I see this as a voice of sanity from the Democratic party.

I would guess that many others don't see it that way.

I'd really hope to generate a few comments with this op-ed by Evan Bayh.

Hear, hear. To pass it just because it's "old business" is irresponsible given the economic situation.

When the country is heading from a recession into a depression the last thing on anyone's mind should be cutting spending. The best thing we can do right now is spend, spend, spend. The more money that flows into the economy the better. In the minds of talking point repeaters "spending" is the evil that brought us to the problems we have now but, in reality, it wasn't spending but irresponsible tax cuts during two wars.

When the country is heading from a recession into a depression the last thing on anyone's mind should be cutting spending.
Posted by danni

Priceless!

When the country is heading from a recession into a depression the last thing on anyone's mind should be cutting spending. The best thing we can do right now is spend, spend, spend. The more money that flows into the economy the better.

Absolutely not!!

I can understand the notion of "spend, spend, spend" only to a point.

There's good spending, there's ineffective spending and there's bad spending. At this point, Washington should be tightening its belt as much as possible. I can understand very focused spending to try and stimulate the economy and/or stave-off more decline. However, we have seen profligate spending at an almost unprecedented level since this whole mess started. Especially during times like this, I expect very focused spending, yes, even some deficit spending and a tightening of the belt as much as possible.

We aren't getting that, regardless of which party is in power.

Why is almost all of America reigning in their own spending and yet Washington feels it can spend through the roof, oftentimes on nothing more than pet-projects and special interests that in no way cause any form of 'stimulus'?

Washington feels it can spend through the roof

----

Because they can tax the crap out of the rich. To some politicians and their followers, the rich are a major cash cow. Forget spending wisely, just tax the rich some more!

Why is almost all of America reigning in their own spending and yet Washington feels it can spend through the roof, oftentimes on nothing more than pet-projects and special interests that in no way cause any form of 'stimulus'?

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

And there lies the problem for the President. With 25% of what he's spent and some additional program cuts he could have been a true hero. And he could have gone to the public to fight any objections Pelosi and Reid had. Too bad.

To all:

We had an election only 4 months ago. The American public overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama and the agenda which he put forth. This is the same agenda he has forwarded to Congress. Your point of view LOST. We are not re-fighting a war in which your views were defeated. Obama is doing the majorities wishes and PRECISELY what he said he would if elected. Currently the American people find him more popular than Congress and any conservative person or talking point around. He is doing the majorities bidding while many from the right openly root for his failure and this nation's demise at the same time.

Senator Bayh is merely another person ignoring the expressed will of the people. Its fine that you feel what's being done won't work, but history's guide says just the opposite. Its a crying shame that we can't even agree after a plebiscite the winner is EXPECTED to implement his agenda. We now know who stands opposed to the majority of this nation and it isn't those who find Obama a source of optimism during a storm he did not create.

the agenda which he put forth

----

How is this bill Obama's agenda? Emanuel called it "last year's business".

So did Orzag.

What do you people think will happen if federal funding is cut off in the middle of a recession/depression?

Any guesses?

Senator Bayh is right. You can't stand up for fiscal responsibility one week and vote for this bill the next week. And you can't order a "crackdown" on government waste this morningas Reuters is reporting the president will do todayand sign this big pork-barrel of a bill into law tomorrow morning. Actions speak louder than words.

"The best thing we can do right now is spend, spend, spend."

LOL. Even if you're right (which you aren't), should the spending be targeted to the most effective areas? Or just reckless?

Just because we "have to do something" doesn't mean we have to do everything.

Obama's economic stimulus package included one of the largest, if not the very largest, tax cut in American history. His broader economic plan does exactly what was promised during the campaign -- it cuts taxes on the middle class, and raises taxes on the wealthy. The tax increase on the wealthy wouldn't kick in until 2011, and simply returns the top rate to where it was before Bush/Cheney took office.

Many seem to have internalized conservative, conventional thinking on taxes -- Obama wants to "raise" them, centrists and Republicans don't like the idea. But the details matter here, and it's simply inaccurate to characterize the White House plan as a tax increase when most Americans are getting a tax cut.

Maybe someone should let Sens. Bayh and Nelson know.

I love watching Tony stand valiantly in front of his cut'n'pastes as though he just decimated everyone in an intense debate. Get over yourself.

Anything else guys?

----

Yes, why should Obama sign this pork bill?

the agenda which he put forth

----

How is this bill Obama's agenda? Emanuel called it "last year's business".

#10 | Posted by Pirate at 2009-03-04 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

So did Orzag.

#11 | Posted by Pirate at 2009-03-04 02:51 PM | Reply |

Obama's black, and so am I!
-Aroma

I love watching Tony stand valiantly in front of his cut'n'pastes as though he just decimated everyone in an intense debate. Get over yourself.

#16 | Posted by JOE

Yes. As if your "Obama ball-licker" drivel makes you top blog dog.

Get over YOURself.

Looks like some more Dems are having issues with this bill.

San, you'll notice I only say that drivel to you, and that's because it's true. I know it hurts your feelings, but I'm sure you have some Obama ball-licking to do in another thread. Hop to it.

San, you'll notice I only say that drivel to you...

#21 | Posted by JOE

No you don't. Its part of your standard bill of fare, petulant child.

#15 | Posted by tonyroma

Yes--we all appreciate our $13.00 a week for the welfare check.

As for tax hikes--there's cap and trade to the electrical and coal companies for CO2 emmissions--great guy that Obama.

So we can expect the electrical and heating bills to be much higher as the companies will pass along the cost to the consumer.

Unless of course if Obama takes them over--they can hold the rates down.

I love watching Tony stand valiantly in front of his cut'n'pastes as though he just decimated everyone in an intense debate. Get over yourself.

I've been over myself since I was born. You, however, are another story. But I guess you're just a typical rightwing dittohead who ignores reality hen it conflicts with your delusions.

Anyone that thinks Obama is wrong on this issue only need consult the election results. Obama won Bayh's state only 4 months ago, so the popular opinion is with Obama, not Bayh. His water carrying for the GOP isn't ignored by his constituents and he's always been as conservative as Indiana used to be. That was until the union jobs disappeared to points offshore and people tred to keep their lives going on "right-to-work" wages. Indiana is one of the leading states in bankruptcies and foreclosures. Bayh is merely being what he is and that isn't remotely a moderate nor Democrat. He's a DINO and dinosaurs are extinct.

Anyone that thinks Obama is wrong on this issue only need consult the election results.

#25 | Posted by tonyroma

Bush won 2 elections which means that he was RIGHT?

WOW, are you serious?

WOW, are you serious?

WOW, YES!

Has Obama done anything he didn't say that he would BEFORE people voted him into office?

Can the same be said about Bush? Let me remind you:

Bush didn't run on invading two countries and miring this nation into a continual state of war. He promised "no nation-building" and "compassionate conservatism". How'd that go, and before you ask, yes, we were attacked and responded, but didn't you think he'd prosecute the war competently due to all the "experienced" people he had around him? So did I, but it didn't turn out that way did it?

Obama is doing EXACTLY what he told the American voters that he would do, and that surprises you? May I ask why?

Anyone that thinks Obama is wrong on this issue only need consult the election results.

#25 | Posted by tonyroma

Has Obama done anything he didn't say that he would BEFORE people voted him into office?

#27 | Posted by tonyroma

Also, how does it feel knowing that Obama gave Bush his full support regarding the Wall Street handout in the form of a vote, a vote to give banking execs fat bonuses at the expense of tax payers? Oops, bad question, I forgot he was still popular...

Senator Bayh is merely another person ignoring the expressed will of the people. Its fine that you feel what's being done won't work, but history's guide says just the opposite. Its a crying shame that we can't even agree after a plebiscite the winner is EXPECTED to implement his agenda. We now know who stands opposed to the majority of this nation and it isn't those who find Obama a source of optimism during a storm he did not create.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma
* * * *

Senator Bayh was elected too. And we can assume the people who sent him to Washington didn't expect him to lock his piehole shut just because Barack and his pals have another giant plan that Bayh considers outrageous.

Still, your life. Obama won, so we should all just sit around and let him tell us what to do. No need to have a Senate at all, really. They should just rubber-stamp everything Obama and his tax-dodgin' cabinet sends up to the Hill.

Keep selling. There are new elections that take place every day on the floors of the world's stock and bond exchanges. How's Obama doin' there?

I guess the markets didn't like W too much before January 20th, huh?

Stock Market Closing Prices - 1/20/09

Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) Close - 7949.09 Down 332.13

It lost 6000 points from its high a year and a half ago or so.

Or did the markets love W in RiR's world?

As soon as Obama's nomination and election was secured, it was the greatest short-sell opportunity in history.

Be sure to write a letter to Evan Bayh today, Unity. Be sure to tell him he's putting party over country. Or something. Just--well, just say whatever the White House tells you to say on the subject. Like always. Then you can scurry back over to the Limbaugh threads.

Keep selling. Pre-market down 146.

In the minds of talking point repeaters "spending" is the evil that brought us to the problems we have now but, ....blah, blah, blah......

#3 | Posted by danni at 2009-03-04 12:28 PM | Reply |

This from the Queen of Talking Point Repeaters.

FF for Danni

It's always amusing for me when I get to watch the pro-war spending, pro-bank bailout assholes tell the average man to be fiscally responsible.

I get a good laugh out of this kind of shit.

Bayh certainly has a point, but it is easy for him to say because he would not be the one to have to re-fight every inch of this Bill at a time when Obama can spend his political capital in better ways on upcoming fights instead.

"We need earmark reform and when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure we're not spending money unwisely."

--Barack H.

So, with this bill he signs, Obama will only be a fucking liar approximately 8,500 + times.

Bills that are formulated while he is President would be what he was no doubt referring to.

Cop out! The bill was presented to Congress this year in Obama's term, and he is the one that can approve or veto it. He is also the liar that promised he'd stop this nonsense. Remember the phrase "the buck stops here?". Is that just a concept to 'progressives'? He could veto this and keep his word. We all know he won't.

"Bills that are formulated while he is President would be what he was no doubt referring to."

How is there "no doubt" about that qualification? The only temporal reference he included was "when I'm president," which he now is. Seems you're giving a severe benefit of the doubt for which there is no basis.

Cop out!

Maybe. If he hadn't inherited a Cookfish-approved GOP economic disaster that he has to deal with instead of re-fighting this Bill, he might have taken it on. But now isn't a smart time to do so.

Bills that are formulated while he is President would be what he was no doubt referring to.

#37 | Posted by Corky

When is he planning to take the oath?

Believe it or not, everybody DOESN'T lie! If you run dishonestly, then you'll govern dishonestly and after Bush/Cheney and all their neo-con robots being head-deep in lies, does America really want to elect another person who's basic word cannot be trusted when speaking of another person?

--Tonyroma

Obama out-and-out LIED, Tony. Whatever will you do now?

"If he hadn't inherited a Cookfish-approved GOP economic disaster that he has to deal with instead of re-fighting this Bill, he might have taken it on. But now isn't a smart time to do so."

Was he unaware of the challenges he would face as president when he made the promise to go line by line and eliminate earmarks? I didn't see him qualify the promise with "as long as we're not facing economic hardship when I get there." Where do you see it?

This was last year's Bill, WisinDallasmilkingstallions.

Joe Pettifogger, Esq.

This was last year's Bill, WisinDallasmilkingstallions.

#44 | Posted by Corky

You mean the one passed in the House this week?

Comeon Corky, you can admit B.O. told a fib on the stump.

Dorky, if you're making excuses for Obama on billions in earmarks, how is it insignificant to ask what your basis is for the excuse?

I know you don't have an answer for my questions, but try to do a little better than "pettifogger esq" next time.

-you can admit B.O. told a fib on the stump.

Yeah, I can, and I'm sure he did, but this one isn't particularly it.

When he gets an Omnibus Bill created on his watch and when he isn't busy fighting the Rush Limbaugh-led GOP who want him to fail at reviving the economy, you know, when he has plenty of political capital to spend on it, then if he doesn't act according to what he said, I'll agree with you.

Otherwise, it's just nonsensical "gotcha" politics.

Truth is, if he were to veto the Bill and send it back now, he would lose weeks and months haggling over something other than the recession.

-how is it insignificant to ask what your basis is for the excuse?

Asked and answered. It is your reading comprehension that is insignificant.

Because they can tax the crap out of the rich. To some politicians and their followers, the rich are a major cash cow. Forget spending wisely, just tax the rich some more!

#7 | Posted by Pirate

Then, why is there a National Debt?

Dorky, you never "answered" either of these posts. I'll give you another chance.

The only temporal reference he included was "when I'm president," which he now is. Seems you're giving a severe benefit of the doubt for which there is no basis.

Was he unaware of the challenges he would face as president when he made the promise to go line by line and eliminate earmarks? I didn't see him qualify the promise with "as long as we're not facing economic hardship when I get there." Where do you see it?

Dorky, you can't lie and say you've answered something when there is no answer to point to. A post number is all you need to give.

Good post Corky. Too bad the Flushbots are only paying attention to the shiny things being dangled in front of their snouts by the talking heads they worship and obey.

With attentions spans barely lasting between the end of Flush on the radio and the start of O-Really and Hannitoon on Fox, it is a wonder these morons can function.

Mutiny on the Obounty.

Axe, Corky was born with an asshole. He doesn't need 2.

The adults are trying to have a conversation, Mr. Pettifogger. If you don't understand how what I already posted answers your questions, that's between you and your IQ.

-He doesn't need 2.

Joe was apparently born with at least two, and he likes to share.

Dorky, you have never answered where you pulled the assertion that Obama was "only referring to bills created when he was president" when he said he'd go through them and eliminate earmarks from. One can only assume, given your lack of an answer, that it came from your ass.

You also never answered where you pulled your claim that Obama "might have taken on" (these earmarks) had he "not inherited a GOP recession" from. There was no such qualification in his promise to eliminate earmarks. One can only assume, given your lack of an answer, that you also pulled this from your ass.

I guess I'll just ask a new question: Why do you find it necessary to pull excuses from your ass on behalf of Obama? Is it because he has a (D) next to his name?

AS the circumstances surrounding this Bill and the consequences of vetoing it now seem to escape you, I suggest you shift your focus from my ass to your poor excuse for an intellect.

Dorky-

Did Obama say "I will go line by line to eliminate earmarks so long as our economic circumstances don't change," or did he simply say "I will go line by line to eliminate earmarks when I am president?"

Which did he say?

Do you read what you type?

I'm surprised you aren't embarrassed by your own lack of common sense and your tired "gotcha" nitpicking.

Well, maybe "surprised" is too strong a word....

If "making shit up for which I have no basis" amounts to "common sense," then you're right Corky, you have a lot more of it than I do. Adios.

Besa mi culo, puto.

Obama is the great stock market destroyer of 2009. The great Robinhood of 2009. Geese is this change? You bet. Is it good. No way!

Bama gonna bankrupt the USA next.

What do you think a stimulus is??? SPENDING. The more spending the better. California and New York have some of the highest spending and taxes, their doing great! Spend, spend, spend our way back to wealth. The more the govt spends the better it should get. Nevermind the fact that govt either has to take money out of the economy to put it back in, or they can just print all the money. Take some more water out of the deep end of the pool and bring it down here to the shallow end and pour it back in to make the pool deeper.

Bayh certainly has a point, but it is easy for him to say because he would not be the one to have to re-fight every inch of this Bill at a time when Obama can spend his political capital in better ways on upcoming fights instead.

----

Bayh is a Senator. The bill has to pass the Senate before it gets to Obama so yes he would have to re-fight the bill.

If fact, he's fighting it now.

If this is last year's business then it would not require Obama's signature. AND he will sign it, so now it is his business.

He being Bayh.

Spending is the key here.

When my husband and I maxed-out our visa, discover
& master cards, we simply rolled that debt over onto
a brand-spanking new American Express!

Great minds think alike - Obama is on track.
Be Well.

Too damn funny, Jeff J. is now actually taking a stand about spending and no one notices that his stand is now because DEMOCRATS not republicans want to do the spending.

Talk about being wishy washy, Jeff J. takes the cake.

When my husband and I maxed-out our visa, discover
& master cards, we simply rolled that debt over onto
a brand-spanking new American Express!

Great minds think alike - Obama is on track.
Be Well.

#69 | Posted by skip_wellington

Bwahahaha. FF!

He being Bayh.

#68 | Posted by Pirate

While he is in the Senate, he just as obviously would not have been the person who vetoed it and wasted the next year re-fighting what had been voted on.

While he is in the Senate, he just as obviously would not have been the person who vetoed it and wasted the next year re-fighting what had been voted on.

----

He's first calling on his fellow Senators to not pass it to begin with, thus, it would not make it to Obama to begin with. If it makes it to Obama, then would wants Obama to stop it.

He doesn't care who stops it as long as it gets stopped, political capital be damned.

That's change you can believe in.

=political capital be damned.

There are optometric solutions for such short-sightedness.

There are optometric solutions for such short-sightedness

----

Oh, please...you really think the Dems in Congress would turn on Obama if he vetoed this? After all the gains the gains they just made. The Republicans are in shambles and the Democrats have all the power.

Plus, it's not like Obama suddenly decided to clean up Washington once he got into office. He campaigned his balls off on changing Washington and cleaning up the pork.

First post here.

The American public overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama

Sorry, 54% is not overwhelming.

When Ronald Reagan won in 1980 with 50.7% of the vote they called it 'a landslide'. Guess it's all symantics.

That may be a electoral landslide, but 54% ain't shit. It's barely a majority if you ask me. Anyway, my point is that he doesn't have as much political capital as some seem to think he has. Average people's life savings are disappearing at a faster rate than we've seen in decades and he calls it market gyrations and doesn't appear to be concerned about it. The American people are not going to tolerate him attacking private citizens from the White House for very long either. If he turns off just a few percentage points of the people that voted for him, he could easily lose re-election and the majorities he enjoys right now could be gone like Clinton's in '94.

When Ronald Reagan won in 1980 with 50.7% of the vote they called it 'a landslide'.

Depends how you look at it. He got almost 10% more of the votes than Carter (very significant) and 88% of the states (44) which is actually how the president is elected -- not by popular vote.

So using the percentage difference you could say the popular vote is a landslide, but using the electoral college states, there is little doubt it was a landslide.

Anyway, my point is that he doesn't have as much political capital as some seem to think he has.

That's what I thought in 2004 when W won by Ohio and declared he had a mandate.

It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

Goat have u ever been to Laredo? I'm thinking of going to vacation there next.

The pork stinks like shit, but I also see what Corky is getting at. The question is, would delays in the bill's passage due to its refining be more harmful than getting it passed swiftly with all the goddamned pork the stupid pols slapped onto it? Fuck Las Vegas and Disneyland.

If he turns off just a few percentage points of the people that voted for him, he could easily lose re-election and the majorities he enjoys right now could be gone like Clinton's in '94.

Didn't Clinton go on to win every state but one or something in 1996?

Isn't the "pork" about 1% of the total?

Not a GOP Congressman with a nickel of that?

Goat have u ever been to Laredo?

Many times, but it is no longer my border town of choice considering the high rate of crime lately. I'll now go to Piedras Negras, (opposite of Eagle Pass) which is actually closer to me or Ciudad Acuna (opposite of DelRio) when I make a run to the border, which I do about every other month

Didn't Clinton go on to win every state but one or something in 1996?

No, 31 states and 49.2% of the popular vote

I'll have to check those place out. Juarez has been a ghost town after dark. All the old places I used to frequent have been closed due to all the shootings and murders. A good friend of mine who owned a house of ill repute was sadly murdered 3 months ago. He used to make sure I always got grade A service. I hope Juarez gets straightened out someday. As it stands now I won't be visiting Juarez anytime soon again.

GOAT

Right - to

Didn't Clinton go on to win every state but one or something in 1996?

What an ass, do a fact check.

BTW, Clinton had to enlist the help of a conservative, Dick Morris, to help him change his ways in order to get re-elected in 1996. The first 2 years of Clinton's presidency, the first 6 of GW's and the first two months of Obama's are examples why the public needs to be more skeptical of its government when both chambers of congress and the executive branch are ran by the same party.

No need. In case you didn't notice GOATMAN put up a link. I'd forgotten about Ross Perot.

As to being an ass, how would you know?

But, first you have to understand the difference between a question (?) and a statement. I asked, someone answered. PLEASE forgive me for not Googling it first!

I see this as a voice of sanity from the Democratic party.

I would guess that many others don't see it that way.

I'd really hope to generate a few comments with this op-ed by Evan Bayh.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-03-04 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag: BAYH-CURIOUS ;0)

Too damn funny, Jeff J. is now actually taking a stand about spending and no one notices that his stand is now because DEMOCRATS not republicans want to do the spending.

Talk about being wishy washy, Jeff J. takes the cake.

#70 | Posted by moneywar

Another day, another strawman from Moneywar.

I have been extremely vocal regarding Bush and GOP's reckless fiscal policy for years on this site.

I can't believe how often you are wrong. Nobody can be wrong that much and come by it naturally. You must work very hard at it.

Do my eyes deceive me or is Evan Bayh the voice of reason?

Bayh will be a pariah now & join Lieberman on the list of people the left will seek to destroy. There is no room for dissention or independent thought where the "One" is concerned. I thought debating & disagreeing was the "American" thing to do but not with the left. When they disagree it's their patriotic duty, when anyone disagrees with them it's obstructionist. Same old double standard.

I'm surprised they wouldn't just go with it since it's "old business" & blame it on Bush. The bulk of the public doesn't know which branch of government is responsible for what thanks to public schools & with the help of the media, it'd sell.

PROLIX247 wrote,

"What do you people think will happen if federal funding is cut off in the middle of a recession/depression?

Any guesses?"

I'll try this one.

1. More money will stay in tax payers pockets so they can spend it themselves.
2. The deficit won't be quite so large therefore the interest we are paying to China won't be as large as well.

Evan Bayh is just speaking truth to power. He's sees the destructive force in Obama and his bootlicking followers and has decided he loves his country too much to sit by and see it destroyed. Good for you Evan.

There is spending for the long term and spending for the short term. We MUST appreciate the difference. Creating jobs means investing in land, materials and even animals. Take an example: You want to alleviaate the lack of milk at schools in Africa, or here in the USA in sections some folks say children are starving. So we raise money to buy milk from another country, state or county, say a million quarts for a million children. We spend $ 2million and give the milk to the children and it's gone after 2 days. What then? Would the government keep spending with our (tax) money?Would it not be better to buy cows and a bull, grazing land and a barn plus an endowment to pay workers and start the bull working and workers milking cows in the starvation section? With time milk would be flowing daily for more than a day or two. And if people didn't kill the cows to get hamburgers (for a week, after which there would not be no cows nor milk left), the amount of cows and bulls would increase and milk would be available to those who could afford it after the poor are fed and perhaps somebody would think of making butter. That is called investing, or call it capitalism. It beats earmarks designed mostly to keep a pol in business, but it does not create a business. that is sustainable. Eventually it's only profits and savings (that banks loan out to get paid back with interest) that will save a society, and it is increasing investments that create increasing jobs that produce what people want to buy at a fair price. The government cannot in any way do that chore for the people. The problem of creating real jobs is far too complex to have czars do it. The smart czars set the conditions (laws and sane taxation)to allow freedom in the market place. Don't believe me; ask Putin. Simple enough?