Democrats are cheering new Gallup polling today giving Obama an edge in the stimulus fight.
On one hand, it speaks to the delicate balance the GOP must strike in the first several months of an Obama Administration - picking appropriate battles and re-establishing GOP principles (fiscal discipline) without becoming cartoonish obstructionists.
Yet, keep in mind an interesting twist from analysis of recent polls on the stimulus:
Rasmussen screens for "likely voters" while Gallup and CBS samples all adults
No, surprise then that Rasmussen has tougher numbers for the stimulus package. Furthermore, it speaks to a political reality worth keeping in mind. Congressional Elections in 2010 will be one of the starkest measures of Obama's term in office prior to his own re-election campaign. Such non-Presidential year elections for Congress tend to be much lower turnout affairs. Thus, Rasmussen's polling of "likely voters" is much more relevant to understanding the mood of 2010 voters than the much broader universe of "adults."
Need proof?
Look at the difference between the Georgia Senate race on November 4th last year versus the run-off just a short time later - without the tide of otherwise unengaged Obama voters.
UPDATE: a couple commenters, including Steve Beren, seem uncomfortable with how I described the balance the GOP needs to strike. I think such questioning over-reads my analysis.
I've said before the GOP, like any successful minority party for that matter, can't just oppose high profile and objectionable policy proposals from the majority (and/or the President). The minority has to offer a credible, forward-looking, positive agenda as an alternative.
The post-2006 GOP minority was terrible at that. The post-2008 GOP minority shows many more signs of life at this early stage, even as improvements can still be made. Thus, they are a far cry from the "cartoonish obstructionist" I referenced, but must remain constantly vigilant from falling into that easy trap (which Democrats and some members of the press will try to facilitate at every opportunity).
Posted by Eric Earling at February 09, 2009 01:56 PM | Email ThisAt least the Dems are arguing that they are basing their support on the opinion of a sample of all adults rather than likely voters. While neither is the proper way to govern, theirs is a little less offending.
Posted by: Doug on February 9, 2009 02:32 PMFirst of all, Obama and the congressional Democrats have a sufficient majority to pass the stimulus. From a mathematical point of view, the Republicans cannot "obstruct" the stimulus. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid want to dishonestly portray the stimulus as "bipartisan." That way, they can avoid taking the blame when it doesn't work.
If the Republicans could "obstruct" this so-called stimulus, that would be a good thing - not something cartoonish.
I urge you to stop using the term "obstructionist," even in a hypothetical sense, since it conveys the fals impression that Republicans are mathematically capable of "obstructing" the phony stimulus bill.
What I find "cartoonish" is the submission and surrender of Snowe, Collins, and Specter.
Specter (in 2010), Snowe (in 2012), and Collins (in 2014) deserve solida Reagan conservative primary opponents.
- Florida governor, Charlie Crist.
Posted by: Robert on February 9, 2009 03:21 PMThe GOP cannot be obstructionist. The dem wants GOP sanction and validation purely for political cover.
RE: Specter, Snowe and Collins, MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD, YOUR OPINIONS KNOWN
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER
DC PHONE: (202) 224-4254
DC FAX: (202) 228-1229
HARRISBURG PHONE: (717) 782-3951
HARRISBURG FAX: (717) 782-4920
EMAILS TO CONTACT:
Scott_Hoeflich@specter.senate.gov
Maria_Plakoudas@specter.senate.gov
Christopher_Bradish@specter.senate.gov
thomas_dower@specter.senate.gov
seema_singh@specter.senate.gov
corene_ashley@specter.senate.gov
regina_campbell@specter.senate.gov
gayle_mills@specter.senate.gov
SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS
DC PHONE: (202) 224-2523
DC FAX: (202) 224-2693
AUGUSTA PHONE: (207) 622-8414
AUGUSTA FAX: (207) 622-5884
EMAILS TO CONTACT:
Steve_Abbott@collins.senate.gov
Holly_Nesbit@collins.senate.gov
SENATOR OLYMPIA SNOWE
DC PHONE: (202) 224-5344
DC FAX: (202) 224-1946
BOSTON PHONE: (207) 622-8292
BOSTON FAX: (207) 622-7295
EMAILS TO CONTACT:
John_Richter@snowe.senate.gov
Anna_Levin@snowe.senate.gov
When you tell us that:
"Now, there will be some people who say this is a pork bill, but this bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for its size."
YOU ARE LYING, MR PRESIDENT.
Why? Your decision to engage in verbal gymnastics doesn't change the FACT that this massive indebtedness program and colossal waste of money is FILLED with enough pork that it will put Hormel to shame!
Your remarks make no more sense than they would if you were to come out and tell everyone that secretly, you are a Republican.
• The Washington Post -- Billions may go to waste because stimulus money will be spent faster than it can be tracked: "The Obama administration's economic stimulus plan could end up wasting billions of dollars by attempting to spend money faster than an overburdened government acquisition system can manage and oversee it, according to documents and interviews with contracting specialists.
$300 million for "golf carts?": "$300 million has been allocated in the stimulus bill for modern golf carts and other forms of environmentally friendly modes of transportation. The Democrats thought they could fool you by renaming the money earmarked for golf carts in the stimulus bill as paying for 'neighborhood electric vehicles' and 'low speed motor vehicles.' "
• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
• $850 million for Amtrak.
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.
And yet, you stand there at tell us this?
"Now, there will be some people who say this is a pork bill, but this bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for its size."
Words fail me at how much you are lying. I'm sure that you can justify your nonsensical, belief defying lies... but that's what they are, Mr. President: Lies.
And that's what you're Administration will be known for, Mr. President: The Administration of Criminals and Liars. You're making President Bush look like President Lincoln in comparison to your lying, moronic efforts.
And remember this, Mr. President: The more you lie and think we're stupid, the more despised you will be.
Posted by: Hinton on February 9, 2009 04:03 PMFurther, "cartoonish obstuctionist" plays right to the hands of the Progressives who wish to villify conservatives at every turn to further marginalize the core concept of conservatism. Dissent and disagreement are the hallmarks of the American political machine. There is nothing different between qustioning Obama than there was in questioning Bush. We should chastise Obama just as we chastised Bush. Bad ideas are everywhere and need to be pointed out at all times.
Many Progressives forgot this lesson about a nanosecond after Obama was declared the winner on November 4th. But as always, one must be careful what one wishes for. It's very possible that the Democrats will get this package passed. And when they do, they will soon regret having done so, because it is not going to work, and voters won't soon forget a trillion dollar mistake.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 9, 2009 04:05 PM
For starters he is reigning threats and fear down on Americans in a manner I have never seen in my lifetime. There isn't a whiff of "hope" in any of his speeches where he paints a picture of hopeless doom unless we pass the "stimulus" package. No President can get away with threatening the public for long. "Pass my program or else" likely already has a lot of people wondering just why it was they pulled that lever for Obama in November. What we are seeing isn't leadership. It's fear mongering.
Clearly, the bloated package is largely a payoff for the liberal interests that elected Obama. It's classic leftism. Hardly the first time they've exploited poor economic conditions in order to further grow government.
The political problem that looms for Obama lie in the limited options which will remain to him when the "stimulus" fails to stem the tide of layoffs and rising unemployment. At the very least he fails to understand that we live in a world that expects instant gratification. That won't be forthcoming. Should the employment picture continue to worsen Obama will have great difficulty selling another "stimulus" package. The public can only be fooled so many times. As a result he could likely lose control of Congress in 2010.
I think Obama has proven to be a very poor politician. Had he used his head,(or any of his advisors used theirs), he would have proposed a reasonable, toned down "stimulus" bill of say $400 billion that was pork free and filled with, as the latest catch phrase says, "shovel ready" projects. He could thus have garnered a decent amount of Republican support and avoided backing himself into a corner that he may not be able to fight his way out of.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 9, 2009 04:09 PMThis man is truly evil. He will say whatever is needed for the moment to get the points he needs to score. Machiavelli was an amateur compared to this thing!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 9, 2009 05:01 PMJust look at "Global Warming" now totally discredited as fear mongering and data manipulation by a few scientists. Average Joe walks outside and feels cold for several years in a row, and realizes he was sold a bag of lies.
It is the balancing act that you are proposing that has led the GOP into obscurity. There is no balancing that needs to be preformed. The right answer is to oppose government spending because government spending is not the answer. If polling shows more people believe it is than is not, that means that we need to do even more education on why our answer is the right one, not try to balance between the right and wrong answer.
Posted by: Lysander on February 9, 2009 05:18 PMDoes it only matter what "likely voters" think about our economy, or what Americans think about our economy? Our congress? Our president? Our stimulus plan?
Posted by: John Jensen on February 9, 2009 05:43 PMI think I lost count around 7.
Elkhart, the "RV capital of the world" that is now hurting.
Who hates RV's more than liberals?
Maybe I'm the only one that picked up on the hypocrisy.
That wouldn't have stopped Obama and the left from pushing it to the limit however had there not been a convenient economic downturn to exploit instead.
The left doesn't do well unless they have a crisis to exploit. If there isn't one, they make one up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 9, 2009 06:27 PMI worked on RV's for a living for a few years. I was sent to Elkhart for training. When you base your economy on a luxury item and depend on it for 1 in 4 total jobs, you are going to have unenjoyment figures like this.
The water tower in town has a Winnebago logo on it...
Posted by: MSRedneck on February 9, 2009 06:31 PMThey oppose it as a matter of principle.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 9, 2009 07:23 PMBut if he is as comfortable with the stimulus as he says, if the bills under consideration are really the tonic our economy needs, if by not passing a stimulus immediately we truly risk catastrophe, and if the American people are going to call the Republicans to account for not going along, why all the fuss? Why not just have it passed on your own, and take full credit.
Unless, of course, even Democrats are beginning to hear whispers of "Nancy Pelosi" ringing in their ears.
Ouch.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 9, 2009 09:35 PMYou may be underestimating Obama. Don't forget, the lamestream media is on his side and he has the bully pulpit, even though he is less experienced - he is articulate, but may be vulnerable as a politician here. With that said, he did make a number of missteps here, but Clinton did similarly in his first term. Clinton didn't really start triangulating until Dick Morris was working for him. late in his first term. There should have had less pork to make it a better bill, but that is not the nature of Democrats. Obama was passive in the legislation process and let the House write the bill, which was stupid and it may well come back and haunt him if the economy continues to suck through next year.
I heard Karl Rove say that this stimulus package may not matter much one way or the other in a year or two, but it will suppress growth more noticeably in ten years from now, according to some economists. Many Republicans may hope it this stimulus package doesn't work well , but I hope it shows some success - even though I voted for McCain (I'd bet Sen McCain and most Republicans in Congress hope for success also). Not to worry, there will be other opportunities for Democrats and the President to overreach in the next year and a half.
Posted by: KS on February 9, 2009 09:52 PMSocialism a la bambi will only work if WE agree to be victims: his stimulus can NOT stimulate if we don't allow OUR money to be part of us plan. 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.
Eventually he has to print more money and therby destabilize the dollar even further AND cause horrendous deflation ... and he is the massive failure we expect... or he has has to capitulate to far lower taxes and we prove he's the massive failure we expect.
It's a win/win if we hang tough, and the doe-eyed toddler has no where to go but down. It will be a pleasure to escort him there.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 9, 2009 11:28 PMWhich is EXACTLY why you champion it. For every "Bush" accusation and epithet you throw we can throw the exact same one back using bambi and the demoTroughPigs.
You aren't as clever as you think you are or wish you could be... especially since you denigrate and insult the very people you hope will be customers at your "3 businesses". Good luck with that.
Try again.
A sensible person/family will determine the absolute bottom line for survival and recovery, and lay out a strategy and discipline that can accomplish it.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 9, 2009 11:58 PMYour idea is as silly as your supposed pipe dream that a liberal Seattle congressional district would vote a hard-core right Republican over their existing Congressman, whether they cared for him or not. Wake up and smell the politics. The politicians have to reflect the make up of their constituents, or they don't get elected.
Posted by: tc on February 10, 2009 07:22 AMThe Marxist Left, the Slavery Party, loves to chant that "Bush doubled our debt in 8 years!". That he added $4 trillion in debt (most of that due to social programs demanded by those same Slavers).
So far, just 3 weeks into the Obama Administration, we have a $900 billion "stimulus" plan, and another $1.5 trillion announced today.
So in 3 weeks, he's 60% to the "debt" that President Bush racked up over 8 years. At this rate, he'll pass by $4 trillion in debt before the end of February.
How does the Left respond to that?
Silence.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 10, 2009 10:14 AMFor those with short memories let's go back to this same time period in 2001. The new President had just been inaugurated and suddenly it was the "Bush Recession". Remember?
I bring this up to burst the bubble of those who believe that Obama can continue to blame Republicans indefinitely. With a drooling media and most of the population under 40 brainwashed, he'll be able to get away with his blame game for a few months. After that, should layoffs continue and unemployment numbers increase he will own the economy.
I further note that Obama lied when he said the Bush tax cuts failed. Anyone can look at the statistics and see that we had a healthy economy during the bulk of the Bush Presidency. It was when the house of cards fueled by Democrat policies that forced banks to make home loans to those who couldn't afford it collapsed that we ended up where we are today.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2009 11:12 AMLet's take issue with Hinton @ 9:
$248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. - Hinton says 'Let them stand while defending the country from dangerous terrorists'. Who created this bloated pork laden agency in the first place? Oh yeah, President Bush.
$600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. - Creates jobs building cars, reduces use of foreign oil.
$200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. - A lot more people are going to be entering community college soon, loans and updated equipment help provide for worker retraining.
$200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. - Creates jobs building cars, reduces use of foreign oil.
$850 million for Amtrak. - Amtrak had it's highest ridership ever last year, meanwhile the locomotives continue to break down.
$650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. - Not really pork, firefighters need to be paid.
The rest looks like Pork.
Hey Army M/V, how would your firehouse use this?
$500 million for state and local fire stations.
Which party has been in power 2 of the last 15 years? Wasn't his party.
The new President had just been inaugurated and suddenly it was the "Bush Recession". Remember?
Yup, that one was caused by people being stupid and betting large sums of money on companies that didn't do anything.
This recession is completely different.
List of causes:
Bank failures due to Bush Admin vigorous non-enforcement of existing regulation, outright fraud committed by the baking/mortgage industry, starting an unnecessary war in Iraq, cutting of incoming revenue and over-spending by the Republican Party, grossly inflated home prices due to market forces, individuals using home equity to snap up expensive toys, housing prices falling to reflect reality.
The point I was making however was that regardless of how the blame game is played eventually Obama will be held responsible for the performance of the economy.
I think he's blowing it by including as much government bloat as he can in this "stimulus" program. It's a dream come true for Democrats who live to grow government. But there is a huge risk. If it doesn't show results quickly he's going to be in a world of hurt.
The market certainly isn't impressed. The Dow is down over 400 points as I type this.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2009 12:13 PMHey Army M/V, how would your firehouse use this?
$500 million for state and local fire stations.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yep it's all pork!
Do you have any idea how long it takes to plan out a fire house, met all the enviro spec's then finally build it?
Just like Clinton and his 100.000 police. LOL
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 10, 2009 12:30 PMGood ol' obfusCATOr.
Don't understand the word "plagiarize", do you?
Look it up: I'm not into intellectual welfare for dummies.
Here's another for you to whine about:
Okay, You Want Socialism? Then YOU Pay for It!
... How generous of you to decide how much is too much for your neighbor, so that you can help yourself to his stuff. You don't even have the get-up-n-go to go steal it yourself. You hire scumbag politicians pandering for personal power to go rob your neighbor for you.
With neighbors like you, who needs enemies?
If you are so sold on collective thought, collective bargaining and communal living - set up a commune full of like-minded freaks and throw all of your stuff in the kitty to be shared equally throughout the commune. Enough of the "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too" crap!
What makes you think you have the right to run roughshod over half of Americans who have been paying your tab for years, against their will?
... America is headed for a second civil war alright, divided down the line that separates those who want a right to only what they earn, and those who think "what's mine is mine, and what's yours in mine too!"
But this civil war will be over much faster and with less effort than the last.
The first civil war was very bloody. This one will be fought with the pen. Taxpayers need only withhold their pen. There are only 500 idiots in Washington DC. What will they do with 100 million fed up taxpayers who refuse to continue paying for their Marxist slaughter of America?...
... Sooner or later, the other half of the nation that has been picking up the tab for your foolishness will figure out that they can stop your rush into socialism by simply refusing to sign the checks you need to pay for it all. ...
... However, "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill - It has always failed and it will fail again.
I believe it was former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who pointed out that socialism is a great idea until you run out of other people's money...
... The people you want to pay for it didn't vote for it... They have tried for years to stop you from robbing them blind via democratic process. You made your bed, now go sleep in it!
If you want socialism, YOU pay for it!
Best of luck with that!
You didn't really think the other half of America was just going to sit still and let you destroy their lives too, did you? ...
... He with the gold, makes the rules... Remember?
And... Theft is still theft, even when you get elected officials to do your dirty work... It's truly sad when you are too lazy or cowardly to even do your own stealing... Pathetic!
You had better watch Harry Reid explain how taxes are "voluntary." How are you going to pay for your socialism now?
And there it is: I will NOT give the thieves the the gun with which to rob me, I will not give the those that mean me harm the tools to murder me. I will NOT put my money into the system: I will not buy, I will not invest, I will not store my money in banks and allow them to use my money against me to build their Socialist utopia. I will not allow my money to support YOU.
And it's already working.
So, obfusCATOr, YOU get a job and go stimulate gran, bam and grumpy. We'll enjoy the show of your desperation.
"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." -Jefferson
Your Happiness is about to come to a Screeching Halt!
And we'll be here to pick up the pieces.
Sure, economy is great when you put it all on credit cards based on the inflated value of your home. It's when the bills come due and you find out your house value is actually worth 1/3 less than what you paid for it do the problems start.
How many "stimulus" checks have we received under the Bush Administration? The first one that blew the surplus, second and third tried to stimulate the economy with Govt. handouts.
You know this Cato, and you know that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd blocked reforms of Fannie and Freddie pushed by the Bush Administration and Alan Greenspan.
Yep, and the regulators did nothing while companies pushed mortgages on people who couldn't possibly pay them back. Like these idiots who committed outright fraud for the sake of monetary gain. Companies like Countrywide bought their mortgage assets up like candy, manipulated the bond rating, and sold them on Wall St. where people we're eager to buy not knowing the truth behind the lie.
Let us not forget 'Credit Default Swaps' and Bush's buddies at Enron, all which were based on lies that could have been stopped had the regulators bothered to do their jobs. Too bad corporate responsibility and regulation enforcement was not on Bush's priority list.
But there is a huge risk. If it doesn't show results quickly he's going to be in a world of hurt.
He can do nothing, or he can take a risk and do something. He chose the later. Personally I'd like to see him go back to Congress and re-write the bill, but Pres. Obama seems to think that the time to act is now rather than wait till May or so to get a better bill. History will tell if he is right or not.
The market certainly isn't impressed. The Dow is down over 400 points as I type this.
Ever think the stock marked might also be bloated, Dow was around 7500 and S&P around 815 during the last recession. We've got a bit to go before we hit those prices. This a much deeper and widespread recession than the one we had in 2002.
Everything is down but smart people know that the S&P 500 is a much better gauge of the overall economy. Dow is just a listing of America's 30 largest companies.
False. Bush proposed more oversight of GSE's, and Democrats successfully blocked it. As recently as 2004, you can find video of Dodd and Frank saying there was no problem at Fannie/Freddie, and they didn't need any kind of overhaul. Oops.
Posted by: Palouse on February 10, 2009 12:57 PMThere was only ONE. And it did nothing: zero, zip, nada to stimulate the economy.
The stock market "gambles" on the FUTURE. Clearly it's not impressed by the one bambi promises.
Imagine that.
Lying about the economy is what Democrats always do. In 2004 the Kerry Campaign was saying that the economy was "the worst since the depression". Now Obama shrieks doom unless we pass his government expansion program.
What you keep missing is that Obama is making an incredible gamble.
Should the economy turn around by summer he will be hailed as a hero. I don't think that is likely.
Should there be higher and higher unemployment numbers he can't go back to the well with another trillion dollar boondoggle.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2009 01:15 PMSo that $300 check I got from the Govt. back in 2001 was just a figment of my imagination?
The stock market "gambles" on the FUTURE.
That's right, and guess what, the stock market is still up from the last recession we had. Like Obama said, "it's going to get worse before it gets better". Given how bad it is out there I totally believe it.
I shudder at the thought of how your hero Caribou Barbie would approach this situation.
Democrats and their program that forced banks to make subprime loans are hardly blameless.
No one forced Merit Financial to make sub-prime loans without even performing basic credit checks. It was all about the $$ and had othing to do with politics.
Now Obama shrieks doom unless we pass his government expansion program.
I'm still waiting for the GOP to craft an alternative proposal and bring it to the floor.
I like how you now have a problem with the President doing the same thing Bush did to push the Iraq war? Remember this timely quote?
"While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone ... gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud"
Welcome to Politics.
What you keep missing is that Obama is making an incredible gamble
Yup, it is a gamble. Like I said, if you guys have a better idea write it up and bring it to the floor of Congress. All I've heard is constant whining from the GOP.
Should the economy turn around by summer he will be hailed as a hero. I don't think that is likely.
Nor do I, it's going to take much longer than that. It's REALLY bad out there. Things just are not going to jump start just because people have jobs. Takes a while for the money to flow through the economy. Trickle up economics.
Should there be higher and higher unemployment numbers
Based on how hard it is to even reach the unemployment office in this state (ask Erik about it) those numbers will go up. A lot more layoffs are coming before the economy improves.
he can't go back to the well with another trillion dollar boondoggle.
Which is why the President should go back for a better bill and get it right. I've written to Obama about this but I'm one person in a nation of millions.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said."
This is right out of you own beloved New York Times just a few short years ago, Cato.
It was all about Democratic do-gooders forcing financial institutions to forego good business practices and make high risk loans. They knew they could simply blame those evil private capitalists if things went wrong. It's what Democrats always do.
Yup, a lot of less than ethical people took advantage. Democrats rarely have the ability to forsee the consequences of their actions. When their chickens come home to roost they blame everyone but themselves.
Which brings me back to Obama.
But have it your way, Cato. Democratic "solutions" haven't exactly worked out well in the past. We'll see what happens.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2009 01:54 PMWow, that's the funniest thing I've ever seen you post here. Even better than when you blamed WaMu's failure on the Democrat's. Thanks for the laugh.
This is right out of you own beloved New York Times just a few short years ago, Cato.
I don't read the NY Times, too unreliable. I personally like the WSJ minus the opinion section. Good thing they just laid off some useless idiots from that section.
Democrats rarely have the ability to forsee the consequences of their actions.
Nor do Republican's like Phil Graham and his loophole filled Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
Yup, a lot of less than ethical people took advantage.
Meanwhile the federal regulators in charge of enforcing good ethics looked the other way like Officer Barbrady on South Park...."Move along, nothing to see here." Certainly proved that Bush's claim that markets can regulate themselves is completely unfounded.
Given a free hand a lot of businesses will act unethically to pump up their revenue/stock price in the short term and not create a long term strategy of how to make money. Just look at some of the famous failures, Enron, WaMu, Countrywide. I imagine Venezuela will soon be on that list, Chavez bet the bank on high oil prices remaining high only to have them fall sharply to more reasonable levels. I'm sure once the money stops flowing the revolution will not be far behind.
LOL!! She's from Alaska, that whole states economy is built on Govt. dependence. You do know that the Govt. of Alaska pays people to live up there.
Democratic "solutions" haven't exactly worked out well in the past. We'll see what happens.
FDR was elected to 4 terms in office because he did such a good job turning the economy around. ;)
You mean the one that President Clinton signed? That one?
Meanwhile the federal regulators in charge of enforcing good ethics looked the other way
You might want to review the video linked in #44. It was Dodd and Frank that wouldn't let federal regulators investigating Raines and the corrupt GSE's do their jobs.
Posted by: Palouse on February 10, 2009 02:27 PMA bit simplistic.
You're missing the point. But in a few months you just might get it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2009 02:30 PMYup, that would be it. Graham crafted the law that passed a GOP majority Congress and was signed into law by a lame duck President. Sort of like Democrats and the TARP program which has already caused billions to literally disappear into the coffers of banks. =P
It was Dodd and Frank that wouldn't let federal regulators investigating Raines and the corrupt GSE's do their jobs.
Yup, but this was only a small part of a much larger problem throughout the Bush Administration. Remember Bush thought Free-Markets can regulate themselves. Nice try though.
One of those liberal myths that is doubtless taught to every schoolchild.
The truth is the economy was worse in 1938 than it was when FDR was elected in 1933. The economy rebounded when we began building up the arsenal that helped win WWII, beginning with the "lend/lease" program before we entered the War in December of 1941.
That FDR's government programs "turned the economy around" is pure nonsense and cannot be backed up with evidence.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2009 02:37 PMR's couldn't pass anything without Democrat support. They didn't have 60 votes.
Yup, but this was only a small part of a much larger problem
Yeah, the larger problem was that Bush wanted much tighter oversight of GSE's and Democrats continually blocked it because they feared that minorities wouldn't be able to get loans so easily. None of the banking problems exist if there had been tighter oversight of GSE's. It all comes back to that.
Posted by: Palouse on February 10, 2009 02:46 PMSort of like your myth at 40:
I notice you skipped over the fact that we had a decent economy during all but the last year of the Bush Administration.
Economy was great as long as the Credit Card was good, once the bills came due we had nothing to show for it and we ended with far less revenue coming in then when Bush started. Always a bad situation in real life, I don't know why the Republicans thought it would work with the Federal Govt.
Or why the Democrats think it will work now.
Posted by: Palouse on February 10, 2009 02:57 PMWe don't have bills coming due because of Social Security? Because of Medicare/Medicaid? Because of the nearly trillion dollar "stimulus" bill?
The facts remain: During nearly the entire Bush Administration we had solid economic growth and low unemployment.
And oh yes, when Repubicans proposed a voluntary plan to allow workers to direct some of their own Social Security dollars what happened? Democrats immediately made up a huge lie. "Bush wants to privatize Social Security". It wasn't true. Democrats don't know what to do about the Social Security mess they created, except perhaps hope that they die before the poop really hits the fan.
The last thing Democrats ought to do is lecture people about debt.
Eventually you will fall on your own sword.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2009 03:03 PMThis BS explanation has been trotted out by the GOP so many times...seems like they're following the Bush mantra of lying so much it becomes fact.
GOP had all the power, Dem's were a minor roadblock at best. If they really wanted it done they would have just gone ahead and done it. Much like the Dem's are doing with the stimulus bill.
It clearly wasn't a top concern of the Bush Administration and everyone jumped on the Subprime Mortgages because it was easy money. High return for little work. Just the sort of thing WaMu CEO Killinger was looking for to bump up the stock price.
False. You should familiarize yourself with cloture rules.
If they really wanted it done they would have just gone ahead and done it. Much like the Dem's are doing with the stimulus bill.
False, again. The D's have a much larger majority, and only needed a couple of R's to defect. And Collins and Snowe have always been RINO's. Democrats were united in their opposition to tighter regulation of GSE's. Not one of them supported it. That's why it never made it through Congress.
It clearly wasn't a top concern of the Bush Administration and everyone jumped on the Subprime Mortgages because it was easy money.
Yeah, that's why Bush proposed a new oversight agency with tighter regulations on GSE's. Jeez.
Posted by: Palouse on February 10, 2009 03:12 PMThey've only mangaged to bring aboard the 3 predictable Senate RINO's.
Folks like Cato will have a tough time later saying "well you guys wanted it too".
Nope, once this passes Obama and the Democrats own the economy.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2009 03:30 PMAnd yes, the Democrats own it now after Porktacular 2009.
Posted by: Palouse on February 10, 2009 03:41 PMI get grief on this blog when I am less than enthusiastic about Republican "moderates", and the notion that we need to be a "big tent" party instead of a party of principles.
Collins, Snowe, and Spector illustrate what I try to talk about, as do McCain, and Arnold.
Arnold is probably the worst of them, insisting on stricter fuel emission standards when American car companies are on the verge of bankruptcy and laying off workers in droves. Why doesn't he just be honest and change parties?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2009 03:53 PMI only supported McCain because I feared the socialism we would get with Obama. It's only just begun.
Posted by: Palouse on February 10, 2009 04:02 PMHowever, I believe that conservatives that stand for their principles can be elected anywhere outside of San Francisco North.
Standing up for lower taxes, a less intrusive government, and opposing gay marriage and abortion are winning issues for conservatives.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2009 04:29 PM"Buried in the bowels of the stimulus plan the Senate passed Tuesday are key healthcare provisions that will set America on the road to socialized medicine, involve the government in your choice of a doctor, and inevitably trigger another funding crisis that will be used to justify still greater federal intervention in America's healthcare industry.
Among the most controversial parts of the bill are new federal guidelines that will require the government, rather than a doctor, to decide whether a patient should get medical care.
Ironically, the stimulus bill that will cost more than $1 trillion will lay the groundwork for a massive healthcare funding crisis in the future, according to senior healthcare fellow Dennis G. Smith of the Heritage Foundation.
According to Smith, the stimulus bill contains over $100 billion of temporary Medicaid money. In an unprecedented use of Medicaid, that money will go to provide medical coverage for 1.2 million unemployed workers. What happens to those people in two years, when most of the temporary federal funding ends, is a major question. It will eventually lead to huge budget shortfalls when the federal spigot shuts off.
"It's going to be very serious," Smith says. "The GAO, the watchdog agency that works for Congress, has already said the current Medicaid program is unsustainable, and that states for the current program have to either cut spending or raise taxes by 7.6 percent every year to stay in balance."
After the federal money is gone, Smith says, states will have to either drop millions of people from the rolls or face massive shortfalls. That probably means they'll soon be back at the federal trough pleading for more money."
The real crime here is that numerous Senators (mainly Democrats) did not pay enough attention to know what they voted for. This will f up the economy once and for all - stagflation and hyperinflation, here we come. The fear mongering produced this, and it will take quite an effort to remove this socialist policy.
To those of you who poo-poo this and have the attitude of wanting to vanquish conservatives and blame them on the economic woes, you are basically Scientologists or Moonies when it comes to politics. You have no basis for much of what you say - you defend the indefensible. Bottom line: You need to be deprogrammed from having been brainwashed somewhere in your life and not paying attention to reality, You are dangerous to yourself and those around you, besides being narcissistic, pubescent and mentally unbalanced. Beware of the trolls who respond in a monologue tirade, but they are irrational and don't correctly read other's posts and are emotionally unable to carry on a reasoned discussion.
Maybe the black cloud of socialism shown in this article will change some of your attitudes, but I have my doubts because you have been brainwashed.
Posted by: KS on February 10, 2009 06:44 PMUnemployment was at 19.8% when FDR left office.
Does bambi know that when he claims the FDR brand?
We will be able to call bambi Barry Delano Carter... he's already earning the name.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 10, 2009 07:23 PMShould have let them let them filibuster the proposal, would have made the GOP look great.
Bush proposed a new oversight agency with tighter regulations on GSE's
So he wanted to expand the Federal Govt? Guess we can toss another conservative value out the window. What a bunch of Hypocrites you guys are.
I only supported McCain because I feared the socialism we would get with Obama. It's only just begun.
Bush was much closer to Socialism at the end of his last term. He claimed he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from collapse. You know, sacrificing free market values sounds a lot like Socialism.
Standing up for lower taxes, a less intrusive government, and opposing gay marriage and abortion are winning issues for conservatives.
By opposing gay marriage you have a more intrusive Govt. since it's invading peoples private lives and potentially harming the economy. I don't see why Gay Marriage is a big deal, especially when you have people like Liz Taylor, Larry Craig, and Britney Spears making a mockery of Straight Marriage.
Using your argument laws against polygamy are also indicative of a "more intrusive" government. In your view are there no lines to be drawn whatsoever?
That folks can have poor relationships in spite of marriage is hardly relevant.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 11, 2009 01:00 PMYour semantics game does not change the FACT you purposely ignore 19.8% Unemployment after his celebrated RAW deal.... that we are STILL paying for.
Is bambi Delano Carter trying to out-unemploy his hero?... he's already perfected the language of misery.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 11, 2009 02:09 PMLeftists love to wallow in pessimism and hopelessness. Obama panders to his base by wringing his hands and telling us we are facing certain doom if we don't enact his legislation without examining it.
What he doesn't get is that most Americans do not choose to live their lives under the dark cloud of hopelessness. Carter tried to play the same game Obama is playing. He had huge popular support when he began his term. That support went away when the economy worsened and he walked around the White House in a sweater turning down the thermostats.
Carter's message was clear. The American experiment has been a failure.
Obama promotes the same message.
As frustrating as it is listening to these people it is they who are taking a massive risk.
They are sowing the seeds of their own defeat much as Jimmy Carter did.
What we need is a conservative leader that can clearly describe conservative principles and promote optimism. Obama could be giving us the biggest opportunity in a generation.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 11, 2009 04:00 PM