’s no need to tell the thread that you called the mod. Much of what I do is reactive; if I’m suspending you, there’s a good chance it’s because the tools we have for reporting CoH violators work well. I don’t need to be used as a threat; referencing which part of the Code the user’s violating should be good enough.

One wonders if he hates it even more when people do it while simultaneously violating the CoH by resorting to name-calling?

You're the only one who has referenced Tyler by name, Brian. That was his objection, if memory serves.

I wrote the article I quoted that from, and asked the questions. The only person currently handling the concept of "suspending" people is Tyler, so the fact that you thought to leave his name out doesn't really mean the rest of us (liberal or otherwise) must pretend to be stupid about who you were referencing.

But, we'll try this: If not Tyler, who *is it* that you think is going to drop in and suspend Killfile?

My reading of the question (I asked) and the answer (Tyler gave) is that he isn't particularly thrilled with the idea of people making predictive comments about hypothetical punishments which may or may not be handed down by a moderator. (Tyler.)

I doubt seriously that he would have a problem with my post. You are being extremely picayune about something which doesn't involve you in the first place. Again, not surprising. And Calvin also moderates from time to time, I believe.

I doubt seriously that he would have a problem with my post.

I wouldn't presume to know one way or the other. We'll have to wait and see if he stops in to comment.

What's funny how liberals can't seem to tell the difference between legitimate criticism and calling the President everything but a child of God.

Ah yes, because calling Obama the "messiah", "terrorist" and the "magic negro", along with conspiracies about the validity of birth certificates and the validity of the presidential oath because of a few minor flubs is totally "legitimate criticism" in the parallel wingnut universe.

Republicans for the past eight years have screamed that any disagreement with the administration meant that they hated the president to point of wanting the country to fail just to see him go down, even though no critic ever actually said that.

And now, we literally have a prominent Republican actually saying that he wants the county to fail so that the Democratic president will go down, and House Republicans take up this cry, fall in line, and refuse to vote for a stimulus bill because of ideology and the hope that the bill will fail so they can get back in power in 2010, so to hell with the news that unemployment has reached record levels.

And that's that.

It was a liberalthat first called Obama a magic negro, go chew on his ear. I haven't heard any Conservative call Obama a terrorist. Messiah is a satirical reference to the way his acolytes and followers have regarded him, not to mention the media.

And now, we literally have a prominent Republican actually saying that he wants the county to fail so that the Democratic president will go down,

Produce the freaking quote, or retract the statement.

Produce the freaking quote, or retract the statement.

Heh.

RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

Taken from a transcript on Limbaugh's own website which has the following header...

Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails

And now, we literally have a prominent Republican actually saying that he wants the county to fail so that the Democratic president will go down,

Who is saying this, stacey?

Notice that no where does he say he wants the country to "fail" so that Obama will go down. I don't expect a retraction but if you had any honor you'd post one.

One cannot help but point out the irony of someone calling people stupid when he cannot seem to spell correctly all on his own...

That, however, was an acceptable insult, one presumes...

He was being a jerk for using a typo as a proxy for a lack of intelligence and you know it. I look forward to your strict enforcement of the CoH even when the poster shares your point of view. And if you fail in that regard I will nail your ass to the wall. And thanks for the bonus points, I didn't know we were keeping score.

I delete COH violations when I happen upon them

As an author/seeder you are required to be more than lackadaisical in the monitoring of your threads, KF. I know you know this, but are you just assuming no one else does? And as for wasting anyome's time I assume they have scroll wheels just like I do.

Taken from a transcript on Limbaugh's own website which has the following header...

Read it. it doesn't say he wants the country to fail. Brian, this was a weak attempt to cover stacey's misspeak. You probably would have saved face a little better had you just stayed quiet and let her pull herself out of the pool instead of jumping in with her on something that was so blatantly innaccurate. Sometimes, if your commrade jumps ship without a life preserver...you've just gotta let 'em sink.

Stacy

And now, we literally have a prominent Republican actually saying that he wants the county to fail so that the Democratic president will go down

You can stop lying about what Mr. Limbaugh said anytime now. What he did, in fact, say is:

I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

Disagreeing (when there is considerable disagreement among economists on this bill) on the items contained in this bill is not the same as saying that one hopes by extension that the country will suffer. Indeed, the counter-arguments against this bill are designed precisely to prevent that from happening. Barack Obama was elected president, he wasn't elected dictator via a cult of personality (although to read some areas of Newsvine one might not know this) in which any disagreement is instantaneously condemned as traitorous or designed to harm the body politic. Especially when only 42% of the body politic supports this bill as currently written.

Read it.

Yes, I posted something without first reading it. That makes a lot of sense. But then, you're you. And, you're right, Stacy is my comrade! Viva La Stacy! I just can't wait until we hook up to plot and (presumably) do it (unghhhhhh....) while laughing and high-fiving (slap!) about how we agree with each other on everything, simply to seem more right than we might otherwise seem. Because, as you must know and seem to honestly believe, Stacy and I have *never* disagreed on anything in all the time we've been here. That just wouldn't do, would it?

With all that said, I find it laughably absurd to hear that sort of "group-think" complaint coming from Pat N, who exhibits it with her crew more often than almost anyone I can think of on Newsvine.

I'm perfectly happy with the explanation I offered elsewhere on the issue, and if you want to (as I'm sure you will) disagree with my assessment, that's fine by me. I take very little stock in your opinions.

And, once we're finished doing it, we're going to abort the baby.

Brian, this was a weak attempt

Whatever you say.

Yes, I posted something without first reading it.

Ummm...I was saying 'Read it.' as in "I read it." Not "You should read it". Through your entire rant, you still aren't showing me where Obama said he wants the country to fail.

With all that said, I find it laughably absurd to hear that sort of "group-think" complaint coming from Pat N, who exhibits it with her crew more often than almost anyone I can think of on Newsvine.

You may want to ask around to some of the so-called 'crew' regarding this allegation. Believe it or not, Brian..there ARE things on Newsvine that occur without your consent or knowledge.

Through your entire rant, you still aren't showing me where Obama said he wants the country to fail.

*If* the plan goes through, and *if* it fails, which Rush seems to want to be the case, based on his words, given that there's not an alternate plan that will swoop in and fix the problems that arise from the failed plan, it seems reasonable to conclude that he's wishing failure upon the country. You can *disagree* with that reading of his comment all you like, and that's fine, but to call someone a liar, to tell her (to *demand* that) she has to *retract her comment* because you (or Bill, or Waynester or whoever) disagree with her reading of his words is a bit much.

And, there's this:

I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you.

He's not *just* talking about a controversial stimulus plan. He's talking about the presidency, in general. It's hard to argue that four years of a failed presidency would in *any way* be good for the Country. (Look where Bush got us. Cough, ahem.) He's arguing specifically for the good of the Republican party, for the good of his very, very biased and right-wing perspective. A perspective which certainly isn't representative of the Country.

You may want to ask around to some of the so-called 'crew' regarding this allegation.

Why? I know who I'd ask, and I know that, just like you, they'd deny it. I'm not saying it's organized, or that you call each other or that you have magic glowing tattoos that signal each other when trouble is afoot, I'm saying that I've seen about 5 people who tend to appear on the same threads you appear on, probably due to comment tracking, and you tend to prop each other up even to the point of defending bizarre desperate points-of-view which one suspects all of your hearts aren't fully behind, in a similar manner to what you've accused me of doing with Stacy.

And, that's understandable. I just find the fact that you point it out so often in other people to be boorish, given that you do the exact same thing, more often. (From my obviously biased point-of-view.)

Actually Rush has a column today in the WSJ that's worth reading and it's eminently sensible from a purely political standpoint. I would have seeded it but as I don't have 10 hours during the work day to moderate what surely would have turned into a shidflinging session, I demurred:

My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

I actually would count Rush in that 1% of wackos, just me though

Waynester, I'm going to respond to both of your posts to me on this sub-thread since they are regarding the same thing.

It was a liberalthat first called Obama a magic negro

That’s nice. But we are talking about the “legitimate criticism” that was aimed at Obama by conservatives, remember? And it was Republicans that jumped on this, made sure it got into the media, put it on the official RNC CD, and then defended it.

I haven't heard any Conservative call Obama a terrorist.

Ah yes, I know where this is going. Why, no one called Obama a terrorist! We may have said he pals around with terrorists, gives terrorist fist-jabs to his wife, claimed he has terrorist connections, and is the terrorists' best friend. But that didn’t link “Obama = Terrorist” in people’s minds at all, because no conservatives ever called Obama a terrorist.

Oh. Ooops.

Messiah is a satirical reference to the way his acolytes and followers have regarded him, not to mention the media.

So when liberals make jokes about Bush and his supporters, it’s because they are consumed with the fiery rages of hatred. But when conservatives make jokes about Obama and his supporters, it’s “legitimate criticism”. Okay.

Your entire post is based on a misunderstanding of what Rush actually said. He doesn't want Obama to be successful in implementing his policies because he thinks it would be detrimental to the country.

In a nutshell, what he said was that he hopes Obama fails because it will prove liberalism is a failure (well, and because his fee fees got hurt because people didn’t like Bush).

In response to a question of “What is your hope for the Obama Presidency” Rush states:

“Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”

This was after he was complaining about the Republicans that have stated that want him to succeed, which they probably said because they aren't cake-eaters like Rush and they get the importance of the state of the country right now and know that we are screwed if Obama fails.

But you know what? I’ll play your little “Lets see how obtuse we can be!” game. Rush Limbaugh stated:

I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

Let’s just take one example of what Obama’s plans are – how about to stimulate the economy? So please explain how will we know that Obama has “failed” and his plans did not “succeed”? Parting of the clouds? A gut feeling from Rush that isn’t gas? Magical fairies waving around “You have failed” wands while singing “Eeeeeeeeeepiiiiiiiiiic faaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiillllllllll”?.

No. We know that Obama will have failed when his plan to stimulate the economy will fail. And we know that his plan to stimulate the economy has failed when we go into a @!$%#ing second great depression.

You don’t get to have this fantasy option of Obama failing and the country succeeding. If you don’t like his policies, fine. But to root for him to fail so that maybe you can “prove” that his policies suck? It’s pretty evident that the goal here is not the well being of the country, it’s to hate on some liberals.

As it always is.

At any rate, back to the original point about wingnut hypocrisy, Republicans have been using the “You hope Bush fails you hate America!” line for the past eight years to shut up any dissent. Find me a liberal that was saying they hope Bush fails while Bush was in his first few weeks in office. Hell, I’ll even give you the first 100 days. Republicans have applied this to everything from wanting to teach evolution to disagreeing with the war. And here, we have the Republican Idol saying straight out that he wants Obama to fail, and you guys fall all over yourselves to defend him. So not only do we have some blatant double standards here, at the very least, unlike liberals, you have a major conservative that actually said he wants the president to fail.

That's not what he said at all, Stacy. Are you having reading comprehension problems today?

Amazingly enough, he actually said a bit more then what Killfile quoted. I'm going off of Rush's site. The cached version, actually, because his site is blocked on my computer.

So how will we know Obama has failed, Bill?

Rush is a entertainer thats all. He is paid to allot of money for something he is good at.

Sure, it's a derail, but on the few occasions when I drop by Killfile's threads, I see the same few people making the same silly points about Killfile's moderation, his tactics, and the same predictions about how it's unfairly handled (by you, or by whoever else they think overlooks his alleged violations) etc.

Seems fair, in that regard, to point to something you actually said, with a quote, which directly addresses a point someone made yet again, taking him to task in a way that you've said isn't appropriate. Two (of my) comments later, I suggest we wait and see what you have to say when you show up. A pretty short derail, by all accounts.

In other words, there was little point in asking the questions if I can't point to your answers when they apply.

Tyler

While you may think 2.2 ramped everything up, it was in fact in response to 2.0 and 2.1, which weren't exactly on-topic. But thanks for dropping by. (Jeesh, it took you long enough!)

And it was Republicans that jumped on this, made sure it got into the media,

It was in the Los Angeles Times. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as the media. And the Shanklin parody actually targeted Sharpton, Obama played only an ancillary role. Part of the point was to highlight the fact that it's liberals that are obsessed with racial group identity (is he black enough, is he authentic enough?, etc.)

Ah yes, I know where this is going. Why, no one called Obama a terrorist! We may have said he pals around with terrorists, gives terrorist fist-jabs to his wife, claimed he has terrorist connections, and is the terrorists' best friend. But that didn’t link “Obama = Terrorist” in people’s minds at all, because no conservatives ever called Obama a terrorist.

The Bill Ayers connection was a legitimate issue just as a McCain connection to David Duke would have been a legitimate issue.And Obama's Al Arabia message of appeasement to Iran isn't helping your case at all.

So when liberals make jokes about Bush and his supporters...

Jokes are one thing, making fantasy films about his assassination and writing similar books are another, so is the constant refrain of "Bu@!$%#ler" and the seething hatred (war criminal, etc) expressed on this very forum every @!$%#ing day. But the anointed one is not to be criticized and his agenda is not to be questioned, yeah, dream on.

And Obama's Al Arabia message of appeasement to Iran isn't helping your case at all.

So, now you're saying that he *is* a terrorist?

But the anointed one is not to be criticized and his agenda is not to be questioned, yeah, dream on.

Again with the hypocrisy. Anything that you can show me that has been said about Bush in the last eight years, I can almost certainly counter it with something said about Obama in the last 8 months, which is just as bad, just as misinformed, just as intended to enrage the opposition, or worse.

If you thought it was absurd for people to make comments of that sort about Bush, why on Earth do you think it's okay to counter them with similar comments about Obama? If you thought it was correct to denounce that sort of commentary about Bush, why do you stand here and say that it's silly to denounce it when aimed at Obama?

Again with the hypocrisy. Anything that you can show me that has been said about Bush in the last eight years, I can almost certainly counter it with something said about Obama in the last 8 months, which is just as bad, just as misinformed, just as intended to enrage the opposition, or worse.

The occasional oddball post by an outlier (that has often been tamped down by many of us on the right as a distraction that did nothing to help our case) is in no way comparable to the onslaught of seething Bush hatred that has been expressed both here and in the popular culture in general. That you would equate the two shows just how irretrievably skewed your worldview really is.

And Obama's Al Arabia message of appeasement to Iran isn't helping your case at all.

So, now you're saying that he *is* a terrorist?

Do you ever get tired of the strawman? I'm going to start calling you scarecrow if you keep this up.

(Chamberlain wasn't a Nazi, was he?)

The occasional oddball post by an outlier (that has often been tamped down by many of us on the right as a distraction that did nothing to help our case) is in no way comparable to the onslaught of seething Bush hatred that has been expressed both here and in the popular culture in general.

Right. Because, somehow, in your mind, the vast majority of people who were posting comments about Obama on Newsvine during the election were "outliers".

You can try that with someone who wasn't here and following just about every conversation about the election, but it won't fly with me.

Do you ever get tired of the strawman?

That might sting more, from another source.

I was here too. Perhaps we aren't referring to the same posts. I am referring to the "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama isn't a citizen", etc. posts. I do remember several of us on the right admonishing those posters that it wasn't productive to make those kinds of wild accusations. You are probably referring to anything at all negative about Obama. I considered the Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Rev Wright associations legimate political issues (as did Obama) Many of you on the left, did not.

You are probably referring to anything at all negative about Obama.

Yes, because, once again, when we're talking about "you" everyone was crazed and belligerent about Bush, but when we're talking about "me" most of the people I recall were actually just airing legitimate concerns.

Right.

Got it.

Thanks for clearing that up [rolls eyes]

Agreed, agio.

They will vote for it the second time around.

If the stimulus fails, they'll say they didn't vote for it the first time because they didn't think it would work. They'll say that they voted for it the second time out of a spirit of bi-partisanship.

If the stimulus works, they'll take full credit.

Either way, they win.

I'm not for either party. They both stink equally. So don't label me as anything other then a concerned American which is what we should all be. I don't vote party. I vote for what I feel will be best for my kids,and this country in the long run. I'm not willing to burden my kids with more debt. If the Dems come up with something better then I will support it.

Where is my tax cut in this bill? From what I've seen, only individuals making under $75k/yr and couples making $150k/yr will see a tax 'refund'. Why hasn't President Obama pulled Nancy Pelosi aside and demanded that those making under $250k/yr get a tax cut? These were his words, afterall.

President Obama made a campaign promise that everyone making under $250k/year would get a tax cut. He even had on his campaign website a section titled, "What Is Your Obama Tax Cut?". I followed the link and plugged in my numbers, then used a snipping tool to make a copy of the results. They are now saved for future reference. Since I make less than half of the $250/yr cut-off for promised tax cuts, I should be well within the tax cut range, even if he has to alter his campaign promise a little bit. However, as this bill stands now, that $250k/yr has already been drastically lowered to a mere $75k/yr. We will see if President Obama is a man of his word or whether he is a liar. We'll see if those in my income bracket ($105k/yr) get the tax cut he promised or the tax hike that Republicans warned us about. Any guesses on which side was truthful when it comes to the tax issue?

We will see if President Obama is a man of his word or whether he is a liar. We'll see if those in my income bracket ($105k/yr) get the tax cut he promised or the tax hike that Republicans warned us about. Any guesses on which side was truthful when it comes to the tax issue?

Back during the campaign, I asked just about everyone on this board: "How can Obama cut taxes for 95% of working american's AND increase spending in this economy?" No one answered the question. They became astounding name-callers though. I was an 'ultra-rich, uncaring, hatemongering, evil, neocon that didn't care about the poor'.

I'm with you. I want my tax cut. He promised. Of course, I'm having trouble remembering one promise he's made good on. Time to start hiding the money, I guess. I can't afford to have Obama as my president.

Of course, I'm having trouble remembering one promise he's made good on.

Well, there's closing down Gitmo. Getting out of Iraq on a 16-month timetable. Beyond that, perhaps you can point to where he said that every "promise" he ever made would be fulfilled within the first 2 weeks of his presidency?

It's also worth noting that I recall several people giving good faith answers to that very question, and then being derided as kool-aid swilling obamaniacs who will say anything at all if it makes Obama look good. It's funny how selectively we each remember the insults, no?

President Obama made a campaign promise that everyone making under $250k/year would get a tax cut.

Actually, now that I think about this, that statement isn't even accurate. Odd, given the excellent memories being professed.

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

and

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/taxes/

Contain the same information:

Middle class families will see their taxes cut -- and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama-Biden plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20 percent lower than they faced under President Reagan.

He never claimed everyone making under 250,000 would see a tax cut, he said no one making under 250,000 would see a tax increase.

So, disagree that he'll be able to do this all you like, but can we at least stop making things up to disagree with? I realize the latter tactic makes it much easier to act outraged, but when his actual stances have been recorded for months, now, it's pretty silly to think you can get away with it.

You don't 'have to remember, there's a whole site tracking it! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

So far he's kept six, with another 17 "in the works".

I'm having trouble remembering one promise he's made good on.

Not even Obama can accomplish anything in a WEEK! What you expected him to have a magic wand and poof all the problems your buddy Bush created?

But don't bother to mention that in that week, he has gotten a stimulus bill past the house, he's signed orders to close gitmo, AND he's reversed several of Bushes vindictive little laws!

i wish i was poor... god. i really should just quit my job and go home and do NOTHING. the govt wont let anything bad happen to me, everyone will always bail me out.

and the whole rush thing, GIVE ME A BREAK. HE DISAGREES WITH OBAMAS WANT TO GET GOVT INTO EVERY PRIVATE SECTOR. IF OBAMA PLANS TO GO THROUGH AND TRY IT, HE HOPE HE FAILS. SO DO I.

context for christ sake.

They'll have as much "grit" as when the they supported the Wall Street spending bill. Let's see, the Republicans have now given Wall Street investors a total of $1.5 trillion in bailouts, and when it's time to spend on programs for Main Street, THIS is when the Republicans decide to "stand their ground" on spending? LOL give me a break.

In case you forgot it was the Republicans who voted against the Wall street bailout. Till the Dems came crying with Pelosi at the helm begging them. Obama came back to Washington,and took the floor begging them to pass it. So give me a break.

I'm not defending the Republicans. They blew it to. I get so sick of all the partisan BS. When both parties have drove us into the ground. I did not like Bush,and I didn't vote for him,but let's be honest it takes two to turn this into the three ring circus that it has become.

The Senate Republicans opposed it at first, but they supported it only AFTER pork had been added. The House Republicans and Democrats were all pretty divided, but not along partisan lines actually.

Bush was not the only Republican. Look at history and you can see for yourself what they has done for America.

We need both parties to keep each other in check. That is how things work and it is a great system for checks and balances.

If you don't already know what each party stands for, then please do not vote. It hurts America.

Actually, these kinds of stimulus packages do work.

The New Deal was a perfect example. For decades, economists have been saying that the New Deal helped to elevate us out of the Great Depression. The only complaint the vast majority of economists have had is that is wasn't big enough. They blame Roosevelt for decreasing his stimulus package to gain the votes of the nay sayers. If he had stuck to his guns and did what needed to be done, we would have been lifted out of the depression much sooner. The American public also agreed with Roosevelt's stimulus package. It was 20 years before Republicans came into power again.

Also, lets not forget that it was Reagan's financial advisor who testified before congress that we needed a stimulus package that was worth at least $800 billion. You see, even the Republicans know in their heart that we need a stimulus package.

They unfortunately are unwilling to put their country before their party.

Further, the bill in its current version contains virtually no "sunset" provisions at all.

The New Deal was a perfect example

Bad example, actually. It didn't work very well at all. Where do you get your history from? Howard Zinn? Robert Reich?

Further, the bill in its current version contains virtually no "sunset" provisions at all.

Bills that expand Government and/or Government spending never seem to have sunset provisions, they are only for tax cuts, it seems.

What got us out the great depression was WWII.

Your right, maggiemay, it was WWII that ended up pulling us out once and for all.

The majority (and I do mean majority) of historical economists say that if the New Deal had been more aggressive, we would have been lifted out of the depression sooner.

Furthermore, as a direct result of the New Deal, we now have a minimum wage, social security, bank insurance, and a host of other programs which may very well be helping us from going into another great depression (with any luck).

As to the detractors of the New Deal, they need to remember that compared to the recovery of other countries, our own recovery was striking (even before the advent of WWII).

Overall, I think there is a lot of pork out there in bills by both parties. But as for the New Deal, I think it did it's job. But remember, there wasn't all that weird pork attached. You could also say that Trickle Down economics didn't work well. Here's a goody.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html

There has to be major changes on how our economic policies are passed before any real progress can be made.

Perrie, great article.

What? Use logic to discuss economics? What an unusual event.

Susan. Take note that I said MASSIVE stimulus packages don't work. I agree we need a stimulus package that works. We actually need serveral smaller scale ones focused on specific parts of the economy. My gripe with the whole thing, with Dems and GOP alike, is they are trying to solve all the problems in one swoop...which is why there is so much crap and controversial spending thrown in with these MASSIVE packages. We need a bill for Healthcare reform, one for Auto industry reform/bail-out, one for banking and finance, one for infrastruture and so on. The issue is that these politicians have their agendas they want to fulfill instead of focusing on fixing the immediate economic problems. The Bush stimulus/bail-out isn't working and I highly doubt Obama's package will either because half the problem is the incompetence of the members of Congress and the Senate being able to put forth logical, practical ideas regardless of their political ideologies. If they did what was actually in the best interest of the country rather than their party, they might actually agree on something.

I found the comparisons interesting though backwards. President Obama is Caesar deciding with his army the best way forward sans compromise with those who disagree. It's not as bad as a civil war and I doubt it would get there but to cast the Republicans who are out of power as the evil invaders bent on setting up an empire government in the face of a massive Democrat government expansion is breathtaking in it's perversity.

TruthHurts, I understand what you're saying. Although I disagree with you (a stimulus package works best when you hit big), we definitely have to do this in a controlled manner

I think the reason that this is being pushed thru so quickly, though, is that a large part of a healthy economy is the faith people have that the system works. Yesterday, the markets of other countries rallied in anticipation of the stimulus package's approval. Doing something (even if your constiuents do not agree with you) gives the people a sense that you are taking control.

This is why Obama keeps talking about putting forth a stimulus package NOW. We need to do something right away because not doing anything will only make things worse. While I don't think we should act willy-nilly and pass something without knowing what it is, if we try to break it down into small parts, I fear we will only prolong the problems. We are having a hard enough time getting a consensus on ONE plan. No way would we ever get a consensus on 20 plans.

btw, (off topic, I know), I'm listening to Blago giving his closing statement at his impeachment trial (there's a live link on MSNBC). It's a hoot!

I found the comparisons interesting though backwards. President Obama is Caesar deciding with his army

Actually, this is not a Democrat vs Republican thing. I find 'we the people/army' don't have a Ceasar yet. As you will find out in months to come, Obama is no Cesear, but rather Obama, Bush, Clinton, Dems, GOP, Congress, Senate, Judiciary branch, are all part of the nobles in goverment ruining our country with their greed and incompetence. We have yet to find a Cesear to lead us...ALL of us.

The Democrat being Obama that is, not me, haha. I was Republican actually until Bush came along.

I wonder what Obama's new security force will be? He said it will be more powerful even than our present forces. Who will they be and what will be their qualifications?...

For the new tenement farms coming to care for the unemployed?

I think the sober and frugal American public should move in and take over running the country.

If it were possible, my idea would to fire all politicians in Congress and Senate immediately. Vote in new, qualified representatives and pay them $2 million each for two year terms so they have less reason to take bribes and line their pockets. Also, a higher salary might entice actual, qualified, successful people like small/medium/large business executives to run for public office since they won't suffer as much of a paycut going into public office for 2 years. Oh yeah, and 2 years is the term limit, period. No more 20 year politicians.

I say if they want to be Congresspersons and Senators they aren't qualified. We need to vote in people that don't want the job but are honorable enough to do their best when they are given the job.

Make it a citizens' obligation, like jury duty. No need to punish them, though, don't force them to do it for more than 2 years. Or allow them to do it for more than 2 years if they grow to like it.

Aimee your post is only borderline coherent and cannot be backed up with facts. It is a fact that conservatives and Republicans give more time, money and blood to charity than do liberals.

yeah they give more money to pharmaceutical companies and places like Halliburton that gives them tons of money back. ha

PharmaCo's and Halliburton aren't charities. Aimee, I'm sure you're a sweet person but you're just not coming off that way at all at present.

Arthur Brooks. the author of that book was once a democrat, then a republican and now an independent? Can this guy make up his mind. But I'll give you this, Republicans maybe donate more because they have more money to give. Democrats alot of whom are union and middle class workers, can't give as much because we make A LOT less and we won't be able to continue to donate at all because we are being eradicated.

Actually it's true across all income categories, Aimee.

Oh yeah, I'm sure Paris Hilton is going to be more thrifty because people can't afford to go on vacation and stay at the Hilton. Some people can't afford to buy a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread.

I could say that independents give the largest amounts to charity. Michael Bloomberg, an independent gave the single largest amount of charity last year in the history of the US, a whopping $205 million. But if you are talking about Republicans v.s. Democrats, Republicans give more charity. Read this

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

And people, please remember, I'm an independent and this is from an independent source.

What I meant by that was on average, poor conservatives give more than poor liberals, middle class conservatives give more than middle class liberals, and so on.

Most of the Americans who knew the good our military did there, saw it (however misguided) to free and restore the Iraqi people.

The troops there have been very angry with the media for blocking coverage showing all the humanitarian good that has been done there by our country.

So it does hurt to see some people there oblivious because they are the ones who want absolute power over the rest of the people...these are the successors to Saddam.

yeah Bush's cronies

My son corresponded with his friend, a medic, in Iraq....and he shared with us all the good they did, and how the people liked them...

and how many of our soldiers had their heads lopped off...

It makes me want to cry the disregard some of our people have for our military, the most of whom were and are the most professional in the world.

We will all beheld accountable someday for our own transgressions...

The troops there have been very angry with the media for blocking coverage showing all the humanitarian good that has been done there by our country.

This gives me the impression that you do not know much about the news business. If it bleeds, it leads.

Feel-good stories don't sell newspapers. They care about their P&L agenda long before they care about their ideological agenda. It's not personal, it's just business...

Yes, it would have nothing whatever to do with the fact that most editors would rather cut off their arm than to print stories that would redound positively to the Bush Administration, nothing at all.

If you don't like it, you could always argue in favor of your own version of the fairness doctrine, right?

This was my son's friend sharing with him and with us...and we were praying every day for him...

he could care less about what other people thought of him....he was an authentic witness and was none political...he came home with nightmares...mostly of smiling children coming up and then throwing grenades at him...

You can't be compassionate for the humanity for one and then deny the humanity of another, especially those with compassion...and he ahd that for the women as well and saw how they were treated by their husbands....

Uh, okay?

Did y'all read Tyler's comment above? WTF does any of this have to do with the merits of the stimulus bill?

The first comment in this sub-thread was arguably on topic. It's since evolved a bit, yes.

With that said, unless Killfile is upset that one sub-thread out of hundreds of comments has segued into a divergent topic, I don't think there's any reason why people can't let it play out...

There's no absolute rule that a comment thread has to be strictly on topic, so long as it's not derailing any attempts to discuss the topic in other sub-threads, and especially if Killfile doesn't seem to have an issue with it. Tyler's comment above seems to touch more on completely irrelevant off-topic discussions about moderation, than on this sort of an off-topic digression into other tangentially related subject matters.

Sorry...i love that young man who was in Iraq and what he witnessed and with the others there...if there was anything he was not, it was a propagandist...

To try to get back, I don't think you can blame everything on Bush...this economic situation has been evolving for some time...a consumerist based society is eventually going to crash....

Yes, it would have nothing whatever to do with the fact that most editors would rather cut off their arm than to print stories that would redound positively to the Bush Administration, nothing at all.

If you don't like it, you could always argue in favor of your own version of the fairness doctrine, right?

No, I just don't buy their product (and incidentally, just how are they doing financially?) and instead look to new media outlets such as Michael Yon and Micheal J. Totten.

Sorry, that last link was in error, it links to Bill Roggio's excellent site The Long War Journal, also a good source of news from the GWOT. Michael Totten's site is here.

"I hate you so much that I would destroy myself to take you down with me."

That says it all, doesn't it?

Your entire post is based on a misunderstanding of what Rush actually said. He doesn't want Obama to be successful in implementing his policies because he thinks it would be detrimental to the country. (as do I) Why do people insist on believing these left wing websites when the truth is easy enough to find?

I'm not a Republican, but what Limbaugh said has been twisted so much that it's like the kids sitting around the table whispering in each others ear. What goes in comes out so different. What he said was that he didn't want Obama to fail as a president,but he wants him to fail in pushing his Socialist agenda.Waynester was right about the charity comment. Republicans do give more money to charity then any other group.

The point remains: Obama's plan is put forth based on the idea that his policies will be *good for* the Country. He was voted into office based on that premise as well. So, if his plan succeeds, the idea is that the success will be *good for* the country.

Thus, by *hoping* Obama fails, he's saying that he doesn't want something that is good for the country, because it doesn't fit his own personal idea of what is *good* for America.

He doesn't want Obama to be successful in implementing his policies because he thinks it would be detrimental to the country.

That's exactly why liberals have opposed so many of George Bush's policies, yet the right has been yammering on and on for 8 years now about how this opposition to his policies means that liberals hate America.

With that said, the left supported Bush's Iraq War concept, right up until it was demonstrated to not work very well. (The right loves to point this out, so don't deny it.) Support dwindled as his failures mounted. Rush seems to want to express hope for failure long before there's been even a *chance* for success.

Obama's plan is put forth based on the idea that his policies will be *good for* the Country.

That doesn't make it true. Joining the country as whole and Obama at the hip is dangerous and wrong. The problem I have with liberals is that many of them wanted us to lose a freaking war to prove their point, politically, and didn't seem to know or care how much it would damage American interests for years and years to come, and to this day stubbornly refuse to acknowledge success.

So, if his plan succeeds, the idea is that the success will be *good for* the country.

But what if his plan succeeds AND it's not good for the country?

The problem is that too many people don't understand cause and effect and have no clue about economics, so Obama will implement his plan, the economy will recover because it's that time in the economic cycles and the simpletons and partisans will all "praise" Obama for saving America, even though his plan may have even hurt the recovery and made the next cycle less prosperous.

With that said, the left supported Bush's Iraq War concept, right up until it was demonstrated to not work very well.

So the left already has a pattern of supporting bad plans just to get along with the President ;-)

Rush seems to want to express hope for failure long before there's been even a *chance* for success.

Let's not pretend that any of the current Obama Administration plans are actually new or revolutionary. Most of these ideas have been floating out there for decades. Most have been tried to one level or another. President Obama and the Democrats are merely using the crisis of the recession to cram through programs that they would have tried to pass regardless of economic climate.

he problem I have with liberals is that many of them wanted us to lose a freaking war to prove their point, politically, and didn't seem to know or care how much it would damage American interests for years and years to come, and to this day stubbornly refuse to acknowledge success.

Oh, bull@!$%#. When the right does it, it's because they're *correct* about the left's flawed plans for success, when the left does it, it's because they @!$%#ing hate America and because they're wrong about the right's awesome plans for success?

Doesn't the hypocrisy inherent in what you've just said bother you even just a little bit?

But what if his plan succeeds AND it's not good for the country?

I suggest we discuss it when that happens. I'd also say that this is exactly the point many would make about the Surge, though.

I suggest we discuss it when that happens.

That was kinda my point with the whole second paragraph. The future discussion will be hindered by a failure to properly understand cause and effect. More than likely the economy will start to recover by the end of this year as the natural economic cycle spins the other way. This will happen before most of the stimulus plan is even implemented, much less has a chance to do anything. However, most people will just congratulate President Obama on "fixing" the economy because he made the big grand gesture, and then the economy recovered. Since one followed the other, the stimulus was OF COURSE the cause and the recovery the effect … even though the actual effects of the stimulus won't be felt for years, long after we forgot about the original bundle of programs.

The future discussion will be hindered by a failure to properly understand cause and effect.

Of course. No one ever thinks that other people are able to properly understand the issues.

Seems a tad conceited of you. I don't necessarily disagree, I just wouldn't put myself in the category of someone who has a great grasp of the fundamentals. I'm capable of reading, though, and parsing.

Since one followed the other, the stimulus was OF COURSE the cause and the recovery the effect … even though the actual effects of the stimulus won't be felt for years, long after we forgot about the original bundle of programs.

Though, it would seem, many (all?) Republicans with a vote are objecting to the portions which will *have* a long-term result, calling them pork. I'm thinking of funding for NEA, birth-control spending, etc.

Leaving off the second (more controversial) issue, I think the NEA example could be a big factor in stimulating the economy, long-term.

At any rate, if we do something, and see an improvement, we won't be able to (in hindsight) claim that doing nothing would have been the right thing to do. I haven't seen very many people who even *believe* that doing nothing would be the right thing to do.

Oh, bull@!$%#. When the right does it, it's because they're *correct* about the left's flawed plans for success, when the left does it, it's because they @!$%#ing hate America and because they're wrong about the right's awesome plans for success?

You are conflating domestic and foreign policy issues. There was a time when politics ended at the waters edge. That time is no more. Leftists in America side with it's enemies at the drop of a hat, I don't understand why they squeal like pigs when called on it. Rush and other conservatives don't like the expansion of Democratic power (i.e., redistributing of wealth to Dem voters and pet projects, etc) that Obama and the Democrats are attempting to implement in the name of "fixing" the economy. Neither do I.

Of course. No one ever thinks that other people are able to properly understand the issues.

Seems a tad conceited of you.

it's not conceited, it's just looking at the past 10 political years. Look at how President Clinton kept getting the credit for a balanced budget and the tech bubble, when it was the tech bubble more than anything that was responsible for the balanced budget (economic bubble equals more tax revenue) and the main thing that President Clinton did to help the tech bubble was not screw it up by over regulating it.

Or hell, look at the surge, and all the hindsight punditry that occurred afterward.

Though, it would seem, many (all?) Republicans with a vote are objecting to the portions which will *have* a long-term result, calling them pork. I'm thinking of funding for NEA, birth-control spending, etc.

Well, those are pork programs. They are funding for special interests. Just because someone thinks the spending is valuable doesn't mean it's not pork. Obviously there's someone out there for any single piece of pork spending who thinks that it's valuable, or else no one would have lobbied for it in the first place.

At any rate, if we do something, and see an improvement, we won't be able to (in hindsight) claim that doing nothing would have been the right thing to do. I haven't seen very many people who even *believe* that doing nothing would be the right thing to do.

And I'm not saying that we should do nothing. I'm just saying that any old something isn't necessarily the right thing. And just because conditions improve naturally, doesn't mean that the something was right either. Hell, the something may have lessened the natural improvements.

Leftists in America side with it's enemies at the drop of a hat, I don't understand why they squeal like pigs when called on it.

Oh god. Do you really believe @!$%# like that? Just because some people don't want to go guns blazing into another country and kill bad guys doesn't mean that they side with the bad guys. Yeah, Saddam was an @!$%# and a bad guy. But maybe, just maybe, America would be in a tad better shape now if we hadn't spent $3-5 trillion invading Iraq and then trying to pacify it.

Oh god. Do you really believe @!$%# like that?

Yes, I do. And a little research would prove my point, but I just don't have the time at present. Meanwhile you can look up the pronouncements of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Throw in some Ted Rall and Bill Ayers, and Michael Moore just for good measure. Also Harry Reid and John Kerry with regard to troop morale might be instructive.

Meanwhile you can look up the pronouncements of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Throw in some Ted Rall and Bill Ayers, and Michael Moore just for good measure.

Maybe so, but I don't think those few examples speak for the entire American left.

Maybe so, but I don't think those few examples speak for the entire American left.

Actually, I don't hear any moderates from the left denouncing those kind of extreme leftist comments or views. Much to the moderate liberal disadvantage (or advantage depending on your perspective) the liberal media props them up as enlightened heroes.

On the other hand, I recall that conservatives blasted Bush and the GOP regarding immigration reform(amnesty), the lame stimulus checks and the failed Bank bail-out. The GOP was left hanging by a string to its conservative base.

Actually, I don't hear any moderates from the left denouncing those kind of extreme leftist comments or views. Much to the moderate liberal disadvantage (or advantage depending on your perspective) the liberal media props them up as enlightened heroes.

Oh please. People like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter are constantly in the media. When was the last time you same Michael Moore on the Sunday news shows? How about George Soros? Or Ayers, Zinn, or Chomsky?

The left tends to hide away anyone that could possible be considered a left-wing extremist, because the scary image of the radical 60s liberal is still powerful enough to hurt them politically. The right, however, tends to mainstream their extremists, by screaming over the supposed power and influence of people like Michael Moore, so that they can then claim they need a Limbaugh or a Coulter to "counter-act" or "balance" him out.

<sarcasm>Yes... because clearly any comment that goes undenounced must be a comment that everyone agrees on. </sarcasm>

LOL. I can appreciate sarcasm. I am just saying...people seldom point that stuff out on the left. If someone on the right says something that is derogatory toward our country or a tinged with racism, conservatives and liberals lambast them. Not so much so for the Left however. It's a double standard and seems the Right is held to a higher standard than the Left. But that is another off topic can of worms.

Examples plz.

When Palin was running for VP, liberal feminists were constantly calling out misogyny from other liberals. There are liberals that refuse to have anything to do with Kos these days because of the infamous "pie fight". John Aravosis got quite a bit of heat when he attacked the black community because of the "blacks passed prop 8" myth. NoQuarter is pretty much shunned now because of the racism they put out during Obama's campaign.

During the election, I watched Republicans defend things like Obama Waffles and jokes about magical negros. Republicans that spoke out against them were ridiculed by people like Limbaugh for being too PC.

During the election, I watched Republicans defend things like Obama Waffles and jokes about magical negros. Republicans that spoke out against them were ridiculed by people like Limbaugh for being too PC.

I couldn't agree more with that point. You may not realize it, but there is a distinction between Republican party and actual conservatives now. Limbaugh claimed his "magic" song was based off a liberal columnist from the LA Times that called Obama that. Yet everyone thought Rush was originated the term. I don't care where it came from..it was still in poor taste and that song sucked.

Other examples are the recently appointed IRS cheif (any other civilian would be on trial or in jail), Freezer money Jefferson stayed in office, Ayers is still allowed to teach and is accepted by the Left even after attempting to bomb his own country. Mayor Nagan of New Orleans got reelected after fubaring the Katrina evacuation and and hurricane preparations, Democrat politicians are still in office after jumping to conclusions about our military accusing them of murder yet allegations turn out to be false...why go on? People on the Right that screw up like that are all but tarred and feathered. Its like these screw ups don't matter to the Left, they continue supporting losers and criminals regardless. Bush started to really screw things up at the end of his presidency and that was the last straw for most conservative supporters. McCain never really even had the support of conservatives. Do conservatives just have higher expectations of their leaders?

For those who don't want the stimulus, send it back to the government. I know I'm going shopping.

For those of us who don't want to pay for the stimulus, can we just keep our tax money? ;-)

no

For those of us who don't want to pay for the stimulus, can we just keep our tax money? ;-)

Funny you mention it... I'd like my money back for all the tanks we've built, and espescially for all the missiles we've dropped on Iraq.

In cash please.

Rush' alternative plan outlined here.

Smiling Jack, sounds good to me. I'd like that money back too ;-)

This isn't about party affiliation. This is about what is best for the country. Big government does not mean better government. If the package was what it is suppose to be about then it would be different. The only thing that this bill will stimulate is more government spending. They will be the only employer left in the country. I have seen how well government is run,and don't really think it is in our best interest. As we have all seen lots of things that they pass come back to bite us on the butt years down the road. So yes maybe in the short term this may work,(and I say may) but in the long term what will it cost us?How is this pork packed bill going to help in the long term? How is it going to help our children,and their children when they are faced with paying for this.How is this going to build long term employment for them? Obama can have all the cocktail parties he wants, but this is a no win situation for us the American people.

Realistically speaking, bombs are cheap. 15 % is spent on the warhead and explosive mechanism (I'm ballparking here). 10 % spent on propulsion , and the remaining 75% of the cost of that bomb goes to the guidance equipment, to give it 'surgical strike' capability.

Why do we spend so much more than any other military ? A large part of it has to do with preventing collateral damage.

A Mk-84 bomb costs roughly $3,100 per unit.

A JDAM (which is nothing more than a method to steer said bomb)$70,000 per unit

A GBU-10 paveway (again same warhead) $27,000 per unit. Exact same bang for a lot omre buck!

kf - 14.1---surely, here ya go (Bill Harrison linked this first in his comment #2.21) from Rasmussen. Support has slipped to 42%:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/public_support_for_economic_recovery_plan_slips_to_42

Adam Hobson tells me that most Americans don't understand the issue.

Now I'm told that I'm expected to care that only 42% of Americans support an economic stimulus plan.

Aack! I'm so conflicted.

Brian---well maybe you don't care....but Barack Obama and his dem majority have got to be a little wee bit concerned about that number.

Oh, I'm sure they are. If they weren't (or if Obama weren't) I doubt very much they'd have taken out the Birth Control aspect or the other item they compromised on.

But, we're not talking to Obama, we're talking to each other, and trying to convince each other of the merits of the bill, based on a low number, and I'm saying that Adam is telling me elsewhere that the public knows dick-all about what is actually going on, and now I'm asking whether I should really much care what a fickle public thinks?

Wait until the "bad bank" proposal and the additional funding that will require gets rolled out next week, Lisa. That's when the crapola (and I support the concept, btw) is really going to hit the fan from the public's standpoint.

Brian, American's may not know exactly what's going on (and seriously, do you know what exactly is in the $800 billion of the stimulus plan, or exactly what its effects will be?), but we also know that politicians shill bull @!$%# and this stimulus is covered in it.

Killfile, I agree...but I'll even take it one step further:

The constant raping the military gets by the hands of the GSA and other companies that inflate prices up over 1000% of retail are what costs the military so much money.

The same BNC connectors you can buy for 1.99 at radio shack cost 9.50 through GSA .

We spend 100's of millions of dollars buying the exact same equipment that if we paid the civilian prices for we'd spend maybe 1/5 of that .

IMO this "bad bank" idea is crap. We ought to simply let the banks borrow on a 1:1 basis using the bad debt as collateral.

If they can sell it these derivatives someday then great, they walk away whole. If they can't, they simply pay back Uncle Sam on the huge loans they had to take out because of their greed and stupidity.

The trick is simply making the loan repayment period long enough such that they can repay it without going broke. It will be an albratross around their neck and profits for the next 30 years or so, but hopefully that teaches the next 30 years worth of bankers that this isn't Monopoly money they are playing with.

The same BNC connectors you can buy for 1.99 at radio shack cost 9.50 through GSA .

Are they Milspec parts? It's pretty expensive to do Milspec proofing. I'd be more interested in knowning if the actual application requires Milspec connectors, or if they simply are too lazy to figure out the difference.

The GSA parts are milspec (probably from Amphenol or some such), the Radioshack parts are definitely not (Chinese made most likely) For a bureaucracy like the DOD to have parallel parts lines (milspec and nonmilspec) would be very expensive to implement and would cost more in the long run.

killfile

Yes, it will involve a bit of accounting hocus pocus but then again accounting's not an exact science either but rather, like r.e. appraisal, must adjust somewhat to changed market conditions. Right now, if the banks were truly required to "mark to market" CDOs they'd have to write them down to zero because there's no market. There's a hole in the credit institutions you could still drive a freight train through if you go with Roubini and the people at Deutsche Bank (this a synopsis of the same report I heard at a luncheon they gave the other day). We could be looking at another several hundreds of billion dollars easily in a "bad bank" scenario because no one still really knows what these tranches of loans consist of completely as good paper was packaged up with dreck. That's going to require an RTC-style federal agency to drill this crap apart see what's wheat, what's chaff, repackage them, and then try and make a market in them with the full faith and credit of the Treasury behind them but this is going to require further drops in the r.e. markets that still haven't reached good bottoms in all likelihood in markets like suburban LA, Vegas, much of Florida, and the outer rims here in DC.

Azzix & Waynester,

Good point. I'll look it up next time I'm at work on Fedlog for the manufacturer.

But if that's the case, how come it costs my unit 6.50 to buy a box of pencils (non-mechanical)?!?

Are there 'mil-spec pencils?'

Sgt---the current stimulus package is woefully negligent re: military spending. But then I guess elections do have consquences and I wouldn't expect the dems to be too concerned with bolstering the mililtary they always claimed our previous president had overcommitted.

Lisa,

The military is one of the few businesses that doesn't have to worry about layoffs, reduced pay, furlough, or any of that. We don't need a stimulus. Actually, we got a 3.9% pay increase this year across the board, plus an increase in BAH and BAS.

I appreciate your concern, but we're doing fine...

Really? The current active-duty army is a fraction of its size at the end of Desert Storm. I wrote an entire article detailing this and it was later commented on favorably by Col. Jack Jacobs. I've yet to hear anything from the Obama administration about its promise to expand the active duty army and Marine Corps by some four to five divisions. Funny that.

KF's right, Bill. Priorities must be maintained.

Bill,

I can only speak for the Marine Corps. We are by law restricted in size to 180,000 when not at war. 225,000 when at war.

The 'surge' was scheduled to increase our troop size 25,000 Marines over the next 5 years. However, when the wars end, we will be drawn back down to 180,000. Yes this means, just like 1993, members with 16 or more years will be offered early retirement, medical boards will be processed and members separated. Members in legal trouble will be administratively processed out, FTAP members will be subject to boatspace requirements, and if that doesn't reduce the amount to 180,000 , other members will be offered severance packages to leave early. Be it either monetarily, or through offering retirement.

That's interesting. Can you give me the statute citation for the law restricting the size of the Corps?

Bill,

Actually, this was harder to find than I thought (it's common knowledge for all Marines, as it's a question on our MCCS (BST) )

The code is US Code title 10 article 691b that dictates the maximum amount of forces per military branch alloted. Here's a link to the article I found.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp1096dmH3&refer=&r_n=hr702.109&db_id=109&item=&sel=TOC_448338&

The reason the Marines are so small is that we are designed to be expeditionary. We are built to be able to have the first troops on the ground anywhere in the world in 18 hours from notification. We are also the only branch of the military that does not require congressional approval for the President to use without US interests being directly attacked first. (IE we can be deployed on a Humanitarian mission in Nambia on executive order, and be wheels up before Congress ever gets a say on the matter. )

That's basically right. As I was saying on another thread: The simple fact of this entire economic mess is one, economics while likes to portrary itself as a "science" it really isn't and two, we're sailing in somewhat unchartered waters given the empty chambers in the monetary policy revolver. If Roubini's right and the global financial system is as insolvent as he believes it to be (and who knows what kind of shape China's banks are in given the opaque nature of so much of their economy) this thing could go on a lot longer than people think (basically most of the rest of this year with an upturn maybe in the fall).

I just wonder, if we never had NAFTA or CAFTA, if people would still have jobs...

As I was saying on another thread: The simple fact of this entire economic mess is one, economics while likes to portrary itself as a "science" it really isn't

I think the problem is the other way, economics IS a science. The problem though is that people and the media don't differentiate between actual economics the science, and political economics that has nothing to do with economics the science. There are actual economic laws and theories that are just as based in science as relativity or evolution. But then of course just like you have "scientists" who don't believe in evolution, you'll get some wacko "economists" who don't believe in actual economics.

I don't have much formal training in economics, but just with the free market for example, it appears to be an entity of its own....but how much manipulation is going on??? The short selling, the outdated usage of derivatives...the present accounting system we are using...I hear these topics come up as controversial...but even if there was a correction, I think the average people want to live a more simple lifestyle...the materialism, the fast pace, the lack of time for others....the complexity of everything in every day life including one's own liability to expenses, taxes...

Could this economic crisis in fact be in time a correction to our life styles? I tend to think so....We had heavy storms this year and after living an incongruous neighborhood for many years, there was a movement made to have a neighborhood watch program....with little crime, it was decided to build a more caring neighborhood, help those in need who want it, and respect others' privacy...

Adam, when Keynes wrote of "animal spirits" he was referring to the concept of trust among animals. Markets and economies are largely psychological in nature and susceptible to highly irrational forces. Economics is part science but it's still in large measure unquantifiable ultimately.

Bill, just because something is incomplete as a theory doesn't mean that it's not science. Hell, there's Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics that actually proves that math will remain incomplete. As to rationality, physicists still study quantum physics and the like even though they can't even do something as "simple" as determining both an electron's position and velocity.

Science isn't perfect. And economics, since it is very much based on human behavior, is farther from perfect than the "hard" sciences. But just because it isn't perfect, and at times rather imprecise, doesn't mean that it isn't science and that real economic studies and theories aren't backed by scientific rigor.

As for economics being largely unquantifiable, the Austrian School of Economics is very well aware of the difficulty of mathematically modeling markets and actually supports a laissez faire approach to the economy because of the difficulties in predicting it. You can't control the economy no matter how hard you try, and that knowledge is actually part of the science of economics.

That's also where you have to separate the science from the politics. This stimulus plan has ZERO science behind it. It's completely politics. The science of economics screams "no, no, no", but too few care to listen. There's also the problem that too many people who are actually public policy experts or just political hacks call themselves economists because they took a few classes in college.

There are actual economic laws and theories that are just as based in science as relativity or evolution. But then of course just like you have "scientists" who don't believe in evolution, you'll get some wacko "economists" who don't believe in actual economics.

Umm...excuse me but your ignorance is showing...

A Scientific Theory is a model a model made based on a large number of scientific observations that attempts to explain those observations and, in many cases, to make predictions based on those observations.

Just because there are competing theories in economics does not make them unscientific, they are going through the scientific process of testing observation and revision and eventually consensus is reached (ideally).

With regards to evolution...that consensus has been reached and after 150 years of testing there are currently no scientifically valid competing theories.

I'm sorry, but how did anything that you just said actually contradict anything that I said? I never claimed that there was only one true economics, or that every time there are competing economic theories, all but one are bogus. You seem to be reading a lot into what I wrote that I didn't actually write.

Please differentiate between the Bush NeoCons and Conservatives. They ain't the same, McGee.

I am what has become known as a "Goldwater Conservative." Smaller government, Individual rights, regulated free market economy, balanced budget (and pay off the national debt while we're at it) State's Rights (They have the right to do pretty much whatever the Constitution doesn't say is the Federal Government's job and that they can pay for), and a strict constructionist on the Constitution.

(Which means I didn't like McLame, and consider the Bush crowd traitors and war criminals who should be arrested and tried for treason - among other things.)

#19.1/Nofluer <- What he said.

...but do we have to call it "Goldwater Conservative"? Can't we use something a little closer to the underlying concept. Idunno... words like "sane" and "responsible" come to mind.

Obama is a canny politician. Under the guise of "economic stimulus" he can frighten the Congress (Bush showed the way) into doing what he wants - and what he wants above all else is to get his agenda passed while he still has political capital. That's what he's doing - passing his agenda (look at the current bill - only about half of it can even be loosely considered stimulus - the rest is part of his agenda.)

He said earlier today that his economic advisory team was considering and planning how to get out of the current financial mess and he named two people, one of them Paul Volker. (I figure that there are a lot of idiots in DC today, but Volker stands apart from them and is perhaps the only one who actually might knows how to set things aright since he's an independent thinker who doesn't mind going against accepted wisdom.)

Mr Obama also said something on the order of, "The American people expect us to do something. So we are." He did NOT say he thought that this plan would be any more effective than the last one. He just essentially said, "Well, y'all expect me to DO something, so I'll be Presidential and DO something. It won't be the right thing, but it'll be SOMETHING!" (Then we can't complain that he's not doing anything.)

Meanwhile he gets his agenda passed.

Very savvy politician.

(And also meanwhile he lets the Republicans cut their own throats by insisting that the 2001 Tax Cuts be made permanent - thus screwing the middle class through the AMT tax. Later, when the middle class is raising holy Ned he'll say, "Well, you wanted it. I gave it to you. Now you're complaining?")

And I'd certainly hope the new Justice Department would be preparing warrants and subpeonas for the Bush crowd. Can't have a prosecution without them!

If ACORN is a community group, is it then not the community that is lobbying Obama?

Unicorn - simple answer? NO.

A bit longer answer? ACORN does NOT represent the views or desires of the community. (The community is not well served by vote fraud.)

Did you mean an ACORN vote fraud (vote counted) or a vote fraud in general. If the latter, I think we can get a good look at that in Minnesota and Al Frankin's vote totals. (Some precincts/districts had more votes than there were voters)

Some precincts/districts had more votes than there were voters

Name one.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html

25 precincts have more ballots than voters.

Franken and his pal Ritchie are crooks and should be in JAIL, not the Senate.

You're comparing apples to motor oil here.

*golf clap*

They counted the votes - all of them - even the "excess" votes, because how could they determine which were the "excess" votes and which not?

Franken is stealing the election, and you will soon have a Senator from Minnesota who's a thief and a crooked politician. Congratulations.

When he starts to take the money and wealth from the rich (anyone who has something) and gives it to the Poor, (anyone who is in power and wants it), I hope you can find something to eat. Politicians don't grow food. They just grow syncophants.

It doesn't matter how mahy REGISTERED voters there were - it's how many voters signed the voter registry that they showed up to vote. and there were 25 precincts where there were more ballots than signitures.

If I were the judge on this case, I'd order the State to re-run the whole electon for the Senate seat! There are just too many irregularities to achieve a fair and equitable outcome with the ballots already cast.

KF is relying on the fact that is impossible to prove any particular vote has been fraudulently cast after the fact. Clever, but not convincing.

No, I'm not. I'm saying it's possible for vote fraud to occur. You say that since no evidence has surfaced that it didn't happen. You know as well as I do that outside of a confession there is no way to prove any particular vote was cast fraudulently. You also know as well as I do that the easiest way for this to occur are fraudulent registrations. Once fraudulent registrations are in place it is nothing at all for an unscrupulous poll worker to vote them and after that there is no way to detect them. None. It doesn't take a national conspiracy. I direct your attention to WSJ columnist John Fund's book: Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy for a more substantive look at this problem.

Would that you and other leftists would take such a sanguine atttude when "issues" involving Diebold and the 2004 vote in Ohio are concerned. I think there are still wailers and gnashers of teeth over that nonexistent problem right here on the vine...

I also suppose you think that scandolus election of the Washington Govenor in 2000 was pure as the driven snow as well...

Would that you and other leftists would take such a sanguine atttude when "issues" involving Diebold and the 2004 vote in Ohio are concerned. I think there are still wailers and gnashers of teeth over that nonexistent problem right here on the vine...

When in doubt, change the subject.

I didn't change it, I just pointed out the inconsistencies that leftists demonstrate when talking about issues of voter fraud: The Dems don't do it; The Republicans do. It's as simple as that. Again, read the book.

I take it from your non-response to the mention of Washington State govenors race that you conceed it was rigged? Good. How about the 1998 Miami mayor's race which was stolen by vote brokers by tampering with 4700 absentee ballots? Or the fiasco in California after the Motor voter law was enacted and people obtained absentee ballots for fictitious people and pets? Most vote fraud is undertaken by Democrats because Democrats for the most part, run big city machines, so I can understand your defensiveness in this area. I share your concerns about the [in] security of voting machines, however, and think there is room for a lot a lot of improvement. As quoted on the Amazon page for Fund's book:

Election officials are trying to reassure voters by turning to computerized voting machines. But Fund shows that with the new technology come even greater concerns. Early in 2004, for instance, the state of Maryland, which has 16,000 new Diebold machines, commissioned a security expert to try to rig a practice election. He and his team broke into the computer at the State Board of Elections, completely changed the outcome of the election, left, and erased their electronic trail—all in under five minutes.

It does you no good to bolster your case with lore and legend, like the "roadblocks" that kept black voters from the polls in Fla. (It turns out they were just routine license and insurance checks) According to Fund, voter suppression is one of the top most over-rated problems. From an interview in November 2008:

The only recent examples of voter suppression or intimidation that I can find are people will leave fliers in neighborhoods that say "Republicans will vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday." Or, "You have to clear up all your parking tickets before you vote or you might be arrested." These are anonymous fliers and I certainly deplore them.

I'm a little fuzzy on those but if memory serves they were intended to purge the roles of those who were not eligible (felons, etc) but many were mistakenly purged because of name similarity, etc. While this may be indicative of incompetency I fail to see how it disproportionately affected blacks or other minorities, though I suppose it could be plausible that hispanics could have been targeted because of the distinct nature of latino names. It would seem the provisional ballot system would be useful in rectifying those problems.

I agree with you and while we are talking about Reps. let's make it clear that 12 bave Dems. sided with them against the Pork Stimulus. Today, I hear on CNN that 22% was the total of the Tax Cuts made from the 40% that O wanted. I guess someone should tell Nancy that she is not the President and Harry that he is not the VP. Once again tax payers are left at the trickled down again.....like with Bush, so where is the change?

"We won the Election, it is OUR bill and we will do what we want"

Someone actually said that!?! Who? Why do we never remember these statements when it is time to re-elect people. :(

And JaRagga---One way to make sure crime does (n't ) pay would be to let the government run it. Ronald Reagan

And as you said ---corrupt representation from both sides of the aisles---looks like RR was right!! OOps kinda like letting the fox babysit the hens is it not!!

And---To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will.
Ronald Reagan

"Government is not the solution, government is the problem."----Ronald Reagan

QUOTE--In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. - John Adams (1735-1826

A wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

Thomas Jefferson

Iv got some Roesevelt to but Ill leave that to you---An Excellent post JaRagga----

jscusmc69, thank you for the kind words.

I will only take issue with your use of the government not being the solution and government being the problem quote. This statement while true in many cases is not a truism, in fact it is flat out false in many other instances. Example, should we have a military as we do today, dedicated and sworn to uphold and defend our Constitution or should we hire people like Blackwater to fight our wars for profit? If we did such a thing, do you think our wars would ever end? This is just one extreme example I could have used.

If we consider this quote for a moment and recall the banking bailout, where would we be had the government not supported the banks? We really don't know to be honest, but as an investor myself I will share the following. I would not be willing to bet that the majority of our countrymen, had we let the market self correct (which btw, I was and am personally in favor of), would have been prepared for the consequences of such a failure and our government in its decision to bail the banks out felt that a long slow pain was better than the intense but probably short lived pain that I was/am in favor of. Personally, I'd have rather taken that banking hit and let the chips fall where they may. These banks have only learned to hold out their hands when they manage their business irresponsibly. These banks are laughing at us when they should have failed in an otherwise free market, this is not the point however.

The point is that our government has a role and that role is important and clearly defined by the following words and at this time the government should most definately be acting though my opinion on those actions will differ greatly from the opinions of others, however the government should be acting in some manner.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Those things in bold are the responsibility of the government as laid out by our founders. If our economy fails our defense cannot be paid for or ensured. If our economy fails we cannot ensure domestic tranquility, starving and needing people will act in the extreme to survive. If our economy fails the burden on the government to care for the people is expanded as our welfare is their responsibility. If our economy fails we may lose our own blessings of liberty and cannot ensure it to our posterity.

Democratic republics (like ours) demand regulation to maintain the economical engine in balance. Free markets, act on greed and profit of shareholders who upon reflection and clear vision are very few and are the wealthiest in our society. Free markets act to the detriment of the great majority of the people of the republic, while trying to squeeze every penny of profit possible for the wealthy shareholders and corporate coffers.

Who are the people that feel the pain of free market society? Pretty much everyone in the middle class on down, who while they have 401K's are not really invested like big stockholders and just can't admit that they are small time players. Many, if not most people in America want to believe if they back the free market idea, that one day they'll be rich. Truth is that they won't be rich in all likelihood, if that were true the majority of our parents and grandparents would have been wealthy and many more of us would be sitting on our butts living off of trust funds.

Our government has a role and is not always the problem, the problem is the people in our government and their ties to corporate and private interests to the detriment of their constituents.

Okay - one of mine... that applies to the Dems:

Socialism is the desire of the poor, the tool of the rich. The poor support it because they think that it will give them some of the rich guy's money without working for it. The rich support it because they know better.

Unicorn, welcome to the vine. If you want to reply to a specific comment in a section say, just start out with something like.

Killfile at comment #2.1 you stated. . . .

Hope that helps. Sorry to use you as an example Killfile but I think you'll live :)