Guest column in today's P-I:
Quite simply, the House "stimulus" bill didn't do what it was supposed to -- to help hurting families and small businesses. That's precisely why I was disappointed to see my vote against last week's "stimulus" legislation mischaracterized in an editorial as an expression of partisanship ("Loyal Opposition: Still out of touch," Jan. 29).I opposed the House leadership "stimulus" legislation not because of "party loyalty," but because the $825 billion measure was rushed to the floor without thorough consideration, without clear evidence that it would create new jobs, and without regard for many of the proposals discussed in meetings with the president.
[snip]
I will continue to stand with low and middle-income American families. I will continue to fight for a true economic stimulus bill. One that protects American jobs, promotes American jobs and creates new American jobs. We cannot spend our way into recovery and prosperity. We cannot continue to borrow endless sums of money to bail us out. We need real solutions that create long-lasting jobs.
Appropriate pushback to the P-I joining a number of folks in the left-of-center universe in simply not understanding how a vote against the stimulus package in the House could be based on legitimate philosophical and policy differences.
Think we'll get similar chiding from such media voices of Blue Dog Democrats in the House or moderate Democrats from red-leaning states in the Senate who are uncomfortable with the legislation? Probably not.
UPDATE: more actual reality on the "stimulus": Trimming Economic Stimulus Legislation Gains Momentum
More from the New York Times on the same topic of stimulus trimming.
And here's something else not helping create the mood of "post-partisanship" Obama hopes to achieve. The DCCC is already running targeted radio ads against certain Republicans - including Dave Reichert - for their stimulus vote. That's not "post-partisan," it's hyper-partisan.
More importantly, from the perspective of a majority in theory interested in accomplishing something, it's not exactly the best way to create a productive environment for encouraging Republican votes in support of a final compromise on the legislation.
UPDATE II: And the hits just keep on coming...
1) The Congressional Budget Office declares long-term GDP will be lower with the House version of the stimulus than if Congress did nothing.
2) Blue Dog Democrats decide, "You know what? We don't want to vote for that monstrosity again."
Posted by Eric Earling at February 05, 2009 08:41 AM | Email ThisAnd, if Obama can't get Reichert on his side, then something has to be dramatically wrong with the bill.
But, Republicans are going to lose the debate if all they do is to call for tax cuts without explaining why and how they create jobs in a recession.
Posted by: swatter on February 5, 2009 08:48 AM'I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.'
Building Unity: unilateral dictates from the Slavery Party.
Partisanship: disagreeing with the Slavery Party.
Patriotism: dissent against the GOP
Anti-American: dissent against the Slavery Party
Un-American: not paying taxes
American: not paying taxes if you're a Cabinet Secretary or high-level Slaver
Hypocrite: Slaver
Washington Could Use Less Keynes and More Hayek
Most people know Dick Armey as the former Majority Leader under Newt Gingrich. But he is also one of the few (it seems) former members of Congress who is not an attorney. He is a former economics professor. There are lots of great points in the article, but here are a few quotes:
"Nobel laureate James Buchanan, argues that the great flaw in Keynesianism is that it ignores the obvious, self-interested incentives of government actors implementing fiscal policy and creates intellectual cover for what would otherwise be viewed as self-serving and irresponsible behavior by politicians."
EXACTLY!
and:
"The problem with government attempts to manipulate the economy through fiscal policy -- spending that takes resources away from those who are productive and redistributes it to politically favored interests -- is that it is audacious. It assumes that government knows better how to spend and invest than individuals acting in their families' best interest."
"The charade of the current stimulus package, chockablock with earmarks to favored pet constituencies and virtually devoid of national policy considerations, is the logical consequence of Keynesianism in action. It is about politics and power, not sound economics..."
REP's let Obama and the dem's pass this bill.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 5, 2009 10:31 AMIt's funny that democrats would chide republicans for doing the right thing, and actually run ads against them for doing the right thing. It's rather like when kids are doing something wrong---they always prefer it when someone else it doing wrong with them. The real story is that democrats are T'd off that they could get the whole blame for this turkey of a bill. We see right through you, dems.
Posted by: Michele on February 5, 2009 10:42 AMThe O Team probably figured that, given their spending proclivities over the last 8 years and Obama's supposed super-duper messianic charisma and popularity, the GOP would roll over and do his bidding. Now that they, along with some of the Blue Dog Democrats in the Senate (and a few in the House, to be fair) aren't playing along, so The O Team decides to play the obstructionist card. The media are happily going along, of course. Will it work? Looking doubtful as support via polls plummets.
Poor, poor Obama, he can't just make a nicey nicey speech and have everyone smile and do what he wants anymore, like in the campaign.
Posted by: Frank Black on February 5, 2009 10:57 AMWhich President sent $300 checks to every American back in 2001 thereby nullifying the budget surplus?
Seems to me we have one party to blame for this mess. The idiot party whom we The American People kicked out of Congress in 2006, and out of the White House in 2008.
Reichert voted twice against the bailout, and now against this "pork"ulus package. The times being what they are, that is a heroic defense of the middle class. Raise a glass to Reichert, and spit on the ground and curse all the running dogs of the Powerful Leftist State at the P-I.
Posted by: Tomas de Torquemada on February 5, 2009 11:16 AM50 outrages...look what's in the "stimulus" bill!
VARIOUS LEFT-WINGERY:
1. $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
2. $380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
3. $300 million for grants to combat violence against women
4. $2 billion for federal child care block grants
5. $6 billion for university building projects
6. $15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
7. $4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion to provide "youth" summer jobs for people up to the age of 24
8. $1 billion for community development block grants
9. $4.2 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities"
10. $650 million for digital TV coupons, including $90 million to educate "vulnerable populations"
POORLY DESIGNED TAX RELIEF:
11. $15 billion for business-loss carry-backs
12. $145 billion for "Making Work Pay" tax credits
13. $83 billion for the earned income credit
STIMULUS FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
14. $150 million for the Smithsonian
15. $34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
16. $500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of Health facilities
17. $44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters
18. $350 million for Agriculture Department computers
19. $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building next year
20. $448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters
21. $600 million to convert federal auto fleet to hybrids
22. $450 million for National Aeronautics and Space Administration
23. $600 million for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
24. $1 billion for the Census Bureau
INCOME TRANSFERS:
25. $89 billion for Medicaid
26. $30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
27. $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
28. $20 billion for food stamps
PURE PORK:
29. $4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
30. $850 million for Amtrak
31. $87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
32. $1.7 billion for the National Park System
33. $55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
34. $7.6 billion for "rural community advancement programs"
35. $150 million for agricultural commodity purchases
36. $150 million for "producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish"
RENEWABLE WASTE:
37. $2 billion for renewable energy research
38. $2 billion for a "clean-coal" power plant in Illinois
39. $6.2 billion shall be for the Weatherization Assistance Program
40. $3.5 billion shall be for energy efficiency and conservation block grants
41. $3.4 billion shall be for the State Energy Program
42. $200 million shall be for state and local electric-transport projects
43. $300 million shall be for energy-efficient appliance rebate programs
44. $400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments
45. $1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries
46. $1.5 billion for green technology loan guarantees
47. $8 billion for innovative technology loan guarantee program
48. $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
49. $4.5 billion for electricity grid
REWARDING STATE IRRESPONSIBILITY:
50. $79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
A: It doesn't. Hence, due to that and dozens of other insults to the american people in this 'spendulus', Rs voted NO.
And do you know why the GOP lost control of Congress? Because they were spending too much ... ie, acting like Ds.
But now it's OK because the Ds are doing it? Is that what you're saying?
I swear. If you guys didn't have double standards, you'd have no standards at all.
Posted by: jimg on February 5, 2009 11:41 AMI find it ironic that the Goobernor kicked nearly that same amount $140,000,000 a year down the road that was already agreed to from the tribes which she retracted. According to the website, this would have "created" 3,313 jobs for the same projects they are now begging from the Federal government when it could have been in the state coffers. Thanks Governor for looking out for Washingtonians!!
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_city/Auburn/WA
Source: stimuluswatch.org
Posted by: Rick D. on February 5, 2009 11:50 AMWait a sec'... I *thought* there wasn't any more polar ice. Isn't that Congress has been telling us?
Robert Reich Blog Entry:
Senate Republicans and the Stimulus: Playing Politics when the Economy Burns
Also, don't bother commenting back to me about Reich's politics and not bother to read the article. If you do you are flat out lazy. Read the post first and if you disagree then comment on what you disagree with and with facts that challenge what Reich writes. Opinions, falsehoods, lies, and demagoguery will be ignored. Examples of counterarguments would be: (a) proof that demand side doesn't need to be addressed, (b) proof that tax-cuts increase domestic output over direct government spending, and (c) examples how we can increase private sector spending without government intervention. You think you have an argument, then you will have to prove it to me. Right now, what Reich writes, whether you like him or not, is solid from an economist standpoint. Don't prove me wrong, prove that Reich doesn't know what he is talking about. Lot's of luck at that.
Posted by: tc on February 5, 2009 12:38 PMCollins (202) 224-2523
Snowe (202) 224-5344
Voinovich (202) 224-3353
Specter (202) 224-4254
I've only reached Collins... so far... the other lines are busy, busy busy... MAKE THE CALLS!
I have to wonder why the left continues to idolize those that continually denigrate THEM and their ability to produce. I have to wonder about their proclivity to willingly accep, tolerate and welcome welcome insult.
Let us recall who got us into this mess in the first place? Thinking back to who held control of Congress during those pre-recession years, could it be THE REPUBLICANS? What did they do...oh yeah they cut taxes, deregulated the banks, and increased Govt. spending.Which President sent $300 checks to every American back in 2001 thereby nullifying the budget surplus?
Seems to me we have one party to blame for this mess. The idiot party whom we The American People kicked out of Congress in 2006, and out of the White House in 2008.
Posted by: Dingo Rossi on February 5, 2009 11:16 AM
Who was in control of Congress? During the 8 years of Bush's term, Democrats held control of the Senate for almost half of that time, including the last two years. True, they didn't hold the House as long, but they, too, had control during the last two years of Bush's term. What did they do during those two years?
The tax cuts were bi-partisan, led by the Republicans. The tax rates were lowered such that millions of Americans were able to not owe income taxes. Tax rebates went to income tax payers to try to stimulate spending. That was on a less grand scale than last year's "stimulus" which is on a far less grand scale than this year's "stimulus".
Despite the financial hit of 9/11, the loss of business because airlines were shut down for a period of time, the hit everyone associated with the travel industry took which rippled through the economy - or did you forget - revenues to the Federal government actually increased.
Specifically identify which "deregulations" were to blame for the current financial mess. Also cite any regulations proposed by Republicans that were shot down by Democrats.
Republicans were kicked out in 06 because they spent too much. Bush is to blame because he was "bipartisan" and "compassionate" and approved of the waste filled bills after promising to rein in wasteful government spending. Tax cuts didn't cause the deficit, spending did. Bush, with a Democratic controlled Congress, gave us a three quarters of a trillion more dollars spending/debt.
Now, with a government totally in control of Democrats, what do we get right off the bat? Another trillion dollars worth of spending/debt and they haven't even gotten around to the regular budget and appropriations.
And you think this is an improvement?
Read Ragnar's post. How much of that is actually emergency, get people back to work spending? 20-30%.
The rest can wait for the regular appropriations process - where it belongs, if it belongs at all.
And if this bill MUST pass today, or the world will be irretreivably lost, then let the Democrats do it all by themselves - because they have the numbers to do so. They do not need one Republican vote to pass this bill, why are they pretending they do - if it is such a direly needed bill?
It's because they want political posturing and payback to matter over substance and they want a little political "cover".
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 5, 2009 01:01 PMObama wants the bill now, as is.
The Senate Dems can pass it without Republican support - unless someone has declared a filibuster, which I haven't heard of yet.
Since the Dems don't need Republican support, what "political games" are being played?
Besides, apparently, Obama convinced Snowe, so the Dems can vote on this any time and force it through.
Why don't they?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 5, 2009 01:12 PMFrankly, I think the whole batch- Republicans and Democrats don't have a clue what they are doing with regard to the economy. When Nancy Pelosi speaks or Barry Obama says he is learning (on the job) about the economy and Harry Reid says the bill is necessary, I just cringe. Likewise, when some say we need to sit back on the stimulus and take our time, I cringe since it was only a couple months ago it was a dire emergency.
So, which is it?
tc, if it means anything, tax cuts and more tax cuts just don't cut it anymore if that is the 'stmulus'. Someone has to get the money to run the government and it seems no one is interested in reducing the rate of growth.
Posted by: swatter on February 5, 2009 02:29 PMWhich President sent $300 checks to every American back in 2001 thereby nullifying the budget surplus?
Guess what - it DIDN'T WORK to get us out of the Clinton recession.
And now you dolts on the Marxist Left want to spend thousands per person? It didn't work then, it won't work now.
Except your little chosen pet projects get showered with funds...
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 5, 2009 02:30 PMDidn't work then and won't work now, will it. You put your foot in it didn't you?
Posted by: Shirley on February 5, 2009 03:29 PMWould you like to have a link exchange with our blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Posted by: Steve on February 5, 2009 03:33 PMI'm not sure what that means, but what I do know is that Government works best when it works on the city,county,State and THEN FEDERAL levels- In that order. This should be common sense to most, but some of our liberal bretheren see the solutions exactly contrary to this scenario. Doing it the other way lends itself to exactly the 2/3 pork bill that is on the table right now- Hello!!??
it's a chance for Congressmen/Senators to load up on the pork and not have to be responsibile or accountable to THEIR constituents back home. You're bringing home the bacon afterall, and the stupes in your district figure "hey, that worked out okay for us" but it didn't. Congressman/Senator X from some other state just brought home the bacon to his district as well and you pay for his idiot pet projects, so you don't get ahead, you just lose track of who's responsibile for the increased National debt. It's all a big shell game and you're the loser everytime.
Wake the hell up America!! This isn't that difficult to figure out.
Leave it for Christine Gregoire to figure out how to fill the 7Billion deficit she helped dig us into. You've got no one to blame but the rubes you keep electing into office in this state.
"We do not have a deficit today in this state" ~ Gregoire 3 months ago.
Instead, Ragnut thinks 2-3 TRILLION spent on an unecessary war in Iraq and wasted over there building NOTHING except lining the pockets of Blackwater and other no-bid contracts (such as Haliburton (the Cheney company). In the meantinme, the Iraqis were running billions of surplus...and we are still paying out.
Of course, Bush gave away almost 1 trillion to the banks....and where did that money go...oh yeah, Bush did not even put any oversight in....
Oh, and the tax cuts that republicans want to stimulate the economy? Econ 101 - tax cuts, dollar for dollar, are about half as effective.
Instread, we should just sit tight and let the Bush economy sink?
Oh, and the idiot @28, Southern fired brain, learn how government works. The president proposes the budget and congress passes it. The democrats could not pass anything in the senate without both a filibuster proof vote or a veto proof vote - so republicans have had a stranglehold on legislation during the entire 8 years of Bush. During those 8 years, Bush went from a budget surplus to a record deficit. Most of the time the house was under republican control and the senate was only sporadically and barely Democratic.
The republican policies of tax cuts for the rich, lack of regulation of the banks and huge budget deficits got us into this mess.
Posted by: correctnotright on February 5, 2009 03:56 PMObama is a gutless, empty suit. His "Generational Indebtedness Act" only has to do with "stimulating" morons like you.
Communism like you fantasize over ain't gonna happen, wrong. So get over it, and get over yourself, you lying punk.
Posted by: Hinton on February 5, 2009 04:10 PMWhat about Democrat Representative Jim Cooper (D-TN) who told the world on leftist radio that Obama SUPPORTED his "no" vote?
Posted by: Hinton on February 5, 2009 04:18 PMThe Dummiecrats will have the entire country as bankrupt as California, Massachusettes, New Jersey, New York, etc. soon.
Posted by: ajday on February 5, 2009 04:26 PMAs far as historical economic figures, I prefer Hayek and Friedman to Keynes. And for contemporary economists, I prefer Armey to Reich.
As Armey said in his Wall Street Journal piece yesterday:
"If the government borrows the money for the stimulus, then it will either have to print money later or raise taxes to pay it back. If the government raises taxes to pay for the stimulus, it will, in effect, be robbing Peter to pay Paul. If the government prints the money, it will increase inflation, which will decrease the value of the dollar. That would, in effect, rob Paul to pay Paul back with devalued currency.
"Taking money out of the private economy -- either through taxes or inflation -- and spending it in a way that doesn't offset the loss of money with real economic gains is worse than doing nothing."
The translation is that if you fritter the money away on worthless projects or on things that otherwise would or should not be done, you are actualy doing more harm than good by all of this spending. This government is no better at discerning what the population as a whole needs to spend money on than was the Soviet Union with their interminable "5-year plans". To think otherwise is insane.
The BEST thing Obama himself could do is to just SHUT UP. Everytime he opens his mouth he just looks stupid to those who know better and he scares the s--t out of those who don't. Witness his asinine statement today:
"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse,"
Even FDR, with all of the stupid things he did in the 1930's at least knew that it was the job of the president NOT to foster fear. Remember "All we have to fear is fear itself"? It seems to me that Obama is TRYING to talk us into a depression! Is this in Saul Alinsky's little book of how to move the country to socialism?
The bloom is quickly coming off of the Obama rose. I don't think this was the "change" that most envisioned--Keynesianism is NOT change!
Posted by: Bill H on February 5, 2009 04:57 PMOh, and the idiot @28, Southern fired brain, learn how government works. The president proposes the budget and congress passes it.
The President proposes a budget and then does what his political capital, influence, and determination allow him, but Congress NEVER just passes it. Congress also determines their own budget and budgeting items. Per the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9[7] No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; This means that Congress has to write the appropriations Bills and the President signs them into law, if so inclined.
The democrats could not pass anything in the senate without both a filibuster proof vote or a veto proof vote
You're claiming that Congress is an absolute waste of time if they don't have filibuster or veto proof majorities and that even that isn't a given unless the Executive is of the same party? Why even convene Congress unless your conditions are met? Save us a bunch of money.
Most of the time the house was under republican control and the senate was only sporadically and barely Democratic.
During Bush's first 24 months, Democrats controlled the Senate for 17 of those months. Even when the Republicans had control, they practiced "power sharing" - which was stupid. During Bush's last 24 months, Democrats controlled both the Senate and House. They had control over the legislative schedule and Bush had to compromise with them to get any of his priorities to even see the light of day in a committee, much less coming up for a floor vote. Sure, he threatened vetoes, but tell me, how many vetoes did he issue in his first term? How many in his second term?
So, in effect, you're claiming that the Democratic politicians that did have control over Congress just rolled over for Bush? That Bush outsmarted them? That Bush outmaneuvered them?
If he didn't do any of that, then what was their excuse for inaction? They can only pass their programs if they have unassailable numbers? Does this mean that Democrats have totally lost the ability to negotiate, compromise, or even listen to different ideas and points of view?
Bush spent like a mad bandit - like a Democrat-lite. Even this spending was decried by Democrats as "too little", "underfunded", and "insufficient". We are seeing now what they meant. The current spending plans put us into debt at a faster pace than Bush ever thought of.
How, exactly, is this better?
Get your diapers changed, finish your bottle and I'm sure you'll feel better.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 5, 2009 05:02 PMI bet this whole "stimulus package" is really just cover for the thieves he's trying to push through to positions within his cabinet...
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 5, 2009 05:21 PMThe current spending plans put us into debt at a faster pace than Bush ever thought of.
Better yet, realize that President Obama's drunken spending spree of $900 billion is MORE than the total amount spent liberating Iraq!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 5, 2009 05:28 PMIncorrectAndAlwaysWrong bragged, whined and complained about JOBS and yet when challenged to enumerate those same supposed JOBS changed the subject and made a poor attempt to redefine the argument.
Pretend I'm shocked at the cowardice.
If your cult leaders have the votes... let them pass it.... without the political cover tehy crave from Republicans. Let them LEAD and bear the consequences of it.
YOU, IncorrectAndAlwaysWrong imitate cowardice well.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 5, 2009 05:30 PMIn all that whining and blaming he neglects to notice that 63% of the American people have told him go to stick his whine ...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 5, 2009 05:35 PMWhere is LEADERSHIP?
Where is OWNERSHIP?
Unbelievable.
(at tonights rally for increasing America's long term national debt by 10% while providing very little stimulus in the short term)
Posted by: Rick D. on February 5, 2009 05:50 PMJust remember (Hope & Change) LOL
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 5, 2009 05:56 PMBush inherited a surplus.
Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit, and debt service that doubled from 8 years earlier, because the national debt had doubled. And best of all we got nothing to show for it but a world that distrusts us to say the least.
The cons should be sent to their corners until their temper tantrums, and bad ideas subside. Ask sheriff dip sh*t what good tax cuts to to someone that can't find a job.....
Reality. Deal with it.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on February 5, 2009 08:26 PMThanks Gary. I haven't had an egogasm like that in a long time. Please keep stroking me
Posted by: Duffman on February 5, 2009 09:03 PMSpeech? what speech? I heard a sermon, wrapped in 3rd rate comedy routine served up on a cold plate of partisan politics. The OJT president whined that if we didn't pass this huge trillion dollar swindleus bill, that the sky would fall, tsunamis would arise, and famine would come to the United States.
This guy is even less prepared than I previously thought, which is why electing someone president with absolutely zero executive experience is as asinine as appointing a tax cheat to oversee the IRS...this is going to be a 4 year - 3 ring circus and the big eared clown residing at 1600 Pennsylvania is running the show.
Dude! what happened to my country?
Posted by: Rick D. on February 5, 2009 09:19 PM#5 We all know who to blame Duffman. All the way back to the Trickle Down clown that played 2nd act to a chimp.
The GOP is gonna try to play "look over there" for how long? Until unemployment is 25%?
Oh. I am still waiting for their plan too. You know. The party of "ideas" right? The only ideas Republicons have is bad ones. After they cause the 1st depression, you'da thought they'da learnt.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on February 5, 2009 09:24 PMRather than pretending like he knows everything, like the idiot cowboy, our new president actually asks really smart people what they think should be done, and makes a reeeeel plan. Golly gosh. Gee whiz. Whoda thunkit.
ricky. How's all that trickle down crap working out by the way? Turning America from the largest creditor nation on the planet to the largest debtor nation in 28 years. Cutting taxes on billionaires, and corporations, and outsourcing every single job possible, while full court pressing organized labor? You lost your job yet btw?
I loved watching Lindsey Graham lying on the Senate Floor today, while some areas of S. Carolina have over a 20% unemployment rate, and climbing.
History will not be kind to the Wrecking Crew of the Bush years....
You can live in your fantasy world all you want ricky. Most Americans know what has caused our present problems, and it sure wasn't "liberals", regardless what druggie Rush says.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on February 5, 2009 09:43 PMYou really are thick, aren't you? You know what your Marxist Messiah, President Obama, is doing? He's giving hundreds of billions to corporations, and letting it flow through to people.
TRICKLE DOWN.
Now, go and sit in the corner and repeat "I will not try to sound educated on economics" 1,000 times.
And how's your criminal Administration coming together? Today, yet ANOTHER tax cheat - admitted lawbreaking - trying to get stuffed into the Administration. Lawbreakers left and right, screwing the little people who actually pay taxes.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 5, 2009 10:21 PMRight, and the OJT president wants to increase our existing debtor nation status by an additional 10% on the current balance- Get this- within 2-1/2 weeks of taking office. Hmmm, somehow..I don't recognize this imbecilic action as "progress". This bill is DOA "facts" and you know it. If 2/3 of the bill wasn't pork, it may have passed, but Americans aren't ready to saddle their children with that much debt for this shortsighted bill proposed by the Democrat party controlled congress with an approval rating hovering around oh, 8%.
Lyndsey Graham is dead on correct. These asshats put zero planning into the bill and just added pork and said "Give us the money, never mind the details"..meanwhile back at the ranch...the clown president is showing how green he is as he stumbles around the whitehouse and Senate floor like Mr. Magoo wondering what the hell to do. It would be amusing if it weren't so sad.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 5, 2009 10:29 PM"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." -- President Obama, Feb. 4.
Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.
After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.
I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.
If I have a stroke when I have to listen to bambi pontificate with his smarmy condescension and sermonizing inflections or develop a hernia laughing at his moronics, I take comfort that somewhere in his non-job creating "stimulus" he'll pay for it...
Hope!
Change!
FEAR!
It cracks me up that everytime bambi is in some kind of trouble (daily for the last 2 weeks) HE RUNS TO A MICROPHONE OR CAMERA!
This guy needs the adoration of that red blinking eye and the slobbering crowds. Poor bambi thought that's ALL he needed, never realizing that just like "Math is hard!" Barbie, GOVERNING is hard!
You post.
Posted by: Hinton on February 6, 2009 12:56 AMIt's time our tax dollars did something other than fatten up wall street's pigs (sucking capitol out of our businesses every step of the way) oil tycoons, billionaires, and defense contractors.
I know you drink the kool aid, and live in the helping rich people hoard more money actually helps the rest of us fantasy world, but heck, you probably thought Bush was a great president, and all regulation was bad.
Now shut up and get out of the way. America is for once gonna work for the people, and not just the people Bush (rightly) called his base. The haves, and the have mores. The pigs.
Whatever you do, don't listen to all those economists that say the stimulus package should be larger.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on February 6, 2009 06:38 AMYOU guys control both houses. Blaming us rep's means nothing, you have control. PASS the Porkfest bill 'chickens'
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 6, 2009 07:02 AMI guess you didn't read the article on Bloomberg that says the richest folks tax rate fell to 17% while their income doubled. Now you wanna talk about why we have a trillion dollar deficit? You wanna keep blaming "liberals" right?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ar5uxG_wV87A&refer=us
The top 1/10th of 1% makes half the money in this country. They don't pay their fair share, while our taxes go to protecting their profits, more than anything else. Wake up and smell the unemployment lines..... In Ohio they can't even pay the unemployment, because everyone's job has been replaced by a Chinaman, so the top 400 pigs (and their buddies) can squeeze us a little more.
The problem you righties have with me, is I can easily back up everything I post. You can only defend your positions with lies, and red herrings.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on February 6, 2009 07:29 AMbecause everyone's job has been replaced by a Chinaman
Well, certainly massah! After all we have a negro in the White House!
Racist a bit, aren't we Factless?
And just think - that $2 trillion you said Reagan borrowed (hey, every budget he proposed was balanced but the Slavers in Congress declared it Dead On Arrival before it even was finished) took 8 YEARS.
Your Marxist Messiah's doing half that in 2 weeks! But what do you expect when he doesn't understand economics, and is trying to learn and think about it...
You want leadership? Then listen to people who run and own businesses. Listen to Steve Forbes - cut FICA in half for the next 2 years. That's less than the $1 TRILLION you Slavers want to waste, and it will definitely stimulate the economy a LOT more than your wasting of funds buying condoms...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 6, 2009 07:49 AMThe top 1/10th of 1% makes half the money in this country.
Unfortunately, the facts are different. The top 1% (ten times the number of persons you quote earn 22% of all income (less than half of what you quote). You were off by a factor of 50.
They don't pay their fair share, while our taxes go to protecting their profits, more than anything else.
More ignorant ramblings from the racist, lying Factless! See that same link - the top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes! Yes, they don't carry their fair share when they pay collectively 13 TIMES the total for the bottom 50%! Meaning that the taxes paid by that top 1% (which is 10 times larger than you claim) pay 650 TIMES as much tax as the bottom HALF of the entire US.
Yes, paying 650 times as much is definitely NOT paying your fair share, if you're a lying Marxist.
That Bloomberg link you posted (learn basic HTML, racist)? It says NOTHING like you claim it to say. Either you can't read, you're delusional, or your simply trying to lie your way out of the corner by throwing out some link hoping people won't check it. You're a fraud, a failure, and I guarantee you don't own three businesses like you claim.
Face it, you can't even do basic research, can you? You know, 30 seconds of intelligent Googling finds the truth. But then, that word before Googling kind of gets in your way, doesn't it?
Dolt.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 6, 2009 08:01 AMI have an idea. Tax wealth not work. The more wealth you amass, the easier it is to make money. Simple. The more influence you can buy. The higher rate you should pay. The whole government is working to keep your wealth intact. Or at least it used to be, before de-regulation became a religion. Pay up pigs.
You should even the playing field for small business like mine by taxing the "too big to fail" crooks like the dickens, and pass on relief to me, and my companies, and all my employees. I have a bunch, and they are barely squeaking by, as well as my company these days. Cutting my/our share of fica and ss would be great. Make it revenue neutral by taxing the outsourcing, and importing crew double or triple. Screw all these trade deals that basically screw me and you.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on February 6, 2009 08:02 AMBecause there is NONE... OUR party is nervous because the American people don't like this pig mess.
Look at today's numbers. LOL
So factless, how's your (3) computer biz working out! (liar)
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 6, 2009 08:11 AMYOUR party is
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 6, 2009 08:17 AMPLEASE, before you continue making a fool out of yourself, take a basic Econ course. Tax cuts to businesses would allow them to HIRE more employees and to expand their business--that is, if you give the support to businesses that are actually successful!
Flushing taxpayer money down the drain to support failing businesses like the United Auto Workers, oops, I mean the Big Three Auto Companies won't do anything to get anyone a job...especially if you have the government requiring "green" cars that no one wants to buy.
If business taxes are reduced--whether you are talking about reducting the HIGH corporate tax rate of 35% or the payroll taxes of 15.3% (7.65% for both the Employer and Employee)--THIS will stimulate the economy as businesses expand and hire more workers! However, as I said in Post #41, Obama needs to SHUT UP and stop talking down the economy. This is far and away the STUPIDEST thing I have seen a president do in tough economic times. Democrats do this all the time in presidential campaigns (Clinton in 1992, Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008), which is bad enough, but to do this as president when we are in the middle of a recession is either complete STUPIDITY at best or treasonist at worst. I am honestly starting to suspect that Obama and the Democrats WANT a depression to increase their political power and move us further down the road to socialism just like they did in the 1930's.
Posted by: Bill H on February 6, 2009 08:54 AMBy the way ricky. Reagan's budgets slashed infrastructure spending like crazy, while pouring money into the military bonfire pile. A few families in Minnesota are missing a few members because of it too. You better adjust for inflation before comparing this 800 bil to Reagan's 2.1 tril....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on February 6, 2009 08:56 AMTurns out they were pretty much completely wrong. Dead wrong. The disappeared are still missing.
Now, it is time for you all to admit it.
Trickle Down Doesn't Work.
Admit it.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on February 6, 2009 09:00 AMSo Dan. You forget Reagan didn't add the money he took from social security to his "budget", so to say his budgets were balanced is not exactly true. Sorry. Nice try though. I know them nasty dems wanted the pooooor to get sooooomething, regardless how wrong it seemed to the billionaires, who just had their income taxes cut over 50%.
Then Clinton never balanced the budget either, did he? Your constant lies have been that "Clinton left Bush with a surplus", yet YOUR OWN WORDS show that to be a lie.
Just another lie from you...
You decry deficits yet cheer when your non-economicist-in-chief goes on to do more deficit spending in two weeks then any other President did in a full 4 year term!
I don't blame, or hate Reagan. In his time everyone thought Pinochet, Suharto, Friedman, and the Chicago Boys had all the answers, including a bunch of Dems.
Have you been to Chile? I started, ran, and sold a business in Chile: Compania Acustica de Chile, located in Placilla de Puenelas, right next to the Alto Puerto, exit 9 on Ruta 68 from Santiago to Valparaiso. Owned a small Nissan crew cab pickup. Had a condo in Vina del Mar. Enjoyed the Castillo del Mar restaurant in Renaca, just up the coast. LOVED horseback riding in the dunes north of Concon. I lived there for several years. I know something about that place that you only know about from the Marxist ramblings of your masters.
I have good friends who lived in Chile before Pinochet, and after Pinochet. And they will universally tell you that the economy and country are INFINITELY better because Pinochet brought in the ACTUAL experts to straighten out the economy. And it worked. He built an economy on sound principles, and when he invested in infrastructure it really WAS infrastructure. Power. Roads. Water. Sewer. Not condoms and voting registration drives and TV converters.
But why do you need Republican support? There's no talk of a filibuster! Put it up for a vote, and see what happens. Consider that the NATION does NOT want this bill. The public opposes it. But you Slavers and Marxists want it, and your Marxist Messiah wants a scape goat to blame when it doesn't work.
You are a hypocrite; you no nothing of business or economics, only what your Slaver masters tell you. You are a racist and liar. You do not own 3 businesses. You do nothing, you add nothing of value. You are a racist, filled with hate, and a failure.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 6, 2009 09:32 AMFace it, your team can't pass this, because it is what it is.
Americans are NO longer supporting this mess.
I love it Billions for money losing AMTRACK.. yeah that's a job maker.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 6, 2009 09:37 AM"So what?" Obey asked in response to a question on NPR's "Morning Edition" about the perceived lack of direction from Congress as to how money in the stimulus should be spent. "This is an emergency. We've got to simply find a way to get this done as fast as possible and as well as possible, and that's what we're doing."
Obey said that Congress is not responsible if money is misspent, but rather, whoever spends the money poorly.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 6, 2009 09:47 AMHoover/FDR in the 1930's:
Result--a depression lasting more than a decade.
When Supply-side economics was tried:
Kennedy in 1963/64:
Result--GDP expansion throughout the 1960's
Reagan in 1981-83:
Result--the longest peacetime expansion in history to that point.
Bush in 2001-03:
Result--avoided a deep recession following 9/11/2001 and generated 5 years of strong GDP growth from 2003-2007.
I think we can agree that the Republican congress under G. W. Bush spent WAY too much and Bush was derilect in not vetoing much of that spending. Republicans seemed to have lost their way after Newt Gingrich resigned.
However, to solely blame Bush or the Republicans for the economic debacle we are now in is totally rewriting history.
Everyone agrees that this debacle stems from the real estate market. Well, what went wrong in the real estate market?
Answer: a lethal combination of (1) government and interest groups (ACORN) forcing banks to write mortgage loans that their normal underwriting would not have allowed them to write (sub-prime and Alt A loans); (2) low (negative real) interest rates that further encouraged people to buy homes they could not otherwise afford; (3) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (primarily) bought up these loans--the banks and mortgage companies wanted to get these loans off their books, so the ability to sell them to Fannie and Freddie made their underwriting issues disappear; (4) Fannie and Freddie, because of the implicit (now explicit) federal guarantee of their credit was able to package these loans into CMO's (Collateralized Mortgage Obligations) and sell them to the financial community, spreading this risk throughout the financial system; and (5) the impact of "mark to market" that came out of the Sarbanes-Oxley, post Enron, legislation which required these financial institutions to write down these assets to what someone would pay to buy those assets today (in a panic mode where NO ONE is buying them) rather than looking at the discounted cash flow.
Now as to assigning blame--in order of these 5 issues:
(1) is all on the Democrats, and especially Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The Community Reinvestment Act, passed by Democrats under Jimmy Carter, was meant to restrict red lining--not lending to people based on where they live rather than looking at the credit of the individuals looking for a loan. This was expanded under Bill Clinton, and ACORN as well as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, demonstrated and/or threatened banks who did not loan to their favored constituencies.
(2) The low interest rates (negative real rates) is all on Greenspan. He waited WAY too long to raise interest rates.
(3) Fannie and Freddie were practically a subsidiary of the Democrat Party. It was run by Democrats, and Democrats (again especially Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) refused to allow regulation to rein them in because they were allowing loans to be written to their favored constituents (i.e. low income and minorities who vote for Democrats).
(4) Again, Fannie and Freddie were allowed to run wild by the Democrats. I do fault the Republicans for not pushing harder to rein them in, but it was the Democrats that consistently blocked any legislation to regulate them.
(5) Mark to market came out of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation which was itself in response to the Enron scandal. Since Sarbanes was a Democrat and Oxley was a Republican, BOTH parties are to blame for this issue.
Ok, I have given SPECIFICS as to what I think caused the financial problems. Left-wingers, in trying to blame Bush, or the Republicans, give only generalities such as "a culture of deregulation" or "they were in charge" or other bromides.
Let's see some specifics from those on the left as to WHY the economic problems we are in are SOLELY the fault of Bush/Republicans or why the current situation "proves" that Reagan was wrong or that supply-side economics doesn't work. I have seen nothing but BDS from those on the left. Do you actually THINK or do you just EMOTE?
Do you WANT the economy to go into a depression to achieve a move to socialism? Or do you actually want the economy to recover? If the former, then nothing anyone says will phase you. If the latter, then you better actually THINK about what you are espousing and get beyond partisan-think to see REALITY.
Posted by: Bill H on February 6, 2009 09:56 AM...and I'm still waiting on you to provide an example of a successfull "trickle up" economics paradigm in any country on earth.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 6, 2009 10:30 AMHope!
Change!
FEAR!
Stimulus Payment Info:
"This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment.. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Question and Answer format:
Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up!
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:
If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.
If you purchase a computer it will go to India. If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras , and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
If you buy a car it will go to Japan .
If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan.
If you pay your credit cards off, it will go to bank management bonuses and they will hide if offshore. Same with stock investment.
Instead, you can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spending it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic ONLY), or tattoos, since those are the only American businesses still operating in the US .
Thanks bambi.
Keep instilling that Hope! Change! FEAR!
Dude, you WON (as you like to remind us... ad infinitum ... a bit insecure, are you bambi?). STOP talking down your country and try acting like you are confident in the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
The fool.
I wonder who is a bigger dupe: the morons who elavated this guy or him for believing the moronic adulation.
REPUBLICANS, INDEPENDANTS and CONSERVATIVES: CALL THE SENATE AND TELL THEM NO!.
Let the "winners" (finally) OWN their actions.
Alexander, Lamar (202) 224-4944
Barrasso, John (202) 224-6441
Bennett, Robert F. (202) 224-5444
Bond, Christopher S. (202) 224-5721
Brownback, Sam (202) 224-6521
Bunning, Jim (202) 224-4343
Burr, Richard (202) 224-3154
Chambliss, Saxby (202) 224-3521
Coburn, Tom (202) 224-5754
Cochran, Thad (202) 224-5054
Collins, Susan M. (202) 224-2523
Corker, Bob (202) 224-3344
Cornyn, John (202) 224-2934
Crapo, Mike (202) 224-6142
DeMint, Jim (202) 224-6121
Ensign, John (202) 224-6244
Enzi, Michael B. (202) 224-3424
Graham, Lindsey (202) 224-5972
Grassley, Chuck (202) 224-3744
Gregg, Judd (202) 224-3324 (I don't know if he's still voting)
Hatch, Orrin G. (202) 224-5251
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (202) 224-5922
Inhofe, James M. (202) 224-4721
Isakson, Johnny (202) 224-3643
Johanns, Mike (202) 224-4224
Kyl, Jon (202) 224-4521
Lugar, Richard G. (202) 224-4814
Martinez, Mel (202) 224-3041
McCain, John (202) 224-2235
McConnell, Mitch (202) 224-2541
Murkowski, Lisa (202) 224-6665
Risch, James E. (202) 224-2752
Roberts, Pat (202) 224-4774
Sessions, Jeff (202) 224-4124
Shelby, Richard C. (202) 224-5744
Snowe, Olympia J. (202) 224-5344
Specter, Arlen -(202) 224-4254
Thune, John (202) 224-2321
Vitter, David (202) 224-4623
Voinovich, George V. (202) 224-3353
Wicker, Roger F. (202) 224-6253
Capitol switchboard (202) 224-3121.
White House switchboard (202)-456-1414
I would venture to say that if you haver the leisure time to sit here and argue, you alsp probably have the free national long distance on your celll phone. Use it: MELT THOSE PHONES.
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." --Ronald Reagan (1987)
In his honor, MAKE THOSE CALLS
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 6, 2009 10:52 AMThe spendulus will have a negative impact on GDP. Link.
Posted by: Palouse on February 6, 2009 10:58 AMSo your solution to deficit spending is what? Even BIGGER deficit spending? Insanity. See the previous link to the CBO analysis of this ridiculous pork-laden bill.
Posted by: Palouse on February 6, 2009 11:26 AMAs I see it, the country has the following options:
Option A: Do nothing.
Option B: Tax Cuts alone (Republican preferred solution)
Option C: Combination of Tax Cuts and Government Spending (White House preferred solution)
Option D: Government Spending, no Tax Cuts (Liberal Left Solution)
Within those combinations (outside of A), there is then a separate debate on size and where to direct the cuts/spending.
Reich's article points out the fallacy of both Option A and B. If you missed it, Option A does cost money. Option A assume to leave the market to its own devices, which means higher unemployment, less government revenue from both businesses and individuals, and potentially higher government costs (immediate outlays to meet previous obligations regarding unemployment benefits, and future outlays potential in the way of additional services and security/prison costs). So, Option A is not a no-cost solution that many here assume.
Reich's article refutes Option B by showing that tax cuts do not have a very return rate. Most of the tax cuts solutions have a negative return rate (i.e., give out more money than is returned to the treasury). The table shows that government spending can actually have up to almost a double return on the money. If you care to argue the point, then address the facts in the table presented. Provide counter numbers where tax cuts can be shown to have a positive return and/or where the types of spending shown have a negative return. No one has provided this alternative argument.
This leaves Options C and D. Option C is the best compromise of political philosophies.
In my mind, the debate should not be on the other options but what should be the mixture in Option C and where should the government spending be directed. The question, in my mind, is where can we get the most bang for the buck and stop this spiral we are in.
Also, no one, including Bill H, has countered Reich's argument that we have a demand problem (lack of demand for goods, which leads to reduced business revenue, which leads to businesses cutting back expenses and employees, which in turn further reduces demand for goods and services).
Uh, wrong. It won't.
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
Doing nothing is better than this bill.
At least that is what the pros say.
Not the "pros" at the non-partisan CBO, who I trust more than Reich or any other Obama cabinet member.
Posted by: Palouse on February 6, 2009 11:49 AMDoesn't know jack about basic economics, but he owns and runs three businesses.
Really.
Of course, he wouldn't be in business if he applied the same policies he's spewing here, but why let those pesky facts get in the way.
Really. Dumbed-down socialism is the best way to run a business. Honest.
Posted by: jimg on February 6, 2009 12:12 PMWell, you're wrong about that too. That's 200 top economists who think this won't work, including 3 Nobel Prize winners.
And most importantly, the CBO, who again, is non-partisan.
Posted by: Palouse on February 6, 2009 12:17 PMInformed economic theory, supported by a series of econometric studies, tell us that greater government expenditures matter very little while tax-cuts matter a lot in helping a recessionary economy recover. This is because greater government expenditures to some extent "crowd out" private expenditures while tax-cuts not only generally improve production incentives but also raise expected inflation rates because people will be more liquid in the future as they will not have to turn over as much currency to the government at future peak-tax-dates.
So, to the extent that the Republicans are demanding smaller expenditure increases and more extensive tax cuts, these demands should be met rather than risking the health of our severely ailing economy.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 6, 2009 12:32 PM
So if MSNBC wants a "stimulus," they should pass it? Does that make sense?
MSNBC supports Obama like Goebells supported Hitler.
Posted by: Mark on February 6, 2009 12:39 PMThe Wall Street Journal highlights another outrageous piece of pork in the Stimulus bill"
Such as the amendment to Section 2(3)(F) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, which will permit payments to guys employed to repair "recreational vessels." Under Incentives for New Jobs, we find a credit to employ what the bill calls "disconnected youths," defined as "not readily employable by reason of lacking a sufficient number of basic skills."
In other words, people will be paid with tax dollars to repair other people's recreational boats (yachts?) and people who lack basic skills and are thus not "readily employable" will be paid with taxpayer dollars.
Do these unemployables include people who have abused drugs, or have lifetime criminal records that derailed education and the development of basic skills? Will employers of such people -- say landscapers, garbage haulers, restaurants, flyer distributors -- now get government money to help meet their payrolls? Will this be one more scam on the US taxpayer?
FACTS certainly are pesky inconveniences to some, aren't they?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 6, 2009 12:40 PMSen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) has pulled out of negotiations on a bipartisan compromise on the Senate's economic stimulus bill.
Three Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- continue to negotiate with Democrats, but Voinovich's departure could make it more difficult for Democrats to reach the 60 votes they need to pass the bill.
Please, please folks. Make your voices heard. Send a message. We can get through to these GOP senators. We just need to be loud enough... so speak up.
JEFF SESSIONS - REPUBLICAN, ALABAMA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-4124
MONTGOMERY PHONE: (334) 244-7017
RICHARD SHELBY - REPUBLICAN, ALABAMA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-5744
TUSCALOOSA PHONE: (205) 759-5047
LISA MURKOWSKI - REPUBLICAN, ALASKA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-6665
ANCHORAGE PHONE: 907-271-3735
JOHN KYL - REPUBLICAN, ARIZONA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-4521
PHOENIX PHONE: (602) 840-1891
JOHN McCAIN - REPUBLICAN, ARIZONA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-2235
PHOENIX PHONE: 602-952-2410
JOSEPH LIEBERMAN - INDEPENDENT, CONNECTICUT
DC PHONE: (202) 224-4041
HARTFORD PHONE: (860) 549-8463
MEL MARTINEZ - REPUBLICAN, FLORIDA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-3041
TAMPA PHONE: (813) 977-6450
SAXBY CHAMBLISS - REPUBLICAN, GEORGIA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-3521
ATLANTA PHONE: (770) 763-9090
JOHNNY ISAKSON - REPUBLICAN, GEORGIA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-3643
ATLANTA PHONE: (770) 661-0999
MIKE CRAPO - REPUBLICAN, IDAHO
DC PHONE: (202) 224-6142
BOISE PHONE: (208) 334-1776
JAMES RISCH - REPUBLICAN, IDAHO
DC PHONE: (202) 857-0044
BOISE PHONE: (208) 342-7985
RICHARD LUGAR - REPUBLICAN, INDIANA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-4814
INDIANAPOLIS PHONE: (317) 226-5555
CHUCK GRASSLEY - REPUBLICAN, IOWA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-3744
DES MOINES PHONE: (515) 288-1145
SAM BROWNBACK - REPUBLICAN, KANSAS
DC PHONE: (202) 224-6521
TOPEKA PHONE: (785) 233-2503
PAT ROBERTS - REPUBLICAN, KANSAS
DC PHONE: (202) 224-4774
TOPEKA PHONE: (785) 295-2745
JIM BUNNING - REPUBLICAN, KENTUCKY
DC PHONE: (202) 224-4343
LOUISVILLE PHONE: (502) 582-5341
MITCH McCONNELL - REPUBLICAN, KENTUCKY
DC PHONE: (202) 224-2541
LOUISVILLE PHONE: (502) 582-6304
DAVID VITTER - REPUBLICAN, LOUISIANA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-4623
BATON ROUGE PHONE: (225) 383-0331
SUSAN COLLINS - REPUBLICAN, MAINE
DC PHONE: (202) 224-2523
AUGUSTA PHONE: (207) 622-8414
OLYMPIA SNOWE - REPUBLICAN, MAINE
DC PHONE: (202) 224-5344
BOSTON PHONE: (207) 622-8292
KIT BOND - REPUBLICAN, MISSOURI
DC PHONE: (202) 224-5721
ST. LOUIS PHONE: (314) 725-4484
THAD COCHRAN - REPUBLICAN, MISSISSIPPI
DC PHONE: (202) 224-5054
GULFPORT PHONE: (228) 867-9710
ROGER WICKER - REPUBLICAN, MISSISSIPPI
DC PHONE: (202) 224-6253
JACKSON PHONE: (601) 965-4644
MIKE JOHANNS - REPUBLICAN, NEBRASKA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-4224
OMAHA PHONE: (402) 758-8981
JOHN ENSIGN - REPUBLICAN, NEVADA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-6244
CARSON CITY PHONE: (775) 885-9111
JUDD GREGG - REPUBLICAN, NEW HAMPSHIRE
DC PHONE: (202) 224-3324
CONCORD PHONE: (603) 225-7115
RICHARD BURR - REPUBLICAN, NORTH CAROLINA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-3154
ASHEVILLE PHONE: (828) 350-2437
GEORGE VOINOVICH - REPUBLICAN, OHIO
DC PHONE: (202) 224-3353
COLUMBUS PHONE: (614) 469-6697
TOM COBURN - REPUBLICAN, OKLAHOMA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-5754
TULSA PHONE: (918) 581-7651
JAMES INHOFE - REPUBLICAN, OKLAHOMA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-4721
TULSA PHONE: (918) 581-7651
ARLEN SPECTER - REPUBLICAN, PENNSYLVANIA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-4254
HARRISBURG PHONE: (717) 782-3951
JIM DeMINT - REPUBLICAN, SOUTH CAROLINA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-6121
COLUMBIA PHONE: (803) 771-6112
LINDSAY GRAHAM - REPUBLICAN, SOUTH CAROLINA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-5972
COLUMBIA PHONE: (803) 933-0112
JOHN THUNE - REPUBLICAN, SOUTH DAKOTA
DC PHONE: (202) 224-2321
SIOUX FALLS PHONE: (605) 348-7551
LAMAR ALEXANDER - REPUBLICAN, TENNESSEE
DC PHONE: (202) 224-4944
NASHVILLE PHONE: (615) 736-5129
BOB CORKER - REPUBLICAN, TENNESSEE
DC PHONE: (202) 224-3344
NASHVILLE PHONE: (615) 279-8125
JOHN CORNYN - REPUBLICAN, TEXAS
DC PHONE: (202) 224-2934
AUSTIN PHONE: (512) 469-6034
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON - REPUBLICAN, TEXAS
DC PHONE: (202) 224-5922
AUSTIN PHONE: (512) 916-5834
ROBERT BENNETT - REPUBLICAN, UTAH
DC PHONE: (202) 224-5444
SALT LAKE CITY PHONE: (801) 524-5933
ORRIN HATCH - REPUBLICAN, UTAH
DC PHONE: (202) 224-5251
SALT LAKE CITY PHONE: (801) 524-4380
JOHN BARRASSO - REPUBLICAN, WYOMING
DC PHONE: (202) 224-6441
CHEYENNE PHONE: (307) 772-2451
MICHAEL ENZI - REPUBLICAN, WYOMING
DC PHONE: (202) 224-3424
CHEYENNE PHONE: (307) 772-2477
But now I read Mel Martinez is going wobbly.
***
Labor Report Underscores Need for Jobs Focused Recovery Plan
WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement after the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the U.S. economy lost 598,000 jobs in January:
"Today's Labor Department report underscores the case that Republicans have made - that any economic recovery plan must preserve, protect and create jobs. Unfortunately, the bill being considered by the Senate greatly expands taxpayer funded government programs instead of empowering middle class families and small businesses to overcome the difficult challenges they face.
***
Top 10 Reasons to Oppose the Stimulus
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 6, 2009 12:58 PMYou mean like prolong this depression?
Democrats have the votes to pass this piece of shit bill. They own it. They can rot with it.
Posted by: Mark on February 6, 2009 01:23 PMI still didn't see ANY specifics in your post as to what, SPECIFICALLY, the Republicans did that caused the current problem. Saying things like Reagan "He cut taxes on the rich and the economy did what it is doing now" does not tie ANYTHING to the current economic situation. You also said "De-Regulation is practically the only thing every Con has memorized...". What specific regulation was removed that contributed DIRECTLY to the current situation? I gave you specifics, you gave liberal bromides. Want to try again?
You also said " Since your first sentence is basically a lie"--what does that mean "basically a lie"? Are you denying that Keynesianism was tried in the 1930's by Hoover and Roosevelt? I don't know anyone who would deny that! Do you deny that in 1939, the economy was AT LEAST as bad as in 1932? You really think Keynesianism HELPED? I know that FDR is a God to liberals, but even his own Treasury secretary and good friend Henry Morganthau said in 1939 "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"
So your solution is to repeat the same economic mistakes that FDR made and his own treasury secretary ADMITTED that they made. This is economic stupidity.
And in Post #85, in answer to Palouse, regarding deficit spending you say "Spending it on the right things...". Socialist states have proven over and over again that they cannot "outthink" the market in deciding what the market wants or needs. That why the Soviet Union's 5-year plans failed so miserably year after year. Yet you think The Chosen One knows exactly what is wanted and needed! Sounds like koolaid drinking to me.
Posted by: Bill H on February 6, 2009 01:33 PMBS. Obama wants bi-partisan support and nobody wants to vote for $940 billion of a turd of a bill.
Obama is a partisan asshole like Blago. This is what you get when you elect a community organizer to the presidency.
In the meantime, Obama could force his minions to pay their taxes. There's a mini-stimulues for you.
Posted by: Mark on February 6, 2009 01:38 PM"I won" is not "bipartisan".
Whining, blame and fear-mongering is not "bipartisan".
One man's bipartisanship is another's capitulation and THAT is what the demoTroughPigs want.
Factless never seems to respond to the FACT that the demoTroughPigs DO NOT NEED GOP support, nor does he answer why the cowards won't pass the "stimulus" without them.
While Factless sputters and whines, some GREAT headlines:
Democrat Congressman: 'Stimulus' is More than 80% Waste
Meanwhile, Senator Feinstein is *also* doubtful about the stimulus.
Furthermore, Factless the GOP, with not enough members TO obstruct, have repeatedly said they will not filibuster.
Inconvenient, eh?
This is gran, bambi and the toothless wolf's debacle: let them have the courage to OWN it.
Why does that bother you? Why does that frighten you?
We know why.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 6, 2009 01:56 PMWelcome to the Socialist States of America, my friends. It starts by demonizing the successful and scaring us into accepting socialism as the solution to our problems. First it was bad Big Oil. Remember all the calls for confiscatory "windfall profits taxes"? Then it was greedy Wall Street. Who will it be tomorrow? Maybe the company or industry you work for.
Meanwhile, President Obama is trying to frighten us into accepting this trillion-dollar bailout of Big Government, warning that if we don't do this, America might never recover. Really? America's best days are behind us? That's quite a change from the message of hope and optimism that Ronald Reagan used to inspire our nation to greater things during the 1981 recession.
But Reagan knew that government wasn't the solution. Today would have been Ronald Reagan's 98th birthday. Let's honor his faith in the American people by taking a stand against Obama's trillion-dollar bailout of Big Government. Call your senators at 202-224-3121 and tell them to stop Obama's spending.
By the way, CBS News released a poll yesterday that found only 22% of the public supports more government spending to stimulate the economy, while 59% said tax cuts were most effective. But two-thirds of Obama's plan is dedicated to more government spending. He's losing the PR battle and liberal Democrats are getting desperate. That's why his rhetoric is becoming so harsh. Don't fall for it. Fight back! Call Capitol Hill now!Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 6, 2009 01:59 PM
Reich "refuted" nothing. His "table" is not fact, it is opinion. Other opinions differ SIGNIFICANTLY from his! Secondly, you are misreading what the table is saying. It does NOT say that these returns are returns TO THE TREASURY. What it purports to be is the change in GDP for each dollar spent, not a "return to the treasury". At any rate, I don't buy his numbers one iota, and as Palouse showed in his link in Post #90, 200 economists disagree with Reich as well!
Of the more than $800 billion in spending that the legislation authorizes, less than $100 billion would go to highways, the electricity grid or destinations that might--might--produce genuine economic growth. The rest? Transfer payments to interest groups. More than half the "emergency" spending would not even take place until fiscal year 2010.
Defend THAT, demoTroughPig enablers.
The glee among Republicans right now is only to be expected. The long faces among Obama's startled supporters in Washington are a lot more telling.
The long faces and HYSTERIA!
Now it's being reported that even Chuckles Schumer doubts this ugly albatross will pass... Oh gee... I guess that means more than a few demoTroughPigs are jumping ship and running for cover.
Hope!
Change!
FEAR!
We'll be here to pick up the pieces.
Regardless of your ideological stripe, you've got to see that when consumers and businesses stop spending and investing, there's only entity left to step into the breach. It's government.
And govt. gets the money where? That's right. Us. And by taking it from us in either taxes or real dollar devaluation through the magic bank called "the fed" they force us to cut back even more. The equation is pretty simple.
I did read the entire thing though and it is a pretty light weight analysis. Looking at where the money is slated to be spent shows that it is being funneled into a very tight little group with little real chance of hitting the general public.
Nice try though. Maybe you should try something a bit heavier on how we got to this point:
http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_4Q08.pdf
Start at:
1. The Story So Far: Greed + Incompetence +
A Belief in Market Efficiency = Disaster
Nice try at "you should fear people that want to think about it."
Posted by: Mr. RcGuy on February 6, 2009 02:19 PMYou won't because even your supporter NYT is backing off. LOL
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 6, 2009 03:57 PM"but I really don't care"
BINGO! Channeling gran (Pelosi dismisses bipartisanship calls), bam (*"I won!") and grumpy now? Nah, no koolaid, there. Apparently they and YOU didn't care what +63% of the American people think, either. We expect no less from dictators and their syncophants.
Look at the poll on Daily Kos
Not a chance on Gods' green earth I would go to that toxic waste dump and expose my self to those vile America hating "people". Like bambi yesterday, you revealed far too much there, sweetcheeks. What color is the koolaid, today?
Hope!
Change!
FEAR!
The onus (and resultant blame) is soley on your side now.
Enjoy it.
I'll keep my guns, FREEDOM and money... you can keep the "change".
We'll be here to pick up the pieces.
*When bambi says/said ("I won!", I couldn't help remembering Sally Field: "I can't deny the fact that you like me! You like me!"
Pathetic.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 6, 2009 05:37 PMIt is hard to be bipartisan
Do you actually believe that BS you spew?
You have a very short memory if you've conveniently forgotten SanFranGranNan TELLING the country that the GOP was NOT invited to the table then changed the House rules to be sure they don't even feast (pardon my snort of incredulity!) on the scraps that fall from it.
"I won."
You and your demoTroughPigs don't want bipartisanship. You sure as hell didn't want it when you barely had a majority. You want it even less now that you have your one-party dictatorship. You want VALIDATION. You want blind obedience and worship in you fiefdom. You want political cover from the folks you hate. You pretend to want the people you hate to love you for the altar of the blinking red eye on which bambi worships.
Heil!
You dudes are on your own.
THREE defectors out of 219: YOU folks own this. YOU own the consequences of it.
Enjoy.
Spector was already on thin ice with his constituents. That opportunist coward has already been targeted. He just made the bulls-eye bigger.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 6, 2009 06:49 PMIf there are such good socialist countries out there, why don't all of these leftists go there instead of trying to turn this country into one. The vast majority of the country does NOT want socialism!
Posted by: Bill H on February 6, 2009 06:57 PMWe'll be here to pick up the pieces.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 6, 2009 07:01 PMSo much anger form a "winner".
Ask yourself "Why?".
It is interesting that this is typical among liberals. They cannot have their ideas challenged without resorting to this type of outburst. It is pitiful really. I do believe what others have said--liberalism is a mental disease...
Posted by: Bill H on February 6, 2009 07:40 PMGood God, sweetcheeks if you are an employer [/snort] I certainly hope you have no employees. My labrador has more good sense. She doesn't throw a tantrum when she doesn't hear what she wants to hear or have her feelings validated.
Grow up. You should be embarassed to be less mature than a 4 yr old dog.
Dude, you are the perfect poster child.
If you study liberal anger, you will notice that liberals are most angry when confronted for their beliefs, attitudes or actions. They will typically respond by accusing their confronter of being mean spirited, hateful or intolerant.
This brings me back to my thesis: Although liberals now hold all the federal power seats, we can expect that they will be as angry as ever. When they weren't in power, they were angry with the conservatives who were in power - and now that they are in power, they will remain offended at the conservatives who simply do not agree with their view of government or liberty. This passion-orientation is the fiber of the liberal worldview.
How pathetic.
And what's interesting, factless, is that while we (I) didn't bother with your left wing koolaid sites while my preferred party was in power, nor do I go now, you STILL find it necessary to come here to us for validation.
Oh! For the longest 8 years we heard your side of the aisle whine about it... ad infinitum... perhaps you can tell us, is dissent still patriotic? Or is it only so when YOU do it?
Honest debate is impossible with the liberal ideologues on the Left, which is to say Liberals in general. My advice to them is simple. Get a life, and a sense of humor, and try looking at the world as it really is instead of the way you want it to be. Then, maybe, we'll find common ground. Until then, keep writing the convoluted, self-contradictory tripe that you think passes for objective political analysis. It won't convince anybody, but at the end of the day at least we can all have a good laugh at your expense. By Phillip Ellis Jackson
Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality and security, socialism delivered poverty, misery and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery. Socialism is now a bankrupt, discredited, and flawed nineteenth century theory that has failed miserably in countries around the world.
The evidence from history is very clear. The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.
They say those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
I wonder, why does "3 business" factless have "3 businesses"? Surely he doesn't want to make evil profits... or worse, KEEP them. I have an idea to save "3 business" factless some time: just send ME your money.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 6, 2009 09:36 PMOn the other hand, those on the far left still can't admit that Supply-Side has worked repeatedly and tremendously. Kennedy reduced capital gains taxes and generated a booming 1960's. Reagan reduced tax rates and created a booming economy in the 1980's and through the 1990's. And in the process generated unprecedented revenues to the treasury. G. W. Bush reduced tax rates and the economy took off in 2003, even with the Enron, etc. scandals and the impact of 9/11.
So how does a far left loonie view this evidence? FDR "got us out of the depression"--if only he had done MORE it would have ended even sooner!... On the other hand, Reagan was an idiot and that huge growth in the economy was just some sort of illusion. Ok, do you have that, a depression as a result is proof that what FDR did was good, since things would have been even WORSE if had done something else and would have been even better if he had just done MORE. And an unprecedented GDP expansion after Reagan is proof that what he did was BAD, because, uh, because, uh, 25 years later we are now in a recession. Yeah, that's it, it's Reagan's fault.
Boy it must be tough to untangle the pretzel you have to tie yourself into to create this "logic"!
Posted by: Bill H on February 7, 2009 06:47 AMBernie Madoff was an activist Democrat...
Posted by: Bill H on February 7, 2009 07:34 AMWhen you post something I think of it as "blah, blah, blah, hate anything/everything GOP, blah, blah, blah, irrational blathering, blah blah, blah, hate anything/everything GOP, blah, blah, blah."
So there it is: Mr. Obama is now endorsing a sort of reductionist Keynesianism that argues that any government spending is an economic stimulus. This is so manifestly false that we doubt Mr. Obama really believes it. He has to know that it matters what the government spends the money on, as well as how it is financed. A dollar doled out in jobless benefits may well be spent by the worker who receives it. That $1 of spending will count as economic activity and add to GDP.
But that same dollar can't be conjured out of thin air. The government has to take that dollar away from someone else -- either in higher taxes, or by issuing new debt in the form of a bond. The person who is taxed or buys the bond will have $1 less to spend. If the beneficiary of that $1 spends it on something less productive than the taxed American or the lender would have, then the net impact on growth will be negative. ...
...the size and waste of the stimulus means we won't have much ammunition left. The spending will take the U.S. budget deficit up to some 12% of GDP, about double the peak of the 1980s and into uncharted territory. The tragedy of the Obama stimulus is that we are getting so little for all that money.
***
Maybe it's time for President Obama to come out and give one of his big hopey-changey speeches. It's been a few weeks now, and I kinda miss them. You know - "We are the change we've been waiting for." "We have nothing to hope for but hope itself." "Ask not what your hope can change for you, ask what you can hope for your change." Etc.
But I wonder if the old songs from last month's hit parade would play as well today. On Wednesday, Salon headlined a story on Obama: "The New Great Communicator ... Isn't." Oh, dear. It's early days yet, but the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality, between the audacity of hope and the reality of pork, yawns ever wider. Right now, it's the Obama mythology that urgently needs some stimulus. Some of us never expected him to walk on water. But we didn't think he'd be all at sea taking on quite so much of it after a mere two weeks. - MARK STEYN
***
So it's close to a trillion dollars and may have the opposite effect of that intended. Yay.
Democrats have reached a deal on a stimulus, along with "Republicans" Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter. It's $780 billion -- only $5652 per taxpayer. What a deal. Thanks guys!
UPDATE: Meanwhile, even though newspapers have told us that the current economic climate simply demands a stimulus, there are credible people saying that a stimulus is exactly what we don't need, and that there are other, better ways to improve the economy.
So it's close to a trillion dollars and may have the opposite effect of that intended. Yay.
***
Republicans Try to Stimulate Economy Democrats Busy Stimulating Themselves
If you really want to create jobs, start by asking people who have spent a lifetime creating jobs, namely employers, how to do it.
Obama says he "rejects Republican theories" on how to stimulate economic growth. If that's so, then he is also rejecting the advice of employers across the country, in favor of Marxist theories from career politicians who have never met a payroll, turned a profit or created a single job in their entire pathetic lives.
Only the American People can Stimulate the Economy
Obama says that "spending" stimulates economic growth. But he leaves out a very vital fact. PRIVATE sector spending stimulates economic growth. Government spending is what bankrupted the nation and almost every state in the union. More government spending is the worst possible move at this hour...
Only the people can stimulate the economy. At best, all the government can do is get out of the way, which Democrats seem hell bent on not doing at present.
Government can only create government jobs at additional taxpayer expense. If we replace 3 million private sector jobs with 3 million government funded jobs, we just made the problem 6 million jobs worse... 3 million productive jobs lost, 3 million taxpayer funded jobs added...
Even Democrats know the truth about lowering taxes. They just can't afford to tell you the truth because if they did, they would be Republicans.
Every time tax rates are lowered, tax revenue increases. That's a simple fact easy enough for anyone to verify. It's because lowering taxes leaves money in the private sector where it will get spent or invested, thereby stimulating economic growth and broadening the tax base via growth in GDP.
The federal government was never to be in the unfriendly position of deciding individual worth. How much is too much for one, or not enough for another. This is the fundamental theory of Marxism, socialism, both of which are but a stepping stone to communism.
People indeed deserve equal opportunity. But people are by no means of equal economic worth.
Some people are ten times as productive as the next guy. Others are lazy and nothing but a drain on society. These two people are not of equal economic worth because they are not of equal economic value.
But we aren't talking about freedom today. We are talking about free-stuff! And free-stuff comes at the expense of freedom.
It enslaves the half of society that must pick up the tab, but also the half who will never reach their full potential because they have been bought and paid for with mere scraps from the public trough.
Free-stuff empowers only those in control of deciding who gets and who must give. It empowers government, not people.
Today's debate over the so-called stimulus package is nothing more than another battle in the ongoing war between those who demand freedom and those who demand only free-stuff.
It's the promise of free-stuff that has brought the most productive and prosperous nation on earth to the brink of national bankruptcy. Democrats know it, they did it...
***
Obama: 119,000,000 Americans unpatriotic.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 7, 2009 03:54 PMSaying "Cut Taxes for Rich People" isn't a winning formula. But that's all we've heard from conservatives for a long, long time, whether the issue is education, housing, environment, health care, or anything else.
Come up with some real solutions that don't simply boil down to "Let the 'market' determine everything" or "Get out of my way if I can make money from it." and then we might be willing to listen. Until then, get used to being irrelevant regarding our future.
Posted by: JimCap on February 8, 2009 09:18 AMHow dumb are you?
YOUR CUSTOMERS NEED TAX CUTS IN ORDER TO **BE** YOUR CUSTOMERS.
I have a news flash for you, and it comes not just from me but from almost every single person I know: if the demoTroughPigs send me a "stimulus" I will cash it and stick in the safe. If I benefit from a current lawsuit, I will cash it and stick in the safe. I know a young person in the service industry making tips: he has opened a safe deposit box for his CASH. My sister was able to get some CASH out of her house before it the banking industry tanked: she put the CASH in a box. WE will NOT put any money into the system: we will pay our bills, we will buy the necessities. We are filtering only enough for those bill and necessities through our bank accounts, nothing MORE. We have made the decision NOT to fund retirement accounts, NOT to invest, not to worry about the pittance we would earn by letting someone ELSE use our money.
If you think we are the exception, you my little friend are dead wrong. Multiply that by MILLIONS.
The only way people will be the customer YOU need is for them to see more money left in their pay checks via tax cuts.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 8, 2009 03:21 PM1. Cash is king.
2. Whatever discretionary thing it is you are peddling, we aren't BUYING.
Good luck getting stimulated.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 8, 2009 03:33 PMThe "financial servcies" sector is (was) 22% of our gdp, and got 35% of the corporate profits a couple years ago. 35%!!!!!!!!! How can leeches that make NOTHING suck 35% out of the capitol out of the economy, straight into offshore accounts, and it is supposed to function on the other 65%.
Clearly you don't understand business, and I highly doubt you actually own a business at all. First off, you state that the financial "servcies" sector is 22% of our GDP, then say they make nothing! They make 22% of our GDP!
Are you saying only manufacturing is worthwhile? That any service - including engineering, or consulting - is worthless? When you are 22% of the GDP, you are making something - you're making around $3 TRILLION a year.
You're angry at "Wall Street". Great. Ready to shake your fist in anger at George Soros? How about calling for the head of Chris Dodd who was super pals with those "fat cats" on Wall Street?
Can you put down your partisanship and make at least that statement? My bet is no...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 8, 2009 07:22 PMSo, technically, all funds, whether through tax revenues, fees, or issuance of bonds comes from those who provide those funds, whether they be citizens or foreigners. This however wasn't your point, as I interpreted it. It is Reich's point. The money for the stimulus comes from increased government borrowing, not new taxes. The reason for this is simple. The economy is in a death spiral due to the decreasing demand side of the equation. Unless it gets stopped, government revenues will tank along with the rest of the economy. If businesses are selling goods, or employing people, then tax revenues will drop. Yes, the borrowing will have to be repaid. So the question is, will borrowing now save more money than not doing anything. This was my Option A (Do Nothing option). It is inherently proven to have a cost and this cost is greater than the other options, due to the death spiral we are in. Have you seen the unemployment trends?
Posted by: tc on February 9, 2009 08:03 AMI don't think that IncorrectAndAlwaysWrong wants to play with us anymore, Dan.
Imagine that!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 9, 2009 01:37 PMIt was a persuasion piece, not factual. It was written by someone with a biased interest in casting the blame off of themselves and the industry they work for.
It is like Cheney, Rove, et al, now trying to cast the Iraq war and all the problems of the last eight years onto Clinton. It is ducking of responsibility. It is direct opposite to a President that can admit when mistakes are made. It is excuse after excuse on why it is someone else's fault. Face it Ragnar, you would rather cast blaim on someone else than face the facts that the current problem is the responsibility of the last administration. They had eight years on the watch. They could have stopped the current impending train wreck if they had real balls, but instead they made it a game of blame the other guy.
Posted by: tc on February 10, 2009 07:47 AMSo back up the opinions you express in #146 with FACTS, specific facts and not generalities. What SPECIFICLY did "the administration" do/not do that they should not/should have done that "caused" the current recession? Saying things like "a culture of deregulation" or "trickle down economics doesn't work", or "tax cuts for the rich", or "Iraq, Iraq, Iraq", is neither specific nor persuasive.
I gave specifics in my post #78--neither you nor anyone else on your side has refuted that or given any specifics to back up your "opinion". Correlation (or coincidence) is not causation.
Posted by: Bill H on February 10, 2009 08:43 AMSupply side tried:
Kennedy in 63/64 - Wrong. You obviously don't understand supply side, Keynesian, or frankly any economics. Simple fact, "Supply-side" economics originated in the 70's. See this article for some information regarding Supply side, or simply check Wikipedia. Oh, I know don't let facts cloud your colored view of the world.
Reagan in 81-83 - Partially wrong. Yes, Reagon championed Supply Side, and yes there was a tax cut, but you could also make the case that it was pure Keynesian forces that propelled the economy. Expansion of Government under Reagan was a lot greater than in the previous decade. Do you remember the 600-boat Navy for one? It could reasonably argued that government spending on defense contributed to the recovery.
Bush in 2001-2003: Again Partially wrong. This one is on two counts. First, again as with Reagan, there was an expansion of government spending under Bush, mainly due to 9/11 and war time spending. Second, it has been documented that most of the tax cuts did not spur investment in US Economy. The "investments" expanded global expansion, which in turn partially helped the US, but dollar for dollar, it was a poor return on investment. Yes, the economy did turn around, but it wasn't even a dollar for dollar return. You may like a negative return on investment. I sure don't.
Republicans lost their way after Newt resigned: So, you are admitting it is Republican's fault.
Debacle due to real estate market: Partially true. The real estate market is the "effect." Go back and study root cause analysis. The root causes are not what you stated. They are "effects." The root cause can be traced back to the myth of supply side economics and the assumption that the markets will have good actors present. It has been demonstrated that the current crisis is not one of lack of money being available for investment. It can be traced to the assumption that "trickle-down" works and it can be traced to that good old seven sins, like lust and greed. On the tricke-down fact, just look to the gap in top income earners and the middle-class. You will see that ever growing gap. You will see stagnation of middle-class wages, where the only increase can be documented to credit spending. In the 70's and 80's (actually starting in the 60's), family income expanded due to women entering the work force (multiple wage-earners). After that option failed to keep up, families turned to credit spending (look at the decline in savings rate) and tapping the only source of income they had left (their homes). The root cause is stagnation of middle-class wages. The trickle-down, never trickled down.
You can try to rewrite history all you want to fit your colored view of the world so that it fits into your box and so you can blaim the current administration, even though they have been on the job for less than a month. It doesn't change the basic facts. The basic facts are the last few decades trends regarding middle-class wages, the growing gap between income classes, and the dismal savings rate that is a result of the stagnant (real) wages and the normal lust and greed in society. Face it, marketing is partially driven by trying to create demand through appealing to those lusts within us. It wants to make us feel inferior if we don't have the latest car, gadget, or vacation. You can't change the seven evils, but you can regulate the market so that it doesn't succumb to the desires of evil. You can also admit that trickle down has failed to raise regular middle-income wage earners real income.
Posted by: tc on February 11, 2009 07:52 AMYou said "Kennedy in 63/64 - Wrong. You obviously don't understand supply side, Keynesian, or frankly any economics. Simple fact, "Supply-side" economics originated in the 70's. See this article for some information regarding Supply side, or simply check Wikipedia."
First of all, JFK correctly said "The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy."
Secondly, the top tax rate was reduced from 91% when Kennedy came into office to 70%. The economy advanced. Whether this was before such a change in the top marginal rate was CALLED Supply Side is irrelevant. So when you say "Wrong", what is your point? Are you denying that the rate was not changed? Are you denying that was not a "Supply Side" change? Are you denying that the economy advanced? If your only point is that the TERM Supply Side Economics did not yet exist, that's a pretty silly and irrelevant point.
"Reagan in 81-83 - Partially wrong. Yes, Reagon championed Supply Side, and yes there was a tax cut, but you could also make the case that it was pure Keynesian forces that propelled the economy."
Yes, you could attempt to make that case, but it is not a good case at all. Tax revenues jumped when the permanent tax cuts went into place--Reagan and Bush made the same mistake of phasing in the cuts, which in both cases delayed the benefit. It also apparent when capital gains taxes are changed, the impact that they have on the flow of capital and the impact on realized capital gains. Only people frantically trying to hold onto the Keynesian myth deny the obvious positive impact of tax rate reductions.
Keynesianism, if it has ANY effect at all, can only be a benefit if the government spending is utilizing unused capacity. If it is not, then it is just replacing private projects. It is also not free--every dollar must be either borrowed, taxed or printed. The first will ultimately drive up interest rates and must eventually be repaid; the second just removes a dollar from the economy and then puts it back in; the third leads to inflation. So even if there is some short term benefit, it ultimatly will have a negative impact.
"Bush in 2001-2003: Again Partially wrong. This one is on two counts. First, again as with Reagan, there was an expansion of government spending under Bush, mainly due to 9/11 and war time spending."
I think this is the biggest illustration that it IS Supply Side and not Keynesianism that benefits the economy. The Democrats REFUSED to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and even talked about letting them expire or raising taxes. At the same time, spending has been way too high--if Keynes was right, the economy should be BOOMING now. It obviously is not.
"Republicans lost their way after Newt resigned: So, you are admitting it is Republican's fault."
I'm saying that Republicans spent WAY too much after Newt Gingrich resigned, yes. Again, if Keynes was right, we should be doing great right now with the growth in Government spending. We obviously are not, so what is your answer? Spend more! BRILLLIANT!
"Debacle due to real estate market: Partially true. The real estate market is the "effect." "
The COLLAPSE of the real estate market is the CAUSE as I walked you through in my post.
"The root cause can be traced back to the myth of supply side economics and the assumption that the markets will have good actors present."
As has been shown Supply Side Economics is not a "myth" but has worked everytime it has been tried, I don't know why you persist in denying this. It also does not rely on "good actors".
"it can be traced to that good old seven sins, like lust and greed."
I'm not sure what lust has to do with any of this. Greed has always existed and isn't anything new to the current economic situation. In fact "greed" could just be termed acting in one's own best interest. This is the very beauty of capitalism--it uses the fact that people act on their own best interests to generate a growing economy. So no, "greed" in an of itself was not a proximate cause--unless you are talking about greed of power among Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and ACORN. Certainly there was greed involved in the way Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson operated Fannie Mae--but this was not a private company.
"You can try to rewrite history all you want to fit your colored view of the world so that it fits into your box "
It seems to me that YOU are the one trying to rewrite history. Why ANYONE would want to go back to the policies of the 1930's is just insane to me.
"so you can blaim the current administration, even though they have been on the job for less than a month."
I never "blamed" the current administration for the recession. I laid out EXACTLY with specifics what caused the bubble and the resultant recession. I placed most of the blame on the Democrats in Congress and on Alan Greenspan and a portion on the Republicans (primarily for spending too much and for being complicit in Sarbanes-Oxley). I DO blame Obama, explicitly, for continually using scare tactics by using language like "catastrophe" and "we may never recover", etc. As I have said, that is either ignorant or treasonous. He is either doing it out of ignorance and doesn't know that he is DEPRESSING the economy with this language. Or, he is doing it purposefully to advance a socialistic agenda.
After reading your last two paragraphs, all you seem to be saying is that "trickle down" is bad, the gap between "the rich" and the "middle class" is bad. And people spending on things they can't afford is bad. Fine, but what does that have to do with the current recession or with Keynesianism?
Keynesianism was tried by Hoover/FDR in the 1930's. Even if you think that was what ended the 1929-1933 recession that was the beginning of the Depression, it did not end the Depression. Even using the most liberal unemployment rates, unemployment rates never dropped below 15% throughout the 1930's, and were higher in 1939 (the 7th year of the FDR administration) then they were in 1931. And the economy dropped into a second recession in 1937. Government spending is NOT a panacea for the economy--it is a curse.
"You can also admit that trickle down has failed to raise regular middle-income wage earners real income."
It is not the responsibility of government to "raise real income", middle class or not. It is the responsibility of government to enforce a free and just environment for business. Remember the rights in the Declaration of Independence--Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. There is no guarantee of happiness, just the pursuit thereof. Government needs to just get out of the way rather then continually interfere in the private economy.
Posted by: Bill H on February 11, 2009 11:40 AM
You really did not give any specifics in your post at #148, other than the "wage gap". But you did just say "trickle down economics doesn't work" without backing it up.
I started looking at the article you linked to in #149. You said "Here is an article the delates your arguments." I'm not sure what word you meant, but this was NOT an economic article--it was a political one, and pretty easy to dismiss as such.
There was this jewel:
"In 1982, the first full year for Reagan�s policies, the economy shrank by 2%, the worst performance since the Great Depression. Investment � the magic transmission belt through which all other Supply Side benefits were supposed to flow � actually declined as a percent of GDP over the 1980s. Worse, Reagan�s Supply Side policies created the biggest budget deficits in history. The numbers tell the story."
What a crock! The economy took off starting in 1983, and the ONLY reason that we ran large deficits was the continuing growth in SPENDING. Tax revenues GREW just as was predicted. This "analysis" also ignores the need of Paul Volker to raise interest rates in 1979, and again in 1981 (to about 20% from late 1980 to mid-1981) to squeeze out the inflation of the 1970's. He also ignored the fact that the 1981 tax cuts were PHASED IN, which caused a delay in the economic effect. Had the tax cuts gone into effect immediately, the 1981/82 recession would have been shallower and shorter.
Bottom line--this was not an "economic" article, it was a left wing hit piece, trying (and failing) to do the same thing you have tried--to rewrite history and 1980's...
